“I’ve got no strings, to hold me down. To make me fret, or make me frown. I had strings, but now I’m free. There are no strings on me.” ~Pinocchio
The question is begged, are ethics manufactured? I feel using these tools even with good intentions may be unethical. If so, if I must be unethical to achieve my aims, if I’m selling my soul anyway, why sell it to the underdog since at that point I’ve already sold out?
That is why I just keep speaking plainly and don’t ever play these games despite my understanding of them.
My hope is that the group is no more ready for the future than their age would suggest.
But the perception data is troubling. I always thought it was an emotional tool set. A way to make people fake it so to speak, or to at least shut up, and that perception wasn’t altered so much as interpretation was while creating incentives to lie.
To find out that this process genuinely transforms how they not only interpret what they see but what they see directly changes matters entirely.
In light of this new data I’ll have to re-evaluate, though again, I can’t see any way around the ethical catch 22.
Are ethics intrinsically valuable or am I a mark? And if I must shed them to win, why at that point should I bother fighting?
It’s funny when the public attempts to explore the science which has enslaved them as if it’s all new.
http://adamcurtisfilms.blogspot.com/
http://www.syti.net/GB/SilentWeaponsGB.html (Hoax or not this is a fascinating read and very much on topic especially after watching the above linked documentaries about the PR industry.)
Pop songs are romance/love porn. All western culture is about selling girls to boys in exchange for death and work.
http://pastebin.com/AwM31PyV
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_hypnosis
4 thoughts on “Who owns your limbic system?”