Above, for your listening pleasure, four hours and twenty minutes of Plunderphonics and Glitch Hop. Not a music genre I was familiar with, until a couple of days ago. Indeed, I’m not even sure it is a genre, perhaps this is the sole example ? I have not checked. Four hours plus is enough to be getting on with for the time being. Plenty.
Anyway, I actually like it. It seems appropriate for the times. It’s kinda like wandering about on the town dump when I was a lad. All manner of familiar items and articles, but everything bent, broken, dirty, embedded in anonymous dirt, the discarded detritus dropping from our daily lives.
This is machine music, munched up and scraped by noise and scratches, epileptic jerks, operatic spasms, dragged across the digital chopping board and minced through electronique cheese graters, a scrunched packet of wasted Pink Floyd scurries past, recognisable but damaged, many fractured fragments of other genres being recycled and processed into aural compost, scrambled mechanical auditory mulch, erstwhile music on its evolutionary journey into entropic dark soundiness, morphing into amorphous grey goo before ultimate infinite silence kicks in.
Apologies for that pretentious purple proseiness, I was attempting to emulate the verbiage spewed out by music reviewers. Not my natural literary habitat. I could have said ‘interesting music’, and left it there.
But this is my blog, and if I’m going to keep doing it, I have to keep doing it, writing something. Any old verbiage will do, so long as it fills the space, no ? I mean, do you really care ? Hahaha…
If we wish to understand something, for example, ‘the world’, it sort of makes sense to begin at the beginning. I mean, if you wanted to describe and explain something to someone, there’s a natural procedure, you start from an initial point, so that the listener or reader can grasp what you are conveying.
But where or what, is this ‘beginning’ ? That’s a philosophical question. I’m strong on the proposition that everyone who is able to should learn philosophy because it is an essential prerequisite for learning about all other subjects.
However, there’s a massive difficulty here, because, when you dig into philosophy, one of the first things you notice, that after hundreds and hundreds of years, still none of them can agree about anything much.
Whatever one philosopher concludes, after a lengthy and determined investigation, you’ll always find some other philosopher who comes at it from a different angle and overthrows the whole thing.
But that doesn’t mean it’s a worthless endeavour. It’s basically a project to think more carefully about how we think about things. Which is good. It saves making all kinds of stupid mistakes that lead to bad results. But it’s not perfect, because we are all limited fallible human beings, with limited abilities.
For example, over the hundreds and hundreds of years that great minds have pondered the nature of being and what it means, they came to the conclusion that there are things called ‘properly basic beliefs’. These are presuppositions that cannot be proven, but which it is reasonable to adhere to as being fundamental and basic, such as the fact that you exist, and other people exist, and there was a past and will be a future, and so on.
So they used these ‘properly basic beliefs’ as the foundation stones upon which to build their various systems of thought. There really is no choice in this, because if you cannot commit to ANY belief, then you have no beginning from which to start. Philosophers and others produce chains of reasoning using inference and deduction, to convince the reader or listener that they have some valid useful argument to make.
But you cannot construct such chains in the absence of the ‘properly basic beliefs’, because it means questioning your own very existence. Perhaps everything is a dream, and although there may appear to be ‘a world’ and others similar to yourself, perhaps that’s just an illusion your mind creates. So when you make your initial statement, ‘the beginning’, you have already implicitly assumed that you are not dreaming, you are real, and that the other humans out there are similar, not merely phantoms.
So there’s a whole bunch of these ‘properly basic beliefs’ that have been clarified over the centuries, all the way back to Aristotle and before, and everyone takes them for granted, more or less. I mean, some will strongly disagree that the existence of God is one of these beliefs, others will maintain that the existence of God is the essential source of all that follows, and so they haggle. But mostly, since Descartes went through this process of doubting everything, and arrived at his ‘I think, therefore I am’, nobody seems to bother much about this stuff. It’s taken for granted as ‘common sense’.
One of the cornerstones is the belief that there is a ‘reality’ that ‘exists out there’, independently from your mind. This seems kinda obvious, everybody assumes it, it’s even fundamental to all of science.
This is a problem. Because, if all our subsequent thinking and philosophising begins from a beginning which is WRONG, then it’s all going to be screwed up.
And that beginning IS wrong. We know this, from the Zeno Effect. Everything out there, all that ‘stuff’ that is supposedly constituting the ‘independently existing external world’, is made of atoms. And the Zeno Effect demonstrates that the atoms do not move while they are being watched. Then they do move when you stop watching them.
Which means that ‘the stuff’ is not ‘independently existing’, after all. So all the hundreds of years of philosophising about ‘reality’ and ‘the world’ and even the scientific method itself, are…. Well, there’s some massive question marks that need to be addressed.
We have problems. You want to state that something is ‘true’. But how can we define the concept of ‘truth’ ? You could say that it means that a statement and the observation it describes are correct or accurate. But these words, ‘correct’, ‘accurate’ already have, concealed within them, the concept of ‘truth’ as being an agreed and valid idea. So, there’s a circularity there. Which is forbidden, if you want to be strictly logical and rational. It’s like asking ‘What is bread ?’ and getting the answer ‘Anything that is made of bread’. We are no wiser.
You could give up, and say that ‘There’s no such thing as truth’. In which case, how do you reply to the question ‘Is that a true statement, or not ?’ If it is true, then there is indeed something called truth. The postmodernists, as I understand it, gave up in a different manner, by abandoning the fixed version of truth and replacing it with ‘claims of truth’ or efforts to move towards something that might be the truth.
Which is sort of reasonable, because if you look back historically, what people maintained to be ‘truth’ has altered many times, so what might be ‘true’ this year, may turn out not to be, next year. There’s a cultural and social aspect to this. Percentages of people believe this, or that, at any given moment. What if they are all wrong ? That possibility cannot be excluded. Scientists use Bayesian and other statistical methodologies to try and arrive at probabilities, expressed as a percentage, to indicate degrees of confidence, rather than any ultimately true judgement.
People say ‘Connect the dots’. Well, that’s what the folks who invented astrology did. They drew imagined lines between stars and created Taurus the Bull, Scorpio, Cancer, Gemini, and so forth. But does that get you ‘truth’ ? There is no biological bull up there, it’s a mental construction. And for the folks who spent the millennia in northern Europe and Siberia, there couldn’t have been any scorpion, because they would never have seen such a creature. They’d have connected the dots differently to arrive at some other visualised figure.
But we can all connect dots, and get a feeling, that intuitively, seems to be sort of right. Nassim Taleb tries to express this stuff mathematically. Hedge fund traders who are good at it get rich. Those who are no good do go broke.
Oh well, I have muttered and mumbled about all that in previous posts, more than once, it’s not such a stimulating avenue to traverse, what else ?
Ian Welsh wrote a solid and succinct synopsis of our oncoming doom. And then it is followed by the typical standard array of comments, veering from ‘Climate change isn’t happening, and if it is, it has no connection to human activity’ through ‘It’s a plot by the elite to extort taxes, control us all and cull the population’ and variations on the theme ‘Maybe it’s a good thing, and anyway, we’ll adapt, blahblah’ to the full on McPhersonist ‘We are all going to die over the next eight years, and by 2026 there will be nobody left’ Near Term Human Extinction tune that we all know and love to hear.
My position is that there was a time when this catastrophe could have been avoided, but that day is long gone. So now, what comes is inevitable and cannot be avoided. And, if that is correct, and there is nothing that we can do, what should we do ? Nothing ?
We were all going to die at some point, anyway, in the natural course of time. So if that moment comes sooner rather than later, because of world events or any other unexpected contingency, this is only the standard condition that all humans have always had to cope with.
So we might separate out our own personal distress concerning our mortality and fear of death and suffering, and anguish about the devastation and destruction of this marvellous planetary heritage we received. That part might be considered and dealt with as a matter of personal spiritual, and/or psychological and emotional, issues that have to be faced. It’s the end of an ant, rather than the end of the antheap.
For anyone capable of separating their own small sense of self-interest from the much larger perspective, there’s something else to consider and contemplate, as we wait to find out over the course of time, which of the range of opinions turns out to be the most accurate prediction of how things will unfold.
What I am getting at, is that nobody ever, or else very very rarely, wants to think about what exactly this ‘thing’ is, that we are a part of, this ‘world’ that we inhabit.
This is good, in a way, because it forces us into fresh thinking, rather than merely repeat the off-the-shelf packages that are handed out by those who wish to indoctrinate us and recruit supporters for their particular belief system.
It’s again, a philosophical question. Science cannot really address this, because all it can provide is descriptions, which are applied to postulated processes that may explain observed evidence. This might have happened, or that might have happened.
We are offered the orthodox mainstream reductionist account, that has grown out of geological studies and Darwinist theory. There’s a couple of notable extensions, Lovelock’s Gaia theory, and Peter Ward’s anti-Gaia Medea hypothesis, but these are all mechanistic accounts as to how what we observe came to be the way it is. They fall well short of any answer to the question ‘What is it ?’
Also, all the thinking draws upon the historical lineage going back to Descartes and then to ancient Greece, Aristotle, Plato, Thales, etc. That manner of thought is hopeless, now that we are confronted with the post-Newtonian quantum model.
I don’t blame people like Jay Dyer, who want to cling on to Plato, and then the Eastern Orthodox christian story, because, if you step outside the delineated received history, where the heck are you ? In some kind of freefall through nothingness, with no comfort from any direction. Once you realise that Cartesian space itself is an illusion, a social construct, a mental construct, that there is no real North, South, East, West, out there, these things are convenient fables which we invented, no different to street signs with an arrow that say ‘To the park’ or ‘To the library’, how do you position yourself in time and space, without any up or down ?
The modern philosophers have eaten themselves. On the journey from Socrates toward NTHE, we find contemporary stuff like this, it’s the fashionable way to think, so they do say…
Media theory has its defining moment the Socratic condemnation of writing. When Socrates recounts the Egyptian story of the invention of writing, he portrays more than the discovery of a medium that will interrupt the complex relations solidified by the living voice. He identifies an interval, a spacing and pausing that intervenes into the immediacy of the present, bringing with it a new sense of time and a new way of relating to first hand experience. His metaphor for this interval is that of the abandoned child. Left to fend for itself in the absence of its progenitor, it is at the mercy of the promiscuous treatment of those who come into contact with it:
…once a thing is committed to writing it circulates equally among those who understand the subject and those who have no business with it; writing cannot distinguish between suitable and unsuitable readers. And if it is ill-treated or unfairly abused it always needs its parent to come to its rescue; it is quite incapable of defending or helping itself. 
Writing, the supplement, the abandoned child, resides in the vulnerable interland of shifting contexts, confused signals, misunderstood transmissions, indeterminate meanings; the ambient and ambivalent agon otherwise known as communication.
 When Theuth presents his writing to King Thamus he is lectured on the shortcomings of his text, rather like an editor finding fault with an author’s work: “you, who are the father of writing, have out of fondness for your offspring attributed to it quite the opposite of its real function.”
 In a similar way, the Phaedrus is an editorial version of an earlier and more violent account of mediation, Euripides’ The Medea (431 BC).
 Like the medieval image so beloved of Derrida, in which Plato stands behind Socrates, receiver of the pen and the penis, the assemblage I want to work with displaces the Phaedrus with The Medea as a foundational moment in the history of media theory.
On the Ian Welsh comments, someone titled ‘Jim’ states that ‘McPherson is just another irrational lunatic’, the typical mindless smear that we are so accustomed to on all internet commentaries. It’s no different to ‘ Putin is a KGB thug, Trump is mentally unstable and Hitler’ kindergarten stuff. (If Trump was indeed Hitler, he’d have had Preet Bhahara dragged to prison and then shot, for refusing to resign when asked to do so.)
McPherson is far too rational, for my liking. He only does reasoning and logic based upon evidence and cited sources. His non-rational, anti-rational, irrational, side is notably non-existent. Unfortunately. Because in my perspective, any sane and balanced human being requires the fundamental necessity of a spiritual life, of one sort or another. Amidst all this vastness and profound mystery, the thinking, reasoning, rational, logical aspect of our minds is a very feeble thing, and where has it got us ? Into this appalling muddle and mess.
I mean, at the time when all of Europe was under the feudal system, the Pope was seen as God’s representative upon Earth, a link in the Great Chain of Being, with the kings and princes below him, and below them, the lords, dukes, etc, below them the priests, knights and soldiers, and below them, the tradesmen, craftsmen and peasants. That was a rational hierarchical structure, given the prevailing cultural worldview of the period.
Although people speak of this as ‘christian’, it really had very little to do with the Jesus figure of the New Testament and what he had taught. That all got altered to suit St Paul’s version, and then further altered to suit Constantine’s version, when he made christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, also Augustine’s version, which incorporated Plato’s greek ideas, which had no common ground at all with the earlier Old Testament Hebrew/jewish stuff from which Jesus had drawn.
By the time we get to Luther’s Protestant revolution, christianity had already morphed through many phases, and has continued to do so up until the present, with hundreds of thousands of differing interpretations available.
McPherson’s ‘reason’ has its roots in the French Revolution and the overthrow of Catholic domination by Enlightenment ideas cooked up by Masons and atheist subversives. That’s what brought us modern science, and also the Industrial Revolution, which some consider the beginning of our demise, because there’s a straight evolutionary path from the first steam engine to the internal combustion engine, coal and oil, and nuclear power plants, which will destroy most life if/when there is a collapse of civilisation.
Following from Darwin and 19th century science, many people rejected all religion and found a secular materialism to be sufficient. You know, the high point of logical positivism, when everything was understood and under control by ‘rational’ technocratic minds. That position comprehensively failed, although it lingers, and we got the ‘New Age’.
Despite its highly eclectic nature, a number of beliefs commonly found within the New Age have been identified. Theologically, the New Age typically adopts a belief in a holistic form of divinity which imbues all of the universe, including human beings themselves. There is thus a strong emphasis on the spiritual authority of the self. This is accompanied by a common belief in a wide variety of semi-divine non-human entities, such as angels and masters, with whom humans can communicate, particularly through the form of channeling. Typically viewing human history as being divided into a series of distinct ages, a common New Age belief is that whereas once humanity lived in an age of great technological advancement and spiritual wisdom, it has entered a period of spiritual degeneracy, which will be remedied through the establishment of a coming Age of Aquarius, from which the milieu gets its name. There is also a strong focus on healing, particularly using forms of alternative medicine, and an emphasis on a “New Age science” which seeks to unite science and spirituality.
Unfortunately, the New Age rubric provides cover for any number of charlatans and nutters to camouflage themselves, and is rife with satanists, fake gurus, cults, and whatnot. Kinda like food, there’s high class cuisine, simple fresh edible items, there’s junk, and there’s poisonous crap that’ll make you ill, disguised as food.
Speaking of which reminds me of Sylvie Ivanowa/New Earth Lady, this from her forum
Posted by Paeonian » Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:13 pm
What are some of your religious beliefs,especially Sylvie?
Posted by Admin » Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:47 pm
All religions worshiping the original creator are admirable. Those openly worshiping the devil are to be avoided.
Amongst the religions of goodness the new age seems to be somewhat less infiltrated…
Having been permanently banned in a rude manner without explanation, I’m not especially sympathetic, and it’s easy to shred such a low quality view. Whether the reply comes from S. I. or some other admin is not clear.
What about all the religions which do not feature any ‘Creator’ but which still hold to a Supreme Being of some species ? The Creator thing is mostly the three Abrahamic religions, and are they ‘admirable’ ? I mean, the historical record is absolutely horrendous.
As with most New Agey accounts, Sylvie Ivanowa’s worldview is a mish mash from many different sources, South American shamans, Sitchin, other Russian historians with ‘eccentric’ theories, we have gnomes, goblins, angels and whatnot, along with the Great Flood myth and the Survivors, along with appeals to ‘proper science’.
I am trying to be fair. I’ve enjoyed all the videos, and appreciate the work and contribution. I’ve gained a lot from it all, most especially the amazing cart tracks or ruts, which boggle my mind and do not fit into any mainstream narrative or paradigm.
As I’ve tried to explain several times, ‘the past’ does not exist. We only have the present moment, from where we attempt to tell stories about ‘what happened’.
So it is a blank space that is up for grabs by anyone. However, we do have the ‘scientific method’, so that evidence and traces can be examined in a rigorous and systematic fashion, as a cooperative scholarly effort over generations.
This does not ensure ‘truth’ though, it’s a constant and ongoing battle between rival hypotheses and ideas. Sylvie Iwanova complains in a video about the nationalist angle to this. I can see the point, but, ideally, science is supposed to be universal and international. The ideal has never been matched by the practice, which is regrettable, but science is done by people, and humans are flawed. Scientific research takes place within culture, and cultures differ.
I cannot avoid being influenced by the British culture and traditions, because that’s what I’ve been educated and raised in. Regardless of flaws, because of the history, Britain has a longer, deeper, more extensive recorded body of work than any other. One reason being, there’s a thousand years of more or less settled population. By contrast, most other places got invaded, ravaged, taken over by foreigners, etc.
Of course, the Indians and Chinese have even longer and more ancient recorded traditions. But Britain had the greatest Empire and the earliest industrialisation, which provided sufficient wealth and leisure for folk to go and study stuff purely out of interest, rather than economic necessity and survival. And the people appear to have had a talent for this sort of thing, just compare the number of inventions, no others come close.
I mean, it is only two hundred years ago, Gilbert White of Selborne was discussing with his buddies as to where the swallows, swifts, and martins went during the wintertime, and concluding that they hibernated in the mud at the bottom of ponds.
Now, the scientific method has established that they migrate thousands of miles down through Africa. And we can track them on their journeys. This is kinda wonderful, to me, that what was a puzzle has been satisfactorily solved. Did anyone ever even ask the question, before White ? Probably, everyone was too busy with their immediate concerns.
If that puzzle can be cracked, then so can the one about the fossilised cart ruts. But there’s something amiss. Perhaps we need a new paradigm, possibly a new timeline, or perhaps there are even more basic errors in the chemistry and physics.
I think it is very interesting. In the conventional academic arena, British history is contested by the disciplines, for example, the historians study the documents, archives, and other relics, the archaeologists dig up whatever they can find and date it as best they can, and both build up their stories, which are often contradictory, and then along come the geneticists, who study the DNA samplings and use statistics to construct timelines for movement of populations, which again do not fit all that well with what the historians and archaeologists insist they already know.
And then we have the fringe outliers, the NewEarthLady, Graham Hancock, Robert Schoch, others, willing to go where regular academics fear to tread, with radically differing stories.
I’d submit that in all scientific research, the places to look if you want to make progress, is at the anomalies. That is, where the map and the territory, the theory and the evidence, do not match up. These anomalies are everywhere. They disturb the conventional thinkers too much, so they get ignored. Fortean Times, Rupert Sheldrake, Dean Radin, Brien Foerster, many more, all point to so called ‘impossible’ facts, just as Sylvie Ivanowa does, there’s evidence which the orthodox mainstream simply cannot account for, and which just gets pushed aside as if it did not exist. It’s embarrassing for the professionals who are supposed to ‘know everything’.
Anyone who has read Deleuze and Guattari’s Thousand Plateaus may recall the delightful passage about the man who eats bicycles for a living. I wrote a blog post on that topic. All sane readers will have dismissed it as nonsense, by a couple of loony authors, because they themselves do not know how to eat a bicycle, let alone do it for a livelihood.
But here you are, this is the problem. I’m into all kinds of esoteric siddhis that I learned and practice, of which I can scarcely speak of without risk of being labelled insane. But just because YOU don’t understand and don’t know how, that does not exclude the possibility that someone else knows something that you do not. You do not know, what you do not know.
Here we have the bicycle eater. Or one of that ilk. (Not sure if D. and G. gave the name of their fellow, I forget.) This one actually ate an entire airplane, but only a small one, a Cessna.
Michelle litotes was a French artist who had a remarkable ability to eat everything from glass to metal. He was nicknamed “Mr. omnivorous.”
In the period between 1959 and 1997 he had eaten nearly nine tons of metal. Michelle could eat inorganic objects without much harm to the digestive system due to the very thick walls of the stomach and intestines.
When he ate the objects, he usually broke them into pieces and swallowed, drinking water and mineral oil. He could also eat a whole aircraft “Cessna-150” on the eating of which he spent two years.
I’d like to know how he started out, what was the first time he ate something inedible
and what was it ? And what comes out, erm, at the other end ?
But that fellow is far from being alone in having remarkable abilities which defy the conventional paradigm of what we are and what our limits are. There’s loads of them.
Japanese master Iaido Machii Isao, who calls himself a modern samurai can cut a flying bullet. His achievement was captured on camera and shown in a video slowed down 250 times, so that the audience could see the movement of his sword.
Isao Machii also owns the Guinness records, such as “the greatest number of hits rolled on the mat ‘,’ fastest 1000 sword strokes in martial arts”, “the largest number of sword strikes on the straw mat in 3 minutes” and “the fastest chopping tennis ball (820 km / h) with the sword. ”
Try fighting someone like that. You’d never even see the move that hit you. All over, instantly.
And this guy, Gary Norman, who can attract and control thousands of bees.
There’s someone called Daniel Kish who was born with a form of cancer of the retina eye called retinoblastoma. To save his life, doctors removed both of his eyeballs, so he became blind at the age of 13 months.
Daniel started using echolocation technique at the age of 2 years. Using echolocation, he learned to detect buildings at a distance of 300 meters, a tree at a distance of 9 meters and a man at a distance of 2 meters.
Also, using this ability, he can be distinguish from a truck from SUV cars. Daniel is the president of the organization World Access for the Blind and taught echolocation to at least 500 children.
Veronica Zayder, born in West Germany in 1951, has extraordinary vision that is 20 times better than the average person. She could see details of people at a distance of 1.6 km, while the normal viewer barely see details at a distance of 6 meters.
Shakuntala Devi has phenomenal mathematical abilities. She became known worldwide, and her achievement has been registered in the Guinness Book of Records, when she multiplied the 13-digit number (7 686 369 774 870 2 465 099 745 779) and gave the answer (18,947,668,177 995,426,773,730 ) after 28 seconds.
Other achievements include:
In 1977, at the University of Dallas, she extracted the 23rd root of a 201-digit number in 50 seconds, beating the computer UNIVAC 1101, which took 62 seconds.
In 1988, psychology professor Arthur Jensen decided to test her abilities and asked her to subtract the cube root of 61629875 and the root of the 7-th power of 170 859 375. Jensen said that Devi gave the answer (395 and 15 respectively) before he could record the figures in a notebook.
Dean Karnasis is a marathon runner who can run continuously for 3 days non stop. He was able to overcome one of the toughest tests of endurance – a marathon at the South Pole at a temperature of -25 ° C without snowshoes. Also in 2006, he ran a marathon in 50 states in 50 consecutive days.
Liv Lin Tou from Malaysia is a real man-magnet, having the ability to attract metal objects to his body. He can keep on his body up to 36 kg of metal objects. Also, using this ability, he was able to push cars. Sam Liv discovered his gift at the age of 60 years, when tools became simply stuck to his body. When scientists from the University of Technology Malaysia studied him, they found that there is no magnetic field in his body. They explained that his skin has a high level of friction, which creates a suction effect (?????).
Zhou Ting-Jue – 89-year-old master of kung fu, tai chi and Qigong can generate a huge amount of heat, using only their hands. The heat, which he generates through his hands, can heat up the water to boiling state. He is also able to shift his body weight up to his chest, so that is able to stand on a piece of paper without falling through it. (????) Zhou Ting-Jue is also a healer and claims that can dissolve tumors, heal severe, chronic injury and to treat incurable diseases. He treated the Dalai Lama, Olympic athletes, celebrities and politicians.
And then there is the incredible Wim Hof, who can do many ‘impossible’ feats, like being frozen solid in ice, which have been recorded by scientist under controlled conditions. What’s more, he teaches others how to do it.
I loathe the TED format, but it’s worth a watch, and if you google his name you’ll find plenty more about him.