Видео

@@AmigoBrazucaq Well. I think most people are socially keen enough to pick up on feelings in such a talk - part of it is style and charm (the joke on a romantic Mclunicus is cute and hilarious), wasn’t meant as malicious, and illustrated the point well, providing McCluhan to say he’s pointing out the issue - same old stories, it’s a question of medium, how that shapes the environment and real human behavior (“reality”). I think, from experience, most people will demonstrate some goodwill when needing yo bridge a divide, and only become truly ‘mad’ or upset when the “other” position denies then there’s, be it by projection, refusal, or general and all too human ignorance (everyone “knows what there is importsnt to know” right? Values? Meaning? What should be done?). At its worst, it’s childish power games, but to me it seems most all western civilization reflects this - a sort of ‘be a good boy or we’ll send you to bed without supper’ kind of attitude, where people are expected to tolerate fools and inanity as nodes in power systems and central to life. This is all centralized around identity, or which both maintainment, changing, or loss of said identity, are all forms of violence. Despite all that, They were being gentlemen - and you’re right. That they landed on the crux of the matter - arguably a total intellectual divide, which is the reality divide. Artists and non-artists live in very different worlds. As do “thinkers.” McCluhan is still ahead of most people who don’t understand the reality of “the savage world village.” I think people wising up, and becoming more discerning, shrewd and mean, will be good for everybody. It necessitates new values, but that, historically, seems to first be pushed by technological change and revolution, that was also being pulled by humanity’s perpetual desire to change, shape, and mold (control) itself. I don’t think there’s any real idealism to be had, kept, or gleaned therein. The idealism has been the power struggle all along.

lol - thanks for the anecdote. And, right. McLuhan points out in other talks and writings, we (sophisticates) always live in a previous medium (pretensions in the head of a previous [better] era, or time and place, simply, the imagination. Ever heard "private world" by Oingo Boingo? It sort of relates. Maybe I'll go over that song for literary song analysis.

I understand the sentiment, and the truth of it cuts deep. I really don't think anyone has a choice, which makes the issue even more "telling" - that "civilizing" people is a myth. They've always been dangerous, greedy, and ignorant (hence the human is the most regulated object on the planet). Culture buys and pays people off, is a cover for the reality of how they think, feel, and behave. McKenna says "culture and religion aren't anybody's friends, and they exist to keep people in a narrow, juvenile, and childlike mindset." In short, culture, national origin, religion, etc. - all of that was a story for children, meant to keep them occupied a few years while the powers that be used them up. Good people are eaten alive, and the smartest only become more mean and nasty (competition). That we (individuals) learn politeness and grace and create art and more humanity despite this, basic conditions of prison, and for many people, slavery, and for everyone, inevitable collapse - speaks to what's important and redemptive here: humans and human values, caring about ourselves, those like us, and catering to our future.

Well put. I appreciate your time.

Perhaps that was the "high point" and a grabbing of the tail end of "the end of polite and private society." What follows is madness and troubles for a long time to come (here, now).

Bully! [pronounced with strong British accent]

Excellent point!

Sure. I’ll see about adding it shortly Edit - I added the info.

That's great, cheers ​@@SharperPenImageConsulting

@@davidallen6126 You’re welcome.

@@bungalowlogic7676 haha. You caught that too. He wasn’t as active on this panel as he has been on other panels with McLuhan. If you search RUclips for both of them, you can find more.

@@Wreclis I get it. And he’s sort of mean. But wising up to the endless lines of vultures corporate America and the culture tends to produce, will do that to you. I think everyone would benefit from everyone being a bit more mean, hostile, cunning, and sharp (higher standards, less tolerance for stupidity and garbage, less pandering and placation) - but it also seems “placation” (pacification) is the future.

They were frauds. Read strange scenes inside the canyons.

@@chriss648 Right. It’s one thing to prefer one’s own perception of reality, it’s another to deny where anyone and everyone else “lives in reality.”

@@DrinkTheKoolAid62 Yep. A lot of modern thinkers and scholars are still “behind him.” I mean, they’re still not ‘caught up to reality’ lol.

Wow... I've been pulling my hair out about this now for a quarter of a century. This is the first time I've come across someone discussing this issue in a meaningful way on RUclips ever. Please keep spreading the word!!

@@neonsashimidream1075 Good, I'm glad you found it. I mean, I knew you weren't alone in how you've been thinking and feeling about these things (what you see in "reality"), and others as well. I'll be releasing more footage like this as I track it down, as well as the ongoing release of my own work - including ongoing cultural analysis, technology and AI (the A is for autocracy), to music and literature, to personality type theory and how its at the center of all human activity / evolution (why the world stays the same, and is the way it is, in terms of how humans organize and exploit resources in reality).

@@pietypietduhpiouspoet6408 Nothing arrives unannounced you see, but an army of moles knows dirt as pedigree.

Yes, and dangerous too.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. I'll eventually look into the novel you mentioned, thanks.

Thanks for the feedback and thoughtful reply, and for sharing how you sort of "came to yourself," for lack of better words. I'm glad you're being more thorough and careful about what information goes in and out, and how you might work with or around that. Everyone winds up a victim of their own taste, so selecting the right people intelligently becomes crucial (not just for 'survival,' but for happiness and meaningful relationships that makes 'survival' worth anything in the first place). I also find it synchronous that you replied on this precise matter, as that line of thought was actually the part of the talk that stuck in my head, and I was reflecting on it for a while afterward. I was originally thinking in context of predators and prey, the stereotypes typically assumed about them, and how, an animal will generally stretch its abilities as needed (like, using one's defensive abilities to fight back, you can find footage of rabbits and other prey animals "fighting" in ways most people would never imagine) - and I was thinking, animals are constantly being pushed by many environmental factors, including their fellow animals. While past instinct (what's known to the point of "memory") pushes them, there then seems to be many footprints or waves or "resonances" happening all around, other "contacts" in time by other beings, constantly stimulating one another, and there does seem to be a pull by "external factors" towards more complex forms, consciousness, ability, possibilities, all of which are the basic processes and motions that lead to the growth of the animal and plant bodies, more specialized parts like the eyeball, and everything else that is constantly being "trained" or conditioned or challenged. addition - Philosophically speaking, be it dialectic or genealogy, I think what I see, is that, from the top down, its taught and assumed that prey can only be prey (and deserves it , Cronus (time, father) eats his own children - people deserve their fate), and these values and language are inherent to human morality and its institutions. In nature, what you actually observe, is everything happening all the time everywhere, and history is a stratum for any human to uncover. What really happens, are all animals fight and struggles for life and happiness and novelty, just about everywhere it has the forms, capacities, abilities, to do so. I.e., a plant's roots crack through rocks. Dolphins amuse themselves with complex games involving other objects. Chimps use spears to hunt. A jack rabbit boxes an eagle with its paws. Everything about past and present human thought has been to seek for answers, explanations, safety, closure, most apparent in black and white (repressive) thinking, simple models that work and can be assumed universal or permanent, yet, nowhere is "permanence" found, least of all inside the animal who everywhere defies man and womans views and assumptions of each other, life, the world. I hope that's sensible enough. Let me know if you have any further thoughts or questions. Thanks again, and take care.

I’ve never read those books, but I think I understand. The mind-fuck of it is, that no matter how “good or bad” you are in others’ eyes, there’s so many people running so many games, that may or may not have anything to do with you and your value and tastes, but you’ll be “held responsible” regardless. From there, everyone is a product of their taste (“choice” implies free-will, in a world where people are instead thrown). But. If you’re actually doing things right, so to speak, you’re supposed to grow and move on. You shouldn’t have the same exact and only things for the course of an entire life (friends, habits, etc.). Things and people will be lost, and many should be unlearned and “gotten away from.” Cheers.

@@SharperPenImageConsulting Your joy is nourishing, as always. And may you never stop becoming, you wonderful rascal.

@@basicbrothermail Thanks. You too = )

Thank you. So you know, I enjoy this one in particular. I'm thrilled to hear you enjoyed it too - and I will!

Also, his comment from 2:35 - 2:52 is interesting in light of Moon's new book. He seems to be describing himself quite accurately.

@@remmet I am not clear how you have viewed Moon's book but I think both Frank and Gail would have been horrified by it because both of them believed they were good parents and raised four solidly sound individuals and in some respect I think that is true, but I agree, these comments by Frank at the end of his life do seem odd. Since he spent most of his life locked in his studio, it's not clear how he knew how much influence these TV shows had on family life in America.

Ask Keir Starmer what he'd say/

@@paulinebutcherbird We've talked about this before. The comments of Frank's I was referring to were made in the context of the declining nuclear family. In his example, he alluded to the father finding more interesting things to do and leaving the child rearing to the mother. It's hard to ignore the fact that this is pretty much exactly how he lived his life, and I think it was the essence of Moon's book -- longing for time, especially quality time, with her absentee dad.

Steven Hawking cheated on his wife. Nobody chases him around on RUclips virtue signaling. Also, letting someone "blah on" can sometimes be confused with "listening". But unlike Frank, you're impolite and vitriolic, and now you have the internet to show everyone.

@@ilonabaier6042 I hope it’s been fruitful to your own thoughts and endeavors. Cheers.

Thanks for the response. How are you doing? Better, I hope. As for the premise - I think it speaks to a certain primitive approach to the human mind, evolution, and all of human existence, that is more akin to superstition and religion (fear, punishment, power), than anything to do with science, advancement, or understanding the human psyche and its physical being, never mind well-being. That is, who needs asylums, or clergy and god, or even doctors, when you can prescribe something that actually works: addictive, dangerous, mind and life altering drugs (including television & commercialism too). Then what we see in American society, is, these mentally warped and unstable people are drugged up, set loose, and disaster after disaster unfolds, family after family are torn apart. That is, in an extroverted-sensualist dominated culture, nation, and market, that is scared of anything out of a narrow yet insane bound that is already contradictory, the fact that prescription methamphetamine is the answer, tells you something about both the marketers, the authorities, and those who "buy in." Like Zappa says, you can deduce back from the programming to both see the nutjobs who push the drugs and insanity, as well as the nutjobs they intend their product (and beliefs/practices) for. "They would be incapable of being sane, functional members of any society." Again, this isn't jut about prescription meth, it's about the entire cobweb of insanity/delusions/primitive attitude and violence towards life.

Ha. Maybe some women would find a boyish charm in that, and I suppose it's better than beating on the door like a cop.

@ Or busting the door down.

@@wormwoodcocktail with my DICK!

@@BukLauXinZhaoKungPaoChicken right. There’s no denying the effects of others in shaping their world and self, and the way this is part of a larger net or web of relations (and dependence). The word enlightenment carries a lot of baggage, for what I see as largely particular “personality type” tendencies (historic Buddha Shakyanuni is typed INFP, for instance), meaning, the notion and “search” belongs to the introvert and the perceiver, the one doing the valuation and revaluation. It’s only married to myth in superstition and tradition, whose baggage is already outdated for modern (and nihilistic) man, even though Buddhist psychology has its own genius. Maybe “chaos births the dancing star” is a better way to state it for the moment, but I’m working on an essay, and the words that come to mind, are something like, “if the world is to have meaning, it must be the meaning of the one generating the value.” It’s not traditional enlightenment. It’s revaluation that allows for novel interpretation, returning to childhood anew, unburdening the heart (from a cynical world and people). I think the notion that it (enlightenment) can be “channeled” easily projects religious superstition forward in a negative manner, and perpetuates an even stronger suspicion of mine, that, like a lot of things, people can practice “work” or “religion” or any behavior really without knowing “how it works,” or short or long term ramifications of said behavior. Ie. “We did it this way a long time because we had to, and had no better ideas or conceptions itself, and in religion, it is ‘wrong’ to change anything,” because that’s generally how group or cult worship goes. Eventually, the engines that push a culture forward, simply, fail, or cease to have meaning as the world around them changes. I find it to be highly personal and instinctual. By that I mean, If you haven’t, check out the videos here on the channel “introversion vs extroversion” and “the evolutionary theory the world is not ready for,” then I’d recommend them for further framework of what I’m saying here. Anyway. Thanks for checking out the channel. See you around : )

Right. He knew it was corporation-state programming: “you can deduce your way backwards from the programming…the everybody they plan for, is such a work of fiction. Some very sick people imagined this everybody…one sick bastard, a total basket case incapable of being a functional member of any society.”