Which is/was better~?

~~~

It is hard to write this, because I know as soon as I go `too far` you will `just stop listening`.

~~~

Let’s go back to the Ford Focus. What is it~?

Is it a `Ford Focus`?

In what way is it a `Ford Focus`?

~~~

I’ll stop there.

If you `engaged` with those questions (you `stopped` for a second) (that is, voices-in-your-head came with `answers`) then that is what I would call `listening`.

If you `just read on` with no voices coming-up with `answers`. Then you are the sort that is `deaf` to what I would have said (and, is probably deaf to what most people say, most of the time).

~~~

I put it down to television, but don’t care if that is not in the slightest bit right … that, I `listen` to most everything everyone says (in voice, or print, or what).

But, I find that many people struggle to listen to anything much.

~~~

All of this is very easy to misunderstand.

If someone was telling me what a Ford Focus was … I would listen `quietly` (as in – no (very few) `voices`)

But, like above, if asked a question … voices arise in answer.

~~~

The above, is meant to serve as an opening for asking you what is at the top of your `pyramid of important shit`?

For some (most) it will be `la famiglia`.
Then perhaps `work`.
`Football team`.
`Church`.
`Ford Focus`.
`Getting laid / stoned / elected / … ? …`

~~~

Life leads each-one-of-us to a different pyramidical form.

~~~

I have only listened to the first two minutes thirty nine of this … at-which-point I said to myself that it was not for me.

When the voices start shouting … I think it is best to stop.

~~~

Which is/was better … the `old way` or the `new way`.

Hello … Hello … follow-up question — Why~?

~~~

This is a nigger sitting on a white-folk’s bus (South Africa)

This is an old 747

~~~

  • Axionication3

    The old way was creative (required care, skill and a certain amount of artistic flare). The newer way is a process (little to no creativity required (creativity may even be a hindrance)).
    The old way cost a day’s wage. The new way costs probably 2 hours wage. The old way is a life time to landfill. The new way is 5 years to landfill.

    I think the old way is better (the going into work part).

    (I enjoy globes big time. Had a dimpled one of the moon growing up…loved it (still have it))

    —-
    I will sleep on your bus/747 (don’t get it at this stage).

    • Axionication3

      (I lasted 60 seconds with the Poncy lady. Unable to bear the listening)

      • axel1million

        As an exercise, try and watch the whole video and listen to what she is saying.
        Is what she says true or just a delusion? Or is it a deception, that she is playing on the vulnerable?

        • I do still have the tab open, so may go back to it … but, I think I can answer from the `sum-up` she did at the beginning.

          You and I are `primitives` living on roots’n’stuff down by the river Wimpopo.

          You go wash your root and eat it.
          I eat a soily bit of root.
          You grab it off me, wash it, and give it back to me to eat.
          Fucking Eureka … that’s better. Me wash root now.

          She may be saying useful things (who knows) … but what she is doing is `telling people to wash roots`.
          Basically, they would not do it, unless she told them to.
          She is programming people.

          (whether it is `deception` `playing on the vulnerable` `or what` … is just societies reaction).

          (I could give you all-sorts of representative examples of likely societal reaction, but don’t seem to have any `heartfelt` ones).

          • axel1million

            Yes programming people.
            Programming people is done for certain outcomes.
            The main ones:-
            To get people to do what the programmer wants.
            To help the person being programed.
            Or some mixture of both

            To break it down further, its an attempt for good chemicals for the programmer, for the programed or for both.
            Thing is, brains are complicated and an attempt at good chemical may result in the opposite.
            That’s why everyone has to do their own experimentation into what gives that release of the good chemicals!

        • Axionication3

          I gave it a go to half way. It’s probably useful enough stuff. Not my bag though.

          My biggest annoyance (and it’s me being niggly) is her constant talk along the lines of you having to tell your brain what to do. Five star fine in the pixie world (genuinely no issues with a pixie angle). Problem is i don’t think she does pixie (I may be mistaken).
          Who is the you she keeps referring to?

          (I guess I been hanging too much with my homie Nick)

          • axel1million

            I think the ‘you’ is the part of your brain ‘that knows better’.
            Some part of the brain knows, if one does not (for example) that ist better not to gamble the greater proportion of ones earnings in a casino!
            That’s the problem with humans and the ‘three brain’ system, there is conflict of interest.
            Lets say ‘the neocortex’ is the part that knows better and the reptilian brain is the one who likes to gamble(not completely accurate). The two will argue back and forth and one will win over the other.
            Problem is the neocortex(the one who knows better) will consider procreation to be questionable, so the reptilian brain is needed to ensure the survival of the species.

            No pixies just brain systems!

            • Axionication3

              That was sort of Code Richards angle (if I recall/interpret correctly). It never ‘felt’ right to me (awfully gymnasticly clever and impressive though).

              • axel1million

                No ‘Richard of code’ was arguing from the Kahneman perspective.

                It was I ‘Axel the Almighty’ who was demolishing his arguments with neuroscience!

                • Axionication3

                  Yes, from the K side, But it (the Richard argument) had a other brain part doing stuff. Similar in my ‘feel’ to what you are saying (i of course could be totally mistaken).
                  (If I am not mistaken mistaken, then it is is all unnescisary somersaulting (worth only applause and admiration)).

    • In the `old days` (70’s) … niggers could not ride on that SA bus, but nice white people had plenty of room on a 747.

      Now, everyone can ride on the bus … and be shoved into 747’s.

      ~~~

      That’s the trouble.
      Some things is better … and some things are worser.

      ~~~

      But, the main question is – `How do you know (think you know) which-is-which~?`

      As in – How is your `priority pyramid` constructed~?

      • Axionication3

        I came very close to using the word ‘democratised’ when talking about the globe production/ownership thing.
        This word/concept is equally as applicable to your transport example.

        (((In many ways ‘democratised’ is the elaphant in the room)))

        • `Democratized` could be similar to `equalized`.

          The-thing-is, that either/both are `unnatural`.

          I fear it will be, more like, people all being equal, but some more equal than others (or some similar pretend bollocks).

          It won’t work.
          Natural is a good solid hierarchy.
          You know where you are with a good-solid-hierarchy.

          • Axionication3

            Your ‘upstairs/downstairs people’ way of thinking has always resonated with me.

            • Most everyone is `happier` within externally set boundaries.

  • axel1million

    There are a couple of things.
    The brain/mind can believe anything(I think to the limit of imagination).
    The brain is ‘plastic’ and can change its belief system, which is a physical change in the brain. Thinking can change the brain.
    Your belief was that ‘chicken leg’ lady was talking bollocks and the ‘voices’ said ‘no no no just no!’ and you clicked off.

    The things we hold to be us are just beliefs.
    ‘I’ll stop there'(quoted from above, but I would have used it anyway – or would I? (just my belief?))

    • I will refine (because it is you).
      The brain does not think … it reacts.
      The brain does not `believe different things` … it reacts differently.

      Yes … whatever she said made Mystic home brainium say `no, no, just no` and it clicked off.

      We do not `hold anything to be` … there are `more-or-less consistent / non consistent reactions`.

      • axel1million

        Yeah that is right.
        I had to put it in ‘day to day’ parlance for the wider audience.

        The brain reacts according to its ‘programming’. Like a boulder rolling down the hill will take its path according to (in part) the terrain.
        Thinking changes the terrain of the brain.
        The brain has certain structures(terrains) which produce good feelings(chemicals) or bad ones.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzbHtIrb14s

        • Yes … (me back to day-to-day speak) … these `words` are meant to be `shorthand` tools to help us understand things.

          But … in this case `the mind` `thinking` `believing` `knowing` `etc` (although useful when talking to Aunt Joan about how things were in her day) are NOT useful in talking about what the brain gets-up-to.

          • axel1million

            I suspect the brain doesn’t know what its up to. At least the so called ‘conscious’ part just goes along with what the subconscious does. It rationalises what it does! If it doesn’t like ‘black people’ it will rationalise why that is.

            TED talks being another. It doesn’t like ted talks so it comes up with reasons why and whenever a TED talk appears it sends out some bad feeling chem’s.

            I suppose we get back to Kahneman and his thinking fast and slow. If you thought slowly about why you did not like Ted talks you may think things like:-
            Are all Ted talks really not worth watching?
            Maybe some Ted talks are of interest?
            It could be Ted talks are interspersed with bullshitters but some are good?
            etc etc.

            • I think that Kahneman is the `only` `best` `interface area`.

              I think that I don’t like TED-talks because the speakers come across as an entertainers.
              The word that always comes to mind, for me … is – `whore` or `performing seal`.
              I cannot see why these people would put themselves into this horrid position.
              I feel very sorry for them.
              The whole things makes me sad.

              • CSArichardo

                They want to be the top of their pyramid !?

              • axel1million

                So your brain is telling you(if there was a you) that the people are ‘putting on a performance’ which they don’t really want to do.
                At some point it(the brain) sets the ‘this is wrong’ flag and releases the bad feeling chemicals or reduces the good feeling chem’s which result in the sad feeling.

                Another brain likes the TED talks because its programming results in an increase in feel good chem’s.

                • Yep.
                  Reactions (various).

        • Some may like it … but `I don’t like` TED talks.

  • CSArichardo

    The top of the pyramid is “safety” !? Physical safety, food safety, financial safety, etc for myself (awareness of surroundings, etc), my family, my community, my country (work safety laws, food protection services, consumer protection etc) ??

    • Haploid

      Adam Smith, who is widely used by the financial neo-liberal establishments throughout Western academia to justify terrible ideologies, was not what people perceive and portray him to be. His vision of Capitalism, based on my own reading of his materials, was founded on the the parties partaking in the free market economy being ‘good Christians’ with humane values. A far cry from what Capitalism has become.

      • CSArichardo

        Yes the free market today may not be as civilized as in the days of old.

        So is good marketing today based on the principle of making you less “Buyer Beware” ??