Jason Jorjani, From Redefining Parapsychology to Image Cheapening |584|

Let's get some more level three discussions on the skeptiko forum... without having to gladly suffer foolishness [[p]]

I still don't see how it's productive to suspend valuable and very longtime contributors to the forum. Surely you know David means well. He's obviously concerned. I don't understand why you'd suspend him.

It's like the Skeptiko forum has devolved on your end to either ignore messages, write something carelessly, call people names, or just shut down the interlocutor by saying that they have to get world class guests on the show or there'll be no further discussion.

Do you really think David or Michael Larkin are fools?
I've read their thoughtful posts here for many years and amazed at their dedication. I don't think you're treating them with enough respect brother
 
ll


this is nonsense.

pls refrain from posting for a few days so you can organize your thoughts and contact Dr Fleming.

Keep me posted on yr progress... I really don't think he will be that hard to get in touch with.

email me directly re yr progress and I'll bring you back online when you're ready to report your findings.
I'm happy to refrain from posting here indefinitely - you have gone too far Alex, I'd agreed with you not to discuss the virus question in the forum, and I did that until I discovered that you felt free to effectively slander all the people who felt that the question as to whether viruses have been proved to exist was a legitimate biochemical issue to discuss.

So long Alex, you have run a fascinating forum for a long time, but not any more.

David
 
I still don't see how it's productive to suspend valuable and very longtime contributors to the forum. Surely you know David means well. He's obviously concerned. I don't understand why you'd suspend him.

It's like the Skeptiko forum has devolved on your end to either ignore messages, write something carelessly, call people names, or just shut down the interlocutor by saying that they have to get world class guests on the show or there'll be no further discussion.

Do you really think David or Michael Larkin are fools?
I've read their thoughtful posts here for many years and amazed at their dedication. I don't think you're treating them with enough respect brother

First off, David has my email... we've probably exchanged 100 emails over the years... so if it's not like he doesn't know how to reach me.

But with regard to the issue that seems to have riled you up -- I suggested an interview with Dr Richard Fleming months ago and I asked David to set it up. He's offered a lot of lame excuses as to why he can't do it while continuing to blather on about the "no rabies no virus" thing.

Keep in mind there's no paywall to Skeptiko... no advertising... no nothing. so given the considerable amount of time and effort involved in arranging, researching and publishing these shows I feel it's ok to occasionally nudge long time non-paying members like David to put a little effort into the show.

Of course, it's not really about the email... it's about showing yr willing to put yourself out there a little bit and get out of this "I listen to the show so you have to entertain me" mindset.

Having said all that, I think there's an interesting show to be had here for the reasons that I mention previously... i.e. there are some pretty important people who've been duped into " holding space" for the " no rabies no virus " nonsense.

Fleming, as anyone who bothers to look will find out, would be perfect, but he might not be willing to do it. I think he would if he was approached the right way ( which I offered to help David do), but he might not... in this case David would have to do a tiny bit more work and find somebody else.
 
First off, David has my email... we've probably exchanged 100 emails over the years... so if it's not like he doesn't know how to reach me.

But with regard to the issue that seems to have riled you up -- I suggested an interview with Dr Richard Fleming months ago and I asked David to set it up. He's offered a lot of lame excuses as to why he can't do it while continuing to blather on about the "no rabies no virus" thing.

Keep in mind there's no paywall to Skeptiko... no advertising... no nothing. so given the considerable amount of time and effort involved in arranging, researching and publishing these shows I feel it's ok to occasionally nudge long time non-paying members like David to put a little effort into the show.

Of course, it's not really about the email... it's about showing yr willing to put yourself out there a little bit and get out of this "I listen to the show so you have to entertain me" mindset.

Having said all that, I think there's an interesting show to be had here for the reasons that I mention previously... i.e. there are some pretty important people who've been duped into " holding space" for the " no rabies no virus " nonsense.

Fleming, as anyone who bothers to look will find out, would be perfect, but he might not be willing to do it. I think he would if he was approached the right way ( which I offered to help David do), but he might not... in this case David would have to do a tiny bit more work and find somebody else.

It's unfortunate David didn't try to contact Fleming, and I noticed that you offered to help proofing the email.

But it still seems to me the discussions are getting shutdown by the insistence that experts come on the show or you won't discuss specific points on the forum

You say you want level 3 discussions again. How about laying off the passive-agressive insinuations of 'fools' here then. You also picked a strange quote about suffering fools. That Saul / Paul character was a twisted individual. A nasry piece of work. Even if you take his original quote and say the opposite, it still has that framing from that psychotic from the ancient world

The other thing I noticed is that skeptiko seems to have lost its guiding star, that the investigations always lead back to the nature of consciousness. That's ultimately why I'm here, as well as I'm sure David, Michael Larkin and almost everyone else. To say it's for 'entertainment' debases our striving for truth

I hope you read this in a good-natured way. I very much appreciate you and skeptiko and the contributors over the years. Thank you
 
But it still seems to me the discussions are getting shutdown by the insistence that experts come on the show or you won't discuss specific points on the forum

Ok, well that's certainly not the case with the " no rabies no virus " thing as there are literally hundreds of posts on that topic... many of them by me... on top of the fact that I produced multiple shows on the subject.

so what discussions are you referring to?
 
Yeah, this might need more of an explanation. Jason was talking with Jacques Vallée about a "free energy" ( misnomer but everyone gets the point) technology that could be commercialized. many have claimed in the past that these Technologies have been discovered were then prevented from being commercialized because they could/would disrupt the oil-based World economy and political structure.

here is Steven Greer talking extensively about this problem and how he's trying to get around it by open sourcing free Energy Technologies. I'm not sure how genuine/legit/non-op-y he is, but here's the interview:


so, in kind of a shorthand way Jason and I were talking about the fact that the disruptive force of free energy technology is one of the few things that one can imagine that could really have the potential to challenge " the system."

So, imagine there's this free energy technology and that if you could band together a few pretty smart scientists/engineers you could get your own system going maybe not in your garage but kind of at that level. so then Jason took it one step further and said yeah I totally get what you're saying but imagine if you could get a country on board to say "hey we're going to run with this and we don't care how it upsets the oil cartel or the solar cartel or anything else we're just going to run with this."

so again this kind of only makes sense with an open source more or less publicly available free energy technology and that's what we're talking about as opposed to "UFO technology." of course, there could be some link to non-human intelligence in all sorts of different ways, but what we were talking about is the business/political side of disruptive free Energy Technologies.

Lilly Anne is right about this guy going gonzo on handing any kind of weapon to any regime for the purpose of manipulating mankind one way or the other, and JJ is nuts for positing such. When we think about humanity, I believe it is better to think about what it means to be human, and this isn't connected to any government on earth. It doesn't matter what country that you come from. Psyops begin with blind allegiance.
 
First off, David has my email... we've probably exchanged 100 emails over the years... so if it's not like he doesn't know how to reach me.
In fact I contacted you by PM, which is effectively the same as email - i.e. it is private. I'd hoped you would listen while I explained exactly what you had (presumably) not understood.

This thread illustrates the form of crazy debating that you started to deploy:

https://www.skeptiko-forum.com/thre...t-about-no-virus-573.4846/page-13#post-166736

Did you even understand that huge post - I rather doubt it. How exactly was it relevant?

Michael Larkin, Viberaider, and several other posters who were obviously knowledgeable about molecular biology pointed to a number of key papers that supposedly described isolating a virus corresponding to a disease.

It was pointed out repeatedly on Skeptiko by these people (I only did a year of biology of cells, so I took something of a backseat at this stage) that there is a fundamental difference between isolating a bacterium that is responsible for a disease, and isolating a virus.

A bacterium can reproduce on its own, so you can culture it in a sterile medium (sometimes a simple Petri dish) separate the bacteria from the culture medium, and experimentally infect another animal.

This isn't really possible with a virus. The viral hypothesis is that there are small particles that consist of a protein coat surrounding DNA/RNA (one or the other - it depends on the virus), and that in order for these to reproduce they need to get inside a living cell and use the mechanisms of its nucleus to read the DNA/RNA to produce the proteins that it codes for (some of which are the coat proteins of which it is composed), and also, crucially, to get duplicated. Thus you end up with multiple copies of the viral coat protein and multiple copies of the corresponding viral genetic material. These are then supposed to assemble into more copies of the virus that started the process off.

Thus you can't use a simple sterile medium (such as the petri dish) to replicate the suspected pathogen, you have to use tissue cultures. These cultures also contain some pretty toxic antibiotics, because obviously they can otherwise easily become infected by other bacteria.

Typically it would seem that these cultures were tested by injecting them into other animals and waiting for them to fall sick. Typically the sickness did not resemble the original disease, and it hadn't been passed on in a way that resembled the normal infection route. For example, in 'proving' the rabies viral culture caused rabies they injected the culture straight into the animal's brain!

Remember that culture already contained a toxic component (the antibiotics) and that there was no evidence that the experimenters performed the obvious control experiment of preparing a culture from a healthy animal and testing that on other animals. I'd bet they would have fallen ill in much the same way - injecting fluid into the brain is a pretty dodgy process!

Michael Larkin also pointed out that pointing to various structures in the cultures and saying - wow there is the virus - was particularly dodgy. He used his experience of actually using an electron microscope. I mean if you smash open some mammalian cells, you get a lot of gunk (to use the technical term).

I'm not sure if Michael is a member of Skeptiko any more, but I have his email address, so I could try and get him back to fill this picture out more if you like.

David
 
In fact I contacted you by PM, which is effectively the same as email - i.e. it is private. I'd hoped you would listen while I explained exactly what you had (presumably) not understood.

This thread illustrates the form of crazy debating that you started to deploy:

https://www.skeptiko-forum.com/thre...t-about-no-virus-573.4846/page-13#post-166736

Did you even understand that huge post - I rather doubt it. How exactly was it relevant?

Michael Larkin, Viberaider, and several other posters who were obviously knowledgeable about molecular biology pointed to a number of key papers that supposedly described isolating a virus corresponding to a disease.

It was pointed out repeatedly on Skeptiko by these people (I only did a year of biology of cells, so I took something of a backseat at this stage) that there is a fundamental difference between isolating a bacterium that is responsible for a disease, and isolating a virus.

A bacterium can reproduce on its own, so you can culture it in a sterile medium (sometimes a simple Petri dish) separate the bacteria from the culture medium, and experimentally infect another animal.

This isn't really possible with a virus. The viral hypothesis is that there are small particles that consist of a protein coat surrounding DNA/RNA (one or the other - it depends on the virus), and that in order for these to reproduce they need to get inside a living cell and use the mechanisms of its nucleus to read the DNA/RNA to produce the proteins that it codes for (some of which are the coat proteins of which it is composed), and also, crucially, to get duplicated. Thus you end up with multiple copies of the viral coat protein and multiple copies of the corresponding viral genetic material. These are then supposed to assemble into more copies of the virus that started the process off.

Thus you can't use a simple sterile medium (such as the petri dish) to replicate the suspected pathogen, you have to use tissue cultures. These cultures also contain some pretty toxic antibiotics, because obviously they can otherwise easily become infected by other bacteria.

Typically it would seem that these cultures were tested by injecting them into other animals and waiting for them to fall sick. Typically the sickness did not resemble the original disease, and it hadn't been passed on in a way that resembled the normal infection route. For example, in 'proving' the rabies viral culture caused rabies they injected the culture straight into the animal's brain!

Remember that culture already contained a toxic component (the antibiotics) and that there was no evidence that the experimenters performed the obvious control experiment of preparing a culture from a healthy animal and testing that on other animals. I'd bet they would have fallen ill in much the same way - injecting fluid into the brain is a pretty dodgy process!

Michael Larkin also pointed out that pointing to various structures in the cultures and saying - wow there is the virus - was particularly dodgy. He used his experience of actually using an electron microscope. I mean if you smash open some mammalian cells, you get a lot of gunk (to use the technical term).

I'm not sure if Michael is a member of Skeptiko any more, but I have his email address, so I could try and get him back to fill this picture out more if you like.

David

This is a rehash. we are going around in circles, but I am willing to do a show on it because I think others ( particularly RFK Jr) have held space for this sophisticated sounding stuff that doesn't really hold up to careful scientific scrutiny.

Again, I encourage you to get Richard Fleming on the show to discuss. this would be a positive contribution you could make to skeptiko.

I hope you take me up on this offer and I am willing to do whatever I can to help you complete the booking process with Fleming, but since I've been prodding you to do this for months and you have not taken any action I'm not optimistic that you will.

Please honor my request to stop posting until you make contact with him.

===

One more thing... and it's always been the biggest thing... what if you're right?!!! what if Fleming comes on skeptiko and says David is right. and of course, it doesn't have to be Fleming... I've suggested several others from the " anti-vax " science community that would fit the bill.
 
Last edited:
Open sourcing what to to whom?
Jason and I were going down the line of reasoning explained in the Steven Greer interview I posted above.

the only way for a " free energy " technology to fundamentally change "the system" is to give up on the patent / IP angle and open source it. again, I don't know if Steven Greer is legit but I definitely agree with him on this point.
 
"Families" are constructions in a sense, but to a degree they're influenced by evolutionary psychology. In other words, it's instinctual to favour those who are more closely genetically similar to oneself. It could be argued that a religious group or nation is an extension of the family, so these too are influenced by evolutionary psychology. So I don't think they're merely semiotic games.

PS: added to that higher emotions and the soul level, of bonds that are beyond mere evolutionary psychology. Human infants are uniquely helpless and need devoted care from adults for many years. And on the soul level, there's evidence for soul groups, individuals maybe not so closely genetically related but deeply connected in other ways.

This can't be attributed to merely semiotics / people just placing meaning on things arbitrarily

At last I have some time to revive our discussion here, Nelson. Hopefully you (and others) would engage me once more!

First and foremost, I do agree that there is much more to human connections than mere semiotic games on the most superficial - the mental - level. There is a stronger ingridient to them that belongs more to the deeper phenomenal - the psychic - level. These are the experiential bonds that connect some people with each other; they are multi-layered, starting from the sensual affinity of the bodies, that is a super-important anchor that keeps us connected to this, the physical, part of phenomenal reality. This is especialy true in the case of sensual caress and tenderness that parental figures show to babies and toddlers, providing the initial positive stimulus to keep embodied living; it is known that babies who are totally deprived of such sensual kindness may wither and die - they feel nothing rewarding enough in such existence to keep on living. Later, it is advanced and expanded in affective connections built with the wider social network, where emotional bonds outgrow immediate sensual bodily contact (the latter is reserved to the cases of intimacy, including, but in no way restricted to, sexuality and sexual bonds; this works not only between lovers, but also between, say, close friends). And, the deepest of all of them is telepathic connections that persist even if the connected person is physically absent in the current time and space; even if one of the so-bonded persons is bodily dead and his / her psyche is existing outside of the physical part of reality, while another one's psyche is still embodied in the physical part of it. This is the love (or friendship, or some other form of deep amity) that overcomes any spatial and / or temporal distance and even transcends bodily death. This is what enables crisis apparitions, mediumship and more. This is what makes possible blessings and psychic healing.

But there is another side to it as well - such telepathic connections are not all love and light, not at all. Some of them are based on not on amity, but on enmity; not on joy, but on suffering; not on caress, but on violence. These starts with infliction of physical pain, such as a child "spanked" (read: beaten) by parents because of some "pedagogical" reasons, and goes to a variety of more refined "psychological" methods to pain the soul as well ("groundings" etc.). It is a noxious brew of persistent psychic enmity that inspire restrictions and prohibitions, persecutions and repressions, wars and slaughters. What is worst of all, it may reach deeper psychic levels as well, providing energy for jinxes, hexes, curses and all other types of psychic attacks.

And what makes all this worse, there is no strict demarcation between such amity-based and enmity-based psychic bonds; more often than not, they are intertwined and interconnected in a most twisted way. Most acts of psychic attacks and psychic cruelty are motivated not by conscious malice, but rather by a thwarted benignity, coming from the persons who do sincerely hold benevolent intentions - be it parents, rulers, bosses, spiritual "teachers", academic "authorities", anyone else - that paradoxically transforms into most malevolent deeds.

What is the reason of such benignity-becoming-malice? Well, it has everything to do with the fundamental primacy of selfhood and volition: a positive psychic connection is, to put it bluntly, a self-willed psychic connection - a connection that arises and is being maintained in accordance with one's Self and Will. It is this inner agreement with selfhood and volition that make phenomenal manifestations - including persistent experiential bonds between persons - joyous and desirable. Joy is the reward that the Self grants to it-Self for the fulfillment of its own Will; desire is what entices and drives the Self towards this rewarding willed joy.

And it is the absense of such inner agreement - rather, the presense of an inner disagreement - that makes unwilled phenomena, including unwilled experiential bonds between persons, painful and fearful. In a way, the pain is a way for the Self to reprimand it-Self for its failure to fulfill its own Will, with fear is a warning sign distracting the Self from the way that may result in an unwilled pain.

Of course, everything is always more complex than a simple binary. For example, oftentimes Self has to overcome the feared pain exactly in order to obtain the desired joy. But this is outside of the scope of the present text.

What is in the scope of the present text, are psychic bonds - and the case of psychic bonds is especially complex in this regard, since there is always more that one Self, and one Will, that is in play here. So, the most common situation within such bonds is the clash of Selves and Willes, than several persons, despite being bonded, are striving in different directions. This provokes a conflict - both external social conflict between all of them, and an internal psychic conflict within each one of them (telepathic dimesions may also be involved). And such conflict starts to twist and thwart their psychic bond, making it more and more negative, more and more based on enmity, suffering and violence... even if all these may still be paradoxically mixed with amity, joy and caress that are still present there.

In such a case, a deformed psychic bond may turn into a vehement power struggle, in which the perons who possess more power - parents, rulers, bosses, gurus, mentors, whoever - act in a more and more oppressive and repressive way, desperate to maintain the damaged and shattering psychic bond. Pained and tortured by their rejected amity, their no-longer-fully-shared love, they start employing bribery, violence and deception to force their rebellious subordinates to what they honestly consider to be better for them, "for their own good"... But this is exactly the deception; and the persons being deceived are not only the subordinates, but their oppressive superiors themselves as well - the latter desperately need to persuade themselves that they are acting in their subordinates' supposedly "best interests", while in fact they are acting not in anyone's "interest" at all, not even in their own; they are just desperate, trying to maintain a crumbling psychic bond.

It is in such cases of deception-of-others and self-deception mixed together the semiotic constructs of "family", "religion", "nation" or whatever else are being fervently appealed to - a futile attempt to replace weakening phenomenal bonds with faulty semiotic substitutes. In fact, the frequency and intensity of overly passionate public appeals to "family", "religion" and "nation", and of restrictive and repressive measures directed at at subordinates by the superiors in their name and for their sake, is the certain way to measure how significantly the psychic bonds that once maintained these families, religions and nations (now without quotes) together have weakened and shattered because of the clash of Selves and Wills moving in different directions, and how probable is the total disruption of the last remnants of positive phenomenality that once did hold them together - be it a child running away from home, a traumatic divorse, a mass uprising or a violent revolution. When the negative side of a bond outweighs the positive one decisively, this is what happens - and any amount of semiotic substitutes cannot prevent it. What is unwilled by Selves, is willed by Selves to be ended - one way or another, even if at a cost of a tormenting psychic wound left when the positive side of the bond (which nearly always somewhat remains, even if sometimes in a barely noticeable way) is being torn and broken together with the negative one.
 
Last edited:
I get it... but there's also a "don't suffer fools gladly" part of this. flat earthers, holohoaxers, and no rabies virus deniers sometimes create unnessary clutter.

I've talked about this topic many times... and I've engaged, at least a little bit, with flat earthers and holoholsters... and I engaged a lot with the no rabies virus deniers. I naively thought that data, evidence, science would be persuasive, but I found that it usually isn't.

Again, I'm not totally shutting down these discussions... I just don't suffer fools gladly.

Well done Alex! Dealing with people who persist with insanely stupid viewpoints is very boring. I think you have been excessively patient.
 
If we look at other species, this might shed a different light. According to biologists, dolphins are one of the few known species with self-awareness. Yet it's reportedly normal for the males of this species to band together in order to forcibly copulate with lone females. I.e. gang rape.

I like dolphins, but I don't judge them for breaking the rule you set forth of voluntary participation. It is as it is. Live and let live.

If peopls say in central Asia have a custom of abduction marriages, that's entirely their affair as far as I'm concern. As long as they keep to themselves, live and let live.



From the perspective of a ruler, the more tools of control at one's disposal the better. So why wouldn't the Chinese leadership do this?...

Historically there's never been a democracy or republic in China, so the burden of evidence would be on you to show the Chinese culture values individual freedom. The overwhelming majority never seem to have cared about this.

Well, my previous post obviously wasn't of interest to you or anyone else here, Nelson, but I will make one more reply here, just to end this exchange of ours. If you want, you may respond - but if you don't, such is your choice, no problem here.

What I made clear - and what you apparently didn't grasp - that I never made any case that the Chinese culture values individual freedom in the slightest; it obviously doesn't do it at all, even less so than other Eastern cultures. If anything - and, BTW, Jason Jorjani also pointed it repeatedly - Chinese culture, unlike Western culture, is, to say so, "organically totalitarian" (Jason's expression that, I think, fits neatly). In a West, totalitarianism is always somewhat artificial, forcibly imposed by a certain power elite contrary to the most basic Western values - and thus, it is temporary and, after its inevitable fall, a subject of condemnation and repenetance by the very society that once supported it. Yet in China, it grows out of the most basic values of the Chinese culture, thus stable and perceived as normal by the overwhelming majority of the population...

...But still, not by everyone. There are a few human beings in China who do not follow Chinese culture, at least not fully; these are the peolpe for whom I care.

Here what is of ultimate importance to me: a human being is not a slave to a specific culture of a particular society and culture in that (s)he lives; (s)he, being a willful individual, a free spirit, can decide on which culture and which values to follow, contrary to the larger society if needed. Thus, a small minority of the human beings who were born and are living in China, decisively refuse to follow the collectivist culture predominant in their own society, and prefer individualist Western culture instead. They are the ones whose will is to deviate from the precepts of the society in which they are unlucky enough to be born; the ones who are the transgressors, the subversives, the heterodoxes. And these are the free, willful individuals for whom I care about, since their wills correlate and resonate with my own will to heterodoxy, subversion and transgression.

And for these people, Chinese culture and society is the hell - the condition of the soul death, in that one's will is broken and suppressed. And hell can be neither justified nor tolerated. For the sake of people for whom the life in China is a damnation, I will China to fall and shatter. Let the Chinese hell end, and their souls be liberated and reborn.

And the majority of Chinese? They won't lose much, since no one would force them to become free, Western-style. They may continue their restrictive and repressive existences if their wills are such, for all I care. But the few who will otherwise, will be free to seek the better way for themselves.

This is the fundamental difference between free and unfree societies: in a free society, one may decide both on being free and on being unfree - since unfreedom itself would, somewhat paradoxically, be a free choice, and thus a manifestation of freedom; unfreedom freely chosen, so to say, thus a free unfreedom. But in an unfree society, one is more than not allowed to choose freedom - again, somewhat paradoxically, one is not allowed to choose unfreedom, either. In such society, unfreedom is not freely chosen but unfreely forced upon anyone, thus becoming... eh... an unfree unfreedom - the true unfreedom that breaks one's will and makes one's existence infernal.

(So, freedom, paradoxically, actually includes unfreedom as its subvariant. While unfreedom, again paradoxically, excludes not just freedom, but also unfreedom - thus, it literally excludes itself.)

And this is why I won't tolerate unfree societies - they are hells at least for some of the human beings living in them. And hell must not exist.
 
Last edited:
And this is why I won't tolerate unfree societies - they are hells at least for some of the human beings living in them. And hell must not exist.

I'm for freedom. A freedom that I self limit if my expression of freedom limits the freedom of another who has not tried to limit my own. Only in the case where another might try and limit my freedom, might I act as an opposition to their free willed expression to do so.
 
@Vortex Do you consider organised group violence (war) as being justified by your freedom/anarchy position?
I agree with a lot of your views on freedom. Except the Family.
And I'm thinking how your worldview becomes "victorious"?
 
Hi Vortex, excuse me for the late reply. You took a while to reply to my post and then I was focusing on other things. Thanks for the indepth comments.

But the difference we have in opinion seems to be on a spiritual level. You wrote:

They are the ones whose will is to deviate from the precepts of the society in which they are unlucky enough to be born

I think souls probably choose to incarnate in a certain body, into a certain family and society. So there is no unluck. So there is probably no need for "saviours" (so to speak), especially not "saviours" to come from the other side of the world to destroy the society that they chose to be born into.
 
Back
Top