Henry: The funny thing with this is that there is no ‘taking over the world.’ The power is imaginary, the ownership is imaginary. So all there is, is violence and imposed economic suffering, all for nothing. (link)
Vineeto: Are you stating facts – and if yes, what is the evidence? Or are you stating an opinion – if yes, what is your reasoning to have come to such a (possibly considered) opinion?
You also say “there is […] imposed economic suffering” – what forces have the power to “impose” such “economic suffering” if “the power is imaginary” and “the ownership is imaginary”?
After all, we are discussing how to uncover one’s beliefs which constitute the social identity and the entire peasant mentality. (link)
Henry: It seems I failed to draw a mental demarcation between how things operate in the actual world and the real world.
Of course everyone except the few free people are influenced by that power.
I was surprised when I looked for an answer and saw that I had overlooked that. In overlooking, I have also overlooked the influence of such forces on myself (as well as exerted by myself). It’s as though I have taken on the non-existence of power as a belief, despite being still influenced by it myself.
Hi Henry,
This is fascinating.
So you used others’ descriptions of the actual world to ‘determine’ that “power is imaginary”. Even though it is a fact that there is no power in the actual world, nevertheless power of coercion, both material and psychic, is very, very real in the real world where 8+ billion people live.
Well spotted when you recognized that “I have taken on the non-existence of power as a belief”.
For good measure you added “the ownership is imaginary”, which phrase is nowhere to be found in Richard’s description of the actual world. Even actually free people need to own basic necessities of life, purchase and maintain them, unless one wants to live naked in the forest without even a tool to hunt for food.
I think there is more for you to discover why you failed “to draw a mental demarcation between how things operate in the actual world and the real world” and were “overlooking” the distinction. As you have no direct experience “how things operate in the actual world” except perhaps for a memory of your PCE. Were you perchance using this technique of taking this as a belief so as to not be viscerally moved by the content of the video, i.e. keep it at arm’s length?
What happens if you watch it again, this time allowing the possibility that engineering of misery on a grand scale may well be happening? It’s certainly worthwhile exploring how the real world operates for your own benefit – else you will be using actualism as a dogma and a theoretical belief-system to ensure ‘you’ to remain the way you are.
Henry: Last night I went to a rock show with the intent of watching myself closely. […] As I left, I could see very starkly that there was nothing ultimately better about being at the show as compared to anywhere else. I remember thinking that it was like I was looking at the actual ‘star-dust’ that everything is made of, rather than building out a narrative based on relative values. There was a solidity and purity to everything. I’m feeling quite encouraged by this experience.
It sounds like a wonderful experience, even though the expression “actual ‘star-dust’” had me puzzled for a while.
Henry: Thank you Vineeto for challenging me on these things. (link)
You are very welcome. I appreciate you enjoy looking into and communicate about these matters.
Cheers Vineeto