Related Articles

3 Comments

  1. 1

    Kristin

    VICKY this is too much information- VALUABLE and fascinating information- in one place. You gotta break this up into manageable chunks for American consumption. Remember, our cognitive skills have been carefully minimized, our ability to select and absorb information is dulled, and our attention spans mimic those of a gnat. The RANBAXY fraud – and the Clinton’s connected to that company, is a story in itself. What I’m saying is, you wrote this for someone with your brain. Most of us Americans don’t have your brain. They can only focus in on one topic at a time. I am going to share this piece, and I hope to God it gets read and shared ad infinitum on the social networks. It needs to be seen. As far as I am concerned, you are more useful and valuable than Mark Levin, who now has his own TV channel that millions of people subscribe to at 10$ a month fee.

    Reply
    1. 1.1

      john boyd

      You are correct about the Brain Science end of the spectrum, Kristin; just look at how may “for dummies” books have proliferated like jackrabbits over the last 30 or whatever years.

      The other the end of the spectrum from the Brain Science side is the Meta-Psychology side (mainline psychology as taught in English-Speaking Universities as a sub-set of sociology and not of philosophy is a whole different rabbit hole that I could probably write a book on if I had the time and money). Other’s might differ, but I define meta-psychology as something that we experience, all the time, and at the end of the day, after being on the consumption end of media all day in a media world of our own making, as opposed to the being part of the creative/imaginative end, we find our identities by “where have been” metaphorically and historically. These vital issues, that need to be shared with those “who are waking” or have become individually strong enough, and aware enough to test all of the truth claims extant, as the context for all media and the way they invest their money and time on print, film, radio, TV etc. relating to this “reality” someone has labeled “meta-psychology. Sounds new agey, doesn’t it?

      Beware the for-profit tube. Beware of bad habits. And for goodness sake accept the fact that sin is real and is made manifest spiritually in the material realm. Vicky is writing from her experiences as a systems analyst, I would think (?)…her mind is wired to see things dynamically and systematically within man-made-systems: and reads and writes in a particular brain-state that I would call Deep Reading; quickly and efficiently. (A little psycho analysis, sorry, Vicki, but that’s true). She is motivated and has developed a good bit of skill by building and maintaining her website, as well. It is not rocket science, but I should be talking.

      She actually needs to be involved as an instructor in a Educational System that only exists in our minds at this time, get it, spiritually. Sounds scary bones, but that’s the truth.

      May I please suggest you get a copy of Jacques Elul’s “The Technological Society” from the 1960’s, and spend as long as you need to (a year?) to go through it completely, and come to your own conclusions. You seem to be on the right track. God Bless You.

      Reply
      1. 1.1.1

        Vicky Davis

        That’s a very interesting comment you’ve written John. I’ve often thought as I was doing research – veering off on some thread not directly connected to my purpose but interesting history just the same, that there is no such thing as a single history. History is in and through the eyes and interests of the person doing the research. What they find will depend on where their interest takes them. I’m on shaky ground here because I haven’t spent a lot of time on it, but I think the ideas behind the Articles of Confederation were drawn from the system of ownership – the landed gentry of England. When the Articles were replaced by the Constitution, I think the founders tried to create a system based on philosophy without a monarch. The Constitution provided the framework for that type of government. Someone interested in philosophy would have a far different view of history than the one that I’m working on. I’m not unmindful of philosophy. It’s just that the discussion of what was intended and what should be relative to what is are not relevant to my purpose. That doesn’t diminish the value of that view of history anymore than it elevates mine. It’s just different.

        My objective is more strategic in terms of defining the problems with our government so that hopefully it can be fixed – returned to a state that I consider will be a good hand off to our progeny. Due to the design of the technological systems of the administrative state relative to globalization, I live in a state of controlled abject terror for the future for our progeny and I can’t rest until I’ve made as many people as possible understand as many elements of these systems along with the history of their evolution as possible. I guess to sum it up, we could say that my view of history is from the engineering of process over time perspective. And my folly is in trying to make that interesting 🙂

        And I should have added that they’ve actually changed our form of government through the design engineering of these technocratic systems.

        Reply

Leave a Reply