RuralRon

Hi Marc, I hope others will offer their feedback on these very important questions. As to your 3 pronged solution I have little feedback to offer. I quoted the above b/c I think that sums up the difficulty of "the solution" and what it will take a long while for this process to reach that 80% mark. I hope that's wrong and the rate of change for the better is on the early part of a yet to come sharp spike of awareness that will propel the human race into a peaceful, volunteerist society without threatening rulers around to control or manipulate people or lay the planet to waste. Thanks for your insight and observations.

Installer says it was successful, but I don't see success in results. Page looks like its coming up, shows my profile pic, then reverts to a "click here to install" page. Bummer. Too last minute to workout for me I guess. I can't get a response to my PMs to OP, or on his skype either. Y'all have fund now and tell us what you did...

The OP had the wrong date; Today is Monday the 21st... Where 0 where is our hangout link gone, 0 where 0 where can it B?

I refrained from making a comment earlier, but I feel compelled to now. Jacbot I see the validity of your posts, but my original perspective remains unchanged. Moreover the sentiment and gentle remarks made by cherapple carry the most weight with me in this tangent, a derailing of an otherwise well motivated and interesting conversation. Although you're certainly entitled to your opinion, you didn't provide any compelling, quantifiable evidence to support your assertion regarding IQ. It's nothing more than a subjective opinion and discussing it without supporting evidence belabors the point and lends little to nothing to the otherwise excellent discussion. This is my opinion and perspective and I'll say no more about it, as doing so perpetuates the very tangent I am speaking against.

The tenor of your responses jacbot, feels a bit hostile towards Kevin to me. Perhaps it's due to English not being your primary language? Just offering another perspective, use it or loose it, it's your choice.

wow, woW, WOW - am I extremely impressed OzTrAlien! And thank you for the compliment as well. I have read your post here several times, and I believe I understand most of it now (I'm a bit foggy about the second paragraph; was it that the waveform, as presented on say an oscilloscope would be a less subjective representation than words like red or violet?). Don't let me put words in your mouth, but given your interests as expressed on your profile and your manor of writing you appear to be far above my pay grade in terms of your physics knowledge, and yet (perhaps this is just you being polite or constraining the scope of your reply) you didn't raise any specific objections concerning my statements about perpetual motion. But then, your focus wasn't on such details but rather about more abstract concepts of the meaning in language and words and issues of semantics in communication. Very deep indeed, and highly observant! This is my favorite paragraph: As to schrodinger's cat, which seeks to destroy duality of opposites in favor of a quantum theory of simultaneous existence and uncertainty, I am highly skeptical of the departure from traditional Newtonian perspective towards a "science" without absolutes and which treats theory as foundational fact. I also reject Kant's philosophical principles as well. But one of my primary points is to be weary of the status quo or traditional bias. Some form of balance between the rules of the known and the fringe of the unknown is required to innovate, and intuition, creativity and inspiration live there. I understand Heisenbergs's slit experiment from which the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" was derived, and how quantum mechanics relies on it. Harriman's book is about how the rules and logic of induction are violated in the formulation of quantum mechanics, and how that has profound negative effects on science and ultimately the human race. I am by no means an expert in any form of physics, but I can discern the propensity for corruption and the process of political agendas at work. I will admit I am persuaded by David Harriman's work on induction in physics. He was interviewed twice by Jan Irvin of Gnostic Media in May of 2011, in which they discuss Harriman's book, The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics And what a wonderful point about DMT, delving inward and touching upon brain mechanics and how the very chemicals that influence our consciousness have a bias in their context. Fascinating as Mr. Spock would say. Yes OzTrAlien, you not only grasped what I struggled to express in my conversation with Stefan, you also took it to another level. Hats off to you! May I inquire as to your education & background?

I'm in too.

Thanks M, for your breath of life into this forgotten and dead thread. As always your input is greatly appreciated! I may have lost the bigger picture and myself in this discussion near the end, with my focus on Stef's definitions (faith: the belief in things which cannot be proven) and the apparent contradictions of them I noticed in the conversation. As wonderful as he is, when I see these discrepancies I just want him to acknowledge them. Is it a projection of my own imperfection onto Stef or a rational observation? Do I just want to "be right" to win an argument or am I trying to get the objective truth out for all to see? Either way, it is silly to be so hung up on such minor things I think. In my mind I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander as the saying goes, and I see him dwell on some pretty minor points at times. Anyway, I am very sensitive to hypocrisy, probably b/c it also dwells in me, as does the passion for truth. Both characteristics probably have a common root in my psyche I haven't become consciously aware of yet. As for disliking the word faith, that probably stems from emotional baggage from religious experiences. I come from such a background yet don't feel any bias against the word. That's partially what this conversation was about, the boundaries between faith and intuition. Establishing definitions are fundamentally important in such a discussion. But you did concisely hone in on the essence of this conversation in the quote above with your questions. You cut right to the chase with them, so many thanks for the eloquent summary I can sure spew out plenty of thought through my verbosity and sometimes it has value to focus or bring out useful avenues of pursuit while others it seems to obfuscate and cloud the waters, so your feedback here is highly valued.

I'm not sure we're addressing the OP's question directly, though it's all useful input. I myself did the same, and concluded my post with yet another question. tRobin's post was similar to mine and provides useful empirical examples to consider. Yet the central question remains, how do you teach children about the nature of lying? One major factor that occurs to me is the child's age. The younger the child is the simpler must be the explanation. For toddlers "lying is bad, truth is good" seems appropriate, until you think about if the child might interact with a pedophile or predator, in which case lying is good. But that's where I think the parent's role should be primary and not rely on the child to protect themselves through lying. If the parents can't shield their children from such predators teaching them the nuances of lying is the least of their problems. Seems to me as the child grows older they will become better at understanding the context of lying, be it social or to have a positive affect on someone else or for personal gain. It also seems it's important to guide that evolution, and that is the crux of the question, how best to do so. Obviously it's crucially important to understand your children well enough to tailor your instruction about lying to what they're capable of understanding, and part of that will be hearing what the child reflects back to the parents, such as hypocritical behavior they may observe and see that as a growth opportunity for the parents rather than a behavior to repress or train out of the child. The example of a child that reflects the truth about an overweight person is a very good example, and may be a perfect opportunity to teach the child about empathy. The capacity to understand empathy can be nurtured in the very young I expect, but does require some preparation, in the form of exposing the child (or recognizing opportunities when they arise) to feelings of hurt and the remedy or comfort from that hurt demonstrated with virtuous empathy. Great question, worthy of much more feedback and thought.

Hello everyone, coming into this marvelous discussion rather late, but man am I certainly in awe of the participants here, everyone of you! I ranked a pretty solid 5 in the ACE, and recently took an online IQ test (for whatever that's worth) that gave me a score of 132. I thought cherapple really injected a great summary when she joined the discussion. Wes, kudos to you for your thoughtful topic and the underlying motivation it stems from (to further philosophy and the mission of FDR). I was a product of neglect, and have lived my life to a large degree in isolation, despite my constant attempts to establish solid, deep relationships. I just haven't developed the skills for that it seems. I've always been very passionate in my pursuit of truth, which I've blamed for much of my isolation. I still haven't gotten to the root of that issue, the layers to that onion coming off very slowly. My truth seeking is certainly a factor, but it is clear to me it's not the root cause. 20 years ago or so I got involved in a lay counseling program, and received a few hundred hours of training. That was my first serious exposure to psychology. I'm a very curious person, and in high school in the 70s took a psychology class so I guess that was my first introduction to some of the concepts. As for the big picture that motivated Wes to start this discussion I feel very drawn to a leadership role in my local community, but am well aware of my need for personal growth. There are several "commune" communities nearby and I've met one young couple who embrace peaceful parenting and seem to be living out those values. I recently asked the father, who I mistakenly assumed had a Jewish heritage if his son was circumcised (he wasn't and related a rather principled story about their hospital delivery). So being a part of the FDR community is an important resource for me. I hope I will be accepted here as well as contribute here. So far I have helped one donator to return to regular involvement where their trust was shaken in FDR. It's kind of a tough group to establish bonds with, in my experience. But it also seems like the most promising in terms of my personal goals and as a means to make a difference. I just wished I could contribute more. I have established a few goals to work towards that, and learning to be less down on myself while still maintaining the effort to do better, not for FDR's sake but for my own first, and FDR will benefit as a result.

MMX2010 Robert, presumably that is if you don't make the link a hyperlink. I never tried that, I always made such references using the hyperlink button. MMX's bbcode works too, but if youtube URL's posted as plain text get the job done, so much the better!

Was there a question here? I have one: how did you embed this video in the forum? I can't figure it out after looking at all of the editor buttons. Do you put the link somewhere in your profile, then use the "My Media" button?

Interesting question, especially as it relates to young children. The truth is we are all pathological liars, no matter how much we may argue to the contrary. Ask anyone these questions: Have you ever lied in the past? Have you lied recently? Are you likely to lie in the future? If honest, people will answer yes to at least 2 of these, with the 2nd a possible denial depending on how you define recent. But even in that case people may not even be aware of how they might lie if it is subconsciously motivated. I believe we all lie to ourselves about a great many things. Hopefully those here are in the quest of self knowledge to uncover them. As Stefan has said many times in various ways, children are highly sensitive to hypocrisy, a form of lying. So how should they be taught about this given the empirical evidence?

I've seen the American Dream video, and I agree it's pretty good, but disagree it's better. But that's a subjective, blanket judgement. The truth is that different styles and presentation formats are needed to reach the widest audience. For an audience like those here at FDR, who presumably have a few more active brain cells than the average wo/man on the street, people that have a higher propensity of requiring strong empirical evidence, Century of Enslavement provides all that with transcripts and source documentation which is lacking in the American Dream video. But given how dry and uninteresting most people perceive the topic of economics to be and that a huge portion of the population are full of apathy, especially the heavily indoctrinated youth, American Dream may be better suited to reach that audience. In fact, I've been looking for material for a younger demographic and that fits the bill nicely. Thanks for your bringing American Dream back to my awareness mthenke. Perhaps others would be willing to share DVDs, podcasts and other wake up tools here and provide the reasons why they believe they're good tools to reach people. How about it- what's your take on this Century of Enslavement video and do you have other tools you found to be effective? Here's the American Dream video on youtube:

I've been making copies and circulating them around. It's most excellent and thorough, something I've grown to expect from Mr. Corbett. He is meticulous in his supporting documentation. The Corbett Report, FDR and Gnostic Media are my top three podcasts I listen too with regularity. Couldn't possibly recomend this more strongly. In addition to the video you linked above, there is a web page devoted to it which contains a transcript and links to his source materials and research that backs up what he documents in the video.

I agree with Mike and his reply. I too focused on that area of your post Marc, especially the sentence that preceeded what Mike quoted, in particular Rosenberg's statement: I also have great admiration and appreciation of your honesty and willingness to share this with us here. It's a vulnerable thing to do and I suspect as I think about it over the next few days I'll have some questions for you about it. I also liked how this illustrates the process of learning to become more sensitive to the things we repress that you expressed here so eloquently, and how that isn't an easy process for many. You just nailed it Marc! I tend to intellectualize and repress my feelings as a means of avoiding my responsibility and the frustration of not knowing how to resolve problems or the shame I feel because I don't. I think that's key for me, and I think you for helping me to see some of the mechanisms at play in there.

I think there is definitely value in text only chat & voice only therapy. On the other hand the loss of direct visual contact (and voice), which provides highly useful feedback to a skilled listener / therapist would be absent. I suspect many therapists wouldn't be willing to work with those constraints.

Where the meaning evades you, might you appreciate the thought that went into word choice, number of syllables, alliteration, by chance?! Well now that I know the definition of alliteration, yes to some degree. But I've never really understood what constitutes poetry. The idea "Music of the Words" comes to mind, but it probably boils down to how my brain processes language. That's probably why I think of poetry in terms of rhymes. Thank you thank you thank you for reading and replying! I am aflutter! LOL, i don't know if that's a word that I've spelled correctly, only that you know the sentiment behind it! :D Kewl! I don't see how that could be more explicit! Nice to know "I've still got it"

I've never been one to appreciate poetry. Never paid much attention to it really. I'm more the type to want everything spelled out explicitly. But I can read between the lines and sense the emotion that the poem's words express. Although it isn't a form of communication I gravitate towards, and thus have almost no skills to write, I can at least empathize with what I sense the words try to relate. But it takes much effort, and I probably will miss some of the intended meaning. I'm expressing an incompetence to understand, or possibly to feel the entirety of your poem. The only thing in my experience I can relate to poetic creativity is when I'm in the thrawls of infatuation. Even then I battle to express my emotions and thoughts in rhyme, and if I can't the "poem" will not be complete or shared. I'll bet this perspective arises from a left thinking brain, if I had to attribute the source of it. I sense frustration with the words "patience withers", and it is related to the deep scars of love violated. The bible speaks of the virtues of love, the first in the list is patience. Do I also sense a contradiction? I guess it depends on whether you're expressing feelings about yourself or the one you're frustrated with. That's why I prefer a more explicit form of communication. I hope I haven't added to your frustration. Although I'm wired with a dominant left brain it seems, it's important we try to stretch beyond our comfort zones and extend ourselves into the lives and perspectives of others. Thanks for sharing your poem Mishelle

I completely agree, what a great project. You're obviously an extremely talented person, and it's great you found a way to channel it to further more awareness of what so many don't see and are clueless about. Bravo my friend, most excellent!

And I thank you for doing so. Helps to have some interaction to affirm that I'm not alone in my observations. Thanks for your basic human kindness and interaction.

I agree with your assessment in terms of the tradeoffs, but neither of us know whether any kind of normalization is being done right now. We can 2nd guess all day but that would be pointless. What we do know empirically is: 1) There are many podcasters that don't have these type of level issues. Do they have the same dynamic range requirements Stef imposes due to his speaking style? I've heard some pretty wild rants elsewhere, but I can't say objectively that's not a relevant factor. 2) FDR chooses not to acknowledge the issue, publicly or privately (at least not to me, have they to you shirgall?). I guess I've spoken my piece about this. Since you don't seem to have an interest in moving the discussion away from technical considerations and we both generally agree on that front, not sure if there's much else to say. I do wonder why this sticks in my craw though. It's difficult to understand why. If I were able to afford therapy it would be a good topic to explore.

That is absolutely true, we (you & I) don't know what method & apparatus is used to make the recordings. However, I contend that is mostly irrelevant to the issue of the final audio level, as I know I can pass any MP3 through software that will allow me to set an absolute level or to normalize the overall level in that MP3 to a consistent level. Your statement, "it is extremely difficult to separately level the various participants" is incorrect, as that can be accomplished after final edit. The technical term for how that is done is automatic gain control. BTW, I'm a linux guy too, as well as Mac & Windows; I use them all almost every day. This would be applied after all editing and splicing is done so all elements to be normalized are present. It's a post processing step in the production process. As I mentioned in my OP, this is not rocket science and the techniques to accomplish good and consistent audio levels are well known. That's why I am so puzzled about why this problem persists and why Micheal or James or anyone else on the staff hasn't responded to the feedback provided to FDR about this issue. Knowing it's not just me (I was 99% confident of that but until you responded I remained open to some obscure problem on my end) and that I'm not the only one to bring this to the attention of FDR leaves me to conclude: 1) FDR is in denial this is a significant quality problem worthy of consideration. 2) FDR is aware of the problem but it is a very low priority concern. 3) There are technical issues related to the tools being used (during the of 12 - 16 months I have noticed this problem have the same tools been used or have they changed or evolved?) in FDR's production methodology that are frustrating for FDR to overcome, similar to the recent opening rant by Stef complaining about Bluetooth and USB technology problems. I lean towards a combo of #2 and #3 above. However, if I were to be more deeply analytical, I might apply RTR principles looking at the relationship between FDR and the FDR audience, and ask why is FDR not being more communicative to the audience about the "feelings" the audience has expressed about this issue? Is FDR trying to protect a bruised ego or admit incompetence b/c they can't resolve this problem? OK now listen, I get that sounds rather "bitchy", condescending and rather negative, even to me. I'm struggling to communicate without that tone but in the absence of a response (yours is the first after several attempts) my emotions escalate. So perhaps I can turn this discussion in a different direction and use it as a vehicle to explore my emotions and RTR in an online context, since I have noticed I tend towards this negative tone in my online communications. Anyone game to address that instead? RTR by definition isn't possible in a forum context like this, so scratch that thought.

Thank you for your response Shirgall. Sometimes I think I must type with invisible ink or something It seems kindof strange actually, that whoever has the responsibility of putting these podcasts together (MMD I presume) wouldn't normalize the sound levels through Audacity or other sound processing software. Sound level normalization is a pretty standard thing to do even by amateur standards. Could it be that its one more step that takes more time to do than it's worth? I really doubt that's the case, especially since I don't see this problem in podcasts with far smaller resources and audiences. Another reason it seems odd, given how Stef is obviously so aware of how important it is to have a quality product and be in touch with his audience, that this issue has persisted so long and seems to be overlooked.

Nobody wants to weigh in on this? Why not? I was just listening to a podcast in the chat room (in the player that appears below the chat input window) and it was quite soft. If I don't plug my Mac into an external amplifier it's hard to hear over the window fan which is in another room. I'm beginning to wonder why nobody has bothered to respond, even if it's just, "It sounds OK to me" or "What are you talking about?"