Monday, February 13, 2006

Revisiting a field guide to provocateurs and their ilk

Given the times, I felt compelled to pull this out of the Archives. While I think it might be useful for all of us, there is a certain petit choux for whom I would especially recommend giving it a quick read.

Exculpatory errata

Please note that everything I have to say on the subject is drawn simply from my own experience, nothing else. Experience, however, which spans several decades, various movements and more than one continent.

And, not to disappoint, but I have no intention whatsoever of outing anyone. That is precisely what they seek – to distort, deceive and disrupt. To change the focus from the struggle to something, anything, else. Even and often to themselves.

My purpose, therefore, is to provide some information which might be useful in identifying them. Clues, as it were. Patterns of behavior, habitats, tactics, that you can observe, note and deal with as you choose.

And another note. It is next to impossible to ever be absolutely certain in these matters. Therefore, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like mad, lead it gently back into the pond from whence it came.

An arbitrary typology…or poseurs, provocateurs, castrati and such

As in so many arenas, what matters are consequences, not intent. Thus one will find many a self-serving poseur. These are the individuals who can be noted by their absence from the scene when their “cause” is no longer in the headlines or on the news. But they are faster than a speeding bullet when something is “happening.” Dropping names, acting as if they’ve been there forever. And, one way or another, always, making some cash out of the deal.

Another clue to their game is that they almost invariably fail to do enough homework, being too busy arranging the lights or firing off apocalyptic bulletins to stir their fans/consumers. And that lack of homework and media spotlight can be both diversionary and dangerous. I remember once when a US government document was “misread,” mistaking the ELN for the EZLN and leading to a flurry of rumour and damage that had to be mopped up by anyone with access to a scullery.

Image is all for them. They may come as rugged cowboy, rumpled media heavyweight, tarnished saint, but come they do. And then they leave. Always off to the latest, hottest, most profitable New Thing.

Now we come to the ever annoying provocateur. Their role historically has been to infiltrate a group, behave like a lunatic and disrupt. Nowadays, however, given the virtual nature of so much of our work, they tend to do their business online.

Flooding lists with off-topic, and off-putting, posts. Veering as far as they can into the caricature of sociopathy. Diverting, disrupting and horrifying. Their first hope is to marginalize the site, their second is to shut it down.

For those of you who have been around for a while, you might remember a certain Chiapas list. A particularly prolific character [or characters, since he was addicted to transparent shape-shifting] appeared, always ready to post endless words on provocative [of course] issues and stir rabid, off center discussion. And this was at an especially difficult time in Chiapas, when loss of focus could have led to serious consequences.And, when that was not enough, he turned to another favorite tactic. Slander.

Slander is also a tool in the arsenal of another species which I call castrati, for what I would like to think are quite obvious reasons. You know this sort. Often, though not always, male. Driven by hysterical [and I use that adjective with full intent of referencing its historical origins] rage, bonded to his computer with superglue, always on the lookout for a new target for his sublimated wrath.

In other times they were tying limbs to a rack, flogging disbelievers, burning the dangerous one at a stake. Tedious stereotype at its worst – displacing, projecting, purifying, pogrom making. These repressed zealots are the easiest to spot. Their hysteria gives them away, they despise anything female [unless she be virginal or martyred or, preferably, both] and, like the poseur, they never do enough homework.

As, for example, a recent wanker of no note, who - if he had indeed been involved and Irish as he avers - would have been present at a marvelously riotous May Day celebration one weekend a few years back at a certain pub in Dublin. A charmingly licentious evening was had by all, and he would have been left with no doubt, for example, as to the proper suffix of my name. Thus sparing himself the humiliation of his recent public self-outing.

And, speaking of Dublin, that brings us to counterinsurgents.

They often wish to meet you – in person. Or to get your phone number so they can chat. Or, if they think you’re wired, to get an introduction to someone inside. They are smart enough, usually, to pretend they have something to offer. A project, a skill, something of value.

These are the dangerous ones who can arrange to have your phone line cut in the basement of your building and, simultaneously, at the switching station. Who can outsource their work to such a degree that the junkie street person who’s being paid to watch you and follow you day and night might indeed be a whacked out junkie and not just someone who’s been dressed up to look like one. Not a pleasant circumstance.

They tap your phones, hack your computer, have you followed. Except for the one attack in Dublin, my experience has been benign. I have been lucky, unlike many others. In Chiapas they outsource to paramilitaries and thugs and anyone else who needs the price of a cup of coffee.

And how does one recognize them? Very easily. They’re the ones who are trying to do you serious harm. And, unlike the poseurs and castrati, they do their homework very very well.

A game for the parlour

Yes, a bonus.

I suspect that one of the above types – someone I know from my above referenced past – has posted comments here a couple of times. If it is he, I must admit that he’s mellowed a bit, for now at least. Or perhaps he’s just investing in higher quality chronic. Time will most likely tell.

Have some fun. But I absolutely insist – no naming of names. Think of this as a private, practical exercise, designed to sharpen your observational skills.After all, being right is never enough. You also have to be swift and smart and endlessly intrepid.


TripleJ said...

I remember at least one in the CL list. Though I have to admit that his antics had me rolling on the floor with laughter at times.

So he may have been a provocateur, although I'm not yet 100% certain. Disruptive he certainly was, though he also was often quite funny. And eventually I left the list, not because of him, but because of the stupid way the list administrators censored the incoming postings.

These were the good ol'e days when I was still young :)

aketus said...


I didn't print this out the first time but it so definitely deserves to be made into an on-field handbook for all and any of us, though I won't speak for the parlour..

' They may come as rugged cowboy, rumpled media heavyweight, tarnished saint, but come they do.'

How very acute. I might add that these particular poseurs also have such a habit of not only being in the spotlight of the event, but so often in the spotlight of the harem they gather around them, so that they may be spread through the waves by their followers without having to do the work themselves. Disruption is the aim in regards to the event - glorification is the personal reward.

In the Australian anarchist area we're seeing the same heads rearing themselves in Marxist fashion to spread the seeds of authoritarianism.. and declaring our protests and exposure of them to be against equality.. how ironic to come from the mouths of those who seek to lead those not wishing to be led..

Thanks Irl for digging this back up. Relevant then, now, and probably in times to come.

aketus said...

I knew not the provocateur, triplej, nevertheless I have heard a lot about him and for shame, that he also shared similar non-political interests with me *remembers a particular website*

Spark said...

hello again

just wanted to say that i've just looked at yr nice blog Mr Aketus & wondered what exactly the symbol at the top right refers to? :-)

i should avoid religious symbolism if i were you otherwise you might be accused of contradiction!

if so, i suggest you armour yourself with Mr Whitman "do i contradict myself, very well i contradict myself, i contain multitudes" though to my mind that has always sounded a tad arrogant

hmm.i think we need to do a primer on the correct use of religious symbology, seeing as even the atheist anarchists are using it now heh heh

for example [another walt whitman line included here] on "the slaying of provocational unbelievers and the metaphorical, and spiritually sublime truth that waits for them behind their inevitable beheading and consequent transfiguration" [with apologies for an intro that is longer than the poem itself]

"a billion years, alive or dead, cheer up slaves, chop off your head"
[by my dear friend Rich, after reading Whitman and a zen book whose author's name i forget "On having no head"]

Aketus: read some Blake, Rumi or Zen on the annihalation of self-hood and then do a retreat or summat: then you'll get the truth about [the Mohammed cartoon was quite apt,in this sense] the salvationary call of religion [and also why/how its powerful medicine gets misused] and also where it connects with science - literally, "knowing" - it'll be worth it because then you'll be a true pontiff, or pope: etymologically speaking the bridge

= wot we need now more than ever

"And Enoch was not, and he walked with God"

Love and Light

aketus said...

I recognise the symbol, yes, I did not design it, it's part of the template. And images are not bought out by religion. You are overlooking the fact that to an athiest, it is not a religious symbol, it is merely an image and it represents no significance whatsoever. :) Such are the freedoms of a mind not boggled down by, erm, bullshit.
Cheers for the interest and thanks for telling me what to read, I make a habit of following instructions from above, yes

TripleJ said...

Spark, you did not listen, Religion and Science cannot connect by definition. I know, I'm a very science minded person, and what I like best about science is it totally ignores religion, and God(s) or any other supernatural phenomena.

Trust me on this. If you see any "science" that either invokes God, or purports to prove God exists (or doesn't exist), then you can be sure it is not science.

To parody the Marquis of Laplace after Napoléon had supposedly read his "La Mécanique Céleste":

Napoleon: "And god, what is is place in all of this?"

Laplace: "Sire, I had no need for this hypothesis!"

aketus said...

I think perhaps there are still a couple of people in the world so baffled and confused, they can take the easy way out with religion than actually use their brain is all.
No shame in that, I just thought we'd left the stone age.
And yes, I am arrogant, and despite your best efforts you won't make me feel bad for that :-) that's one of the examples of arrogance in itself: you cannot shame me, perhaps we can just ignore each other in peace :-)

Spark said...

hey comrade dudes - I wasn't ignoring you A, nor did I not listen TJ, I just happen to disagree but didn't know where to start, in such a small space. that happens a lot.

It all depends on how you define science. If you take the scientistic view that it is only about white coats, empirical apparatus based observation then that is elite science, useful but also capable of extremely narrow vision of what it means to be human

It has no recognition of emotions beyond chemical indicators, and the spirit doesn't even get a look in

My definition is wider, more in line with the Buddha's egalitarian: "this is the truth, but don't take it on blind faith, find out for yourself" everyone is a scientist. The mind and the body and the way it relates to the world at large is the lab. That doesn't mean everyone has to get quantum physics or genetics [so elitist and hierarchical!], it just means that we all have the capacity to know "the way things are" for ourselves, without the need for an academic to tell us

This parallels a similar strand in religion, the reform that allowed us to move away from the priesthood having monopoly on religious truth, and towards an embrace of the idea that everyone can have a direct unmediated relationship with Truth: still being played out with all the fragmentary consequences we see around us today, including this excellent discussion

Science, Con-Science [literally, "with knowledge"] and Conscientiousness are all linked

And so this is where Science and Religion, and therefore morality can meet, in the Art of Being

Or are we to allow only the men in white coats tell us what knowledge is? Sounds like an insane asylum to me

And there was I thinking prejudice had died in the stone age! ;-)

TripleJ said...

Spark, the aims of science are completely different from the aims of religion.

religion wants to know "why" we are here, what is the meaning of life etc...

Science wants only to know "how" it works. It doesn't care "why" it is there. It is merely trying to deduce some useful laws to correlate observations. Some of it is exceedingly clever, like those thermodynamics laws that they derived in the late 1850s (far more complicated than the theory of relativity which is easy to comprehend by comparison, about on a par with quantum theory in subtlety if not quirkiness). And none, not a single one, necessitates the existence a supernatural being. Nothing is taken on faith. Nothing. It's purely pattern recognition, looking for effects and causes and the mathematical laws joining the two together.

When you say that religion wants to connect to science, well maybe that's what the religious people want, but I can guarantee you that the scientists don't want it, they know that once religion gets into the mix it will no longer be science. And that's not only the atheist scientists who feel like this, the believers also don't want it.

As I said, god is neither necessary, nor is it the aim of science.

And by the way, I never wear a white coat.

There are lots of charlatans out there, pseudo-scientists like the "Intelligent Design" pseudo science wankers. The "Intelligent Design" pseudo theory is just pure crap, no wonder Dubya loves it so much.

Heck all scientits know the earth is only 5643 years old, it looks older because God created it so it would seem so, he even created all the dinosaurs bones to convince us 4 billions years was the age of the earth, but one only needs to read the bible and count the age of the people in genesis to see that 6000 years is tops maximum. Well the discrepancy is easily explained, the Intelligent Designer made it so :^)


Sorry, I just fell off my chair laughing.


aketus said...

'Or are we to allow only the men in white coats tell us what knowledge is'

Religion is not knowledge, religion is belief. Science is knowledge. Thanks spark you have just explained for all of us the sharp difference between the two

Spark said...

Ok guys you've got me on the ropes. Help!

Just joking - I've only just begun though I expect we'll need to move on to a new topic soon or the girls might get bored [and that includes me]

3J I think our differences have more to do with a difference in definitions than anything else - your definition of science is standard. The orthodox externally focused one. Whereas I think it more helpful expand this to include the empirical, observation-based approach but applying it also personally, in an internally-centred way. Otherwise science becomes all too easily the intellectual abstraction and objectification of the world - as seen in many scientific types and also westerners in general who think too much and are therefore dead from the neck down.

The science of knowing is essential: science is too fundamental a human structure for it not to be democratized. To not include the subjective-objective [ie holistic] human experience in our definition of science - they'll look back on us and say - what were they thinking

But Aketus raises another question: the difference between a belief and knowledge is tricky. The etymology of the word belief is very interesting, relating to the old german word for love and life lief and liege as in [with a postmodern gender reversing twist] Irlandesa, my liege.

And so belief relates in some way to Being Life - the Art of Being.

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free"

But to be more clear: in reference back to the above, and the need in scientific terms for hypothesis, experiment/observation and deduction. What if I presented the following scenario to you:

a woman sitting quietly, breathing naturally, with her awareness placed throughout her body and quite fully connected to her senses, very present, her thoughts completely subsided, her mind extremely quiet and very peaceful, sublimely still, becomes aware, in a world where every single created thing is in constant flux, changing seeming to be the only constant, of something that doesn't change, that isn't created but that is always present, of an eternal presence that is not of this world but that is somehow, without contradiction or duality, in it

would that not be knowledge?

and if one acolyte, hearing her speak of these things using the language of religion, the proof of the Living God, the Holy and Eternal One, was inspired by her conviction and her obvious and extraordinary moral presence to seek the same, would that not be an experiment waiting to happen?

In terms of the hypothesis: it is that God is Real

and if there really is a God, for this to mean anything at all, It must be Eternal, Unchanging, Everlasting or at least Existing Beyond Time, and definitely Omnipresent

And if it's omnipresent, that means it's here, right now - and so we should be able to find it!

And so the acolyte must know and think for herself, she must do the experiment, she must look, observe, become a witness without prejudice and see if she can't find that self-same eternal quality that she had seen in her teacher

and not to blindly follow the scientistic pack, like the rest of them

And in order to get focused on the experiment in hand:

as everything that exists is dying, moving, changing & in flux, it follows that something that is eternal will be still

Observation time: observation is not just the preserve of the science types who do not want to believe in God, there are others, who believe that though Science and Religion are separate strands of human endeavour, that they meet in the human experience of One, as in the Leonardo picture of the man with his limbs open, the macrocosm in the micro, "making the inner like the outer" as Jesus said, & that great artist Da Vinci:

"There are many beings in the world, but the best bing of all is the being of nothingness"

And so, unless we do the experiment, which means to quieten & still ourselves, and look, really look without prejudice, we are not really entitled to speak of these things with authority or credibility because if we never bothered looking but just came to our own rather over intellectualised conclusions, from borrowed and tired assumptions, then we can never know, we can never be, in Jimi Hendrix's words "experienced" and our 'beliefs' will not be based on our own knowledge, but on an acceptance of others'

Which sounds a lot like blind faith

aketus said...


'...becomes aware, in a world where every single created thing is in constant flux, changing seeming to be the only constant, of something that doesn't change, that isn't created but that is always present, of an eternal presence that is not of this world but that is somehow, without contradiction or duality, in it

would that not be knowledge?'

No it wouldn't. TripleJ's point is that 'becoming aware' and other such vague statements are not an example of knowledge, unless they can be proven.
How is she 'becoming aware'? You do not elaborate, because there is no logical reason. It is easier to say 'became aware' and then suggest some sort of divine realization. And there is no explanation of how she came to this awareness, because it cannot be proven. Therefore it is not knowledge. It is an experience, perhaps, and then you quickly lead it on to a belief. But where's the proof?
'eternal presence that is not of this world but that is somehow, without contradiction or duality, in it'
Where? Show me the photos? The evidence?
Do you not see this is not knowledge. Knowledge is an after-effect of evidence. This isn't my opinion. It's a fact. Facts are what we're talking about here and why we disagree.
In short: Science is a collection of concepts in the world that can be proven how they happen. Resulting in knowledge.
Religion is a belief of why these things happen, without using evidence, but hiding behind such concepts as 'faith' or 'hope' or the 'human spirit'.
I'm not saying such concepts are irrelevant. Purely, that they cannot be proven, and so do not relate to science in any way. Whether they ought to be believed in or not is something else entirely.
I'm convinced of this because as I said, it's not my opinion. No one has ever provided proof of the existence of god, or all the other neo-spiritualist rhetoric you came up with. Show me the proof of this eternal being. Then I'll show you that through the law of Natural State of Decay, nothing is eternal.
But until you can show that belief can be proven (it can't: once it's proven, it's knowledge and not belief and so is science), don't try to connect Religion and Science together. Until religion relies on facts and proof, or evidence, it will never be anything remotely connected to science. I don't see where the argument can continue: unless you are to then attempt to tell me that God can be proven to exist, but I don't see how? You'd be the first in the civilisation of humans for one thing.

Comrada B said...

Very little in science is an accepted law. The majority of science is in fact theory, theory and more theory, but theory is just one's thoughts, feelings or lol...belief in something until in fact it's disproven. There is no 'designated time period' a standard of time, in which a theory proves itself out. So in fact, theory is just one's thoughts on a particular area of study and science is mostly theory. What? one or two actual laws exist within science? A few at best and the rest is someone's thoughts (they feel it to be true, lol) that is, until that (whatever it is) is widely accepted within the scientific community (which by the way in the states, is also a worn out antiquated standard for something being considered "scientific" from a 1930 somethin' law in the justice system here, and doesn't even require widely accepted just accepted within the scientific community to be scientific under the law, and that could be from a handful of nut cases who are disproven 100 or so years later.) Most scientists do not accept something unless they can empirically measure it.

And so what?

Which is a perfect bore and even within the scientific community itself is hotly debated as a standard. Many things in science that hundreds or thoudsands of years ago, could not in fact be proven out and or measured in some fashion until more recently with the advent of equipment to measure or see it or a great deal of time as we measure it (sigh), didn't mean it didn't exist. More pointedly, when the scienctific community is approached with something, a thoery whatever, they rebuke it till it's proven out. What a tight arsed little society. At the same time many a thoery waited many a lifetime to be proven. What I see in science is that they instantly rebuke something if they can't instantly measure it. Just because science can't measure it now doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

fauxtapatio said...


Spark said...

I have to say that as a scientist-minded person I have to agree with these guys, up to a point, in spite of my best efforts:

of course it's not really possible [in narrow scientistic terms] to prove Eternal Being, except within one's own experience, which as you say, again in scientistic terms, is not valid. But it can of course be backed up intersubjectively by speaking to others who've touched the same thing: kind of like checking the results in an experiment with scientists around the world and throughout history

that said, i do thing your claiming for narrow science all "knowledge" a bit rich and somewhat oppressive/patronising - in a word, scientistic - to all of us who "know" what i am talking about. the word "Buddha", for example, literally means "the one who knows"

do you see where i am coming from too? awareness is not understood by science, how it can be everywhere, like inner light, boundless

God cannot be proven, in your terms, but neither can non-existence of God be proven either, so on your terms even taking an opinion either way seems wrong.

i am not clear on this question: are you taking an opinion, either way?

in meditation we can come to realise that the Reality about which we are speaking is not properly said to be either existing or non-existing, it's beyond these terms of reference, beyond the scientifics obsession either/or - with true or false, on or off

as Bohr said, opposites are not necessarily contradictory, but

reality is both wave AND particle - how can that be in conventional scientific terms of true OR false - these two concepts are completely contradictory

so if scientists can bridge that duality in their little minds you'd think they'd be able to bridge knowledge and wisdom

"not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be counted counts" was written On Einstein's office door"

and Einstein's experiments, which he called thought experiments, were not at all the classic model of scientific experimentation

more in line with the mathmaticians who KNOW their theorys are correct, through the elegance and simplicity of the equations that have come, in a poroess that appears more like revelation than traditional scientific observation [maths is probably the achilles heel of your argument but we'll go there later, no time now]

but by a process of deduction, when one experiences the obvious and overriding unity of things, one can't help but think there is one source, Occam's Razor would back this up by seing the simplest and most elegant explanation is the best, in which case unity of the universe would be a reflection of the unity that lies behind the universe

God is the artist, the universe a piece of art, given freely to reflect that truth. art , like this life is a gift, a talent freely given: that's why the gift economy, as opposed to the preesent capitalist shrift economy, will one day reign supreme

ok got to go. walking the river thames today, from Runnymede where the Magana Carta was signed, to Parliament. Got a civil rights weekend to plan

Sigh, indeed.

irlandesa said...

Yes, suspiro, and I've been rather desperately trying to find a spare moment or ten to, um, add a new thread, as it were.

One that might, perhaps, posit the silly thought that the Cartesian and the Dionysian, for example, not only can, but must, coexist. I've certainly never found it to be a problem.

Comrada B said...

Yes Irl... and on unity, someone of more recent times wrote and we all know whom "where all worlds fit in one world." :-)

TripleJ said...

Comrada B
Youa are both right and wrong, yes science is theory and those theories are only approximations. And every now and then a new, better, theory comes along and replaces an older one.

But you make it sound so arbitrary in its happenance that you are wrong in this instance. The laws of science are not the same as the laws of justice. Abortion can be made legal or illegal at will, but try reversing the law of gravity, let me see you try to fall up!

Science is purely pattern recognition and a mathematical expression which explains the pattern (at least approximately). It implies measurements (lots of them), statistics (because we now know that nothing is absolutely predictable).

So Newton's law of gravity is wrong, Einstein's is better, it explains Mercury's little quirks. It also explains Ampère's law of electricity at the same time (but still does not explain what an electron is).

It is still wrong but better.

And there is no need for a designated time to prove the theory correct, because we all know that it is wrong to begin with. It is simple, does the theory improves on the predictions that the old one did. If yes, it is adoted, if no, it is rejected. Just like I always used a sliderule until the electronic pocket calculator was invented. The calculator was faster and quicker and more accurate, and it fitted in my pocket better, so of course I had to adapt to it :^)

Mind you I still have a sliderule and a logarithms table on my boat as well as a sextant. If the GPS and the calculator fail, I can still compute by hand accurately to know where the hell I am (never could quite trust fully those newfangled devices :^)

TripleJ said...


I agree that the spiritual and the scientific can coexist peacefully. Same as an apple and a motorcar can also coexist. They are totally unrelated, but both can exist.

Which explains why so many scientists are true believers.

It only becomes a complete disaster when you try to mix the two together. A bit like trying to make an apple pie with a few car parts thrown in in the middle would not produce a very tasty dish.

Just look at the abortions like the Church of scientology, or the Intelligent Designer idea. Hell even the pope admits it's a bad idea.

So can someone spiritual be a scientist at the same time, sure, why not, same as I can be an engineer at work and a cook at home (I'm a far better engineer than I am a cook :^)

aketus said...

'the spiritual and the scientific can coexist peacefully. Same as an apple and a motorcar can also coexist. They are totally unrelated, but both can exist.'

Exactly. If we actually look back to the start of the religion/science debate, spark was trying to say that they were related/connected, went together like two peas in a pod. I have no problem either with their coexistence, none at all, but that we don't need to go that extra step and try to suggest that they are really quite similar, because as TripleJ said, 'Religion and Science cannot connect by definition.'
Nevertheless they can coexist - oops Comrada, did I nearly let slip the word 'unity'? :)
I have no debate on the coexistence of science and spirituality. Or of anything. We're all coexisting here and having some great debate, I've enjoyed it

aketus said...

'an apple and a motorcar can also coexist.'
Yes, and perhaps it's these such things as apple/motorcar. religion/science, that ignore each other so successfully due to not relating, their coexistence is a successful one. That is, until someone tries to drive a bridge between the two to connect them, and then it all goes out the window

TripleJ said...


The concept of being both particle and wave at the same time is not contradictory at all since all quanta particles exhibit that property.

The existence of those particles therefore disproves your inference that such behaviours are contradictory for a unique particle.

Here is a little exercise for you. "Vibes", do "vibes" exist? You know like when someone says I caught vibes from someone else ...

Now some people believe they exist (esp, mind reading...) and others don't. Me, I'm waiting on measured proof to make up my mind that they exist. However there is considerable anecdotal evidence, even in the scientific world, that once something is known by many, it becomes easier for others to also learn it. For instance, in 1905 when Albert came out with his special relativity theory, people struggled with it. And in 1911 (?) his general relativity made things even worse. But nowadays, lots of people seem to find it "relatively" (pun) easy to understand. So does that mean they are catching "vibes" off those who already know?

Well the exercise is to devise an experiment to measure whether "vibes" actually exist. You've got the choice, either accept vibes or reject them on faith alone (that's the religious way). Or prove they exist (or not) by a cunningly devised experiment (that's the scientific way).

Should science be able to propose an experiment to "prove" or "disprove" such a hairyfairy concept would be a pretty good thing in favour of science wouldn't it? :^)

aketus said...

In more of a response to spark...

I actually take back my statement that all knowledge falls under the wing of science, because I agree that 'awareness' is a type of knowledge in that it belongs to the individual. Here's why

You might like, if you haven't read it before, the modern day proverb that follows as such:

Athiest Astronaut: 'I have been in space and I have never seen the heavens!'

Religious brain surgeon: 'And I have operated on many brains, but I have never seen a single thought.'

Lets say I have a headache. Now, I didn't need to go and run some tests to prove that I had a headache, but that my senses told me so. Gave me awareness. Therefore I knew I had a headache, or I was aware of it. Same, I think you are saying, as spiritual awareness. Your senses (perhaps in this case, the mind itself) tells you so.
Cool. I agree.
I guess my argument then follows that as long as it is an awareness belonging solely to the individual, then the church should not preach it as Truth to everybody, for do we not concede that everyone is an individual that has their own experiences that cannot be shared or collectivised?
I should think so otherwise there would then be a grave contradiction.
So if I am right in interpreting your concept of spirituality as how I just mentioned, I gotta agree :)
Good day all

Comrada B said...

The question isn't do vibe's exist? The question is can science measure "vibes?" The very same vibes as we commonly call them between two people or more, in an artificial setting, so science can then isolate what it is occuring when "vibes" flow between two or more people and perhaps recreate it in a way that it can be studied again and again, thusly proving (in their world) "vibes" exist.

As for me I know they do. But what are they and how is it the other person picks up on exactly what that "particular vibe" is saying? More oft than not someone picks up on the wrong vibe as they say. Meaning the receiver of the vibe, interprets the vibe much differently than the sender of the vibe is really sending. Then again, we have seen many times in our lives, whether we admit to it or not that another was sending that "vibe" and we knew instinctively or through something yet discovered, exactly what that vibe meant and in many cases who was sending it... now mind you no clues between the sender and reciever (a smile, a wink, a frown, whatever) and both sender and receiver are not even in close physical proximity of each other.

I feel (much more than) vibes exist (in terms of the unexplainable) but in the case of human experiment on vibes and when in the same physical proximity, honesty comes into play. Human's misunderstand and err or are even dishonest. Examples: The sender says "I thought you wanted me baby?" The receiver says "What on earth are you talking about?" and the all time classic: sender, "I can tell you like me" receiver, "I wasn't feeling that way (vibe) at all."

On the other hand, there are cases, I will call them experiences, where not even in the same physical proximity to other and a "vibe" occurs and both feel it. Accurately. How often does this "vibe" occur when not in the same physical proximity? I cannot be certain that it did not occur since the beginging of man, but it seems it is not just a modern day occurance or since "new agers" as some call them pranced onto the scene in all natural fibers and Birkenstocks and probably in oral tradition before written, so there is no certain way of gauging how often "vibes" have occured between two people, or 'how many cases there are. In modern times it has been noted by the many Statistically, the frequency is much higher that a "vibe" is experienced between family and loved one's and this only second to twins. As studies have shown, twins seem to feel "vibes" more oft of one or the other, while physically apart, than say family/loved ones and even less frequent with mere aquaintences.

I work for a number of doctors. I hear a number of cases of just such an occurance of "vibes" something like a feeling, non scientific, yet very accurate. I have read cases upon other cases of "vibes" felt, while outside of any physical proximity to the one they got the vibe from. From friend's sharing their own experiences of just such a phenomena. The number of cases is staggering as I am only one person hearing reading and studying this "vibe" experience. So what is it? Chemical messengers as they are referred to occur in the presence of someone, but can chemical messengers travel miles or even to anther continent and in a timely way?

When my oldest daughter went to live with my estranged (he was strange too, lol) a number of states away, over the course of a number of years there, the frequency of "vibes" felt accurately, fromthis child was eventually tossed out as soley a coincidence. Each and every time she had an injury of a serious nature or wanted to communicate something urgent in nature, I felt the "vibe" as it occured. I would find out that my "vibe" was on the mark, in a phone call after the fact. The same occured with other family members, but not quite the same frequency. Nearly everytime my youngest would have something happen while not physically in my midst, the "vibe" would terrorize me in the same way as my oldest.

JJJ, while you used an example of 'something known by some, then it became known to the many'(Albert) is not a very viable arguement to the contrary of a "vibe" and it's existance in this age of written comminucation, as written (or possibly a phone call, lol) isn't excactly phenomena science cannot explain. I always had through the years as they grew a bad vibe about one of my children in a car riding with their friend's. I never got that meancing "vibe" about the other child in a car with friends. One day, while on vacation and at home, not away on holiday I heard many sirens. In the three years I lived in that little town, I had never heard that many sirens. This day, I got that menacing "vibe" like never before. Now you could say I knew that something bad had happened from that many sirens going, to what was obviously an accident. Then I thought as it was such a small town, I would go look. Check it out. Right then the menacing "vibe" seemed to say my youngest' name. It seemed to say "you need to look." Then I quickly looked at a clock and thought (that) child is just about about to start such and such a class at school and it couldn't be what I thought I heard/felt. I started to head out the door to drive/look anyway, now it was becoming more than a meancing "vibe." I felt the life litterally ebbing out of me. I thought, "I really needed a vacation or I am working on a heart attack from my stressful job." The feeling of panic for my child was ovewhelming but I rationalised by using deduction and reason and noting of the time, and such but even that did not make the vibe non-existant and the life ebbing from me was so bad I had to lay down or I would surely fall down. Traffic as it turned out was snarled for 5 plus hours, when on a normal drive it would have taken ten minutes to get to that area. I wouldn't have gotten close to get a look as I hemmed and hawed and rationalized the seconds away. And the accident was so bad it took hour's for the authorities to notify the loved one's. I got the knock at the door. While I tried to rationalize away the "vibe" in some sensical way, there was no way I could have known that was my child. Literally as the life ebbed from her, it was ebbing from me as well.

I realize that all that is difficlut for the reader. I applogize. There is though, much that science cannot explain. Including the dream two weeks before my youngest child's untimely death in which a non physical "body" came to me, exclaiming about three time's "you will lose something you love dearly." Maybe one day science will be able to prove that "vibes" exist. In the meantime I see all around me that they do indeed exist.

TripleJ said...

Comrada B

Yes, I believe science can measure probabilistically whether vibes of the knowledge sort that I described exist. But before I suggest how it may be done I'd like Spark to use his little grey matter and see if he can work out a type of experiment that could work.

That's the difference. You accept they exist on faith alone. I also suspect they exist because of my own personal experiences, but I don't want to accept it on faith alone, so I need some statistical measurement to convince myself. I may be right and they exist, or I may be totally wrong (it's happened many times before :^)


Comrada B said...

On la otra nota...

and a much more important one...the HSBC of Mexico, S.A. have shown yet again their true allegiance to evil. For some here who have received the news, you already have heard that enlace civil had two bank accounts (in this particular case) that were desiganted for good works for the victims of hurricane Stan and for the clean water works project and for a food project (the later being done by women) I am so infuriatd (that I am nearly exhaling fire out my darn nose...and please no analogies to a dragon lady) at yet another action to undermine humanitarian work from those above imposed on those below. I spent months raising monies for just said project(s) and I know there are many involved that were/are doing the same and must be disgusted as I, (disclaimer: I know I cannot speak for them) but can clearly understand how they are feeling right about now. My efforts are not in vain and I WILL continue to find a way to do the same no matter what these (expletives) from above do. Their timimg though at closing those accounts could not have been more lousy, for I was today ready, finally, to send the fruits of this labor. After months of working on getting aid raised from below and of the left, not one contributor to my efforts to give humanitarian assistance being a political group of sellout's to any government and from the intergalactic, the facists from above find yet another way to undermine good works.

For the moment, the urge to throw back numerous lagers and engage in unlady-like expletives at higher decibles than would merely make the ponies in the street show signs of restlessness has fallen on me.

TripleJ said...

To conclude the "vibes" experiment:

Here's a possibility. Send briefly a picture such as "My wife and my mother in law" to a popular show on TV in say England, then poll the viewers to see what they saw. Most people will have seen one of the two possible pictures, very few will have seen both. Then explain on TV to all those viewers that there are 2 pictures to be seen, hence they will acquire knowledge. Immediately (before they have time to forget), repeat the experiment in Germany and use statistics to determine whether the results in Germany have been influenced by the fact that 2 or 3 million viewers in England just learnt the knowledge.

Now I did not dream up this experiment, someone else did. And I believe it was their intent to carry it out. I haven't yet heard about the results, if any.

Anonymous said...

I really enjoyed looking at your site, I found it very helpful indeed, keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

Super color scheme, I like it! Good job. Go on.

Anonymous said...

Greets to the webmaster of this wonderful site. Keep working. Thank you.

online payday loan said...

Great blog. nice piece of information on it. Taken some help from it in creating my own online payday loan blog. thanxs for the help.

Anonymous said...

knowledge of the subject is great and its fun to read here. bank loans

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the informative blog. i have put some information on refinance mortgage ,
if that can be a help to u and your readers.

payday loan online said...

Rejoice in every melody you heard, the smiles you shared with strangers, the blissfully simple laugh of a child, the spun sugar clouds waltzing through a patch of topaz sky. Now snuggle into your favorite pillow and be filled with warmth and perfect peace. payday loan online