modernmoral.com

Late night thought.

Basically I was reading an article about an upcoming car racing video game, and accompanied with the article was an image of a Mercedes that was indoors and on display.

I had to look at the image for a while, and wondered if it was a 3d render or an actual photograph.

To be honest, it caused me a minor deal of distress. Trying to work out if the car was an extremely accurate render, and if the background consisted of an actual image added to the render. Or if infact it was just a real life photograph.

It didnt help that the logo of the game’s title was displayed on the walls in the image either.

This then got me thinking, what is going to happen when we can’t distinguish between what is a digital creation (in terms of being artificial in the general sense) to what is actual.

And I presume, what I felt, would be the conscious schizophrenia would feel. When they are presented with a hallucination, and are unsure as to know if what they are seeing or hearing is real or not. Or people with illnesses that lead to irrationality, and to know if what they are feeling is a real interpretation of events or a misguided one, even though it feels real (like thinking someone hates you, eventhough they are telling you they dont, so then you second guess your interpretation of reality).

but anyway, what are peoples thoughts about when the times comes, that we cant distinguish from whats real and what isnt (for a basic example, render up a news story showing atrocities by another nation that never actually happened)? When our senses are tricked? (You could then say that they may already be in this state. How do we know we are not in a tricked state now??. ie. Baudrillard etc?). And maybe those that can create such content digitally will be able to control us in the future, alter our perception of what is real?

I thought it might be interesting to know peoples experiences with what I see as modern day ‘cults’. I have a very rational mind so I find organisations that don’t have a rational foundation that attract people interesting, and sometimes I attend meetings of such organisations out of interest. For example here are some of my experiences.

Scientology
Basically went into the Melbourne church many years ago with a friend. Naturally everyone knows about scientology, but here are my memories. Went in there and there are all these posters on the wall with information, like you would find in a museum. One I recall had something like the 7 stages to scientology. Began with something like despair then gradually improved to something like enlightenment and ofcourse at the top was being a scientologist. They also had books and pamphlets all over the place, I asked if I could take some, and the lady there said sure, but I would have to pay $7 each. That was ofcourse odd, because jehovahs witnesses would give me such things for free.

There was also a bunch of 16 year old guys in there too at the same time, and they were being vocal and basically taking the piss. A lady in there then asked if they wanted a free stress test and one of the guys said sure. So my friend and I went over there to see what this test was about. As you would probably have figured, it was that emeter device, basically just one element of a lie detector device, with it just measuring your sweat via conductivity. Basically the kid had each hand holding these metal cylinders and the lady then said she was going to check for issues from his past/in his mind. Naturally this is an intense setting for the kid and anyone would get nervous if someone would ask them about ‘issues’ in their past. Basically she said things like ‘friends’, ‘family’, ‘childhood’. And occasionally the meter would bounce around, so the kid was sweating a bit at times.

Obviously if people said they were checking for issues and mentioned family, anyone would get nervous due to thinking someone would see their relationship with ones family as having issues (and I am sure everyone does to some extent). Basically because the emeter bounced around, the lady said that he has issues deep in his mind or something and that they could resolve them. In general, scientology at the start is just a psuedo science. It is like someones poor replacement for psychology (which is a science), hence Tom Cruise hates anti depressants, they use some primitive technology, and they talk about deep rooted issues, rather than complex explanations based on evidence (I bet you could never talk neuroscience to a scientologist.. explanations using arguments of ‘deep rooted negative energy’ is easier than having a good understanding of neuroscience which is still has a lot to be learnt by science.)

So basically the way I see it, is that naive unquestioning people, do a stress test, are told they have issues and they can be helped, they get involved in this organisation/cult and it moves from solving this issues to that of being respected in the cult.. thats why tom cruise is a ‘diamond’ member or whatever, just some high title and a celebrity. So people see that as the pinnacle, and they want to achieve that status, but never will, so keep chasing the carrot and keep doing whatever they are told and keep spending money in the hope of getting to the top because that’s when you will be happy and perfect, but it is just a fake lie.

UPDATE
So while I was in Canberra recently walking through an outdoor shopping area, an Asian lady was giving out pamphlets offering a ‘free personality test’. I was with a friend at the time, and they wanted to go do it for a random laugh (we both knew it was scientology). I wasn’t too keen as I had been previously, so the novelty was a bit redundant, but we went to the address on the pamphlet. This time it was a long self report ‘personality’ test, with questions that you rank from low to high, I cant recall any questions, some were a bit odd, but regardless. So after spending a while filling this thing out (with a fake name and contact details ofcourse) the lady took the test and put it in her computer, and eventually called us in separately. My test showed high in all areas, meaning I was stable, except in one category which had to do with being critical. The lady said that I am too skeptical and have a poor time trusting. I know myself that I am extremely critical and skeptical, I do not necessarily see this as a flaw.

She then states that I will have a hard time accepting what she will say, and that I will be too dismissive. I have some background in psychology, so I was being quite acknowledging, accepting and empathetic. She was somehow trying to read into the test that I had previous relationships where I was hurt and therefore this resulted in me having poor trust. From memory she was extrapolating a lot of other things too. From my perspective, you could do such a thing fairly accurately in a broad sense. Seeming as though we are all products of our past, and if we report as being distrustful, then what is the cause of that distrust. But moving on from that tangent, she said I could be helped by the scientology dianetics book and dvd, and was pressuring me to buy it.

I was of course analysing her during this process, and asking her questions. Asking how can anyone know anything for certain, how does she have faith in the book. She said it was 60 years old, which therefore shows that it is some form of absolute truth.

I asked her about her story. She said she had a troubled aimless youth, and when she was 19 she became involved in the church and it was a highly positive experience. Obviously she was seeking answers and structure, unfortunately in this world there are no absolutes, but that doesn’t mean you have to believe that. Basically she found structure and absolutes in the church, which she saw as a positive, something that saved her from a potentially dangerous path. And she saw such danger for me, because I honestly stated to her, that you can not know anything for certain and that I do not know what I want in life or what I am doing. In a sense I lack a lot of structure in my life, I do not see sitting at a desk 5 days a week (which I am currently doing) as something positive or rewarding long term. I question my existence daily.

She saw this as a bad thing. And said she can help. She was a bit shocked when I said I am happy with such a mindset, I am content without being structured or stable, I see structure as something you should fight against.

But my point is, scientology gives people absolutes. Which is what many seek.  They feel saved after finding scientology, so want to save others. I would say it is a noble trap, and a sad one at that. Most of their content has basis in warped variant of scientific psychology too, so to some extent you can extrapolate real meaning into it (but it is quite bullshit.. if I could remember the engram stuff, things like your mum being yelled at when you are in the womb somehow linking to your actions due to association.. well I was debunking it all instantly).

Basically, absolutes and being noble/saving people. Foundations of cults (looks at religion).

Real social dynamics
This is an interesting one. I have a mate who likes to think about attracting women as a very binary method. What I mean by this is that he thinks there are golden formulas for getting a woman’s number etc, rather than each woman being different and that there is no golden methods that will work regardless.

But anyway, basically what this organisation is, is a pickup coaching organisation. Who claim they will teach you the skills you need to pick up women. If you see their website, it just looks like a bunch of testimonials and is a confusing mess, with short youtube videos embedded everywhere. Basically my friend signed up for a free seminar, and he could bring a friend along. He invited me and after much persuasion I said I would go, after looking at their site I told him it was a cult and it would be depressing, but he didnt understand.

Anyway, so we rock up into this small room in some conference room in a hotel of the western suburbs. There was only like 10 guys in there, most look alright and I am surprised that many need to attend such a seminar, but I guess a lot of early 20′s males see being a stud as the pinnacle of the social hierarchy. But anyway, in comes this asian american guy, who just came of a flight from the USA. Most of the guys in the room know who he is, because he wrote a chapter in some well known pickup book ‘the game’ *rolleyes*. But anyway, he commences the 2hr power point presentation with who he is, basically pictures of him on a jetski, him standing next to some women, a picture of a bmw (looked like a stock photo) etc. Again trying to get the guys respect, and none seem to have cynical expressions on their faces, I dont recall any qualifications mentioned either, but the guys there only care about superficial shit so why would that be important to them. Basically the presenter said for a year all he did each day was read pickup books and try to get numbers.

For the next 2 hrs the presentation basically consisted of this guy showing poorly shot videos of members/clients in either a shopping centre talking awkwardly to 16 year olds or kissing some wasted chick in a club (basically in my opinion the 2 easiest groups of females to pickup). It was really quite pathetic and my friend was disappointed too because he is narcissistic and basically a pro at doing the same.

The advice given was generally vague and really just consisted of be confident, be persistent and you will fail at times. Basically that is common knowledge, just guys dont have the balls to do anything. So basically the whole seminar was saying get some balls but in a wish-washy way. There was also some disturbing stuff, well firstly they told us to find a ‘wingman’ and it had to be a random guy in there, and you were meant to exchange numbers at the end (which I didnt, I could see it in my wingmans eyes that he wanted to get my details so we could wing each other sometime.. but I just walked out on him at the end… my friend did the same). But anyway, what I was meant to do with my wingman was organise a time to meet up with him and try to pick up randoms. They basically said one method is we go upto two chicks, and each wingman speaks to one chick, and start talking and the goal is to slowly move so that the chicks are no longer facing each other, that way it is more one and one and they cant used each other to escape. They also listed like 7 different scenarios, from memory one was all girl group, one was like girl and guy and one was family etc. And they said do 3 different scenarios. So basically they were advocating going upto a chick with boyfriend and trying to pick her up, or going up to a chick out with her family and trying to pick her up. They also showed footage of one of their ‘teachers’ going upto a chick (who had a few to drink) who was with a guy friend/new bf, and this teacher basically ended up making out with her. It was pathetic to see, the guy she was with was even quite nice saying he was hosting the party in the club that night and was friendly, and asked if the teacher wanted to go upto the private room for free drinks etc.

But anyway, basically at the end of all this they said they were having another seminar in a few days for 300 bucks, and you could buy dvd’s and they were having a big event in LA where they would goto various clubs etc. And they said in LA they would show videos they recorded of guys picking up chicks at clubs, taking them back to their house, I think even alluding to showing footage of what they did back home and then footage of the girl the next morning and asking her questions as she left the house. Quite messed up in my opinion. They also said that we could be ‘interns’. The presenter basically asked if anyone had a couch, so that if they fly back here, we could sleep on our couch and he would our bed! And also so we can pick them up from the airport and drive them to the seminars. He said this 100% seriously, and the best part, interns dont get paid anything. There was an intern at the presentation too, I think some indian/middle eastern guy who I felt sorry for, that would turn the light on or off whenever the presenter said ‘lights’.

Basically the way I see it, is again that this organisations preys on the weak. Guys who are not confident and may not have many friends. So they first make sure they ‘wing’ with a random to build a community. They then portray the leaders as some successful well respected individuals and the guys look up to them. They then say they have the answers for them buy attending xyz and buying many dvd’s etc. They also have online forums etc where members can communicate, so it is more than just getting a girlfriend, but being involved and trying to get respect in a community, and again chasing that carrot and spending a lot of cash in the process.

MarkerMan productions
I was not personally involved with this organisation. But a guy I used to work with was, basically tried to get me involved as well as many other staff members. This is the typical pseudo business cult, promising to show you the way to wealth and success.

You basically attend some meeting where they first ask you to think of something you desire, ie a ferrari, your own gym etc. They then explain how they have a business model where you can make money and be successful. Naturally they have the leaders who propose to be rich and successful, and a whole hierarchy (common theme yeah?). So basically they get vulnerable people, tell them to think of a goal, and their response is always materialistic/money based goal. And then they show other members in this organisation who are successful and state they are a success because they followed the business model and put a lot of dedication into it. Basically it is again the theme of showing an unobtainable goal, so that the drones at the bottom keep chasing the carrot eventhough the carrot is unobtainable.

From what I gathered the business model was that the organisation would provide you their own line of stock, like energy drinks and bars etc. And you could make money by selling them, however you couldn’t sell them on a mass scale, like to supermarkets or on the internet (doesnt make sense does it, wouldn’t it be logical to sell them on a mass scale so the manufacturer/organisation could make a lot of money???). So you could only sell them one on one to people. I recalled the organisation gave this guy a kit, like an alloy suit case with foam cutouts for the products like drinks to sit in. Real fancy ay? Well as I said, this organisation wants superficial people so they would be attracted to such tack wouldn’t they.

Anyway, the reason why they only let one on one sales is because it is a means of recruiting more people into the organisation. The more people he recruits, the more % he gets from the sales.. It was like some scaled system, ie 10 ppl = 10% cut, 50 ppl = 20% etc. But still, to me it didnt make sense because it would be hard to make money because you can only sell on such a small and personal scale. I asked him about this, and he never really said he was making much cash, just ‘when I devote more time to it, it will take off’, but if you talk about devotion, he was always reading motivational books each week from the organisation on how to ‘succeed’ , attending a seminar each month, went to NZ for a seminar, and even went to LA for the world seminar and went and saw the founders mansion and saw his garage with his lambo etc. So if you ask me thats pretty motivated. But when pushed about the details of the business model, he said it is hard for him to explain and that he could only draw it! And that it would be best for me to come to a meeting if interested.. poor sucker.

So anyway, after doing some research I found out the organisations somewhat ingenious method. The people at the top do not make money from the products like energy drinks, but rather from the tapes, books and seminars. So basically people like my workmate are told that they can succeed with selling these products (which is just a distraction) and be like the people at the top if they just read the books, goto seminars etc. So they focus on selling these products which is impossible become rich from because they can only sell them one on one, they aren’t being successful so they listen to their mentors and keep attending seminars, reading a book a week (so spend thousands a year on these things), trying to get to the top, but the people at the top are there from the money from the books etc. Again chasing the carrot that is not obtainable.

Originally posted on 13 Jul 2010 (Scientology update created at time of repost)

I was thinking about this recently, and what I am about to say is almost tongue in cheek due to its simplicity.

But I have been modeling the basics of how people react to me for sometimes being outside the social norm. And the way I see it, is that there are 3 levels of social awareness.

They are:
Level 1: Being unaware of social trends
Level 2: Being aware and being involved in the social trends (Modern?)
Level 3: Being aware of social trends and choosing to accept or reject them (Post-Modern?)

Now an example to illustrate this, may be that of someone working for chain store, like Kmart, Coles etc.

An individual at level 1, may choose to slack off at work because naturally it is in ones interest not to cause stress and fatigue on oneself. And individuals at this level may not be aware of subtle hints and cues by management to increase their efforts. To these people, their social perceptions are weak and they are more centred on self benefit.

An individual at level 2, is someone who understands the socially prominent trends. Examples could be management, or any hardworker. They are aware of what the authority (being management) wants; being increased productivity and profits for the business. They are aware of the capitalist model, because that is the model of their society. They accept and approve that the company they work for makes billions in profits, and they may be somewhat proud or impressed with such a situation. In a sense these people follow and perpetuation the status quo. They do this because they believe their actions are socially beneficial and caring (if the capitalist society tells us we need to work hard, and if we work hard we will be rewarded, and this system benefits all and large profits are things to be respected, then this is the in a sense the morally right thing to do).

Now an individual at level 3 is one who understands the level 2′s way of viewing the world and the situation/status quo, but may reject that outlook due to their own subjective rational interpretations. Examples may be someone who was a level 2, but saw negative impacts of perpetuating the status quo (if say they believe Kmart in this example was exploiting workers by buying goods made in the 3rd world, or if many of the produces they choose to sell were bad environmentally, or they believed the profit should be distributed to the workers etc). So these level 3 individuals, can see where the level 2′s are coming from, but may choose to slack off or rebel against certain standards set by the authority in the company because of there own externalised beliefs, ie benefiting the environment, going against what they see as a system with negative outcomes etc. This is different to level 1′s, because they slack off or rebel, not due to externalised benefit, such as environmental, or social, but due to internalised, or selfish benefit, ie having an easier time.

Naturally the power is with the level 2′s, and they are empowered by the system, in this case Kmart, because they are the most productive and share the systems values. Now what is frustrating, is that the level 2′s have not reached level 3. So level 2′s are not self critical, but rather self assured. This is probably due to the status quo reinforcing such beliefs. Therefore they can not see from level 3′s perspective, hence level 3 does not exist to them. Therefore they group level 3′s into the level 1 category. Because level 2′s are assured that their way of thinking is correct because it is constantly enforced, and because they can not see from a level 3′s perspective, then to the level 2′s, level 3′s are just level 1′s, ie the slackers who are selfish, not individuals who are rebellious against what they see as negatives towards society. So ofcourse frustration stems from the knowing that those in power, being Level 2′s, can not innately take in the criticisms produced by the level 3′s and instead sees them as selfish, when infact they are the most enlightened.

And I guess this simplistic model can be extrapolated to various other scenarios outside of the workplace, where by the perpetuators of the status quo (level 2s) do not criticise, and therefore see those that do/those that rebel  (level 3s) as  being slack or unaware of how to adhere (see them as level 1s).

Originally posted 21 Jan 2011

This has probably already been heavily discussed, but I am ignorant, and it has recently clicked for me. In a sense, the clicking is what I am going to discuss.

Basically I know of someone with an eating disorder. Therefore they are quite skinny.

This person met a friend of mine. A short time later, after meeting, my friend said to me that the other person really needs to eat more. Implying that almost it was a choice by that person to be that skinny, and I guess that the person was just being flippant with their consumption of food and should be notified.

I guess this is the natural way of thinking, presuming if someone is doing a negative action, that they are just unaware that their actions are negative, and when notified and instructed on how to remedy this, that they will take action.

My point to all this, is more on the lines that the friend who said that the other should eat more, is basically ignorant of the complexities of the situation. Yet this person stated this to me quite confidently, almost with an air of authority.

To me this all showed what a narrow spectrum of comprehension my friend had. Yet, having a narrow spectrum did not restrict him from making a conclusion.

It was basically, just data in (skinny person), process that data through his knowledge bank, outcome/conclusion is to tell me that this person needs to eat more.

So obvious my friends spectrum of knowledge is limited. And with a more broad spectrum, one can understand things with greater complexity. Yet maybe the level of confidence stays the same; or even diminishes the broader is gets (the more you know, the more you know about what you don’t know? But that’s a tangent).

I guess my point is, how we conceptualise reality is through a filter of knowledge. With obviously different conceptualisations depending on the filter.

And this all relates to language too. If we don’t know a word to conceptualise some aspect of reality, we would have to use some other word or phrase, that might not be a true representation of that aspect of reality. But we will be confident of that narrow conclusion as being the correct one.

Original post date: 17 Mar 2011

I used to be a forum.

But was spammed.

I have been reborn.

I am now a blog.
(Many forum posts will be reposted)