This page

[eldritchdark.com]

is a postcard which is identified as "From Donald Wandrei and Samuel Loveman"

But when you read it, you see it is mostly by Lovecraft, signed HPL, with one line from Wandrei and one line from Frank Belknap Long.

A couple of months ago I used the Contact form for this site to notify them of the mistake. That message was never acknowledged, let alone corrected. Anyone know if this site is actually maintained?

The Eldritch Dark can have the characteristic silence of the tomb, much in line with the spirit of its subject matter. As long as this is accepted and agreed upon, this is a fine place with occasional inflorescence of comments.

I believe the site owner, as well as others once prominent posters, have not commented here in several years. There used to be a lot more activity. My own personal view of the reason for this lessening, is the decline of the West. The West is moving into a dark age, that will call for hardships. The signs for this have been extra prominent over the last ten years. In such times sensitive dreamers and fantasists tend to withdraw. Some go into depression. (The more superficial and confused welcome the new world order destructive changes, and think there is still a party going on.) My way of handling this, as well as can be, is to stay in the small world as much as possible, away from regulated society; actively seek Nature, Art, and creativity, and pray to the cosmic God for guidance and upheld ecstatic inspiration.

Interesting POV...

I'm unsure about the cause for the decline in the levels of participation on the Eldritch Dark site (in part, the subject is finite, not open-ended, and hence can therefore be "consumed"), but for sure you're right about the decline of the spiritual, aspirational quality of life in the industrial West.

The common man has never been any great shakes when it comes to self-ennoblement--and I say this as a self-admitted common man--very panzaic, that's me! Why seek the sublime if the mundane gives an immediate thrill--and doubly so if you're none too sure what "the sublime" hints at, anyway.

So yep, we live in a world where the crass is so commonplace as to pass by unnoticed, vulgarity is everywhere you may choose to look, mediocrity has been elevated to the praiseworthy, and whereas in previous times, if you recognized that you were being pandered to, you'd feel genuine embarrassment at the exposed baseness of your character, you now feel that unless you are actively pandered to, constantly, you're being deprived of the normal life experience, the one that you're entitled to.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm hardly a regular around here, and by the time I made my account this place was already as slow as a glacier. I, too, was wondering if anyone actively maintained this site, so it's nice finding some confirmation on that matter. It is a shame, but at the same time I can't complain so much, because it almost feels natural for a site based on CAS to be as dusty and eerily quiet as the catacombs of Zothique or Yoh-Vombis. I dislike the commercialization and franchising of Lovecraft, turning the "Cthulhu Mythos" into a geeky pastime, when it was probably better left as a dead memetic artifact of literary history. I'd hate for CAS to become such a circus.

As for the decline of the west, I think that's a melodramatic way of putting it, and maybe slightly pompous, but I do agree that the fabrics of culture are deteriorating in many crippling ways. It's troubling when the general public decrees Marvel movies, Disney movies, and the latest anime series to be high-quality art or intelligent media, and when sensational and overreactive news is considered good journalism, and when all you need to be considered a great mind or even just a good person is to repeat bland truisms everyone else has been repeating for a few decades.

Such is life, I suppose, but as long as I can find a comfortable niche for myself, I can manage.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11 May 19 | 11:57AM by Yluos.

Sawfish and Yluos, I fully agree with both your views of present times.
Yluos, you capture well the cancerous outgrowth of disgusting commercialization. And, as a further expression of that, the widespread false pandering to mediocrity. It's all in the forced interest of the top bankers.
Sawfish, thanks for your frankness! Nothing wrong with being 'panzaic'. Whatever it means! (I searched high and low, it's not even found in my foot-thick Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary!) But I am sure I agree; food, drink, the flesh, our natural biological hedonistic heritage. It needs of course be balanced by intellectual and aesthetic quality; because otherwise life will be unbearable, a cesspool of self-deceit. And science, fantasy, and Art is, after all, the highest level of exhilaration!

Hah! Probably I misspelled it. It is taken from the character Sancho Panza in Don Quixote. He was an earthy peasant interested only in the simple, sensual life.

Good, pleasant exchange! Thanks!

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Naw, it's just the consistent stupidity of most of the discussion here. One would've thought that might fix itself after certain folks departed, but not so much.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Eldritch Dark can have the characteristic
> silence of the tomb, much in line with the spirit
> of its subject matter. As long as this is accepted
> and agreed upon, this is a fine place with
> occasional inflorescence of comments.
>
> I believe the site owner, as well as others once
> prominent posters, have not commented here in
> several years. There used to be a lot more
> activity. My own personal view of the reason for
> this lessening, is the decline of the West. The
> West is moving into a dark age, that will call for
> hardships. The signs for this have been extra
> prominent over the last ten years. In such times
> sensitive dreamers and fantasists tend to
> withdraw. Some go into depression. (The more
> superficial and confused welcome the new world
> order destructive changes, and think there is
> still a party going on.) My way of handling this,
> as well as can be, is to stay in the small world
> as much as possible, away from regulated society;
> actively seek Nature, Art, and creativity, and
> pray to the cosmic God for guidance and upheld
> ecstatic inspiration.

We might also consider more mundane explanations. The current population pyramid, for example. Many CAS hardcore fans are/were babyboomers. Not all of them, but probably most. Some of them are gone, the others are not getting any younger, and they probably got tired of debating over the same subjects over and over again after a few decades. And younger generations have other fish to fry. Yet they still read. As a small press owner I can assure you they do, perhaps even more than we did. And as Sawfish aptly pointed out, the subject is, after all, finite.

Hah!

A funny thought occurred to me. Since the topic of CAS and his works is indeed finite, and it's been plowed over pretty thoroughly and repeatedly, now is the time for the revisionists among us to step forward...

Might CAS, as a callow youth, have been complicit in the assassination of Archduke Frznz Ferdinand? Perhaps it was CAS, as the driver of the car, who came back around that second, fateful, time...

Might Jack the Ripper have been CAS's true father?

Why stop there? Just as in any History department of any respectable college or university, if one wants to make a name for one's self, and all the data has been thoroughly explored, just make up some new sources, or invent entire implausible scenarios.

What fun!

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's a shame there aren't so many people of my generation who are aware of CAS, and the few who are either don't read his work (relying on Cthulhu Mythos wiki pages for bare-bones information), or read them with the intent of scanning for ideas they can adapt into role-playing campaigns. It's not like CAS is difficult to find, for not only does this site exist but many decently-priced books on Amazon as well. There are countless legions of Lovecraft fans, including people younger than me, so I don't understand why CAS is practically unknown in this sphere, especially when people are still designing fan art of his creatures. Atlach-Nacha is drawn fairly often these days, usually by people who call him (or rather, her) a creation of Lovecraft's.

It can feel a bit lonely for a newcomer like me, not that I actively seek others to talk about this with, but it creates a melancholy impression like I missed out on a literary gold rush.

While I would agree that, to all appearances, society seems to be disintegrating, I think this may be as much apparent as genuine. Not that I mean we aren't seeing a dreadful inversion of values, but that this is hardly the first time in human history this has been the case. What makes it different now is how easily we are made aware of this on an immediate, personal level; whereas in earlier times it was much less likely to be "in your face" because of the lack of such rapid access to what is going on in a wider sphere than our own. I tend to be pessimistic about these things myself (always have been) but these days I've also had reason to question how valid such a view is when taken in context. True, what we see on the web is largely blather by semi-literate or ignorant people... but not entirely. (Nor is ignorance necessarily a pejorative statement; it simply means to be unaware of, and that is something that can be remedied.) I've also encountered an encouraging number of younger people who are becoming aware of these things as they explore what is out there -- very much the traditional province of youth -- and no few of whom find it worth exploring further. (Just as, on another level, the actual facts of the percentage of youth which are becoming more savvy and politically active, concerned about what is going on, is actually growing rather than diminishing. But often the ones who are active are more concerned about being involved than about complaining, or vocal about how useless it all is, so we don't hear about them nearly as much. Nonetheless, the studies I've seen or heard about tend to indicate this is the case.)

I'm reminded, for instance, of something that happened some years ago when I was working at a science-fiction, fantasy, horror, and mystery book store.... I was doing inventory when a group of late high-school, early college students came in, and happened to overhear part of their conversation. The first thing I caught was: "Yeah, she was known as the IT girl". And the first thought that sprang into my head was "No; they can't possibly be talking about Clara Bow"... but they were. And Buster Keaton, and Harold Lloyd, and a host of other silent film stars. Their conversation went from there to a knowledgeable discussion of the writers of the era and on up to inheritors of those traditions in the present. Nor was this an obviously academically-inspired conversation. These kids were simply people who had discovered these things on their own, and began to explore further; widening their circle of awareness, and beginning to assess critical valuations as they went along. We had a lovely discussion -- me nearly 40 years their senior, yet very cordially accepted into the conversation once I ventured a comment -- and they left with an enthusiastic determination to look up some of the subjects I had brought into the discussion. Nor has this been the only incident of this sort I've encountered; far from it.

So, no, I'm not as inclined to dismiss the future as I have, throughout my life, tended to be. The dross has always been there, and has (I think from my own reading and experiences) always been much more numerous than the gold... but the gold is still very much there, and probably no less quantitatively than it has ever been. It may, in fact, be very slightly increasing... and that is encouraging.

On the subject of what has happened with Lovecraft's mythos... again, I would agree that there has been a dreadful lot of nonsense written with this as subject matter... yet what is of value has hardly been exhausted; from some of what I've seen, it has only begun to be tapped, as newer generations of writers are reading Lovecraft more closely, taking on his ideas and their implications, and then addressing them in their own voices and manner, and often applying his philosophical and mythic views to modern concerns and happenings. This, too, (in my view) is a good thing. What HPL did, just as what Poe, or Maupassant, or Flaubert, did, is to open doors and begin the trailblazing; it can still remain vital and breathing today in skilled hands, and often is. For example, some -- by no means all, but nonetheless a surprising number -- of the small or independent films inspired by Lovecraft's work (not necessarily adaptations of his work, but continuing in his vein) are really quite good. One should not look for "Lovecraft", but his influence, the traditions he began; these are being explored in a variety of ways, as is the case with any living artistic concept. That, too, is encouraging. The same may be happening with Smith, as I see more and more editions of his work appearing... which indicates a market which has most definitely grown since I first became aware of him about a half-century ago. I've not seen much of that, it's true; but it may simply be that Smith has taken a bit longer to reach his audience than was the case with HPL. At any rate, I'm not nearly so inclined to dismiss the possibility, or the current/future audience as I have been most of my life. Perhaps this is simply encroaching senility on my part; but the fact that we do have younger members here, sometimes providing thoughtful comments or beginning threads worthy of following up, argues against that, I think.

Thus my thoughts, for what they're worth....

To jdworth,

I can see your points and there's validity when considered in a certain context; e.g., the ease of dissemination of information, including literary works, brings more inquisitive minds to the fray.

And, too, past eras have seen their relative ups and downs.

But his is different, and to put it simply, so far s I can see, as a 71-year old observer in a west coast urban center, the aspirational is out of vogue. In its place is its active rejection. It is, for the first time I've seen, popular, culturally widespread nihilism.

So what's wrong with this? It's that while the wealthy can afford to be blasé and decadent, the common man cannot. Discontent sets in, and in its wake comes manipulation--either concerning material possessions/acquisitions, or ephemeral and malleable qualities such as social justice, which are for the most part subjective.

And to turn this around is very, very hard to do, short of an existential emergency, and this is quite simple, really: aspiration and its realization are hard, and have effort and disappointment along the way, while eschewing effort and aspiration as pointless or uncool, is easy, and pays off socially in the present.

Certinly I'd be interested in hearing your (or anyone else's) thoughts on this. I'd love to be shown that I'm fundamentally wrong... :^)

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would say that you raise some very valid concerns; ones which I share. As far as what we are seeing politically/socially... yes, we are in a very precarious position at present. What gives me hope is, as I noted, that we have an ever-increasing number of younger people who are concerned about these very things and committed to defending the better core values. This is by no means a certain outcome... but, again, time is on their side, as is the amount of energy youth can bring to such struggles. Moreover, because of the ease of information access, and ease of ability in creating a network to combat such problems, they are able to strategize their battles, and that is a ray of hope. It's one hell of a dark time with this, but (perhaps oddly) it seems to me that the clouds are beginning to break. I could be wrong. But, frustrating and even infuriating as a huge amount of what I see going on is... I also see a growing resistance to this mindset, and for the first time in a long while, I have some hope.

jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would say that you raise some very valid
> concerns; ones which I share. As far as what we
> are seeing politically/socially... yes, we are in
> a very precarious position at present. What gives
> me hope is, as I noted, that we have an
> ever-increasing number of younger people who are
> concerned about these very things and committed to
> defending the better core values. This is by no
> means a certain outcome... but, again, time is on
> their side, as is the amount of energy youth can
> bring to such struggles. Moreover, because of the
> ease of information access, and ease of ability in
> creating a network to combat such problems, they
> are able to strategize their battles, and that is
> a ray of hope. It's one hell of a dark time with
> this, but (perhaps oddly) it seems to me that the
> clouds are beginning to break. I could be wrong.
> But, frustrating and even infuriating as a huge
> amount of what I see going on is... I also see a
> growing resistance to this mindset, and for the
> first time in a long while, I have some hope.

This is fine, but I see it differently. And in the interests of openness, I'll make it clear that day-to-day politics, and indeed, social concerns don't interest me much because time has proven them to be transient.

But underlying all this is that once down the easy path, it takes one order of magnitude more resolve to turn back. And I sincerely believe that just after WWII, we (western industrialized nations) began to shy away from aspirational challenge, and permitted the common man (me) to think that daily pleasures and satisfactions are sufficient goals in life.

So for whatever reasons I ended up resisting this, and about the time I was preparing to pat myself on the back, I realized that what I had done was nothing more, or less, than almost all preceding US generations since the opening of the frontier, at least.

So I realized that my effort to pull off of the easy road was historically trivial, and found that only a few are prepared to make this effort at any time, but if the culture supports the pursuit of aspirational goals, it helps to motivate one along.

This cultural support is all gone.

I have a daughter who is graduating from an east coast elite college. Very hard to get into, and one would expect , therefore, those there to represent the cream of the intellectual crop. But the idea of aspiring to a shared national goal, one that appeals to a farmer in Nebraska as much as a social worker in DC, is almost alien to them. They are, and I do not exaggerate this, playing a game in which finding, and criticizing past wrongs saps them of any impetus to come up with shiny, new generational aspirations.

In conclusion (I hope I haven't bent your ear too much), my wife and I recently saw a single documentary that illustrates the difference between the common national ethos of the late 60s, and today's involuted, self-destructive cycle of non-aspiration. The film is "Apollo 11". a remarkable documentary on the lunar landing mission, with no narration or voice-over, only the comments recorded at the time.

If you remember the event, as I feel you probably do, see it if you can, and you'll understand what separate previous generations from the current one. We had our moon landing and our parents had the Depression and WWII. There is nothing at al like this for any living Millennial.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree with jdworth that there is certainly no lack of good young individuals today. Many are very keenly intellectual, and potentially brilliant. Both in literature and art, ... and also in politics, much thanks to the Internet which gives them a chance to get in underneath and analyze rigid and corrupt political systems. And there is now a fast political awakening, that wasn't possible a few decades ago when information came to the people vertically, from top and down, selectively screened by those in political office and by the owners of newspapers and TV to suit their own long-term interests. Today, with the Internet, information flows horizontally, the spread is phenomenal, and every citizen has potential access to a vast amount of information. The political system becomes more translucent than it was before, its faults and potential corruption are more difficult to hide. So we may just have an upcoming revolution in the making (against those I describe in the next paragraph). Things are beginning to topple. Or else, if we fail, we will be completely subdued.

It's not the people that is the problem. People today are pretty much the same as they were a century ago (they may even have taken a few evolutionary steps forward genetically). The PROBLEM is that the masses (most of which live rather mundane, materialistic, and non-intellectual lives, mostly enjoying down to earth common pleasures) are corrupted into decadence by those who manage vast amounts of money, who own and shape the multinational corporations market, the financial institutions and banks including the Federal Reserve, all the established media houses and the entertainment 'Hollywood' industry, and they select and finance the politicians for the "democracy" elections. One may say they have TOTAL control over society, over economy, politics, law, the military, ... even manipulating our culture and values to conform submissively under their control; in short, we are turned into uninformed consumers slaves. It is all well-nigh too horrible and unbearable for most intelligent people to even think about. But if we are able to endure Smith's and Lovecraft's cosmic abysmal horrors, I think we can handle and stand up firmly against this living perversity too.
John F. Kennedy here describes this elite group: John F. Kennedy speech. The speech in full version: John F. Kennedy speech, Full version

Anyhow, in keeping with good debate-climate, this is my personal view on matters.

Chipougne Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...
> And as Sawfish aptly pointed out, the subject is,
> after all, finite.


But is the subject really finite? Does not Smith's writings get wider and deeper, the more wisdom a reader has? Or is it boundaried to transient entertainment?

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chipougne Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ...
> > And as Sawfish aptly pointed out, the subject
> is,
> > after all, finite.
>
>
> But is the subject really finite? Does not Smith's
> writings get wider and deeper, the more wisdom a
> reader has? Or is it boundaried to transient
> entertainment?

There are many fascinating and stimulating points being made in this thread, but as a young'n striving to escape the stifling influence of his parents, I feel it best to read and learn from you all before making any of my own statements on the matter.

This, however, is definitely something I can discuss. My girlfriend and I, both of the millennial generation, enjoy discussing Smith's work from time to time. With our rabbit-hole imaginations and our shared desire to learn and feel, it is difficult to exhaust any subject. In Smith we can discuss matters of art, history, science, sentiment, morality, fantasy, reality, beauty, ugliness, people, monsters, etc. With her I found stories I previously neglected, such as The Gorgon and A Voyage to Sfanomoë, to be deeply personal favorites. So from my own experience, nothing of substance can be exhausted; it's just unfortunate that the usual crowd isn't very interested in pursuing things so deeply or passionately.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 13 May 19 | 10:17PM by Yluos.

First, I would say that, while there are certainly pieces by Smith which fall into that category, there is a considerable amount which, like all worthwhile art, does indeed grow with the reader. It may not be truly infinite in its possibilities, but I think that, the more we see genuine scholarly work and interpretation of various aspects of his work done, it is likely as close to that as we are going to find.

Second: Sawfish, I quite understand that point of view, and have subscribed to it most of my life... and to some extent, still do. However... I sense an awakening that may well turn that around. It has only just begun making itself evident, so it may be too early to judge, but I think we have a better chance than I would have given us a few years ago. As for the elite colleges... I think HPL put that one in perspective when he remarked on how inspissated these "best people" often were. Just because a school has such a reputation, and is difficult to get into, and may indeed be academically excellent, is absolutely no guarantee of it being worthwhile in the arena we are discussing. That quality is as likely to be found in a "cow college" as the highest of the ivy leagues, as it has little to do with the sorts of academic concerns the latter emphasize.

I thank you for the suggestion, and will look it up. Yes, I recall the event very well (at least, as well as is likely over such a span of time, when I was quite young at that point), and would be very interested in seeing the documentary. Again, on a related note, I had a little news item about the "shrinking moon" and moonquakes pop up on my screen today and, in looking up the most accurate source for information on the actual facts, went to the NASA site. That the moon is shrinking is hardly news; that moonquakes occur even less so. But the piece they had there ended with the note that, by 2024 they plan on landing the first woman on the moon, and shortly thereafter establishing sustainable lunar travel, extending outward from there before mid-century. They are looking forward to expanding our horizons, and that is still an idea which can motivate a lot of people. I think, from my experience and reading, that there is a growing number who are dissatisfied with the situation you describe, and who are looking for viable, creative, and constructive solutions to it. That is a part of the pattern I'm beginning to see emerge. If I am right, it's going to take a long while (trite as the saying is, destruction is easy; construction is quite another thing altogether) but, again, I have hope. I'm unlikely to live to see a lot of it (though I'd love to be proven wrong on that), but it really does seem a growing number of people are looking for something better, something which fills that gap that Jung spoke of, if in a way different from the traditional. I think that is something we would both fervently like to see.

Thanks for the thoughtful, cogent reply.

You related an anecdote about some young people who came into the bookstore in which you worked, and that you had overheard the expressed thoughts of these young people, and that these expressed thoughts were encouraging.

I have no doubt that such individuals exist, but I'd resist ascribing this to the broad demographic. I'd contend that the fact that they had come into your store, voluntarily, means that they are essentially pre-filtered--that they do not represent their peer group in any real sense. You were overhearing the imaginative dreamers of their cohort. I'd identify Yluos and his girlfriend, with their affinity for art and inquiry, to be among this number. This is to say, they are part of a shrinking minority, not a growing groundswell. And they may ask themselves: do we feel part of something much larger that's emerging, or do we feel like a remnant of a previous time, a pair of throwbacks to an earlier era?

Knygatin identifies the multitude of information sources that seem to make knowledge democratic, and hence makes it difficult to sustain a corrupt status quo. My personal questions are: by what assurance do we feel that the information is accurate? If we cannot assure the accuracy and impartiality of the source--and I don't see how we can--this makes it essential that each individual is educated to the methods skeptical inquiry--which is a hell of a lot of work, not to be untaken lightly except by those who enjoy the critical exercise--so as to objectively qualify all of this wealth of information, and yet I see the opposite: I see a willingness to adopt information based not on individual analysis, but on the trustworthiness of the purveyor of the information. In internet terms, did you "like" the source? Does the information therefore feel like it *ought* to be true? If you did, why then, by God!, the information is valid! If you didn't "like" them, then it's false.

I see this *all* the time.

So instead of liberating the masses, it is as I had postulated earlier: the masses are being manipulated by any self-serving and charismatic person, passing as a leader of sorts. And in a way we're worse off than before the information deluge. Before, at least we understood that we did not see the entire picture. Now, we still do not see it, but we fervently believe that we *do*.

But, as always, these are only my opinions, and I could be wrong...

:^)

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with jdworth that there is certainly no
> lack of good young individuals today. Many are
> very keenly intellectual, and potentially
> brilliant. Both in literature and art, ... and
> also in politics, much thanks to the Internet
> which gives them a chance to get in underneath and
> analyze rigid and corrupt political systems. And
> there is now a fast political awakening, that
> wasn't possible a few decades ago when information
> came to the people vertically, from top and down,
> selectively screened by those in political office
> and by the owners of newspapers and TV to suit
> their own long-term interests. Today, with the
> Internet, information flows horizontally, the
> spread is phenomenal, and every citizen has
> potential access to a vast amount of information.
> The political system becomes more translucent than
> it was before, its faults and potential corruption
> are more difficult to hide. So we may just have an
> upcoming revolution in the making (against those I
> describe in the next paragraph). Things are
> beginning to topple. Or else, if we fail, we will
> be completely subdued.
>
> It's not the people that is the problem. People
> today are pretty much the same as they were a
> century ago (they may even have taken a few
> evolutionary steps forward genetically). The
> PROBLEM is that the masses (most of which live
> rather mundane, materialistic, and
> non-intellectual lives, mostly enjoying down to
> earth common pleasures) are corrupted into
> decadence by those who manage vast amounts of
> money, who own and shape the multinational
> corporations market, the financial institutions
> and banks including the Federal Reserve, all the
> established media houses and the entertainment
> 'Hollywood' industry, and they select and finance
> the politicians for the "democracy" elections. One
> may say they have TOTAL control over society, over
> economy, politics, law, the military, ... even
> manipulating our culture and values to conform
> submissively under their control; in short, we are
> turned into uninformed consumers slaves. It is all
> well-nigh too horrible and unbearable for most
> intelligent people to even think about. But if we
> are able to endure Smith's and Lovecraft's cosmic
> abysmal horrors, I think we can handle and stand
> up firmly against this living perversity too.
> John F. Kennedy here describes this elite group:
> John F. Kennedy speech. The speech in full
> version: John F. Kennedy speech, Full version
>
> Anyhow, in keeping with good debate-climate, this
> is my personal view on matters.


Thanks for the links.

I viewed/read the full version, and would note that the speech, itself, was an eloquent call to both the government and the press to act in a cooperative and responsible manner as regards their respective functions in the public interest. It was a call for compromise.

I cannot even conceive that such a speech, with its appeals to the common good and not to fragmented social segments and interests, could be given, nor would anyone take it seriously, thinking it hopelessly naive and anchored to the status quo, or to the sin-laden past.

It really is a different world, today.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps I was not clear in my earlier posts in drawing the distinction I had intended. The story I mentioned was by no means the basis on which I have come to my present conclusions (always open to change given evidence), but merely a personal anecdote which the discussion reminded me of and which was related to what I was saying. What has made me shift my opinions is rather a growing number of polls (scientific and otherwise) which indicates such a groundswell is indeed taking place, but it is currently in its early stages. It could, of course, collapse. It could take the wrong path to clear this up and make things worse. Or it could, just maybe, succeed in helping to clear away some of this; enough to make even more people aware how much better things can be for them on multiple levels if they also take a different path.

What you refer to in the majority of your post is simply "confirmation bias", and is something we are all humanly prone to.
That is what has always made it difficult for people to change their minds on things, particularly if it is what is called a "core value", something which has become so important in someone's belief system that it is (emotionally, at least) tied in with their own self-image and self-esteem, their Weltanschauung, that the very idea of altering that belief becomes alien, threatening to their personal integrity, on one or more levels. What helps to combat that, is that it has become more and more recognized as a common trait to us all, whether it is linked to the so-called "Dunning-Kruger effect" or some other psychological term, and therefore one should use extreme caution in going with such a "gut" response. After all, one of the things we've learned as we've gone along is that much of what we thought of as "common sense", or obviously right about the world and universe around us is simply the result of our evolving in an environment which does not obviously exhibit much of the minute causes underlying apparent phenomena, at least to a species with our sensory equipment -- something which itself evolved slowly, haltingly, in just efficient enough a manner to allow us to survive to this stage, but with no guarantee that we would make it any further. Whether we do or not may well depend on our ability to utilize our higher brain functions to go beyond what we might call the "usual senses" upon which we have relied throughout most of our history, and combine the two to understand our environment (and this includes the environment we have forged through whatever means, including legal and political, which is why these things, to me, really have taken on an importance I was initially thoroughly disinclined to give them, for a multitude of reasons) and adapt to it in one form or another.

Part of that environment that we have, so far, neglected to come to terms with (though we were making some strides in that direction during the 1960s, 70s, and early 80s, and in some circles are still making such strides, though the news of these has largely been shunted aside in favor of more "sensational" news which also tends to be more simple-minded and easier to convey or understand, relying on aforementioned mental preconditioning) is our mental environment, recognizing it (the so-called "spiritual", for lack of a better term, being a large part of it) as a vital part of our functioning as human beings... or, as evidence begins to mount, any kind of sentient being. (See the research which has been done on the similarities between various other animals and ourselves, including many species having some form of a sense of fairness or "justice"; empathy; a number of emotions including genuine grief, etc. Some of this is actually quite revolutionary to normal thought, and yet the more sophisticated tools and techniques which we are now able to use makes it very hard to dismiss the results as bias on the part of the researchers, many of whom went into the field believing the exact opposite of that they found their results to indicate.) Ensuring our survival and ability to continue to adapt to an environment which, because of our growing awareness of things which would have seemed quite impossible to earlier generations as not only possible, but genuinely having existed all around us without our being aware of them, is going to require such shifts in thought, most importantly perhaps being the acceptance of our mental life as being an absolutely necessary part of our physical existence. This is going to be a very, very long road, taking (assuming we give ourselves what we need to survive that long) millennia at least... but it is my firm conviction, after much consideration, that making that shift is inevitably tied into said survival for much longer.

Fortunately, as I noted, I am seeing a growing number of pieces of evidence -- disparate and by no means always easy to find; much of what I have found has been happenstance, and scattered throughout a wide variety of sources, from differing parts of the spectrum -- which indicates that such a thing just may be taking place; quietly and slowly at first (after all, it is a nascent field of study/thought, at least within the larger realm rather than the mystic or poetically inclined), but growing, as more people become aware of how shallow their lives are in comparison with what is simply waiting for them to investigate it. I do agree, however, that (and this is part of my complaint against our educational system, which has by and large failed abysmally on this count) one of the primary keys to this process is the ability to think critically, and sift information with some degree of acumen. But, as I noted (I hope, cogently enough) this seems to be emerging alongside this shift. It isn't entirely successful, as the current rise of such things as "flat-eartherism" or other long-exploded beliefs indicates; but it does seem to be gaining ground. Took me a long time to come around to that view... but I'm getting there.

jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps I was not clear in my earlier posts in
> drawing the distinction I had intended. The story
> I mentioned was by no means the basis on which I
> have come to my present conclusions (always open
> to change given evidence), but merely a personal
> anecdote which the discussion reminded me of and
> which was related to what I was saying. What has
> made me shift my opinions is rather a growing
> number of polls (scientific and otherwise) which
> indicates such a groundswell is indeed taking
> place, but it is currently in its early stages. It
> could, of course, collapse. It could take the
> wrong path to clear this up and make things worse.
> Or it could, just maybe, succeed in helping to
> clear away some of this; enough to make even more
> people aware how much better things can be for
> them on multiple levels if they also take a
> different path.

If you are willing could you point to an example of the social change that may be a part of the groundswell to which you refer?

I'll make it clear and honest: we may disagree, but I will respect your opinions as well-informed and thoughtful. I enjoy exchanges in which there is mutual respect shown.

>
> What you refer to in the majority of your post is
> simply "confirmation bias", and is something we
> are all humanly prone to.

Very possible. I try to forcibly keep an open mind, but being a human, it has its inherent limitations.

> That is what has always made it difficult for
> people to change their minds on things,
> particularly if it is what is called a "core
> value", something which has become so important in
> someone's belief system that it is (emotionally,
> at least) tied in with their own self-image and
> self-esteem, their Weltanschauung, that the very
> idea of altering that belief becomes alien,
> threatening to their personal integrity, on one or
> more levels. What helps to combat that, is that it
> has become more and more recognized as a common
> trait to us all, whether it is linked to the
> so-called "Dunning-Kruger effect" or some other
> psychological term, and therefore one should use
> extreme caution in going with such a "gut"
> response.

All fine, so far, but I will let you know that for the better part of my life I tended to disavow the existence of intuition ("gut") as a pseudo-sense that may have some value in life;I thought it was superstitious self-delusion. I've come gradually to the belief that what is called intuition, or "gut" is an evolved ability to sense minor social signals, almost subliminally, and to be presented with a non-verbal evaluation.

At a certain point I began to do business-type negotiations, and it was during this period that I came to be aware that my "gut" was seldom wrong in detecting nervousness, anxiety, considered falsehood, etc., on the part of those with whom I was negotiating. So I've come to not only recognize it as an attribute, but to value it in certain situations.


> After all, one of the things we've
> learned as we've gone along is that much of what
> we thought of as "common sense",

We need to carefully distinguish "common sense" from "common knowledge". They are vastly different.

> or obviously
> right about the world and universe around us is
> simply the result of our evolving in an
> environment which does not obviously exhibit much
> of the minute causes underlying apparent
> phenomena, at least to a species with our sensory
> equipment -- something which itself evolved
> slowly, haltingly, in just efficient enough a
> manner to allow us to survive to this stage, but
> with no guarantee that we would make it any
> further. Whether we do or not may well depend on
> our ability to utilize our higher brain functions
> to go beyond what we might call the "usual senses"
> upon which we have relied throughout most of our
> history, and combine the two to understand our
> environment (and this includes the environment we
> have forged through whatever means, including
> legal and political, which is why these things, to
> me, really have taken on an importance I was
> initially thoroughly disinclined to give them, for
> a multitude of reasons) and adapt to it in one
> form or another.

This seemed a bit divergent, but what I'm getting seems like "common knowledge". This is the sum of all commonly collected observed phenomena and its interpretation by the vast majority of the society.

So, "All gypsies steal," is such common knowledge, but it's a flawed or exaggerated assumption that can be disproven by finding only one honest gypsy. And just to make things complicated, there most certainly are valid instances of common knowledge. But valid or invalid, it is essentially argument from authority, not independently arrived at.

"Common sense" is a personal extrapolation of inductive logic: "I've seen a cow jump when it touches this fence, and therefore I believe I would be hurt if I touch it." It's an attempt to circumscribe the effects of a newly encountered phenomenon or situation in terms of empirical knowledge, to the degree that it exists. It *is* independently arrived at, and is often ad hoc.

So yep, I do not trust common knowledge without independent verification. I frequently trust my own common sense.

>
> Part of that environment that we have, so far,
> neglected to come to terms with (though we were
> making some strides in that direction during the
> 1960s, 70s, and early 80s, and in some circles are
> still making such strides, though the news of
> these has largely been shunted aside in favor of
> more "sensational" news which also tends to be
> more simple-minded and easier to convey or
> understand, relying on aforementioned mental
> preconditioning) is our mental environment,
> recognizing it (the so-called "spiritual", for
> lack of a better term, being a large part of it)
> as a vital part of our functioning as human
> beings... or, as evidence begins to mount, any
> kind of sentient being. (See the research which
> has been done on the similarities between various
> other animals and ourselves, including many
> species having some form of a sense of fairness or
> "justice"; empathy; a number of emotions including
> genuine grief, etc. Some of this is actually quite
> revolutionary to normal thought, and yet the more
> sophisticated tools and techniques which we are
> now able to use makes it very hard to dismiss the
> results as bias on the part of the researchers,
> many of whom went into the field believing the
> exact opposite of that they found their results to
> indicate.) Ensuring our survival and ability to
> continue to adapt to an environment which, because
> of our growing awareness of things which would
> have seemed quite impossible to earlier
> generations as not only possible, but genuinely
> having existed all around us without our being
> aware of them, is going to require such shifts in
> thought, most importantly perhaps being the
> acceptance of our mental life as being an
> absolutely necessary part of our physical
> existence. This is going to be a very, very long
> road, taking (assuming we give ourselves what we
> need to survive that long) millennia at least...
> but it is my firm conviction, after much
> consideration, that making that shift is
> inevitably tied into said survival for much
> longer.

A lot of what you are raising seems related to the thoughts of Depak Chopra, and his ideas of consciousness.

>
> Fortunately, as I noted, I am seeing a growing
> number of pieces of evidence -- disparate and by
> no means always easy to find;

...and hopefully this evidence is not merely more formally constructed confirmation bias, as in the SRI parapsychology studies of the 1970s...

[en.wikipedia.org]

And of course, when one obtains one's information from studies, one must always make certain that one is not indulging in one's own level of confirmation bias in accepting the results of the study. Another name for this is "evidence shopping".

> much of what I have
> found has been happenstance, and scattered
> throughout a wide variety of sources, from
> differing parts of the spectrum -- which indicates
> that such a thing just may be taking place;
> quietly and slowly at first (after all, it is a
> nascent field of study/thought, at least within
> the larger realm rather than the mystic or
> poetically inclined), but growing, as more people
> become aware of how shallow their lives are in
> comparison with what is simply waiting for them to
> investigate it.

Some actual, or even hypothetical concrete examples would be helpful here.


> I do agree, however, that (and
> this is part of my complaint against our
> educational system, which has by and large failed
> abysmally on this count) one of the primary keys
> to this process is the ability to think
> critically, and sift information with some degree
> of acumen.

By definition, this is unlikely to happen in a broad-based public education system because such systems must rely on the support of the community, and must therefore make an attempt to reflect its values, such as they are.

So I'm saying that while it may be good policy to hire teachers who understand and teach critical thinking skills, if this does not sit well with the public, it will not happen consistently, nor for very long.

> But, as I noted (I hope, cogently
> enough) this seems to be emerging alongside this
> shift.

If this is happening on a significant scale, I've not seen it. I *have* seen examples of critical thinking taught (and practiced by students) in fairly insular communities, however. For example, just as their are private schools that teach Creationism and the existence of divinity with no robust and repeatable independent proof (essentially arguments from authority), there are also schools that teach problem solving based on the scientific method, on dialectics, and on a fair level of historical inquiry in literary readings.

>It isn't entirely successful, as the
> current rise of such things as "flat-eartherism"
> or other long-exploded beliefs indicates; but it
> does seem to be gaining ground. Took me a long
> time to come around to that view... but I'm
> getting there.

Where is the "there"?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > John F. Kennedy here describes this elite
> group:
> > John F. Kennedy speech. The speech in full
> > version: John F. Kennedy speech, Full version

>
>
> Thanks for the links.
>
> I viewed/read the full version, and would note
> that the speech, itself, was an eloquent call to
> both the government and the press to act in a
> cooperative and responsible manner as regards
> their respective functions in the public interest.
> It was a call for compromise.
>
> I cannot even conceive that such a speech, with
> its appeals to the common good and not to
> fragmented social segments and interests, could be
> given, nor would anyone take it seriously,
> thinking it hopelessly naive and anchored to the
> status quo, or to the sin-laden past.
>
> It really is a different world, today.


Naive, well yes, his appeal to the press here seems naive, JFK perhaps not fully realizing that the secret global society of which he warns actually owns the press itself.

Having reviewed both links again, I think JFK's important message that I referred to, is drowned in the full version's general lengthy appeal for honesty in news coverage to the American Newspapers Publishers Association. The specific message (captured in the short version link) is a small seed of revelation that he dares to plant within the speech as a whole.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Knygatin Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > John F. Kennedy here describes this elite
> > group:
> > > John F. Kennedy speech. The speech in full
> > > version: John F. Kennedy speech, Full version
>
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the links.
> >
> > I viewed/read the full version, and would note
> > that the speech, itself, was an eloquent call
> to
> > both the government and the press to act in a
> > cooperative and responsible manner as regards
> > their respective functions in the public
> interest.
> > It was a call for compromise.
> >
> > I cannot even conceive that such a speech, with
> > its appeals to the common good and not to
> > fragmented social segments and interests, could
> be
> > given, nor would anyone take it seriously,
> > thinking it hopelessly naive and anchored to
> the
> > status quo, or to the sin-laden past.
> >
> > It really is a different world, today.
>
>
> Naive, well yes, his appeal to the press here
> seems naive,

Not at the time, in my opinion. It would be viewed as naive *today*. I was not clear enough in my original comment.

You recall those times, surely, and the general trust of authority that eroded after Vietnam and Watergate.

> JFK perhaps not fully realizing that
> the secret global society of which he warns
> actually owns the press itself.
>
> Having reviewed both links again, I think JFK's
> important message that I referred to, is drowned
> in the full version's general lengthy appeal for
> honesty in news coverage to the American
> Newspapers Publishers Association. The specific
> message (captured in the short version link) is a
> small seed of revelation that he dares to plant
> within the speech as a whole.


Having read the entire speech, I find that I must disagree with your assessment that the main theme of it was to expose a cabal of manipulators. He mentions control over public information in the context of our opponents in he Cold War, and this was not directed at the American press, but rather was used as a contrast to it. The main thrust of the speech was to ask the US press to exercise restraint when reporting sensitive details of US policy and technology. In return, he promised to make information from US agencies more free and open. That was what the speech was all about: recent leaks of information to the East Bloc, by the US press, was the reason for the speech.

I also do not believe that looking at only a selected part of a speech or written piece, pulling certain parts out of context and estranging them from the general theme, is a sound way to gain valid information. Since he raised the spectre of controlled access to information to the public by press agenices (and here was was referring to TASS and Pravda, most likely), it seems fair to discuss that general concept, but he was not warning about secret manipulators of WESTERN information. He referred to the East Bloc, and basically said "We're not like that, but we have to exercise some common sense in what we publicize.".

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Having read the entire speech, I find that I must
> disagree with your assessment ... He
> mentions control over public information in the
> context of our opponents in he Cold War, and this
> was not directed at the American press, but rather
> was used as a contrast to it. The main thrust of
> the speech was to ask the US press to exercise
> restraint when reporting sensitive details of US
> policy and technology. In return, he promised to
> make information from US agencies more free and
> open. That was what the speech was all about:
> recent leaks of information to the East Bloc, by
> the US press, was the reason for the speech. ...
> Since he raised the
> spectre of controlled access to information to the
> public by press agenices (and here was was
> referring to TASS and Pravda, most likely), it
> seems fair to discuss that general concept, but he
> was not warning about secret manipulators of
> WESTERN information. He referred to the East Bloc,
> and basically said "We're not like that, but we
> have to exercise some common sense in what we
> publicize.".


I did not mean to linger too long over this particular subject, but I feel it is important to the understanding of our current situation in society. I have once again reviewed Kennedy's speech, this time in the written document: John F. Kennedy's speech, April 27, 1961.

Although he is asking the Press to restrain publication of sensitive information about America, he also calls for more public information. And I don't think he is referring to Russia, the East Bloc, or communist spies, neither does he mention those in the speech, (and anti-communist propaganda in the newspapers was already bombarding the population), when he says:


"I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. ... Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. ...

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations."


Kennedy was opposed to the New World Order, world wide control by a single covert society. This speech was held on April 27, 1961. On June 4, 1963, John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110 to expel the private bankers from The Federal Reserve Bank. Shortly after that he was assassinated. This executive order was never executed, and the private bankers still own and control the US Federal Reserve Bank. (Its very name 'Federal' was originally conceitedly given by its private originators, to give it a sham appearance of being a State bank in the service of the people.)

But regardless of Kennedy's speech, I think it is quite clear how money rules the world today, how commercialism of the multinational corporations control economy, politics, and consumption; in short, they control our lives. That is my convinced opinion.

He who seeks, will find. If anyone is further interested in this subject, I would suggest for introduction the lucid documentary about fractional-reserve banking The Money Lenders, or perhaps the book The Web of Debt.
Otherwise I think you should just stay away from it, because it can be depressing, and there isn't much we ordinary mortals can do about it.

jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

Pardon me if this response is offtopic but I needed to get your attention, since it's been years since you've been accessible on SFFC and I've been a bit worried if you were okay.

This is David, from SFFC.

I humbly apologise to the Eldritch Dark mods, I've not seen any option for private messages. I'm not trying to be a spammer and have stuff to contribute, honest >_>