TRUMP CONVICTED

Sativied

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Trump, like many other far-right populists in the world, is on a spectrum that indicates how much of a friend they are of Russia. On one end there are people taking basically orders directly from the Kremlin (agents), on the other hand are people who form a symbiotic relationship with Putin (treating each other as assets). Specifically, their actions are on that spectrum. No matter how you put it, effectively Trump is better for Russia than a president who’d be better for the US, like Biden.

That said, guy comes in here wearing his Independent wristband and sounds at least somewhat reasonable.

cannabineer said:
The whole “perception is reality” schtick puts me in mind of McLuhan and MadAve.

It is glitteringly evocative, but it does not edify.
Click to expand...
Wholeheartedly disagree with in particular the last part, especially these days where proganda reaches the masses so easily. Also, the reality of perception and the perception of reality, the phenomenal words vs the noumenal world, are fundamental philosophical topics. Someone’s or some group’s perception is simply not the whole of reality and inherently flawed. Perception is reality is inaccurate because we assume reality is not merely perception. However, as Kant argued, ironically it’s the noumenal world, “real reality”, of which we cannot have direct knowledge, we can only speculate about its nature. Perception is reality is not necessarily a false statement, just lacks nuance.

Fogdog said:
I just skip to the part where you say "perception is reality". No. No, perception is not necessarily [reality]. Reality is reality. What we perceive as reality must be checked against the evidence and facts.
Click to expand...
I think you forgot a word, fify, and yes to the underlined part. “Reality is reality” however is a tautology that overlooks the role perception has on reality. Which is what I perceive our new Independent contributor was going for.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Sativied said:
Trump, like many other far-right populists in the world, is on a spectrum that indicates how much of a friend they are of Russia. On one end there are people taking basically orders directly from the Kremlin (agents), on the other hand are people who form a symbiotic relationship with Putin (treating each other as assets). Specifically, their actions are on that spectrum. No matter how you put it, effectively Trump is better for Russia than a president who’d be better for the US, like Biden.

That said, guy comes in here wearing his Independent wristband and sounds at least somewhat reasonable.


Wholeheartedly disagree with in particular the last part, especially these days where proganda reaches the masses so easily. Also, the reality of perception and the perception of reality, the phenomenal words vs the noumenal world, are fundamental philosophical topics. Someone’s or some group’s perception is simply not the whole of reality and inherently flawed. Perception is reality is inaccurate because we assume reality is not merely perception. However, as Kant argued, ironically it’s the noumenal world, “real reality”, of which we cannot have direct knowledge, we can only speculate about its nature. Perception is reality is not necessarily a false statement, just lacks nuance.


I think you forgot a word, fify, and yes to the underlined part. “Reality is reality” however is a tautology that overlooks the role perception has on reality. Which is what I perceive our new Independent contributor was going for.
Click to expand...
From my shadowy rememberings of college philosophy class, Berkeley and Hume essentially put paid to the idea of a verifiable objective reality. Kant tried to pick up the pieces, but I’m not sure he succeeded.

The word noumenal/numinal I associate with matters of spirit, soul, the ineffable — concepts devoid of objectivity. I could be very wrong, but I think that is overreaching.

I’m not sure my post has been entirely understood. I grant that “glitteringly evocative, but unedifying” does not speak to the point, though it is correct.

However my invocation of MadAve — advertisers — speaks directly to what you both are saying. Advertising (within necessary legal constraints) exploits the malleability of perception in order to instill a narrative that favors the product, service, even ideology being sold. This is imo the essence of propaganda.

The difference when a hostile extranational agency does the same is the removal of any (plainly unenforceable) legal constraints. This allows that agency to promote bald-faced lies (prettily costumed using the same techniques of the lawful advertisers) without limits and using proven brainwashing techniques.

So I contend I was saying the same thing, but obtusely and too mildly.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
cannabineer said:
From my shadowy rememberings of college philosophy class, Berkeley and Hume essentially put paid to the idea of a verifiable objective reality. Kant tried to pick up the pieces, but I’m not sure he succeeded.

The word noumenal/numinal I associate with matters of spirit, soul, the ineffable — concepts devoid of objectivity. I could be very wrong, but I think that is overreaching.

I’m not sure my post has been entirely understood. I grant that “glitteringly evocative, but unedifying” does not speak to the point, though it is correct.

However my invocation of MadAve — advertisers — speaks directly to what you both are saying. Advertising (within necessary legal constraints) exploits the malleability of perception in order to instill a narrative that favors the product, service, even ideology being sold. This is imo the essence of propaganda.

The difference when a hostile extranational agency does the same is the removal of any (plainly unenforceable) legal constraints. This allows that agency to promote bald-faced lies (prettily costumed using the same techniques of the lawful advertisers) without limits and using proven brainwashing techniques.

So I contend I was saying the same thing, but obtusely and too mildly.
Click to expand...
Tangent: this is why I believe that the profession of historian carries an extreme moral burden. Historians have the hard work to do of sorting through the tangle of narratives through the lens of perspective, but still steeped in the mythoses (unsure of correct plural) in which they grew up and chose to participate. Example: a left-leaning scholar, a von Mises believer, and someone sympathetic to evangelical doctrine will take the same set of documents (of a shared period andor enterprise) and draw a different synopsis in their work, presuming complete intellectual honesty.

We are forced to rely on historians to tell the least biased possible “quick take” on our collective past. They, more than anyone else, are the stewards of our knowledge of who we are and from where we came.

Like a secular counterpart to Talmudic scholars, who work lifetimes at the soundness of their analyses and opinions, historians shape our identities, our culture, our goals. They interpret the nature and condition of humanity.

Sort of a big idea to ponder while I sip my Monday-morning tea. Any rebuttals or refinements are welcome.
 
Sativied

Sativied

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
The word noumenal/numinal I associate with matters of spirit, soul, the ineffable — concepts devoid of objectivity. I could be very wrong, but I think that is overreaching.
Click to expand...
While not necessarily an invalid interpretation given a certain context, in Kantian philosophy, the "noumenal world“ refers to the realm of things as they are in themselves, das Ding an sich, independent of human perception and in contrasts with the "phenomenal" world we construct in our brains through our perceptions. Concepts effectively devoid of objectivity because we’re not capable of determining otherwise, which is why things like the spirit and soul make good and typical examples, but, are merely that and do not define noumenal. It’s not the spirital world, it’s reality unfiltered by our perception. Which might, or might not even exist.

cannabineer said:
I’m not sure my post has been entirely understood. I grant that “glitteringly evocative, but unedifying” does not speak to the point, though it is correct.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Yet the whole purpose of ”perception is reality” (ok you did say schtick) is to edify.
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I think I'll skip over the first parts because they are all based upon your perception and there is little or no evidence to back up the claim that Trump was amped up by others before he went on air to say the election was stolen on the night of the election and well before all the votes were tallied,
much less verified.

So, your perception that Trump was not the leader of a conspiracy to overturn the election is not based upon the evidence that his gang of merry fraudsters left strewn in their wake like a clown car at a circus. It's like many things the authoritarian right hold tightly to. They believe despite the facts and evidence that contradict them. In that way they are cult-like.

I just skip to the part where you say "perception is reality". No. No, perception is not necessarily. Reality is reality. What we perceive as reality must be checked against the evidence and facts.
Click to expand...
Quick aside/personal story.

The first time I heard 'Perception is reality' was in the very late 90s working at TGIFridays when a future general manager kept saying it relating to keeping shit somewhat clean at the tables and food looking ok without it actually being clean.

idk if it actually means anything, just something I felt like sharing.

lemondroptrichomes said:
I don’t need to dismiss the mueller report to not view Trump as a Russian asset. There are plenty of things to not like about how Trump carries himself/the things he’s said and done for me to not be a personal fan of him. He’s not a Russian asset, he was legitimately elected in 2016, and the 2016 election was not stolen from Clinton.

www.bbc.com

Mueller report: Trump cleared of conspiring with Russia

Robert Mueller's report finds no evidence of collusion but does not exonerate Mr Trump of obstruction.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...
What would you call someone that hired their campaign manager (who previously worked for Russian oligarchs) for free and then they shared very detailed data on American citizens that was given to them from the RNC to Russian spies?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Sativied said:
While not necessarily an invalid interpretation given a certain context, in Kantian philosophy, the "noumenal world“ refers to the realm of things as they are in themselves, das Ding an sich, independent of human perception and in contrasts with the "phenomenal" world we construct in our brains through our perceptions. Concepts effectively devoid of objectivity because we’re not capable of determining otherwise, which is why things like the spirit and soul make good and typical examples, but, are merely that and do not define noumenal. It’s not the spirital world, it’s reality unfiltered by our perception. Which might, or might not even exist.


Perhaps. Yet the whole purpose of ”perception is reality” (ok you did say schtick) is to edify.
Click to expand...
I consider edification to be based in honesty, a desire to instruct and improve someone.

Advertising and propaganda seek to do the opposite — to distort to their advantage.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
hanimmal said:
Quick aside/personal story.

The first time I heard 'Perception is reality' was in the very late 90s working at TGIFridays when a future general manager kept saying it relating to keeping shit somewhat clean at the tables and food looking ok without it actually being clean. …
Click to expand...
(sigh) the quintessential manager ethos. “it’s more important to look good than to be good.”
 
Grandpapy

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Tangent: this is why I believe that the profession of historian carries an extreme moral burden. Historians have the hard work to do of sorting through the tangle of narratives through the lens of perspective, but still steeped in the mythoses (unsure of correct plural) in which they grew up and chose to participate. Example: a left-leaning scholar, a von Mises believer, and someone sympathetic to evangelical doctrine will take the same set of documents (of a shared period andor enterprise) and draw a different synopsis in their work, presuming complete intellectual honesty.

We are forced to rely on historians to tell the least biased possible “quick take” on our collective past. They, more than anyone else, are the stewards of our knowledge of who we are and from where we came.

Like a secular counterpart to Talmudic scholars, who work lifetimes at the soundness of their analyses and opinions, historians shape our identities, our culture, our goals. They interpret the nature and condition of humanity.

Sort of a big idea to ponder while I sip my Monday-morning tea. Any rebuttals or refinements are welcome.
Click to expand...
Noun
mythos (countable and uncountable, plural mythoi or mythoses)


  1. Anything transmitted by word of mouth, such as a fable, legend, narrative, story, or tale (especially a poetic tale).



;-) Anytime!
 
Sativied

Sativied

Well-Known Member
hanimmal said:
idk if it actually means anything, just something I felt like sharing.
Click to expand...
It means that reality is perceived subjectively depending on the observer and imo fits perfectly. For some the reality is that Trump is the greatest president ever. One can argue that’s mere perception, but that would require an assumption of a limit on how much perception shapes reality. That’s still very much open for debate, and why I felt like sharing too, admittedly taking the following out of context, cause there’s a lot in there philosophically. (Not arguing against the message Fogdog actually had regarding Trump’s involvement.)

“Perception is not necessarily reality” is more like Plato
“Reality is reality” is more like Aristotle
“What we perceive as reality must be checked against the evidence and facts.” - Kant/FogDog.

Includes a paradox (the evidence and facts are too perceived) that Kant tried to address, and a difference between Plato and his student Aristotle. Plato believed in a higher realm, real reality, understandable only through reason and logic. His student Aristotle rejected that idea and had a more scientific emperical fact-based approach to understanding the one and only true material/natural world/reality. Kant sort of tries to reconcile these two by not creating a concrete separate realm but suggests reality, the (nouminal) world is beyond our capability to know and experience directly.

He suggests we should apply Aristotle‘s/Fogdog’s “What we perceive as reality must be checked against the evidence and facts.” but at the same time acknowledges we can only know the phenomenal world and that in a way reality is not necessarily reality either and instead perception is the only reality we can and thus have to deal with. Philosophically, alternative facts aren’t as ridiculous as what that means in political discourse. Which again shows I blatantly took it out context, but, yes, I’m going to make a relevant point nonetheless.

cannabineer said:
I consider edification to be based in honesty, a desire to instruct and improve someone.
Click to expand...
Yes, instruct or improve someone morally or intellectually (oxford). Which is the ultimate goal that motivated most of the great philosophers, and one of the ways to get there is to discuss the nature of reality and to what extend it’s mere perception. It’s not just a theoretical excercise, it heavily affects how we interact with eachother and form a society, especially in these divided times it far more valuable than “behave or you go to hell”.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Grandpapy said:
Noun
mythos (countable and uncountable, plural mythoi or mythoses)


  1. Anything transmitted by word of mouth, such as a fable, legend, narrative, story, or tale (especially a poetic tale).




;-) Anytime!
Click to expand...
I had a prof who used mythos to mean something close to the second definition.

Thus a big part of the Enlightenment mythos was that the universe was mechanical and deterministic, thus amenable to full understanding by philosophers, including the natural philosophers who are regarded as the fathers and mothers of science.

A consequence was that the leading thinkers also believed that our humanity and its full actualization were innate —a huge departure from a millennium of original sin and external grace.

It is my belief that the twentieth century can be summed up in one word: Progress. The ever-forward march of technology was gonna have all of us live like the Jetsons.

So far, the twenty-first is not so glossily optimistic. Two trends I see replacing the relentless optimism of the Twentieth are the realization that we are harming a fragile environment whose limits on absorbing the wastes of our industrialization were a minor sideline in the 70s through 90s.

The other is the emergence of social media, virtual reality, and now the first whispers of AI. We are becoming a fully surveilled society, for better and for worse.

So far, the mythos of this century is shaping up to be
- the sustainability mandate
- the marginalization of privacy.

I should include the reactionary evolution from those two: the spread of virulently asocial libertarianism with its facilitation of fascist policies and its sense of (a distorted slave-era vision of) the American way under siege by the woke horde.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Sativied said:
It means that reality is perceived subjectively depending on the observer and imo fits perfectly. For some the reality is that Trump is the greatest president ever. One can argue that’s mere perception, but that would require an assumption of a limit on how much perception shapes reality. That’s still very much open for debate, and why I felt like sharing too, admittedly taking the following out of context, cause there’s a lot in there philosophically. (Not arguing against the message Fogdog actually had regarding Trump’s involvement.)

“Perception is not necessarily reality” is more like Plato
“Reality is reality” is more like Aristotle
“What we perceive as reality must be checked against the evidence and facts.” - Kant/FogDog.

Includes a paradox (the evidence and facts are too perceived) that Kant tried to address, and a difference between Plato and his student Aristotle. Plato believed in a higher realm, real reality, understandable only through reason and logic. His student Aristotle rejected that idea and had a more scientific emperical fact-based approach to understanding the one and only true material/natural world/reality. Kant sort of tries to reconcile these two by not creating a concrete separate realm but suggests reality, the (nouminal) world is beyond our capability to know and experience directly.

He suggests we should apply Aristotle‘s/Fogdog’s “What we perceive as reality must be checked against the evidence and facts.” but at the same time acknowledges we can only know the phenomenal world and that in a way reality is not necessarily reality either and instead perception is the only reality we can and thus have to deal with. Philosophically, alternative facts aren’t as ridiculous as what that means in political discourse. Which again shows I blatantly took it out context, but, yes, I’m going to make a relevant point nonetheless.


Yes, instruct or improve someone morally or intellectually (oxford). Which is the ultimate goal that motivated most of the great philosophers, and one of the ways to get there is to discuss the nature of reality and to what extend it’s mere perception. It’s not just a theoretical excercise, it heavily affects how we interact with eachother and form a society, especially in these divided times it far more valuable than “behave or you go to hell”.
Click to expand...
If we toss in the con that Trump practices into this discussion, we must recognize that relying on what he says without carefully tying perception to evidence and facts can be playing into his con.

www.facebook.com

387K views · 9.5K reactions | President Trump: "You’re seeing and what you're reading is not what’s happening." | "Just remember: what you’re seeing and what you're reading is not what’s happening." | By NBC News | Facebook

"Just remember: what you’re seeing and what you're reading is not what’s happening."
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com

Especially when the subject is Donald Trump, perception and reality are two different things.

In his phone call to Brad Raffensberger, he lied nonstop, often talking over another person when they were correcting what he said with objective, verifiable facts.

This can be true for all politicians but especially ones who are known liars.

@lemondroptrichomes (I think) is reasonably withholding his decision on the matter of Biden v Trump. Why should he decide now, when the time for a decision will not come until November? If the reality that he perceives is that there isn't much difference between the two then I'm glad he's not settling on a decision just yet because he hasn't yet reviewed all the information that is available on the con man.
 
Last edited:
Sativied

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Especially when the subject is Donald Trump, perception and reality are two different things.
Click to expand...
Especially when Trump is the subject and the source he is a rather accurate measuring device for determining what is definitely not reality in any way or form. Plenty of dishonest politicians but even they usually need at least some truth in there, albeit distorted, to fool themselves they are a good at their job. Nobody wants to be just a bullshitter. Well... for Trump his lies seem to be the very fabric of his reality, one detached from the one we at least try to perceive objectively and test for truth.

When your own reality is not what others perceive it to be:


”Didn’t expect that reaction…” That was somewhat honest for a change. He didn’t expect that, after all it’s “sow trew”.

Fogdog said:
In his phone call to Brad Raffensberger, he lied nonstop, often talking over another person when they were correcting what he said with objective, verifiable facts.
Click to expand...
Behavior I recently likened to using the subtitles of not just a different episode but a completely different series.

A similar analogy fits well imo: Trump goes beyond telling fictional stories, sometimes live, freestyle even. Whether it's a book or a movie, the story is usually a balance between scene and narrative. To be convincing, whether it's fictional or not, show, don't tell. Don't write Bob loved Alice very much, show me acts of love or devastating heartbreak to lead me to that conclusion. Usually, with deliberate exceptions, the more the scale leans too much to narration, the worse the story. With Trump, however, the narrative he provides... it does not even match the scenes. It's trash. Perhaps some hope can be derived from the idea that everyone likes a good story. Good stories get renewed for another season.

Like someone said in the comments on the phonecall in your link: "Imagine lying for 70 years and still being horrible at it."
 
lemondroptrichomes

lemondroptrichomes

Active Member
Fogdog said:
I think I'll skip over the first parts because they are all based upon your perception and there is little or no evidence to back up the claim that Trump was amped up by others before he went on air to say the election was stolen on the night of the election and well before all the votes were tallied,
much less verified.

So, your perception that Trump was not the leader of a conspiracy to overturn the election is not based upon the evidence that his gang of merry fraudsters left strewn in their wake like a clown car at a circus. It's like many things the authoritarian right hold tightly to. They believe despite the facts and evidence that contradict them. In that way they are cult-like.

I just skip to the part where you say "perception is reality". No. No, perception is not necessarily. Reality is reality. What we perceive as reality must be checked against the evidence and facts.
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point. My perception is reality comment was lending to years and years of either true OR fabricated scandal that people have been subjected to. Not every Trump scandal is real - it’s just not. But that doesn’t matter because each individual’s perception of Trump forms their personal reality. So people who have observed, sought out, or even unknowingly consumed said scandals will not vote for Trump. He is riding a thin margin of people who still view him positively or will vote R just to keep a D out of the White House.

Mine is not an emotional position.

Also don’t get too hung up on “Trump had people in his ear” because for sure he did, but that’s not me saying it was only people around him pushing him in that direction. The thing I mostly dislike about Trump is the size of his ego (although some ego is to be expected from anyone running the most powerful country on earth so a measured ego is palatable.) For sure he was asking those around him/attorneys as well “what can we do let’s try it all anything and everything I think this was stolen this is rigged blah blah blah”

The question is whether or not it’s allowed by law. If it had all been lawful/it is lawful for him to speak what he has spoken, he has still pushed people away by saying the voter machines or the people at ballet stations stole it. I think those statements are what may end up costing him the election because people in the middle just feel icky about it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top