"Question Authority"(think for yourself) is it a good or bad idea?

by frankiespeakin 42 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  frankiespeakin

  http://www.geocities.com/arno_3/intro/

  As Leary put it: "[A]t that time, computers were mainframes that cost millions of dollars and were owned by Bell Telephone company, IBM, CIA, Department of Motor Vehicles - no friends of mine! So I had this prejudice that computers were things that stapled you and punched you and there were these monks, the few experts, who controlled it"(quoted in Rucker 1992: 84).
  In the early 80s, however, when thanks to smaller size and cheaper prize computers became accessible to millions of people, Leary changed his attitude towards computers and realized that psychedelic drugs and computers actually have very much in common. He discovered that psychedelic drugs and personal computers "are simply two ways in which individuals have learned to take the power back from the state"(ibid.). Leary argues that both psychedelics and computers can help us to liberate ourselves from authority and "create our own realities." In the course of his long career as psychologist and counterculture philosopher Leary wrote more than thirty books (several of them more than 400 pages long) in which he offers us very elaborate theories - using concepts from the fields of psychology, neurobiology, ethology, quantum physics, cybernetics, and chaos theory - that explain how we can use psychedelic drugs and computers to escape the "narrow reality tunnels" that authorities force us to live in and create our own individual realities whose limits are determined only by the limits of our imagination.
  What are those "narrow reality tunnels" Leary is talking about? According to Leary, we have been
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Timothy Leary's excape from prison, is priceless. found begining at around 37 minutes into the video.

  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6944322121257997276
• 

  Terry

  What we really want/need to question is the source of our information.

  Authority must reveal their sources and means of obtaining their information.

  This is quite different from challenging Authority per se.

  Look at the advertising media.

  Nine out of ten doctors say.....

  That sounds like a citation of some kind, doesn't it? It is not.

  A hundred doctors could have been consulted and only nine out of ten groups of ten could be the referenced "nine out of ten doctors" unless you know the exact methodology.

  The Scriptures are often cited as Authority based on a presumption of God being the source. But, the reality of it must be examined.

  We are looking at a particular translation of a particular committee with particular views from particular religious/social backgrounds working with particular manuscripts passed through hundreds (if not thousands) of hands over a vast period of time; EACH WITH THEIR OWN AGENDA.

  So, at best, citing scripture is to taste a kind of hearsay wine flavored by so many ingredients the vintage is indiscernable.

  So, no need to challenge Authority.

  Challenge the Source of the Authority's base of knowledge.

  Vet the data; not the messenger.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Terry,

  Challenge the Source of the Authority's base of knowledge.

  Should we question the source of the USA's authority(which source is really through force by armies, weapons, imprisonment, and even torture) and leave the personal decisions to challenge based upon what they have gained/or didn't gain from such inquirery?
• 

  Terry

  Challenge the Source of the Authority's base of knowledge.

  Should we question the source of the USA's authority(which source is really through force by armies, weapons, imprisonment, and even torture) and leave the personal decisions to challenge based upon what they have gained/or didn't gain from such inquirery?

  In America, the Constitution establishes the power and the Bill of Rights protects us from its abuse.

  The law is the defining context for all citizens. The courts "interpret" the law and the police and military enforce it.

  Politically, decisions made on behalf of National Security are almost always seen to exercise a preference for the many over the one.

  The safety of the citizenry of the U.S. immediately after 9/11 compelled the "powers that be" to react.

  After the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 an isolationist America reacted. German and Japanese people were placed in facilities segegated from the main population (often at the cost of their homes, businesses and social ties.)

  This was considered to be a price worth exacting. It is estimated that about 2% of the people rounded up and taken "away" posed a genuine threat.

  Now ask yourself this question: How much risk of how much loss of life is too much/enough/not enough to pursue any policy which violates the civil rights of citizens?

  The domestic Nazi party in the United States was allowed free speech which was hateful, inciting murder and bloodshed and advocating genocide. Their free speech was not limited.

  It is, after all, a question of balance and judgement how much of any threatening danger by hostile groups is too much to bear.

  Who will make these decisions? If not the elected officials, who? Vigilantes? Will we take local votes?

  You see, due process is a thorny affair frought with imperfection and imperfect guidelines all around.

  Somewhere between mere vigilance and overwrought reactionary crackdown we find the perfect middle ground of justice and fairness.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Terry,

  In America, the Constitution establishes the power and the Bill of Rights protects us from its abuse.

  Come on do you really feel the USA follows their own bill of rights? And hardly can we use a piece of paper as establishing ligetimate claim to authority, that is circular reasoning and you know it.
• 

  Terry

  In America, the Constitution establishes the power and the Bill of Rights protects us from its abuse.

  Come on do you really feel the USA follows their own bill of rights? And hardly can we use a piece of paper as establishing ligetimate claim to authority, that is circular reasoning and you know it.

  O.J. Simpson was "not guilty" in the face of mountains of physical evidence.

  Repeat Pedophile offenders get slap on the wrist sentences and are let loose time and again.

  Whistle blowers bring down mega-billion dollar corporations and send powerful and corrupt officials to prison.

  The highest office (Presidency) is visited with ruinous investigations and impeachments. (Clinton/Nixon).

  Every accused criminal has the right of a fair trial and will be given (free) an attorney to represent him.

  Again and again we see hated groups allowed to practice their on beliefs freely. JW's won blood transfusion cases, flag salute cases and trespass cases for door to door ministry.

  Persons detained at Guantanamo are now engaged in lawsuits which will reach the Supreme Court.

  The wheels of the gods grind exceedingly slow, but; they grind exceedingly fine.

  Because of the Bill of Rights the smallest David can face the most awesomely rich and powerful Goliath and bring them down.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Terry,

  Because of the Bill of Rights the smallest David can face the most awesomely rich and powerful Goliath and bring them down.

  In your dreams maybe but in real life no. Open your eyes and see the light my friend.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Terry,

  The highest office (Presidency) is visited with ruinous investigations and impeachments. (Clinton/Nixon).

  O god, what about Bush? I think it is fair to say he has commited worse crimes than Clinton/Nixon put together, why wasn't he impeached??
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Terry,

  Where was the bill of rights for natives indians applied when the US government broke treaty after treaty with them, and killed helpless women and children in thier greedy land grabbing? Do we just chalk it up to insignificance, and turn a blind eye to this governments violation of what we can call "basic human rights" for humans to not be harassed and murdered for greed .