One Trick Ponies

Perhaps what I’m getting confused on is this;
“My point was not that these people failed because they presumed there was a TOE”

Does that mean that they presumed that their concept was a TOE, or that they made a mistake merely because they presumed about something (the existence of a TOE) whether it was true or not?

yes, that is what I meant. Freud, for example, presumed everything was covered by this theory and this led to tensions with nearly all of his followers, since they thought pieces were missing.

Here I was trying to say that my OP could have been taken as saying: Oh, look more people who think there is a TOE - in this case for all human emotional/psychological problems and patterns - how silly of them.

When in fact I was saying, they thought they hit the TOE but in fact they only got a piece, hence the elephant metaphor.

Yes but when you said that, did you mean…

…just kidding.

I gotcha. :wink:

Moreno, for some reason I’m just having a hard time understanding what you’re saying. Not a big deal, but it’s curious to me. I doubt it’s your intention, but it kind of sounds like you’re equating “tricks” with central concepts as they relate to a worldview. For instance you mentioned “the three poisons” in Buddhism, and later you said maybe Buddhism is a “three trick pony”. But what of the four noble truths? Does that make Buddhism a four trick pony? Or the 51 mental factors? Does that make Buddhism a 51-trick pony? :slight_smile:

I know I just don’t get what you’re saying. I’m not trying to put those words in your mouth.

The trick in this case is an analysis of what the root problem is and associated method of cure, as presented by various thinkers//doers.

When adherents of this various ‘schools’ look at someone’s suffering/avoidance, they tend to have, let’s say, a small number of root causes, generally something that is uncomfortable for the sufferer to face. From this analysis, each makes suggetions about the ‘cure’, the therapeutic measures that will address the real issue, and not the surface issues we use to distract and avoid the real issue, as they see it. I think each oversimplifies the situation and sees a unity which does not cover the diversity. This gets extremely complicated with Buddhism. I mainly brought Buddhism and Hinduism in around the issue of denied compassion/oneness. In a sense to take a jab at, say, the Nietschians, who see denial of power seeking everywhere and read ‘niceness’ as always a form of denial. So bringing in New Agers and then to the degree they fit that specific issue other traditions, was a way of saying, actually if you uncover what is denied it isn’t always that which has been judged negative - anger, sex, aggression, class rage - but may in fact be scary yet on the loving side of things.

For example racism certainly can be a mental distraction, a set of thoughts that put another group in a lower, less human category. Underneath this set of mental distractions, there very well may be empathy, sense of being one with these ‘others’, that is being denied. Which is terrifying and may have attendant feelings of terror and loss of control as one first realizes this, and this terror is avoided.

To some groups what is denied must always be very yang, urges to hit and fuck and so on. When in fact this is not the case, and often not the case.

No problem. And probably we would be at odds to some degree here, though perhaps not quite in the way it has seemed to you so far. I don’t want to go too far into the Buddhism discussion - though absolutely fair that you bring up your not quite understanding and what your sense of what you do (or would disagree) with. I mean, I mentioned it. Frankly I wanted to bolster up the New Age category, since whatever insights they have tend to be dismissed off hand by many. So it was in the context of that one basic idea that what is denied may in fact be generous, loving feelings and conceptions, which goes against some of the one trick ponies elsewhere in the list.

I opened the door.

But let me see if I can shift this a little.

As a Buddhist, does it strike you that other ‘systems’ are incomplete or seem to only deal with part of the problem?, me thinking especially of some of the other approaches on that list.

And does it seem to you that Buddhism presents a TOE on the issue of human suffering and how to deal with it?

[size=150]What about NO TRICK PONIES?

What about retards thinking there is an elephant in the room, which only a piece of which can be perceived…having no clue himself?
What about the moron, who has to rely on the experienced of another, to tell him about that piece, of some greater whole, he is feeling?

[/size]

What about him? Do you have a germane point, or are you trolling?

[size=120]The “point” being, that this obsession with equality manifests in these mind-games…where the “truth”, is substituted by the “elephant in the room”.

Then, we all, are blind, equally so, feeling about the room, and discovering different parts of the presumed whole.

Now, a man feeling the elephant’s trunk, and calling it a snake, is to be respected, just as much as one feeling the elephant’s head, including the trunk, and calling it a head.
The presupposition here is equality in ignorance. the “negative” being redefined as a unifying “positive”.

Therefore, a Christian moron, claiming the Rapture is immanent, is to be respected, because none of is omniscient.
The absence of the absolute is twisted into a uniform absolute void…which can then be remedied by projecting it somewhere in the beyond, or the future (Paradise or Utopia).

Christianity was brought down to Earth, by secular humanism…first with Marxism.
It changes the terms, takes away the anthropomorphic symbol of an absolute deity (Being…an immutable Thingness), but retains the ethos, the negation of reality, by positing a “better” or an “alternative” to nature.
Nature being the sum of all previous nurturing - Past.
We witness this in modern science and it’s insistence of finding the “beginning” of the universe…accepting the Jew-Christian position that from “nothing, something comes”.
Dualistic thinking…binary logic.
The ONE is presupposed, though there is no evidence of it other than as a linguistic tool, a symbol, referring to a mental abstraction, but which has no reference outside of the human mind.
The ONE is taken for granted, making its negation, part of the logic that follows when the supposition is accepted as self-evident.

There is ONE elephant in the room and it is static…immutable. It is our senses that fail to perceive it whole… It’s not that the world is flu8id and requires constant reaffirmation, it’s that it is whole, immutable, and we fail to see it.
Our senses either fail us or have evolved to trick us.
It is we, and only we, who are imperfect…and we are the manifestation of a world which IS perfect…you see the nihilism?
The presupposed is a given…and we fail to perceive it…so we are the only ones who are imperfect. We are sinners…or we are weak within omnipotence.

This storyline, here, also serves another purpose.
The “elephant” is presupposed - a given -…it is unchanging…and all contribute to its understanding.
So, a moron, grabbing the proverbial elephant’s trunk and thinking it is a snake, is a valued contribution, and constructive…at par with the man who feels the elephant head and sees it as a head.

The moral of the storyline is that no matter how blind and stupid you are, your interpretation of that little piece of reality you see, is valued, and should be respected.

But, like I said, what about the “no-trick ponies”…the like’s of Morono and company?
What are they to do, when they feel no elephant and what they feel they can make no sense of?

Simple…you accept the interpretations of others. The more popular he is, the more famous he is, all the more you buy into his interpretation; the more soothing it is, the more hope it offers, the more it flatters and manipulates human instincts, all the more it is accepted as correct.

[/size]

That’s not what the OP says.

Warning for intentional trolling.

That was never the “Jew-Christian” position, but your Secular Scientism position, the “Big Bang”.
You are blaming-shifting.

Hmm, on the one hand Buddhism does concentrate on “root” causes of suffering. On the other hand, it doesn’t tell you how to tie your shoes. Also, the “suffering” that Buddhism addresses is fairly specifically defined. For instance, Buddhism doesn’t promise freedom from sadness (some schools might - Buddhism is a big thing - but I think this would be a misguided approach, personally). But solving one big problem might just put all your other problems into a manageable perspective that makes your life workable. So it’s a TOE in the sense that you learn to ignore trivia and pay attention to the things that matter most. And most stuff is trivia, at least until you learn to develop the view that everything matters. I don’t mean that to sound like a riddle, I’m just low on time.

I agree with the spirit of the OP, it reminds me of Berlin’s “fox and hedgehog” allegory. But I wonder what you’re suggesting as a way to understand an elephant whose magnitude exceeds the scope of many of the most powerful thinkers. Pragmatic pick-and-mix? Ataraxia?

I think it’s not so much that someone has the trunk and someone else the tail; that would imply that they are focussing on a small part of the mystery and ignoring the parts that others focus on. It’s more that someone says that the elephant is ultimately all greyness, and someone else that it’s all mass, and whatever argument they face they boil it down to their home territory.

A TOE on a certain issue? I could have a TOE on how to cook pancakes, but that would surely be better called my TOHTCP.

I think that the more appropriate term is “Unified Field Theory” for most of what is being discussed in this.

A “Theory of Everything” is supposed to address literally ALL issues throughout life and all existence.

Those who too ardently seek to be seen as correct, see only correctness in themselves.
Those who too ardently seek the truth of the whole, see only one whole truth.

Dear OP could you provide som examples, because what you wrote didn’t make much sense to me. It consist nothing but of incoherent random things mashed together.

That’s right. The J.-Xt. position is there was a ‘GOD’ hovering over and he said Let there be light, and like magic, out of nothing,… there’s earth and day and night and fools like you.

[b]"Trolls and Trolling

Trolls…an internet term used to degrade and differentiate an individual or a group that does not fit into the “norm”, as this is defined by a community of minds.
The term is supposed to explain why some do not or cannot participate in as manner the majority finds appropriate and “positive”.
Since all minds take themselves and their own experiences and understanding as a starting point, the notion that someone may not care to be liked or to be a part of their group seems odd.
Other than the motive of causing a stir and drawing attention upon himself the Troll cannot be comprehended by a mind entrenched in herd psychology. For it being appreciated and accepted by as many people as possible is the highest of all goals and so to display behavior that prohibit this seems ill or a psychological dysfunction they cannot relate to other than ascribing to it a motive they can comprehend, and one which is most often true: the desire for attention; of course the other possibility of someone holding onto positions they would find insulting and hurtful and the uninhibited drive to express these positions is alien to their common sense.
That someone would find participating within a group who share ideals this mind detests as being vile and difficult, is also incomprehensible to these manimals.

They consider social behavior as one leading directly to their own herd psychology, having on other example of a group which is not as slavish and based on the cult of victim-hood.
They cannot understand how less can be more or how quality can be preferable to quantity, to the point where one would rather go without rather than settle for the mediocre and the base.
For them to be popular IS to be good; and to be rich IS to be a genius; and to be liked IS to be virtuous.
But we can already see the effects of fragmentation in reaction to increasing uniformity. Those who resist or who stand opposed or who offer an alternative to the common n uniforming principle of the majority must be slandered, shamed and explained in the most degrading ways so as to explain and make virtuous their own inability to think outside the herd’s box.
Anyone who disturbs their common peace must be someone who resents their “happiness” and anyone who rejects their soothing laments must be someone who is envious of their common love.
It is always those we hate that defines who we are, and this is also so with groups and Superorganisms.
We are, in effect, who we refuse to be or who we do not wish to be like.
For the modern Judeo-Christian mind, now reinvented as a secular humanist and liberal, this hatred is associated with a vice and so the members so infected cannot admit to it. Instead they turn their own self-pity outwards in an act of projecting upon another their own self-hatred, pitying those who cannot or refuse to participate in their herd.

At its most basic level a Troll is one who disrupts.
In most cases, this is true, this is done purposefully to cause all eyes to turn in the direction of the one disturbing the herd’s communal peace but in a very few it is simply an honest opinion offered and which now must be stifled and censored and kept a secret as a way of not disturbing a peace and quiet; the peace and quiet of the regurgitating herd’s slumber.
Just as in the case of conspiracy theories one must only utter the term, associating all with the ridiculous so as to dismiss it as being unworthy of consideration.
Calling the 9/11 theories as being conspiratorial only associates it with alien abduction and lizards in the White House theories making them all seem one and the same.
Similarly calling the one who uses shock and aw to draw attention upon himself with someone who speaks his mind honestly only to find his views as being considered too hateful or vile by a group which can never think anything that exceeds their communal principles is a perfect way to dismiss the last by associating him with the easier and much more common first.
The herd can never accept any idea which inhibits cohesion and mass participation, as its values are guided by the standard of quantities measured with numbers; since one of their shared myths is free-expression and tolerance they require a fantastic caricature to find an exception to their common delusions.
The Troll is born as much more than an easy way to dismiss anything that threatens their unified delusions; it also functions as an emotive caricature…ugly and alien and inhuman, acting as a monster that threatens the masses closer and closer together in the surrounding night.

In the area of the internet electronic highways and byways adherence to the codes of conduct of the “real” world are creeping in, enforcing a restriction on what can be said and how.
The accusation of “trolling” is the internet version of political-correctness.
It simply and easily implies the other’s intent; his/her “bad faith” in participation, and dismisses him/her as not worth responding to, especially when you don’t have a response to his challenge.
The label attempts to promote an internet social etiquette based on the desired outcome of mass participation (more is better - the victory of quantity over quality), respect for all and their ideas and ideals (relativism pushed to its absurd nihilistic conclusion) - no matter how stupid and ignorant they might be - and a repression of any opinion which might even hint at an insult or a hurtful conclusion against anyone…except the instigator of “trolling” that is.
Here the Christian, humanitarian ethos steps in to offer a solution: do not hate anyone but pity them in this way remaining true to your self-serving slavish morality while at the same time projecting your self-hatred upon the other and showing compassion for it; a form of self-forgiveness for being born so weak and stupid and cowardly.
Now this is not to say that the phenomenon of trolling is not a real one but it is to say that it has now been hijacked and is being used as a condemnation of unwanted positions, in the same way that racism is a real phenomenon and so is sexism but both terms are now taken up by those who wish to dismiss any legitimate positions that threaten their egalitarian Judeo-Christian and secular humanistic/Marxist moralities without having to deal with them.
The feeling of weakness or of being at a disadvantage might not be admitted, not even to one’s self, but it is obvious.
The majority just parrot opinions, adopting the ones they were brought up to not question and that are conveniently soothing and flattering and hopeful and forgiving. They quickly find themselves unable to defend what they cannot doubt or have ever explored, considering their positions self-evident, when they come across someone who has thought things over and that can defend his own positions as well as attack weaker ones.
The modernistic moral code of “live and let live” need not be uttered.
Nobody likes anyone who makes them rethink what they hold as being sacred particularly when they’ve invented a lifetime on its certainty.
The concept of “troll” which usually accompanies the concept of “racist” and “sexist” and “cynic” and “pessimist” or any word that can produce an autoimmune response is how the average simpleton deals with reality and with anyone impolite enough to remind him or her of its indifferent threats outside of the feel-good comforting idealisms most prefer to numb themselves with.

When mass participation is the goal then the level of discourse is reduced to the point where the majority can follow it and are not overly disturbed or insulted by it.
This reduces what topics are permitted to be explored seriously but it also forces upon the participants a self-censorship.
The prohibition of seriousness is founded on the concept that some ideas are “self-evident”, since the majority have agreed upon them in some ambiguous form, though is pressured very few of them would be able of offering a coherent and shared definition and/or argument in their support.
That these concepts are taken as being a “given” makes them unapproachable and unexplored; most parroting them with no real understanding of their promises.
This also sets-up the potential to ridicule or slander anybody who dares to differ in this regard.
This leads to a form of lynching where the many fearing to be exposed to ideas they cannot deal with or forced to defend their own “self-evident” position which they have little to no understanding of, settle for this mob rule where all are protected form their own simplicity while claiming the upper-hand in the domain of morality.
Any retribution using similar tactics or tactics adapted to deal with this kind of mod-rule are quickly dealt with by the administrators who are on the side of the many since they share with them the same delusions and so the same "self-evident certainty and ignorance, but also because they serve their need for popularity making them side with the greater number as a matter of logic.

The other angle of self-censorship is supported by a communal rule of etiquette which states that the weakest must be protected from the strongest and the dimmest from the brightest which relates to the previous in that intelligence is rare and so is always at a numerical disadvantage to the more common and the most base.
The lowering of the quality of discourse by using moralistic and emotional methodologies built upon the premise of communal unity, communal identity, Christian morals, now evolved into humanitarianism, inhibit any honest and lucid and direct exploration of reality.
All must be filtered through the human prism of shared interests where the lowest shared interest is the most valuable one, because upon it an entire edifice of unity is maintained.

Anyone who dares cross these lines of shared weakness faces condemnation, mass assault, character assignation, mocking, casual dismissals and the usual methods of defensiveness which are reinforced by the fact that they are shared and common and that they serve a common goal which is sometimes implied but never stated outright.
The only forms of debate or conflict permitted within the herd are only those which deal with the justifications and structures their communion will take, never dealing with the need and the foundations and the reasons why this communion is necessary at all. As such, all dialogue is restricted to subjects and approaches which are deemed appropriate and so always remain entrenched within communal limitations: thinking within the box.

All of this is an aspect of feminization as it is firmly rooted in the necessity for social cooperation and the superstructures (institutions, states, churches) this evolves into.
The masculine energy being more confrontational, anti-authoritarian, wanting to replace the existent order with its own, antagonistic and disruptive is automatically considered a Troll.
Of course unbridled masculine energy, that is masculinity which has failed to find some self-discipline or that exhibits a quality which cannot be dealt with in the usual culling methods of nature, can be far too much for any herd to handle; like a rabid dog would be disturbing to a pack of dogs."
[/b]

A herd which did not isolate (or cure) a rabid member would be a bad herd indeed. And it would be in the rabid dog’s best interest to seek a cure for itself, but it would have to transcend its animal nature to do so. The “noble lone voice in the wilderness” is a post-enlightenment, post-industrialisation trope. People living in less comfortable, protected societies know the value of society. To be exiled in ancient Greece was to face an ignoble death, not to be honourably martyred for one’s beliefs.

That said, having just been warned, a statement like

earns another warning.

I think the Hedgehog/Fox contrast is a good one to bring up since there could be members of each group who would agree with my OP, but disagree from there whate either the problem is or how one should go about dealing with the problems the various thinkers in the OP are trying to deal with. Some hedgehogs might be adherents of one or another thinker in the OP, but many might have their own overarching TOE for the struggle in the self, what is being avoided, etc. Foxes would all disagree with TOEs, though I could imagine a Fox actually thinking there is a single elephant, but that a rather eclective response is the best approach.

I would be very happy if a fox came in and denied their being any possible unification. A

I haven’t suggested anything. I believe I have an overriding perspective here, but I am not sure I want to bring that up at least not yet.

I think that something that looks like a pragmatic pick and mix is best as far as day to day reseach into theself, uncovering denied dynamics, thoughts, judgments and positions. I think most of those people were on to real processes and their approaches or understandings can bring into awareness dynamics one is avoiding noticing to one’s detriment.

No, I am not going to suggest this. This, to me, is a bit like suggesting to a person with an arrow through their shoulder to ‘choose wellness’.

I think both confusions are present.

Yah, it’s a sloppy use of the term. I think I turned to TOE because human minds are, well, more complex than any other ‘thing’ we have come across. And since the minds deal with so many ‘external’ things, whatever theory covers the roots of all our problems is covering a lot of ground. I mean, TOE is often used to mean an all encompassing theory of physics/cosmology. But really, whatever that would be will still be partial. No way that’s going to help you deal with your relationship with your father.

That’s fine, it is a big question.