Perception, Inception and the Trojan Horse Money Meme - Part One of Four

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Perception, Inception and the Trojan Horse Money Meme

Chapter One of Four




Cognitive Dissonance


The intent of this essay is not to convince the reader of anything other than the need to expand our depth perception of the consensus reality. Consider this essay as an invitation to think free of constraints. Chapters One (here) and Two (here) explore our distorted and manipulated perception of reality while Chapter Three (here) examines the concept of Inception or the implanting of thought or belief memes into our individual minds and our collective culture. Chapter Four (here) discusses a basic roadmap to the expansion of our perceived reality.


Perception Is Reality

As a young child I traveled extensively starting around seven years of age and extending deep into my twenties. For almost two decades I visited exotic and faraway lands where I witnessed strange native customs while struggling to understand the local culture. I marveled at the foreign architecture, the strange smells, sounds, colors and textures as I abandoned restraint and became totally immersed in my surroundings. Each day I experienced the inner thrill of discovery tinged with the latent unease that comes from being totally out of my element and hostage to the unknown. It was wonderful, it was frightening and it was inspiring. And none of it was real because all of it was in my mind.

Or maybe it was real. Is reality exclusively a hard slap across the face by my angry lover or the cold biting wind in my face as I rush to catch the last available cab? Perhaps reality is also the delicious inner joy I experience while watching my young children play with utter abandon, squealing with delight simply because they are alive and uninhibited.

In many respects the emotional joy derived from my children, as well as its physical manifestation, is no less real or less grounded in reality than the frigid wind. In fact the cold wind can only be experienced during the winter season, yet I can experience happiness at any time. The lover’s slap requires a shared reality and the right conditions, while my pleasure and inner peace can be deeply personal or widely shared, can be summoned upon command and is infinitely repeatable.

Yet we seem to believe there are major differences between these perceptions, with one supposedly real and the other not quite so much. We are emphatically assured by science that one is based in reality, defined as ruled by physical laws, theorems and conditions, the other solely in our mind and thus……well, not really ‘real’ in the sense of a physical presence of mass, weight and volume, the final arbiter of real reality.

Since our modern day scientific magicians have yet to thoroughly measure, quantify or reproduce under sterile laboratory conditions our consciousness, the unproven reality of our inner being is relegated to a corner of the lab as a fascinating curiosity for later study. And there it remains in a sort of no man’s land with all the other unproven dead ends languishing in scientific purgatory. We are assured it isn’t ‘real’ if it can’t be proven, so if the wizards say it ain’t real who are we to argue? We are just the creators of our present day conscious reality. What would we know?

Lost in this discussion is the understanding that thought and emotion compel action which in turn propels physical outcomes that create our external reality. All of the man made physical reality that surrounds us began in our mind, in our inner consciousness, and only after we imagined it did we form it into a physical presence. Yet we rarely question what ‘real’ and ‘reality’ actually is. After all, isn’t it obvious? Well, maybe not.

Without being aware of it (we are told) our brain filters out much of what we receive via our five (six?) senses in order to prevent sensory overload. In addition our eyes see only a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum, our ears hear just a small range of frequencies and our nose can only detect relatively heavy concentrations of odors. The nose doesn’t necessarily know.

It appears our senses are primitive compared to many other animals and our brain filters out much of what is received in order to protect us from being overwhelmed by the information deluge coming from the ‘real’ world. So if we perceive only a small slice of our world and even that tiny portion is filtered by the brain, how do we have the arrogance to claim we know what ‘real’ is in any comprehensive sense of the word?

Considering how science and scientific knowledge is constantly being surprised, amended, revised and rewritten, for some authority to declare that our emotions and consciousness are somehow different or separated from physical reality boggles the mind. We do not know what we do not know and once we accept this basic premise, to then make sweeping statements of absolute truth and clearly defined boundary is hubris, arrogance and self deception to the nth degree.

I suggest that in theory there’s an extremely permeable barrier separating all our perceived and unperceived realities and little to no barrier in practice. Furthermore, what is preventing us from fully recognizing all facets of our reality isn’t so much physical limitations, but instead conditioning, indoctrination and social training. It’s not nature so much as it is nurture that blinds us to the extent of the world around us and possibly other worlds that exist beyond the horizon. As well, if I cannot ‘see’ or perceive the world around me as it truly is, how do I recognize duplicitous and manipulative behavior by those of ill intent that prey upon my blindness?


The Mind Knows Not

I grew up immersed in the world of fiction, in particular science fiction. And when I was caught up in some dramatic alien invasion or visiting a strange new planet or even racing a spaceship through time while dodging laser beams, in many ways it was as ‘real’ as anything I’d ever physically experienced. And I would argue even more so because when engrossed in a fictional book I wasn’t a spectator or passive participant of physical reality who lives strictly within a preformed physical world, but rather an active creator of an alternative reality.

The fictional written word is simply the two dimensional blueprint for an alternative reality which is then fleshed out and given depth, texture and color via my imagination. A really well written book doesn’t create the alternative reality, but simply acts as a powerful catalyst for my consciousness to then create that reality by way of my imagination. This is similar to the process by which I imagine something I wish to possess and then I create it with my hands in the real physical world. So does my ‘real’ present reality make the alternative reality I perceive through the pages of a novel any less real or even demonstrably fake or false?

If I laugh or cry or even fall in love with a character while immersed in some alternative reality, my emotions and their outward physical manifestation are just as real as if my ‘real’ lover dumps me or I miss that last cab and must walk in the rain. My passion for my lost ‘real’ world lover is still very real even though it is no longer returned and thus not validated. Her emotional rejection continues to affect me physically even though she no longer touches me.

If while dreaming I experience an epiphany which when awake I physically translate into a ‘real’ life changing event for myself and those around me, where is the divide between real and not? It’s almost a chicken and egg thing. Which comes first, the inner emotion and imagination or the external reality? From my point of view one cannot exist without the other, thus one is just as real as the other. They simply manifest in different ways and different forms.

I find it fascinating that we accept Einstein’s theory that energy is never destroyed but only transformed. And yet we don’t think to carry that theory into our daily lives when it comes to our perceived reality. Why can’t reality move, shift and transform between our perceived physical and metaphysical realities? And why would we possibly think we are not an integral part of that transformation either as the instigator or creator of the change?

Relative Reality

Our subconscious mind accepts as ‘real’ everything that it perceives or senses regardless of whether it is actually occurring in our physical world, our imagination, on the television or in our dreams. This is one of the reasons subliminal messaging is so effective. While the hidden message is flashed to our subconscious mind, the intent is clearly for the message to manifest in the ‘real’ world through our physical and emotional expression. Essentially subliminal messaging is designed to penetrate that porous barrier between the real and not so real world in order to be acted upon in the physical world. We are compelled to emotionally react and then physically act via our capacity for subconscious perception of something which we are not consciously aware of.

It is only within our physical world that reality is constrained and narrowly defined. Yet even in the real world we hear echoes and see distortions which we quickly explain away as not real or unproven. Many of our cultural legends and much of our entertainment is preoccupied with ghosts, evil demons, ancient Gods and scary monsters. Science has all kinds of wonderful explanations for this ‘hysteria’ and all of the explanations confidently declare they aren’t ‘real’. In fact that is the default starting point. Either we are experiencing massive global hallucinations spanning hundreds of generations or quite possibly we can and do perceive shadows of other realities.

There are hundreds of subtle alternative reality reverberations that often go unnoticed. Consider photos or video of Asian men and women bowing to an unseen person on the other end of the phone line. Who are they bowing to; the ‘real’ person who is hundreds or thousands of miles away and can’t see or acknowledge the bow? Or to the perceived image of the person that occupies the callers mind? Which one is real and why would they bow to something that is not ‘real’?

If pornographic images are not ‘real’ why do the same areas of the brain light up with activity regardless of whether the person is witnessing a live sex act, watching a pornographic video or actually engaging in the sex act itself? What is real and what is not if ultimately our subconscious mind, and very often our conscious mind, cannot tell the difference?

Within 20 years computer generated alternative reality worlds will be so ‘real’ we won’t be able to tell the difference between real reality and fake reality. So which world will be ‘real’, the computer world we perceive as real or the physical world we perceive as real? If reality is determined or measured by how we sense and perceive our physical world, and computers will be able to simulate a world exactly as we experience our physical world right down to neural stimulation that leads us to believe we are in a physical world, then which reality is real?

At one time we believed that our physical world was ruled by laws that were cast in iron. Then along came quantum mechanics and suddenly there are two (or more) sets of rules. Wait a minute. So you’re telling me there are two different realities depending upon the state in which I ‘exist’?

The concept that our physical reality is real and everything else is not is predicated upon the belief that ‘we’ die when our physical bodies stop functioning. We are told that our consciousness is local and thus will cease to exist when the physical host expires. What if this is not the case? We presume by default that our consciousness ‘dies’ when the physical body expires, yet we have no proof of this one way or another. Since there is no ‘proof’ why do we default to a limited point of view?

Maybe this restricted belief is encouraged in order to limit our depth of perception of everything else? The physical world would certainly look different if we believed our consciousness was immortal and without limits. While the reader might quickly note that the world’s major religious organizations don’t promote the view of a mortal inner being or soul, each religious organization has its own set of rules and regulations that must be adhered to in the physical world in order to achieve immortality afterwards. Why must there be exclusivity?

Believing that ‘we’, meaning our consciousness, have no limits might actually encourage us to perceive our physical world without internally or externally imposed limits or restrictions. This certainly wouldn’t be helpful to those who wish to control and corral thought, body and soul. I’ll explore the concept of deliberately restricting perception and thought in a later chapter when I discuss Inception and meme implanting.

There is a metamorphosis that occurs as we assimilate our ‘real’ world conditioning during our early childhood. We are told we’re not fully formed at that time, that we have much to learn about how the ‘real’ world works. Instead of believing that we are learning what reality is from the moment we are born, consider that we are being trained to perceive a shared reality through a very narrow lens tuned to a small minority of frequencies similar to a multi band radio/transmitter permanently set to receive just one channel and never transmit. What we think is reality is based almost entirely upon how we are trained to perceive it, not solely upon what is there physically.


What I See Is Real, What I Cannot Is Not

How many times have we gone looking for our car keys and searched unsuccessfully for five or ten minutes while becoming increasingly frantic? Suddenly they materialize out of nowhere on the kitchen table or next to the tropical fish tank and we swear we already looked there several times. The problem was simply that we didn’t ‘see’ them. We couldn’t see the reality of the keys even as we repeatedly passed over them with our eyes because our filtered perception of reality told us the keys weren’t there. Instead we reasoned they would be found where we usually left them. So that’s where we physically and mentally returned to look again and again and again.

We know the image of those keys lying out in the open must have registered in our eye and processed somewhere in our brain several times during our search. And yet we didn’t ‘see’ them until suddenly we ‘found’ them. If our perception of reality is so impaired when trying to find something we ‘know’ to be a part of our (shared) reality, then we must seriously consider there is a very real possibility we aren’t ‘seeing’ all of our reality.

There have been some interesting theories put forth which hypothesize that physical reality is only formed (materialized, created, brought into existence) when we observe or recognize it, when our conscious mind focuses on it. And I’ve discussed this in other essays. But from a practical point of view even though the keys are assumed to exist during our search, from our perspective the keys are invisible and simply not there until we allow our mind to adjust to a reality different from what we expected, assumed and believed was real.

We fully expect the keys to be found somewhere other than where we eventually find them. That’s why they are always found in the last place we look and rarely where we expect them. When we finally allow our mind to imagine the keys as being somewhere different from our expectation or belief we open our mind to alternative realities and are then able to see them. We call this clouded perception a mental block and I suggest that we suffer from larger and more encompassing mental blocks than just some lost keys.

From a variety of perspectives we are quite blind to the world around us. Enquiring minds want to know why this happens and where does this distortion come from. I propose that our experienced ‘reality’ on a day to day basis is heavily influenced by how we perceive our past experiences in relation to those we are currently living as well as to our preconceived and conditioned notion of what reality is or should be.

A Shared Reality Agreed Upon is Agreed to Be Real

We might say that reality as experienced in the ‘real’ world is nothing more than a shared perception based upon arbitrary measurements using commonly agreed upon standards and interpretations. History and reality is a set of lies and beliefs which form perceptions that are agreed upon as real and thus acted upon as if real, in effect making reality.

On a daily basis Zero Hedge exposes a set of financial lies that are agreed upon as true (reality) by the majority. And The Washington Post and The NY Times offer up a set of political lies agreed upon as real. So is Zero Hedge or The Washington Post living in the ‘real’ world? Maybe they both are. If the physical world can have several sets of rules and laws depending upon if you’re in the ‘real’ world or the quantum world, who is to say there are not more exceptions to the rule of ‘real’? Yet we dare to claim we know what reality is.

Turning to more ‘real’ world things such as the markets, one point of view is that the stock market is moving higher because of the Fed’s POMO infusions of liquidity which enable the buying of stock. The POMO comes first, then the buying of stock. Another would be that the market is rising because people expect it to go higher, thus they act in advance to fulfill their expectations and push up the market. The buying of stock comes first, then the POMO. So which is it?

I might say that the investing technique of “buy the f**king dip” (BTFD) is simply investors buying stock based upon an expectation or belief of a real event and not upon an actual real event, at least not at that moment. But then BTFD is validated or made ‘real’ by the actual POMO pump. The proof would be a drop in the market if the Fed were to unexpectedly curtail POMO operations after the market had already gone up in anticipation. If so, is BTFD real or not? What comes first, the BTFD or the POMO? Can one be ‘real’ without the other? Consider what “buy the rumor, sell the news” is telling us about perception and reality.

I often find myself thinking about the placebo effect and the ‘will to live’. Both of these concepts seem to be at odds with our scientific world. On the one hand we are told they are not real and are to be ignored other than as curiosities. Yet the efficacy of all new drugs is measured against the apparent power of the mind to heal the body, the so called placebo effect.

A random 5% to 10% of the population appears to be able to ‘heal’ or ‘feel better’ simply because we believe we are receiving drugs or other types of treatment that will help us. This is contrary to the reality that we are not being ‘drugged’ or treated in the pharmacological or physical sense, but rather only psychologically. In other words when we perceive so strongly that we believe, we seem to create a physical reality that mimics our belief.

In addition, when modern medicine has nothing left to offer us, we are often reminded by the doctor that it all comes down to the patient’s ‘will to live’, as if to say our ‘will’ is a physical force to be reckoned with. It appears we have another example of two alternative realities rubbing elbows with the ‘real’ world.

So on the one hand we are told the mind doesn’t control or make matter ‘real’ (or maybe make ‘real’ matter) and yet here is an example acknowledged by science as something not exactly ‘real’, but in the case of the placebo effect, is measurable, quantifiable and repeatable. It is almost as if the meme masters of our present consensus reality are acknowledging aberrations in our shared reality that can no longer be denied, while at the same time diminishing it as much as possible to hide from us our own inner power.

If the placebo effect alone does not make us question our perception of reality I don’t know what will. Yet the average conditioned mind brushes off this type of aberration as immaterial to our ‘real’ world.

In Chapter Two we continue to explore our limited and distorted perception of reality.

Cognitive Dissonance



Mirrored Tree


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
MurderNeverWasLove's picture

Scenario Universe:

      301.10 Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated nonsimultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences.

Snapshot scenario explications work alright in being able to unwind forensically an occurrance, and even to test generalized principles with quantumesqe measurements. 

The only thing apparently limitless is the supply of time, the ultimate engine.

". . .humanity's consciously apprehended. . ."

Timespace is not limited, but the scenario universe along whose event line our local universe seems to precess.

Reality is everywhere local.

Not a place/time you can be that is not smack in the center of your consciously apprehended, and non-simulteneous experiences, communicated experiences, and partially-overlapping experiences.

The nature of communication is that it must be communicating that which is communicable.

To me that has me thinking that reality is not a significant limiting factor, but it is our ability to communicate to Universe and Universe's Nail, that you will be bringing the Hammer like unto God's to your next scenario communication of Nature's Law.  

But I am a carpenter and a drummer, so my experience colors my analogies.

That which is simplest, communicates least well by words.  Art can many times render a communication on reality better than the highest precision scientific measurements.

And this is straightforwardly and devastatingly used in our Marketeered Surreality.

Big Media (BM) communicates what might be reality with great effectiveness, with the added insult of it having the power to deceive millions a moment.




velobabe's picture

coggy I read it and you gave me a need to think more! now I have been stepping this up more and more in my daily life. try closing your eyes more when doing tasks. it helps you to f e e l what your doing. even walking around in the dark without a light. don't be afraid of the boogey man, just yourself. live by yourself with no friends or family, you find out your reality right fast.

gangland's picture

I am alone, I'm not lonely.  I jealously and vigorously guard my solitude.  an absolute necessity. 

I'm no hermit, but I'd much rather be alone with my thoughts and some information, say in the form of a book. 

I like to split my time something on the order of 65% alone time (minimum), 35% people time. most people are afraid of being alone, I cherish it. 

went for a hike this weekend and have spent the last 2 days not answering my phone.  this is normal behavior for me, friends and family are used to it by now. 

I know people who cannot be alone, it freaks them out, yet when they are with another person, their head is buried in their igadget, it is as if the person, whose presence they are fully ignoring was background noise , like the tv or radio at work.


- A guy once told me, "Do not have any attachments, do not have anything in your life you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you spot the heat around the corner." - Neil McCauley


READ THE ARTICLE ABOVE, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE NOW IN SCHOOL.  Read it even if you are not in school.

and....VB....please don't call him coggy. ;P

velobabe's picture

why can't i call him what i want? also, i just realized another game that is played on the human mind. if you tell the loved ones of someone who just died in an accident, that he died instantly, that gives bereavement a sense of comfort. i was told this as well, he died instantly, i wonder about this. i guess you believe it to help yourself. certainly better then a picture of pain and suffering. these are the pictures coming out of the recent wars. oh well, it doesn't really matter, they are gone and you can only speculate what they went through. i think that is a mind game too, how to live with your emotional pain of suffering. i heard once, that your brain turns off when it knows you are in imminent danger and death. like you steer into it, solidly boom, don't want to be in a wheel chair or anything if you have the where with all to make a slpit second decision into your death. all speculative mind you†

tip e. canoe's picture

first noble 'truth' of buddhism : all life is suffering.  of course, as per buddha's supposed last words ('be a light unto yourself'), all have a right (& responsibility) to question that 'truth'.

cheers to you velo for always shining a light out near the Green Monster.

StychoKiller's picture

"If you meet the Bhuddha on the road, kill him!"

In the meantime, I recommend alleviating some suffering:

Tenma13's picture

great Heat quote, hands down one of my favourite films.   


 If your gone for a while make sure you let someone know where you are, just incase you get trapped/ have to saw off your arm. That or at least buy a decent knife.  No Chinese knock offs. :P

velobabe's picture

no, keep your swiss army knife sharp! that is what aaron said.

gangland's picture

Great flick, I can't believe it didn't win anything big.  On a side note, I waited on al pacino and jon voight once, not together, separately.  Al was very short with a tall blond chic and was kinda ass-holish, Jon was tall, came alone, seemed interested to talk and all he had was a $6 pc of pie and left a $40 tip.

flapdoodle's picture

Looking forward to the rest of the series. Great opening number.

I once thought that I had a pretty good handle on how things worked (how wrong I was) -- the last few years have been an eye opener.

Seems that in moments of crisis, occasionally (and if you are paying attention), the puppet master's hands waver and inadvertently allow the puppet strings to come into view -- the illusion begins to fall apart.

It is personaly embarrasing that I didn't even know who Edward Bernays was until 2009...


Tenma13's picture

classic - guys sitting next to me just come out of a corporate finance lecture and says: 'the thing I love about corporate finance is that its not something you can know, you have to learn it. It's not like anybody can pick up a book and read about it, you have to be taught it.'  This was said with a massive smile on his face, while the lady sitting next to him starts talking about consumer behaviour and learning.

Consumer learning sounds incredibly ominous. Learning - really? The way she's talking about it, with 'targeting markets' and 'increasing consumer focus' sounds more like consumer control aka how do consumers learn, so that they can be better manipulated. I am pleased to note that some of the faculty who teach in education department also lecture in the management department. The rabbit hole is indeed deeper than I first thought....... 


Unreal timing.  :P 



kevinearick's picture

the looking glass, a multiplexer of multiplexers, creating what is perceived to be shared reality.

ultimately, the goal is for many to change the channel simultaneously, beyond the orchestra provided for the sheep, designed to draw them into the black hole.

mccoyspace's picture

Your essay is a mess and has brought out my red pencil:


In the first several paragraphs you work to establish that non-physical things (thoughts, emotions, memories) are real. Who debates this? Are there scientists who say that thoughts don't exist? Not at all. You also say that science lacks a model for human consciousness, no one would particularly challenge that either. It is a problem that scientists have considered as a scientific problem only recently. 


However, there have been thousands of years of philosophy that have explored these topics and  it provide us with terminology for framing the questions. Here's some examples: Sometimes you seem to be saying that all experience is ultimately based on mental activity. This is called Idealism. Some famous idealists include Plato, Leibniz (who also co-invented calculus), Berkeley, Kant, Schelling, Hegel, etc. This tradition is classically considered to be the opposite of materialism, which says that reality is ultimately based on physical substances. 


Some philosophers (e.g. Descartes) have tried to split the difference saying that reality is both thought and matter. This has lead to problems of how the two domains would interface with one another. This is called the mind-body problem.


Sometimes you seem to say that the world is a kind of illusion or dream, one that we could learn to control or awaken from. This also has thousands of years of literature behind it. The traditional term, coming from Sanskrit is 'Maya' which means illusion. It plays a central role in Hinduism (the Advaita Vendanta), Mahayana Buddhism ('bodhi'), pre-Socratic Greek philosophy (Heraclitus, Parmenides), Christianity (Ephesian 5:15 "Wake Up, Sleeper, and Christ will shine on you!"), and more obscure examples, like my personal favorite Arthur Shopenhauer ("The World as Will and Idea").


You criticize science for "constantly being surprised, amended, revised and rewritten." 

This is the 'essence' of the scientific method. Fundamentally, science tells us not what is, but what is not. It is based on a process of falsification (viz. Karl Popper). That which has not been shown to be false through a process of experimental testing is held to be provisionally valid. It's not a problem, it is how it works.


You talk about the effects of 'social conditioning' on our thoughts and actions and the political power of 'lies'. Traditionally the name for this is Ideology, a term that begins with John Locke and first emerges during the French Revolution. The political Left has explored this topic at length beginning with Marx and Engles, Lukacs, Gramsci and most famously Louis Althusser ("the Ideological State Apparatus").


Finally, your concern that "the 'real world' is nothing more than a shared perception based upon arbitrary measurements using commonly agreed upon standards" is called 'Social Constructionism,' a big topic in the '70's and '80's. There, your concern were framed around the question of 'the theory ladenness of observation.' While much maligned here on ZH, a lot of that work came out of….. Women's Studies! (a.k.a. Poststructuralist Feminism).


You've got three more chapters. Next time, please bring some meat.

tip e. canoe's picture

as someone who studied this very shit in college, that's a concise synopsis, par excellence.  wish i would have read that before spending 4 years becoming a debt slave to the Man.

the problem with the Left, although i agree with their analysis of the issue, is that their defense against Ideology has in turn created another Ideology, that many would argue is even more rigid than the last.

questions for you:  is there a way to move beyond Ideology?   not by dismissing or trying to eliminate, but through the recognition that it is simply a self-created delusion at its core?  if so, is that possible on just an individual scale, but on a collective one?

p.s.  what i love about cog's voluminous essays is that they're like gumbo -- he creates the kitchen & stirs the pot, and it's up to rest of us to bring the ingredients, similar to how Deleuze & Guatarri defined the 'potlach'.   only time this spoils is when cranky ol' geezers bumrush the joint empty-handed and start bitchin' about the flavor...which just makes cog revert back into his Soup Nazi role and the whole thing quickly devolves into a played-out Seinfeld episode we've all already seen at least 5000 times on late-night cable.

looking forward to more juicy meat from you in the next chapter...

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

OK tip e. canoe

No soup for you. :>)

I guess some people just can't tolerate free form non linear thinking without normal constraints. In fact, judging from private conversations I have had with many 'educated" people, some become down right angry and threatened by it. I seem to be blessed with the ability to trigger this reaction in so many. I suspect it's because at one point I was a rigid logical orderly citation spewing thinker myself. And then I went least from their point of view. I've actually had a few older friends ask me what happened to me? Too funny.

I always find it interesting how we are all herded into little boxes and then told the think outside the box. I can't tell you how many companies declare they want a better education system (which usually means mass produced cogs for the meat grinder) then demand that the room full of cogs be creative.

Banzai7 and I have been talking about the difference between Apple and all the other companies. It keeps coming back to one thing. It's not about making the product faster or more efficient or even cheaper. It's about making the product "work" with the human rather than the human work with the product.

To do that requires thinking outside the box.

BTW the narrow minded old geezer really is a useless eater of bandwidth. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :>)

mccoyspace's picture

but maybe I'm just winding you up.

Who is to say that my little narrative makes any sense at all?

I mean, what the hell do I know about John Locke.... maybe.

maybe jumpcutting between 'maya' and the French Revolution is me thinking without constraints. Maybe that is my very own version of freedom. Maybe my own version of freedom didn't look like the version of freedom you were expecting and so I'm named an old geezer. But maybe that's your box. I'm free to be full of crap too.

its all rant on/rant off after all. 

tip e. canoe's picture

mccoy, for clarity's sake, "old geezer" was referring to the virtual personality named "crazy old geezer" (see above), not you.

your point brings up another question tho:  thesis/antithesis is the age old method to stimulate new thought.   is this really true or is this simply an illusion disguised within the dominant 'reality' matrix?

to ask another way:  does evolution always need conflict or does conflict inhibit evolution?

mccoyspace's picture

no doubt. 

Negation is the engine of thought, or so it would seem from Aristotle on up to Hegel.

It seems like there has been a least a few attempts to do it differently: on the formal side of things, for instance, you've got Vasiliev's 'paraconsistent logic' and on the more literary side of things you have Nietzsche's 'sacred "yes" of the child.'

With evolution we often focus on natural selection, which certainly implies conflict in some way, but equally important is sexual selection. This is how 'culture' participates in evolution. In that mode of evolution the role of conflict seems less pronounced.


and no worries -- i was just trying on 'old geezer'!

tip e. canoe's picture

sorry for not defining the term earlier, but i meant evolution in not just the biological sense.

another addition to your list: since we're playing around with the idea of 'reality' as code, perhaps open source software is another alternative practical example?

thanks for reminding me about the sacred this day, i still choose to believe that Nietzsche was at heart an optimist :)

gangland's picture

gotta agree with the gumbo to soup nazi reversion.  very fractal.

falak pema's picture

the mark of individual success is to be a trend setter like Jesus, Socrates, Karl Marx. The sociological fact is that even if you don't want to be qualified as an "ideologue" and to have founded an "ideology", the very mark of your universal success brands you as that...whether you like it or not. Jesus did not create the christian religion as we understand it; Emperor Constantine did! His very antithesis...Socrates would have hated to have been considered by some as an ideologue. But his sons have made logic into an ideology...when they say...(as an example) : if you cannot prove scientifically that a superior being exists as creator of universe...he does not exist by 'à contrario' reasoning...THat is a fallacy as well, yet we hear atheists defend it like 'gospel truth'.

Nothing human will ever be 'black' or 'white'...period.

Waterman Jim's picture

Why don't you bring some meat smart guy, all you got is a knife.

Hungry? Taste this,

Thought and matter interface in DNA. DNA being a transducer of such.

The snake doesn't eat the tail, as tail goes around in never ending always evolving spiral.

Yummy no?


Cognitive Dissonance's picture

The intent of this essay is not to convince the reader of anything other than the need to expand our depth perception of the consensus reality. Consider this essay as an invitation to think free of constraints.

The fact that you have include all the citations tells me you have learned your lessons well. Do you possess any thinking or conclusions that were arrived at during your own personal journey or is everything you believe and know derived from others?

mccoyspace's picture

Answering that question would require comparing my conclusions to those of others. Is it better to know, or not to know?

falak pema's picture

Man : 1% original and 99% acquired, qualified as educated.

Man : 99% original and 1% acquired, qualified as ignoramus.

So can't win on all value scales. Funny when a guy who was a school drop out ended up as Steve Jobs. 

delacroix's picture

mans  dna 99% identical to the chimpanzee

purplefrog's picture

Really good stuff!  You/this is another manifestation of evolving consciousness.  Some will get it.  Some will not.  I read this any it awakens so many things that I know, but have gone to sleep.

Two sources that this brings to mind.

Eckhart Tolle - The Power of Now


"There are no facts, only interpretations."


falak pema's picture

to requote a past quote :

'write when you're drunk and edit when you're sober' true even when trying to tell real from unreal.

gookempucky's picture

Nice touch ebworthen

the management of the information (which is becoming unmanageable).

We can subsitute the management of information to the fact that man has attempted to classify subdivisions of consciousness when it cannot be subdivided. These subdivisions are illusions similar to a illusionary trance and are so very subtle that they can be (are) very deceptive to many who have not mastered the use of higher discrimination.

 Yes the barrage of symbols or symbolism has a huge impact on the subconcious-especially with the corp news media using symbols as the saviour of all things. It is funny that even one of the most important items for man, EATING has been symbolized to the max, but in terms of reality, digesting, assimilating and rebuilding of the body through conversion of food into energy, muscle, bone, hair etc are just one conciousness--media has tried to convert this into many subdivisions through the control of ones attention. It is truly hard for many to escape this confusion and until many learn to filter out the confusion man will continue to be in the state of symbols and hypnosis.

Thanks CD

tip e. canoe's picture

"man has attempted to classify subdivisions of consciousness when it cannot be subdivided. These subdivisions are illusions..."

which then define "reality" which defines those subdivisions --  a self-recursive looped snake eating its own tail.  this is all good (free will and all that), except when it starts trying to chomp on everyone else's tails as well, even those who do not want their tails to be devoured.    though i always try to remember that the vampire only comes into your house if you invite him in.  

homegrown garlic helps too (also good for purging the GMOs from the body).

p.s.   what's that flower in your avatar pucky?   beautiful color

gookempucky's picture

TipE it does look like the human race has started to eat its tail-- All of CD's articles bring about the meme is it live or is it memorex and read all his stuff. By the way garlic is truly a weakness of mine.

The rose is a David Austin called Falstaff and color is crimson purple, planted in 2001 (bareroot)as are all my rose's= only way to fly with rose's. For those who continue to say they cannot grow rose's because they always die off so soon--you have been symbolized as Big Box retail rose's are designed for 1-2 years life span. Rose class after CD's series. just kidding (rose class that is).

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I wish I could dive more deeply into your thoughts, particularly this.

It is truly hard for many to escape this confusion and until many learn to filter out the confusion man will continue to be in the state of symbols and hypnosis.

This confusion was and is deliberately disseminated and propagated, mostly for profit. But that doesn't mean there isn't a hidden hand. In fact, if I were going to move a mountain I wouldn't do it myself. I would trick the population into doing it for me. Thus the confusion is buried deep into the collective consciousness by way of culture and language, of which symbology is a major player.

I think you will enjoy the coming chapters over the next three days because I touch on this confusion. My goal with the series was simply to ask questions and prod a bit, not to present conclusions that to the average person would be seen as impossible. The fire hose needs to be turned down to a trickle and slowly sipped. There is no other way to counter centuries of indoctrination and programming for so many......including myself. 

tip e. canoe's picture

"There is no other way to counter centuries of indoctrination and programming for so many......including myself."

Maya, she wears many veils.

thanks cog.    this is much more fun than bitchslappin each other about the current price of paper, rocks & scissors.

Waterman Jim's picture

Great stuff CD,

Been working for many years myself on these questions of consciousness.


I have come to the following conclusions. 

- its all about the dream. life starts and ends with a dream.

- There is no such thing as imaginary, your imagination is real.

- All thoughts and feelings are real 

- Everything was created by thought first. So what came first the chicken or the egg? its a trick question. The though of the chicken came first.   - Our Imagination, coupled with Will Power, directed with Intent, is part of the creative life force that drives evolution. We are Creators and we must believe we have power to create.   - There is no such thing as randomness or coincidence in an infinite world where everything is connected at a fundamental level. 


- Our imagination is Magic. its even in the word.


 Have you read Jeffrey Mishlove's Roots of Consciousness? The Roots of Consciousness: The Classic Encyclopedia of Consciousness Studies Revised and Expanded (9781569247471): Jeffrey Mishlove, Saul-Paul Sirag: Books


or Ervin lazlo's the Akashic Field? Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything (9781594771811): Ervin Laszlo: Books


looking forward to your next installment.



Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I have read neither. I wish I had more time. Less work, more play is my goal.

Waterman Jim's picture

Yes more play. 

When your on your death bed your not going to be wishing you spent more time at the office.

Well to sum it up, lazlo is a top physicist, and he's saying we live in a memory field (the akashic plane in Buddhism) that remembers everything that happens so that the world evolves and learns from its mistakes. This memory field could also in my view, be the life force that keeps atoms spinning for eternity, the Aether, the Ki, the Chi, the legendary fifth element, the Spirit that Moves Through All Things the Native Americans called it, etc.

Mishlove is the first guy to get a real degree in parapsychology. His book outlines the thoughts of the greatest thinkers of all time. Quick example, as an engineer, i'm blown away by a guy named Emanuel Swedenborg. This guy make even an obviously very accomplished human like yourself look like a monkeys uncle. Im humbled.Emanuel Swedenborg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

oh one more conclusion. The only thing that really lasts is your own consciousness (which evolves with experience), so writing and thinking, developing your conciousness and others is the best work you can do.


Wakanda's picture

It will take me some time to really get my head around this series, but it is on my list.

Sometimes ideas have to "simmer" before I can sort them out.

Thanks CD.

Pseudo Anonym's picture

So you’re telling me there are two different realities depending upon the state in which I ‘exist’?

if you're open minded, you may like this explanation for universe better than the lame big bang theory:

Broomer's picture

The concept that our physical reality is real and everything else is not is predicated upon the belief that ‘we’ die when our physical bodies stop functioning. We are told that our consciousness is local and thus will cease to exist when the physical host expires. What if this is not the case? We presume by default that our consciousness ‘dies’ when the physical body expires, yet we have no proof of this one way or another. Since there is no ‘proof’ why do we default to a limited point of view?

Yet another "somehow I won't die" person. Write this one billion times: "On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."

Reading your text I have a strong impression that you are from Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. I bet that you loved What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?

But you can be happy, you just won one star.

gangland's picture

binary, categorical thinking leading to normalcy/certainty bias. standard fare for us. but you knew that already.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Careful, your fear bias is showing.

I did not say "somehow I won't die". Far from it. I'm simply asking open ended questions and questioning general assumptions. You on the other hand seem to have answered one of my many questions with an answer you are certain is absolutely true times one billion.

Absolute certainty is most certainly emotionally comforting for many.

doomandbloom's picture

brilliant piece...

the question to ask is what are we fighting? what is zh fighting? is the fight another programmed reaction to a programmed feeling of injustice?

what if all this is just a game?

I Am Ben's picture

Really good essay - lots of theoretical stuff jammed into a few pages, I'm looking forward to future chapters.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Thank you for your complement. I am posting the remaining chapters every day this week around 6 or 7 PM EDT. This is the first time I finished a series before posting the beginning. I wanted to build momentum and continuity for the reader.

As I stated in the introduction consider this an invitation to think free of constraints. I suspect that as I get further into this I will piss off a number of people who desperately hold onto their sense of reality with a death grip. It's all just an exercise. If we aren't building new nural pathways by trying the think outside of our comfort zone what exactly are we doing to exercise our mind?

On a personal level I have long suspected that the mind expands when we use our imagination, not when we travel the same indoctrinated and trained road. Maybe that's just my comforting excuse to go play in the mud. :>)

Sudden Debt's picture

I think most kids had this alternate dream reality.

I mostly dreamed of world domination, killing every man and ugly woman on the planet and had the rest strip for me and please me all day long. The average kid's dream I gues.

Now that I've grown up, I only dream of strippers and lot's of woman pleasing me :)



gangland's picture

(don't forget the booze, what do belgians drink? beer, champagne, vodka, diamonds, congolese babies? just kidding!) guess those silver profits and summer bonus ( summer bonus ?? i still cant believe you guys get a summer bonus!) gotta go somewhere xD. good to see you man, your sense of humor cracks me up!

falak pema's picture

You are a science nut who loves nutty belgians, double dipped in greasy oil, like their fries; belching good monkish made beer to kill with their snog-breath any fly that buzzes by. A belgian retard who loves bugs whether they be PM or humbugged, freeze dried, packaged lies from convenience stores. Having a zany sense of humor is no excuse to being a materialist minded loser. Ask Heinrich Himmler : he loved his children, he loved his party jokes, like he loved to frazzle jews. Not that all Belgians love their women from comic strips, sunny side up and dipped in deep shit.

Shades of fight club, not very Marquis of Queensberry, but rather berry berry impregnated, I do admit to this 'virtual' medical frivolity.

ebworthen's picture

With more and more information, it is the management of the perceptions of the information rather than just the management of the information (which is becoming unmanageable).