People are committing suicide in great numbers nowadays, and I do agree with the premise that much of this is the result of very malefic ‘feeding’, physical and psychological. Abstract had physiological problems, but his decision to end his life seems to have resulted in a large degree from the environment with which he was forced to deal. I am not talking about his family - his mother seemed a very good and loving woman - but about the larger social economic and cultural circumstance. He suffered from problems with his conscience and it appears that he held a job at a weapons manufactoring company (forgive me if I got this wrong), which must have caused him, pacifist that he was, a lot of cognitive dissonance. Such dissonance will be experienced by a sensitive mind as very nasty pain for which there is no remedy, and which no one seems to understand. Not that this could all have been the result of an ill fitting responsibility, but it will have contributed.
I think that the lack of an environment that one can value in terms of ones self-valuing is usually the cause of suicide. Environment is a broad term and includes all the media to which one is exposed. It is clear that the media-landscape being produced the past decennia causes people to become extremely claustrophobic, paranoid and self-hating.
What gives the spiritual butchers that now run the media landscape the right to ‘program suicide’ (create unvalue-able environments for the masses) or in general, psychological paralysis? Why would they need a right? They simply have the power.
What can we do about it? Only one thing: create a more hopeful environment. We failed to do that for Abstract, which is extremely tragic. But we are gettig deeper into the process of building a truly human landscape every year.
Accusing? No. I am making observations, not attacks.
You misinterpret that, when I talk about you being wrong about something, I am accusing or attacking you. That is not the case. And if I am wrong about something, then I am wrong about it. I never claimed to have perfect knowledge.
Yes, but (1) is only one example of self-valuing. My point is precisely that you cannot take one possible example and act as if this stands in for the broader concept or experience itself. There are innumerable possible examples of how self-valuing frustration might lead toward an impetus for suicide. Why do you just focus on one of those examples? This is why I focus on self-valuing itself, this is the real issue here.
What I wrote about (1) applies here too.
PHT is only one aspect of valuing and self-valuing. Value does not operate solely on the basis of perceiving hopes and threats alone. That is one aspect of it, but again it would be a mistake to substitute one aspect of a thing for the thing itself.
As I said, it is not an insult or an accusation. That it appears to you as such ought to tell you something about how you are approaching things.
I also had extensive conversations with abstract, here and elsewhere, especially in email. Based on my conversations with him over a few years, I cannot conclude that your list of 1-3 reasons applied to him. He might have retained a degree of hopelessness, however even that was tempered by his hope which was very strong. He had a positive view of things, not one suffused with extreme negativity or hopelessness. He suffered the pain of existing, because that is what it means to exist. We all suffer that pain to some degree. The issue collapses back to values and self-valuing.
I won’t say you did not know Abstract, but I will say that, based on everything I knew of him, your list of 1-3 reasons does not describe his situation.
I am not giving a sermon on value ontology.
I am talking about one particular “formula” for failure.
The fact that you haven’t recognized it doesn’t surprise me a bit.
It is something you know near to nothing about.
And that is why am I talking about it. The serpent you see is not the one that bites you.
If that is merely the case, then you have not demonstrated any convincing reasons why to accept your view that suicide is being programed in the manner you suggest.
Let us have a good list of reasons and evidence defending each of 1-3, including proof this is intentionally done. So far you haven’t actually offered any reasons or evidence of that, but you have mentioned a few examples that could possibly be developed into reasons and evidence, if you are interested in doing that.
Also of course we would need to examine if 1-3 are sufficient or necessary for programing suicide, either individually or together. What do you think about that?
What do you mean “also”. That is the whole point.
But in your case, psychology is a pretty blank slate.
You have not been programmed into the “it’s all my fault” (1) mindset.
You don’t care if anyone has the right to commit suicide (2).
Nor have you been programmed into the “hopeless future” (3)… yet.
But the world is not made of You.
You know nothing of hypnosis and the media’s engagement with it.
And explaining it to you would be about like trying to explain physics to iambiguous.
Everyone is an expert at the far more complex psychology, sociology, and economics of which they know nothing, yet admit they know nothing of physics of which they at least know a little.
James: Intentionality may break down on logical levels , so can it be said affirmed that #1,#2, and #3 are proximally valid usyllogisms , in suicide?
In order to uphold a general rational basis to taking one’s life , the sufficient state of mind necessary has to exist to objectively ascertain sufficient intent on the part of the suicide.
Absent intent, the knowledge of #2 and #3 may be in disconnect with object (ive) of the suicide, hence. could be interpted as an irrational act.
The issue is the final effect, not necessarily the intent.
But you can’t tell me that someone accidentally put the subliminal message, “[size=85]The world is falling apart and there is no escape[/size]” on that DVD. Most people couldn’t arrange that if they wanted to. It took authority, financing, and technology… not dissimilar to Google Glass’s project.
The desire and intent comes primarily through (3) - hopelessness, as expressed by the films mentioned (not to mention a great many others, including songs). Chaos and frustration lead to anger which enhances the frustration that leads to depression.
Yes, but it’s debatable whether suicide is a rational act, well some suicide. If not, then analysis of it may break down , and although desperation and effects may try to putatively discover intent , it may result in a fishing expedition. Some suicides are totally reactive , by passing channels of reasoning . An objective analysis reversely from effects to causes may unravel chains of reasoning by processes of elimination, forgetting that differentiating causes entail qualitative change on the way. The most such analysis can a achieve in my opinion is, most probable causes.
The only positive ‘proof’ would consist of an interview with a failed suicide victim, but here also states of mind may prevent self evaluation.
If I understand you correctly you do not condition state of mind as qualifying factor in assessing whether knowledge of the option of suicide may make a difference in its self , as regards quantifying possible statistical data.
In other words, knowledge of changing attitudes toward suicide may effect the statistics on the number of suicides.
If that is what you are getting at then I would think yes that may prove to be the case.
A good example of songs effecting suicide is the following: In my native Hungary, I think of was in the 1930's , a song was released entitled "Blue Sunday". It caused a floodgate of suicides , as historically recorded. If You were to argue for a hidden logic within unreasonable parameters of consciousness, then reasons could be looked for such phenomena, otherwise it could be ascribed to socialhyhysteria.
But you have not done that yet. So I am confused how you can say “that is the whole point”.
Not sure what you mean by that. Is this an attempt at an insult?
You should have learned by now not to underestimate my capacity to understand you. I am motivated by truth, and I filter everything in that regard. I am not motivated to always agree with you, or to accept your statements blindly.
I thought you understood the need for people to confirm and validate to a degree of certainty and rationality what they know. And yet, in this topic, you are asking me to just accept your claims, and you seem upset by me asking you to back those claims up.
I cannot glean from this what you mean. Can you clarify?
Quite the opposite. You have a willingness to judge and accuse against a backdrop of self-certainty.
That is the only reason I ever talked to you to begin with.
I am not asking you to accept anything. And what you should have learned by now is that when I make a bold counter intuitive claim, there is a substantial reasoning behind it. You came on this thread with blatant insults, ignoring the questions of the OP, and expressing certainty concerning things of which you know too little. “You have a willingness to judge and accuse against a backdrop of self-certainty.”
But what I know is that when the entropic shell of any particle is destroyed, the particle is destroyed. Fortunately, you do not know how to do that. But I do. And I know when it is being done.
What are your thoughts on how that subliminal message got on that DVD (just for an example)?
Who do you think has the right to do that without the permission of the victim?
What you call judging I call thinking. I form ideas and declare truths or falsehoods, but these are never “self-certainties”, they are in-process of thought and I always welcome further commentary, critique and revision from others and myself. But the unfortunate thing is that, the way I think and discuss things, is almost never reciprocated. Others get upset because I don’t automatically accept or validate their beliefs or feelings, their ego – my method is entirely without ego, but that is not easy to see when one is already mired in it and finds I have no natural respect for their cherished beliefs or feelings.
“Judging” is the basis of all thought, indeed of all life. However “accusing” is quite different, and if you were to step out of your objective frame of self-certainty and “I know everything” approach for a moment you would become able to see that. What you see as an accusation or insult is, well, just my disregard for other’s feelings if those feelings are getting in the way of truth. I am not “accusing” you of anything except being wrong. But if you take that personally, that isn’t really my problem, or my fault.
I have made no insults here, not one. Nor have I “accused” anyone of anything. I have stated my ideas, and engaged the subject by asking you to provide reasons and evidence. But you interpret that as judgment and my need for self-certainty. Again, that says more about you than it does about me. And no, that is not an accusation. It is a factual statement. Try not to take things so personally.
As for the DVD message, here’s the thing: you haven’t even demonstrated that yet. You just claimed it was the case. I did an internet search and came up with nothing on that. Literally nothing. I searched several ways and still nothing. So if you are going to claim something like, “There is a subliminal message in the DVD menu of this movie” it might be advisable for you to actually provide evidence such a message actually exists.
Again, because you have NOT give ANY such evidence, you are just asking me to take you at your word, to accept what you say without reason. Yet the interesting thing is you don’t see that is what you are doing.
If you tell me that you saw a yellow rabbit out in your front yard twice in the last week and I search the internet for evidence to support your claim and don’t find anything about it, then obviously you are a liar.
If you tell me that you talked to a physics professor and he told you that an electron is bigger than a proton and I search the internet and I find so evidence that he said that then obviously you are just a liar.
Is that right?
…And the other person is just a liar until you are convinced otherwise… apparently by Google. Thinking, believing, or worshiping a different idea, and accusing another person of lying (“judging” them) are different for most people.
Really?
I would say that me calling you a liar by contradicting something that you claimed to have personally witnessed would constitute a insult and accusation unless I had substantial evidence to support my claim against you. You don’t seem to believe that applies to you.
When was it programmed into you that no one has the slightest bit of integrity except you, the internet, those who agree with you, and what… the TV? And gee, I wonder who would have wanted to give you that impression.
It really is fascinating that you see absolutely no need to substantiate your claims.
Having not been given evidence by you, not finding any on with various internet searches, I’m going to buy that DVD at a used store and see for myself. I suppose if I turn the volume way up I should be able to hear the subliminal message? Or how exactly do you recommend I verify this, since you’re apparently unwilling to provide any evidence yourself?
As for the reference to suicide in movies, you’d need to convince me, or even just try to defend your idea, that this is intentionally done as “hypnosis” rather than just as in the regular course of movie-making, which naturally will end up touching on just about every subject and perspective possible.
Two ways you might be able to offer such evidence: 1) show that an inordinate amount of films deal with suicide and in a manner which normalizes, romanticizes or glorifies it, or 2) show how the specific writers/directors/producers can be demonstrated or known to be involved in hypnosis programming.
Otherwise, why wouldn’t we just conclude that such films are just a part of the ordinary course of film-making? You do realize you’ve given absolutely zero reason for us to accept your intentional hypnosis-programming view.
James, if I understand correctly, the gist of your OP is that through media people are manipulated into doing things. You chose suicide as the example, and I think that adds a nice oomph for the reader and is an engaging topic, but I think what’s more interesting is the idea that there’s such mass coercion at all. I mean…why does advertising exist? Where is the line between civility and war? If one group can use weapons like media to coerce another does that line get blurred? What about media that isn’t necessarily aimed at creating an increase in the suicide rate so brazenly? Like advertising that lures people into living beyond their means such that inevitably they become poorer?
Other than me telling you of my experiences, what evidence did you expect to see?
Of course if you want to verify it for certainty, you have to try it yourself. I am not at all arguing with that. Would I suggest something so easy for people to verify if I was just lying? But I can’t guarantee that the one you buy is going to be the same as the one I witnessed some 10 years ago. And I publicly revealed it and proved it even back then.
In a court of law, if someone testifies to seeing the defendant at the scene of the crime and there is no contradicting evidence, that is considered hard evidence and enough to convict the defended. It is not proof, but a witness is evidence. And without contrary evidence is considered hard evidence unless you can substantiate that the witness is a conspicuous liar.
You didn’t even ask the obvious question that I expected at least someone to ask, “How do you know that you didn’t just imagine it?”) instead you just proclaimed that I must be a liar. Nor did you ask if I had any conversations with Abstract. You just stated that I am probably just lying. You are NOT questioning the evidence itself. You are making proclamations about the messenger so as to discard the evidence.
The truth is that you are denying evidence prima facie. A Google search for substantiation for the claims that I have been making is ridiculous. Why don’t you just go look out in the back yard, maybe you will find something there. If not, then we know without question that I must be lying.
You and FJ have a lot in common.
Only to the mindless and naive.
You do realize that in your prima facie denial of my witnessing, you do not address how such a message got onto that DVD even hypothetically. You immediately dodge the issue based on your presumptuous proclamation that I am a liar. One might want to know why you don’t even address the possibility that I am not a liar. What are you defending? Obviously integrity isn’t it.
There is a huge difference between hypnotically advertising people into buying a product, very much disdained by society, and hypnotically advertising them into suicide. Do you agree?
If a radio announcer says something that causes even one person to do something that kills that person, or another person, that announcer will very probably at least lose his job. There is a responsibility inherent in broadcasting to the public. Broadcasters are very aware of that and it is supported by law.
There are countless cases of public speakers and advertisers being condemned for irresponsible influence.
I have just revealed one of the ways that it is being done and yet no one is getting convicted of any wrong doing. That implies that those doing it have a right to do it, even though any corporation advertiser coming anywhere close to doing that would be hung. Disney was publicly accosted merely by the implication that they allowed sexual innuendo in one frame of one of their films. And yet someone apparently has the right to hypnotically suggest suicide without impunity.
I agree that the outcomes are different in degree, but essentially the same. Suicide is bad for the person who does it, buying everything that’s advertised in bad for the person who does it.
About rights…I don’t think someone getting away with something necessarily means that they have the right to do it. It would imply that, as you said if the particular definition of rights that we’re using is one that says so. If a right is something that a person has naturally or is something that a person can exercise without recourse then you might be correct that someone has a right to do such things. But if we consider rights in the sense that they are something given, rather than something taken, then it becomes more difficult to accept the inference that you offer.
What do you think rights are? I think there is a variance among people’s perceptions when it comes to answering that question. If you choose a side, then you’re gold as far as determining right and wrong, but if it’s the wrong side then inevitably it comes back to bite you in the ass.
I am speaking simply of legal and/or moral rights.
No one is even being openly accused. That directly implies that there must be a law that allows it in the case of instigating suicide, but not favoring the selling something that wasn’t really needed. We see cases of advertising being at very least accused. But when, other than now with me, have you seen even the accusation of anyone promoting suicide? Well, that would certainly leave the impression that it wasn’t being done… except for the actual evidence of which I have provided only a tiny portion.
One frame in a film from Disney that could be possibly imagined into a sexual inference is enough to make a media event. There are thousands of cases suicide promotion influence going on, many obviously intentional, such as that DVD. Yet you are hearing nothing about it, only the preponderance of more of it;
“Right to Suicide”
“Good of Death”
“I Give up”
“All s Lost”
“I Give in”
…those merely a few, from this one site. The public IS being influenced. Someone IS taking the right. But since when is taking a right from citizens not even objectionable enough to complain about? A change in minimum wage, oh wow, we certainly have to storm Congress about that one, but people killing people? Naaa… that shit happens all the time.
Besides if anyone was trying to fool you, obviously they would tell you first.
