Jasun Horsley, Socio-Spiritual Engineering |392|

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Oct 16, 2018.

  1. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,608
    Jasun Horsley, Socio-Spiritual Engineering |392|
    Share
    Tweet
    [​IMG]

    Jasun Horsley examines the intersection of social engineering and spirituality.
    [​IMG]

    photo by: Skeptiko
    Alex Tsakiris:
    Today we welcome Jasun Horsley to Skeptiko. Jasun is the author of several books, including, Prisoner of Infinity (Prisoner of Infinity: Social Engineering, UFOs, and the Psychology of Fragmentation). He’s also the creator of the extremely interesting AUTICULTURE blog and the Liminalist podcast, again, playing around with this idea of multiple realities.

    Jasun Horsley: …there’s something very real that has been co-opted, has been redirected by groups and agencies in different programs for various different reasons. One being, of course, just to exploit it, the spiritual potential of the psyche, or psychic potential of the human body, that has all kinds of uses, it can be weaponized, but also to anticipate, if there is this potential within us as human beings, that enables us to discover true autonomy, the true experience of ourselves and our nature within creation, like you said at the beginning, “Who are we, and why are we here?” To really uncover that answer, as individuals, would make us beyond the reach of any kind of control or manipulation or exploitation.
     
  2. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,123
    Alex's question at the end of the show:

    What do you make of the socio-spiritual engineering hypothesis/claim (in particular, what do you make of this character Whitley Strieber)?
     
  3. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,123
    Scanning Whitley Strieber's site, I came across this article.

    Here's a brief extract:

    Global warming denial is and always has been about one thing: greed--make money now and let the children die. That's the stark truth of it. But now those children are no longer living in some distant future. Climate change is here and the danger is with us right now and our kids who are growing up right this moment are in direct jeopardy.

    If he buys that, I'm beginning to think he's buying/putting out all sorts of suspect stuff.
     
  4. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,455
    That worries me too.

    I suppose one possible interpretation might be that he (and possibly many others) use the phrase 'climate change' in a loose way to refer to general environmental issues - some of which are real enough, such as the loss of the rain forests.

    David
     
  5. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    Michael, your post highlights something that I’ve only recently become aware of, at my age asking how that is possible is worthy of wonder! I suppose that it’s because it’s only in the past few years that I’ve taken a enough interest in different peoples opinion on things that I’ve not before had a deep interest in.

    So often, I’ve discovered people that appear to think the same as I do, only to then find that they have a very different opinion about one or more topics close to my heart. This automatically changes the way we, at least I, think of them. Our previous thinking gets coloured as what we see as their flaws are uncovered.

    Was Stephen Hawking any less of a physicist because he also had an opposing view on GW, or any others who may be thought of as intellectual geniuses? Of course not. Yet he too was a great proponent of GW. I would say that Hawking displayed very blinkered thinking when he said ‘science has no use for philosophers’ or something along those lines. He was an atheist, I’m not. Are we to dismiss our thinking or his on the basis that only one of us is right? Therefore I don’t think it’s helpful to rubbish what they might say about one thing just because you think very differently on this particular issue. He just might have something amazing to say about things that you agree upon.

    For me, David Icke is a great example to use. He really thinks that the royal family are somehow lizard like beings in disguise. I might throw my head back and howl with laughter, or become disgusted or have any number of reactions to his ideas. Yet if I listen with an open mind to everything he says, I find myself broadly in agreement with him. Whitley Strieber is more like David Icke in this regard, being a person on the edge of mainstream thinking, if not being in the Arctic!

    I find this sort of thing very interesting. Learning to be more accepting of others who appear at first sight to be very different/have very different ideas from your own.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2018
  6. Wormwood

    Wormwood Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2017
    Messages:
    388
    Agree with Steve. We’re all wrong in our beliefs in certain areas. Whatever his opinion on climate change, I’m not sure why anybody would think that would make his eye witness reports any less valuable.
     
    dpdownsouth and Steve like this.
  7. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,455
    I don't think that is quite the point, which is that you might expect that someone in touch with a greater reality might become aware that certain issues are not real, and more aware of those that do matter.

    Stephen Hawking probably never explored the issue and just agreed to chip in with his support 'to help science'.

    David
     
    Charlie Primero likes this.
  8. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    My guess is that I think you’d be surprised David. I’d be interested in the opinion of some of those that you think are ‘in touch with a greater reality’.

    Also, what exactly does it mean to be ‘in touch with the greater reality’?
     
  9. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,123
    Everything you say has merit. Which is why I said "I'm beginning to think" rather than "I think". He could be right about much else he says, for all I know, but at the same time it makes me wonder. If he can't be bothered to check the evidence against CAGW and is prepared to label those who disagree with him as being greedy "deniers" (he uses that word several times in the article), then he's being less circumspect about someone he's never met (viz. yours truly) than I am being about him.
     
    Steve likes this.
  10. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,123
    In addition, though Hawking was a good at the maths involved in theoretical cosmology, he had a disliking for experimental science. It was all in his head and he didn't have much observational evidence to support his ideas. OTOH, the electric universe people rely on observational evidence, and for me, that makes their theories more plausible. I suspect that the whole big bang/black hole thing is another boondoggle too.

    I contrast Hawking with someone like Rupert Sheldrake, who has done experiments and made actual observations to support a number of his ideas, but disagrees with me about man-made global warming. Still, he doesn't seem to employ invective against people like me, and that plus his actual scientific work (which includes some in conventional areas such as plant auxins) inclines me to be more open to many of his ideas.
     
    Reece, Sam Hunter and Charlie Primero like this.
  11. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    I don’t like calling others names, certainly where CAGW is concerned. It assumes that Whitley is very convinced of his argument and displays a level of arrogance. It is quite an interesting topic though. Like the G word, it certainly provokes lots of emotion on both sides.

    Looking at the second post addressed to David, I could have chosen many other academics, so there’s little use in picking Hawking to bits. ;) Has Sheldrake made his views on this known?
     
  12. KindaGamey

    KindaGamey Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    127
    Home Page:
    I wandered away from Skeptiko for a bit esp. when crapping on "liberals" became a fun pastime, but this show was really good! Alex picking up on that 'broken' aspect of Whitley is great - sometimes it's almost embarrassing how he complains about not having enough paid subscribers or people not taking him seriously. The early trauma = confabulation expert absolutely blew my mind. I hope Christopher Knowles listens to this one, I'm sure he will. I tagged Whitley in a comment after the interview thinking it was actually pretty complimentary of him, but as the interview went on I was like, "oh god, what have I done?" and deleted the comment. Doh.
     
    AryaS likes this.
  13. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,455
    I think a lot of academic scientists are simply choraled into CAGW support:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2011/09...r-groups-promotion-of-manmade-global-warming/
    (The APS is the American Physical Society). Notice also the statements from other Nobel Prizewinning scientists at the bottom of that page.

    Most scientists are like everyone else, they don't make a fuss unless they feel really strongly about something.

    David
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2018
    Steve likes this.
  14. There is an interesting discussion in this video (below) about whether global warming is a moral issue. Dinesh D'Souza compares global warming to belief in God. You don't see God the way you see an object like a tree. The same is true for global warming. Belief in global warming is based on interpretation of data. Different people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions, just like people will look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions about God. Global warming is not a moral issue, it is an issue about interpreting data. And for those who are concerned about poverty, in developing countries like India and China where people are being raised from starvation to two meals a day, they need fossil fuels for economic development. The "solutions" to global warming, restricting use of fossil fuels will hurt those under crushing poverty the most.


     
    David Bailey and Michael Larkin like this.
  15. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,455
    I think all the Left's issues are expressed as moral issues - it is just a tactic to prevent people expressing other points of view.

    In my opinion GW will be a moral issue when it is realised that vast amounts of money that could have been spent on better things, has been wasted, for no gain whatsoever.

    David
     
    Jim_Smith likes this.
  16. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,455
    It would be interesting to hear Jeffrey Kripal's take on this - I mean he must have had enough time with Whitley to get some hint of the problems with his story.

    David
     
    KindaGamey likes this.
  17. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,123
    Glad you understood the post, David. I didn't understand this bit:
    What does the "early trauma = confabulation expert" mean? Who is Christopher Knowles? Can you tell me? TIA.
     
  18. KindaGamey

    KindaGamey Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    127
    Home Page:
    Jasun was saying that people who experienced early trauma (e.g. MK Ultra) had the potential to become excellent confabulators later in life - they might lie or make things up or change their personality in order to quickly adapt and please their captors or other people. In this way you could create celebrities by breaking people as children and having them rebuild themselves into these public 'influencers' who not only do what you tell them, but can't stop attempting to please others.

    (There was a study done on puppies where a scientist lavished excessive love and devotion to growing dogs and they ended up rather apathetic about him in the end. When he treated puppies cruelly they grew up hating him, but were able to build up their identities apart from him. However when he randomly chose to treat them lovingly or cruelly they became desperate to please him, very needy and anxious.)

    Christopher Knowles writes the blog The Secret Sun. We've discussed him here, he's been on Skeptiko. He has talked quite a bit about celebrity culture and about MK Ultra, but I'm not sure he's ever put all that together.

    I'm really interested in Jasun's book. Let me know if anyone here is reading it.
     
    Mishelle, AryaS and Michael Larkin like this.
  19. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,123
    Thanks for the explanation. I didn't remember Christopher Knowles' name from the Skeptiko podcast. Getting old! ;)
     
  20. Michael Patterson

    Michael Patterson New

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    Messages:
    248
    Home Page:
    I am intrigued by Jasun's book and have downloaded it. I also listened to the THC interview with Whitley (the first hour), and read his book with Jeff Kripal. I downloaded The Afterlife Revolution as well. I've read other of Whitley's books. So its going to be weeks before I dare comment in any depth, and things will have moved on by the time I am done reading. I'll do a blog on this in a couple of weeks.

    So far as socio-spiritual engineering is concerned I think all cultures have sought to manage experiences and perceptions to create a conformity in responding to physical life (in both the psychical and physical aspects). But individuals are not always compliant with these efforts - some wildly so. However most are. As we know, reality is more than the engineered experience, so the non-compliant and non-conforming are always a bit of a problem, and have to be managed differently. Some become managers themselves and others become oppositional. Our fuller reality needs, and can accommodate, both.

    Trauma induced psychism is real enough, provided the sensitivity is there to begin with. Trauma can cause malfunctions more than it creates breakthroughs. And I know from my own background that trauma induced breakthroughs are also very perilous. Dysfunction is a persistent risk. Probably because I have walked that thin line between sanity and madness I have developed a focused and conservative approach to thinking about what Whitely talks about. I ducked the second hour of his chat on THC because, from the brief offered, it got into areas that are not, for me, useful. I am not interested in whether what he says and claims is true or not, but in whether that information is useful to me. I can't talk about truth or otherwise on matters no useful to me.

    I like the idea that reality is ultimately indeterminate. The fact that something is true and real to Whitely does not mean that I have to buy into the same 'reality'. I don't deny that maybe vile military types are traumatising children to find some psi benefit. But other than confirming the bastardry of elements of a culture (already established elsewhere), dwelling on the subject serves me no purpose.

    I have an ongoing argument with a friend who persistently wants to discuss the horrors they discover on YouTube. I decline, and am accused of 'burying my head in the sand'. But it is easy to become fixated on the ills we do to each other and spent less time on the good. I have no doubt that the 6+ billion folk on this poor planet are doing more evil deeds than I would have time to be aware of, if I spent a whole life time giving them my attention. So I have to choose, as we all do, to find a balance that serves our higher needs. Its not easy.

    So some stuff Whitley talks about is useful to me, and other stuff is not. I have an inkling of what his 'visitors' are about. Cracking that socio-spiritually engineered shell we were born into, and contribute to maintaining takes radical action. Whitely is a public expression of a suitable line of least resistance - a conduit of influence. Maybe that's his 'job'. Factoring in the other stuff isn't useful in my view.

    Socio-spiritual engineering may be practiced by folk who have a genuinely deeply vision of what is going on, as opposed to the sociopaths driven by a blend narcissism and grasping greed. We'd better hope so (I do). In our complex cultures such engineering en masse is nigh impossible, so fragmentation and isolation is a useful method. That also means that the non-conforming and non-compliant are harder to manage - so distract most, and ignore the rest. Such engineering is business as usual (for any social creature actually), and has been so for many millennia. Its nothing to get excited about.

    But there are a lot of agencies with skin in the game - and by that I don't mean our human organisations (who are playing their own version in any case), I mean visitors (ET and others) and residents and those who are neither. To come to grips with what that's all about means we have to individually commit to our focus and the choices we make to crack our own engineered shells.
     

Share This Page