The goal of the Linux-Society (LS, dating back to the mid-90s as a professional club and tech-mentoring group) has been a purely-democratic Information Society; many of the articles are sociological in nature. The LS was merged with Perl/Unix of NY to form multi-layered group that included advocacy, project-oriented learning by talented high school students: textbook constructivism. Linux has severe limitations such that it is useless for any computer that will, say, print or scan. It is primarily used for webservers and embedded devices such as the Android. (Google is high-invested in it).

Technology is problematic. During the heyday of technology (1990s), it seemed it had the democratic direction Lewis Mumford said it should have in his seminal
Technics and Civilization.

Today, we are effectively stuck with Windows as Linux is poor on the desktop and has cultured a maladaptive following. Apple is prohibitive, and all other operating systems lack drivers, including Google's Android, an offshoot of linux.

In the late 90s there was hope for new kernels such as LibOS and ExoOS that would bare their hardware to programs, some of which would be virtual machines such as Java uses. Another important player was the L4 system that is a minor relation to the code underlying the Apple's systems. It was highly scientific but fell into the wrong hangs, apparently, and has suffered from having no progress on the desktop. There is a version, "SE" that is apparently running in many cell phones as specialized telecom chips, but is proprietary. SE's closed nature was only recently revealed, which is important because it is apparently built from publicly-owned code as it is not a "clean room" design it may violate public domain protections, and most certainly violates the widely-accepted social contract.

Recent attempts to enjoin into L4 development as an advocate for "the people" have been as frustrating (and demeaning) as previous attempts with the usual attacks to self-esteem by maladaptive "hacks" being reinforced by "leadership" (now mostly university professors).

In short, this leaves us with Windows, which is quite a reversal if you have read earlier posts here. But, upon Windows, we have free and open software development systems in the forms of GTK+ (the windows usually used on Linux) and the Minimal GNU Windows (MinGW and MSYS) systems. It is very likely this direction that development should go (that is, on Windows) such that s/w can then be ported to a currently-valid microkernel system that includes a driver system that can be adapted by hardware developers to reuse of their windows and apple drivers.

From a brief survey of L4, it appears that the last clean copy was the DROPS system of the early 2010s, was a German effort that used the Unix-like "OS kit" from an American University.

If we are going to be stuck on Windows, then it seems that a high level approach to free and open systems integration, such as creating fully transparent mouse communication between apps so that they can seamlessly work together as a single desktop (rather than deliberately conflicting). This would be very helpful for GIMP and Inkscape, both leading graphics programs that are strong in the special ways, but suffer from an inability to easily interrelate.

Another important issue is the nature, if you can call it that, of the "geek" or "hack." Technology is formed democratically but "harvested" authoritarian-ly --if I can coin a term that Mumford might use. Authority is plutarchy: a combination of aristocracy and oligarchy that is kept alive after all these millennia by using, or maligning, the information society as a part of the civilizing (or law-giving) process that embraces the dialectic as its method. Democratic restoration, that is to put humanity back on an evolutionary (and not de-evolutionary) track, I think, will require the exclusion of the "geek" from decision-making. As is, the free/open s/w culture attempts to give leadership to those who write the most lines of code --irrespective of their comprehension of the real world or relationship with normal users. We need normal people to somehow organize around common sense (rather than oligarchic rationalism) to bring to life useful and cohesive software and communications systems.

Interestingly, the most popular page on this site is about Carl Rogers' humanistic psychology, and has nothing to do with technology.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Defective dominance, a phrase I use often (but never wrote about) to describe the ugliness we see in "our" human society is "defective dominance." This is to say that, because it is easy to profit using cruelty, and difficult to prevent cruelty through kindness (or profit from generosity), cruelty, and especially cruelty-causing genes, win out in "our" synthetic world.

In the political context, psych-types would describe this defective dominance in terms of personality disorders, the most dangerous of which is malignant narcissism, what Adolf Hitler had. I assume Dawkins would agree; I believe he speaks from experience, as he, as academic oligarch, probably self-describes in his best-selling books about "selfish genes."

Surprisingly to me, I found "defective dominance" to be important evolutionary and genetic term, though not necessarily widespread. (I was expecting to find more paranoid conspiracy-type stuff.)

Like most genuine genetic-evolutionary material, references to defective dominance are exceedingly difficult to fathom, but very easy to observe in everyday life. By adding up all the "ugliness" that we see, and then adding to it all the "ugliness" elsewhere that we don't see (which requires multiplication), and then "factoring in growth" which means raising it to an exponential (such as "squaring" it), any of us can comprehend that we, as a Human race and a planet Earth, are in deep trouble. The result will be mega-genocidal disaster in coming decades.

The question is "how will we reverse the control of the defective dominant?"

The humanitarian approach is to attempt to create awareness of the problem, but I believe that effort will be ineffectual; I use the Vietnam war as an example: it was the military action by Vietnam that ended the war, not the active opposition to the war by the US population.

Blocking possibilities of a popular "information-based" solutions is the academic use empiricist science--which is very much what it sounds like. Empiricism has, for 23-2500 years, focused on developing empire-building technologies for the economic growth of the aristocracy (with a short communist experiment): roads, weapons, ships, towers, medicine. Academia, for its educational effort, has been rewarded with its own "ivory" tower in it has metacognitive control over nearly every one of us for big parts of our lives as students.

Economics as a symptom of defective dominance
Most importantly, economics is not constructive nor a whole systems model. It is a connected sequence of causal conclusions designed to resemble a model.

This should be a major concern to every one of us, because it is an alternative to the system that we evolved in (or God granted us); it is a synthesis -- a fiction. The terminology and math used are complicated lies designed to show that as a market-based synthetic system it benefits all through growth. In reality, it declines financially because of inflation, erodes the meanings of our lives, and will ultimately consume all the planet's resources --as a result of uncontrolled growth.

Specific fictions within the terminology and math of economics could be, for instance, the use of retail consumption as a positive asset (or growth) when in actual business, it is a debit (or decline). House building, as a product is an asset, but in its present context it is consumption, not production, as retail is.

Production has, of course, been largely shipped to other countries, and market values --the actual measurement of a market-based economy-- are out-paced by inflation.

Economists see growth in empiricist math, but the wealthy can only grow by absorbing the resources of others and undercutting their salaries. Even the wealth of the wealthy is eroded by inflation necessitating increasing "greed" to maintain lifestyles.

Technical Reference

Crutchfield, J. P. and Schuster, P. (2003). Evolutionary dynamics: Exploring the interplay of selection, accident, neutrality, and function. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Metacognition and the current dialectic: A "FaceBook" interview


The following is a conversation that takes a question and answer approach with a woman who "liked" occupy critical inquiry on FaceBook, and who happens to have a high-ranking executive position in a very large (and often hated) consumer goods corporation.

John Bessa:

Thanks for "liking" occupy critical inquiry -- based on what I learned (and learned for my psych masters) I have extended the dialectic to metacognition, which is basically the same but different in subtle ways. Dialectic is 2-3 K yrs old, and metacognition is future "thought control" (seriously).


Hi John thanks for the invite to merge our worlds. 1 thing you should know about me is I'm a very simple thinker. By this I don't mean that I'm shallow but because I am aware of how the power of persuasion can alter my ability to perceive, I constantly challenge myself (and others) to understand our assumptions.

Metacognition and the current dialectic

It is a pretty simple concept: the dialectic is the "method" of civilization which is the "process" of controlling society for the benefit of the wealthy (Socrates and Plato 500 BC), and ultimately communism (control w/o the wealthy, 1850-1990). Fortunately communism failed, but it will be back in another format, and that method will be metacognition, and the name will be the (soon-to-be-late Aaron Beck).


Are you familiar with this guy: Edgar Schein?


He scares the shit out of me.

John Bessa:

I think he did pop on the radar once for school in terms of group organization -- question is, is he dialectic? if so, in the trash. Is he anti-dialectic, if so he is an ally. I suspect that as an academic he follows the synthetic path and not the understanding of nature (the physic)


Can you explain that - synthetic versus nature? Ive never heard the term synthetic path so I want to make sure I understand it.

John Bessa:

Path away from nature towards chemical substitutes, gives you cancer, destroys the whales.  In economics, inflation outpaces growth making growth actually economic decline.  The basis is the Hegelian dialectic:

  1. a thesis (a good idea, or abstraction)
  2. antithesis (good idea is attacked)
  3. synthesis (outcome that reverses good idea)

So synthesis is really not a path but a method or process that is like a chemical process.


Designed to destroy and destruct the natural?

John Bessa:

Synthesis processes nature for resources w/o concern for consequences -- including people, and I am specifically thinking about aboriginals who live in nature, or in balance with it.  Synthesis reveals itself as native extermination, the extermination process belongs to people with a specific genetic signalling errors, like Hitler and Stalin (Hegelian followers).


Yes, this describes Schein who believes management should use coercive persuasion to keep workers aligned with the goals of the Org.  Schein was given free reign in the 70's to do psych experiments on prisoners.

John Bessa:

This makes Schein dialectic (cognitive) and didactic (behavioral); he probably got them to do what he wanted in exchange for cigarettes, then they went back to whatever they were doing before the study.  I call that the negative behavioral feedback loop as, in this case, the prisoners create a metacognition to make the dialectic-didactic researcher think he/she is in control.  The researcher then creates a metacognition from the feed back loop to help with the synthesis that is the civilization process.



John Bessa:

So I assume you don't like that guy.


No. Not in the least.

John Bessa:

That is good. I have been working exclusively with empathy (as emotional communication) until occupy came along -- in a few months I had a name for the flip side to empathy, the dialectic, and saw it in revolution, which explains why we get nowhere each time.

My cognitive behavioral therapy class (masters in psych) keyed me into metacognition as the new dialectic (I learned about the dialectic from the Occupy movement), and I have been finding subtle but important differences between metacognition and the dialectic. I believe metacognition will be the future battleground, but typically dialectics (now cognitivists) keep things hidden from the people, which is typical of academia.  Academia tends to change meanings of words (often to opposites) to complicate issues, and is also able to charge amazing tuition for the material that they hold in monopolistic ways.


At 1st I loved Schein because he is the only to understand that a separate culture exists for the Operations level in Manufacturing {my employment}, then I realized his goal is to exterminate my free will.

John Bessa:

Metacognition is already "naturally" in place as maladaptions to life's stresses, such as the use of "sliver linings" to make one feel better or rationalize past mistakes -- little white lies we tell ourselves, really minor cases.  Television, and similar media, is the major case -- total synthesis, pure didactic and dialectic, and increasingly purely metacognitive.  It seems your work environment is precisely Plato's republic:

  • executive class,
  • enforcement class, and
  • workers 

In Plato's republic, only workers have fully functioning ~natural~ minds, which explains mind control.  The two top parts of his (and our) pyramid is un-empathic and hence sadistic (psychotic, asperger-ed, and often schizophrenic).

The bottom portion, or workers, typically suffer from trauma, though many are dialectic themselves and attack meaningful change as "abstract" (from Hegel and Trotsky).

I am hypothesizing that Plato's Republic might have come to Greece from the Pharaoh's influence on the Israelites when they were Egyptian slaves; the concept then spread through the Middle East to Athens. Natural growth, as an extension of guiding evolution, tends to be democratic.  Aboriginal democracy is always find it circles, such as that tribal council circles that are ubiquitous for North American natives.

I am hypothesizing that three DNA signalling errors are governing synthesis (as it is counter-evolutionary):

 are probably the three DNA signalling errors:

  1. aspergers
  2. psychosis
  3. schizophrenia

The first two lead to trauma in others -- combine them and you have a sociopath.  Schizophrenia is harmless by itself, but creates intense problems when combined with the other two (eg. Caligula).

The forth category of illness results from aspergers and psychosis, which together create sociopathy or psychopathy (depending on the context).  I think that in PTSD, the neurons that act as sensory inhibitors, especially for fear, get fried from too much cycling.  Drugs such as cocaine and meth have the same effect as  fat (white matter that is an electrical insulator) melts off the neurons from too much heat making them slower and thus less effective for the brain's important (and ancient) modelling processes.


I am curious to know more: specifically how to recognize and resist.

John Bessa:

Resist what?


Mind fuck, believing the dialect.

John Bessa:

It is a metacognition, which is in the front part of the brain, reality, or consciousness is in the deep part of the brain -- the two are connected by pathways that include empathic neurons.

Ask yourself (as Carl Rogers might): "what does your true natural self believe?"  Get away for a few days and the cognitive "voices" (TV, work, family, sales people, bosses, dialectic sub-workers) will quiet down and your natural voice will emerge from within, as a sort of personal mythical self (from CG Jung).

However, when "resisting," keep in mind that the "revolution" is dialectic and that the low-end dialectics strictly attack the abstract (which is thesis or any new ideas) to create the antithesis (attacks against good ideas to create stupid ideas) to prevent evolution (with synthesis).  The process is pretty simple if you think about it and very common.  It is everywhere -- metacognition is more general than the dialectic (especially Hegelian) and can sometimes be quite different as it involves large chunks of information that have been injected as small pieces on a minute-by-minute basis by media, teachers, bosses, etc.

The fear that all this information causes by replacing naturally derived experiential information (from Carl Rogers) is able to repress the conscientiousness (ancient and inner part of the mind) to convert it into an unconscious that is as disturbed as the dialectics' are making us brain dead, and much like them.

The current strategy involves attacking the abstract as the Hegelian dialect (1800s) that was reinforced by Marx and Engels (to fight Utopian socialist worker ideals) and made "real" by Trotsky in the 20th century as Soviet communism.

This is was a big turning point for me because I always believed that Trotsky is held as the "good" and "true" communist, who was victimized by the traitor Stalin -- but not so.  He and Stalin were on the same page, there combat is consistent with dialectical behavior, as dialecticians tend to be egotistic.  If the dialectic is threatened, however, then dalecticians tend to bond to fight the threat, while conspiring against each other.  This behavior is also typical of capitalists (such as we read about in the New York Times business section) and provides evidence (along with Plato's republic) that capital is dialectic, because it is not specifically described as such by Adam Smith, for instance.  (Smith, however, influenced Hegel's economic views.)

Understanding Trotsky was the big leap for me, as suddenly, all that I had been told about the Left and revolution during my time on the streets (of the Lower East Side [LES] of Manhattan during the homeless crisis of the 80s) was lie, not just some of it: an ancient and well-organized metacognitive plan that even included Emma Goldman, the founding LES anarchist.

 The plan dates back to 2500 BC and, as dialectically designed, is able to keep adapting to attempts to put humanity back on an evolutionary path.  The final adaption is apparently  and independent metacognition strategy that will combine the mass-teaching strengths of the didactic (which can be subverted by the negative behavioral loops that the prisoners probably used to confound Shein's research).  So the upcoming metacognitive thought control strategies will be different,  and I hope to popularize these differences before they get into full swing which should be in upcoming decades: 2040-50.  Science fiction seems to accurately describe metacognitive societies, such as Orwell's 1984, yet we, as society, fail to make the connections perhaps because of the strength of  metacognitive efforts.

It is being predicted by various studies that by 2050 we, humanity, will be experiencing mass starvation resulting form over population, resource depletion, and atmospheric warming (Dalhousie University studies, and others).  Continuing the processes which are causing these problems will require metacognition, and the process itself goes back to the initial purpose synthesis, which is to which is to enable aristocrats and empires to process (other people's) resources for the purposes of becoming wealthy and further building empires.


I think Im getting close to being on the verge of "getting it"(maybe..lol)...Occupy is part of the dialect because its the antithesis to the original thesis which is essentially to keep the Rich rich so in effect has no affect because its still the same mind fuck game.?

Is Anarchy the antithesis to the Occupy thesis OR is it outside the boundaries of the "game"?

John Bessa:

That was my very thought when I first looked at revolution and antithesis; it would seem that antithesis, as the "Hegellian" a struggle that Trotsky describes, would be the attack of the "thesis" that is civilization.  In fact, it would make a lot of sense, and could show that revolutionary activity is beneficial.  But that is not what is happening at all.  First, anarchy is poorly defined; it can be socialistic and hence prone to communist take-over, or it can be individualistic, egotistic, and hence capitalistic.  Or it can be completely discordian, having no social effect at all.  It's anti-thetical nature seems to be so destructive as to prevent synthesis, but as it lacks a foundation of abstract (or thetical) structures, it fails to restore the natural evolutionary path that Kropotkin, for instance, apparently hoped it would when he reinforced Darwin's ideas with Mutual Aid.

As I live in the "sticks," I don't meet many occupiers face-to-face.  The last occupier that I talked to made no attempt to hide his dialectic, and made absolutely no attempt to comprehend the good advice I was giving him (to avoid the dialectic), so my present position is "fuck occupy" as it is  apparently purely dialectical.  This occupier openly supported Neitze and the "ubermensch," or "superman."


So how does one throw a monkey wrench into the metacognitive process to prevent thought control?  Are you familiar with Jacques Ellul? http://www.jesusradicals.com/theology/jacques-ellul/  A friend posted this on FB this morning. Let me know what you think... http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/250493.php

John Bessa:

In the cognitive article you provide, the authors write that "rejecting information actually requires cognitive effort." In response to this, the way that I am writing about metacognition is that there is a "soft" mind inside the "hard," or real mind mind (which is the brain).  The soft mind is like a computer software emulation which makes other software think it is hardware.  So, in other words, the metacognition resides in the "current control" or "executive function" section of the brain (also called working memory) as a type of mind which is independent form the brain (and its consciousness) and thus does not access natural morality (from Darwin's evolution) but instead control directives, such as ethics, laws, and perhaps metacognitive or didactic "guilt routines" that are interjected from the outside.  These are often shared experiences that are not experiences at all, but metacognitions (that are synthetic by definition).


If I understand what your saying about metacognition, our cognitive process can be manipulated til the point we accept 'truths' about 'reality and we become zombie lab rats who will respond in expected ways.  If so is there a way now to fight fire with fire and use the cognitive response to resist allowing future control to occur?

John Bessa:

I think they ARE manipulated every single minute of every day so that we have a synthetic conception that suggests that the end result of synthesis, which is the cooking of the planet through global warming (in parallel with population explosion that is part of economic growth is simply an evolutionary effect of humanity.

The way to get away from the metacognitive process (the dialectic) is to get out to the woods, let the metacognitive voices quiet down (especially NPR or other "liberal" sources for us) and resume the natural (evolutionary) path allowing our senses (including common sense) to guide our intellect.

So when I tell dialectics that I am an "EVOlutionary," I imagine they should get really nervous, because evolution, by extending Darwin, should, through natural selection, remove the mental illnesses that cause dialectical behaviors from future generations (such as in Stalin, Hitler, and Mao had). The anti-Darwin social Darwinists saw this, as did the various churches, and have been thus working (sometimes together) to create a metacognitive form of evolution to replace the natural, empathic one validate synthesis and civilization.

As an aside, the "traditional" view of psychology-psychiatry comes to us from (one of the) Aristotle(s). This gives IQ as the primary intellectual function (because it can be measured empirically with an IQ test and only tests cognition and not consciousness and related creative functions), emotion as psychosis (rather than emotional intelligence) because emotion causes irrationality, and schizophrenia as creativity, because random disconnected signals from the brain (hallucinations) are the creative process.

In the dialectical view only, Uncontrolled emotion and hallucinations are the only liberating forces. I consider this a pretty neat control strategy.  I also see it as core to dialectical control as an easy way to say that normal rebelling people are crazy, and thus crazy people should be in control of rebellious change--dialectics.  This way, any threat to the oligarchy can be put in an insane asylum while being described as a contributing part of the process.  This is precisely how that Soviet Union reacted to serious dissent.

(Nonetheless, it is important to note that the genius of the dialectic is that it encourages its students (or other victims) to seek alternatives [that have been pre-described] that that students will reach conclusions on their own that are precisely what the teacher, or dialectician, wanted them to reach, but the students have been deceived into thinking they reached these conclusions on their own.  If they fail to reach the predetermined goal, then a search for more alternatives are encouraged (until the predetermined "alternative" is chosen.  This also describes metacognitive education, but in metacognitive education, the student will probably be failed as in didactic "behavioral" education.  Metacognitive education intends to leverage computers systems such as the "Moodle" education web system.")

The idea that schizophrenia and psychosis are the sole creative forces that are also forms of mental illness strongly suggests that psychiatry and psychology are dominated by mental illness that is neither of these two.  It suggests that psychology-psychiatry has been historically (and probably still is) dominated by the third DNS signaling error disease: aspergers.  Aspergers is defined as "no emotional interrelation." The cause of it is a disconnection from the control part of the brain (prefrontal cortex) from the consciousness parts of the brain because of missing connecting neurons, or simply dead consciousness.  (It is also considered to be the core of autism, or high-functioning autism; this is a concept I have fought partly because of the official metacognition of autism as I learned it in an autism institution.  I now accept it as I have seen autistic behaviors and physical markers in people who are unquestionably cruel.)

In society dominated by this type of person (aspergers), which would be civilized society (aspergers empire), then the only true escape from metacognition (the norm) is, in fact, schizophrenia because schizophrenia allows mental signalling in the form of hallucinations that cannot be controlled dialectically, meaning cognitively --or didactically, meaning behaviorally. (Hans Eysenck, the creativity and intelligence expert, still promotes this schizophrenia/creativity idea, has many younger followers.  He also helps preserves Aristotle's personality theories based on "colored biles.") So, in civilized dialectical society, only the crazy are free being either psychotic or schizophrenic. Missing, of course, is the normal human who is chafing under control that is often traumatic-- and, of course, media broadcasted and educational metacognitions.

What we have instead is the "normalized" human, which is an important statistical, empirical mathematical function which, in short, means moving the bell curve that statistically describes normality to fit eccentric data. Thus eccentricity becomes normality, and as it happens, Catholic education is specifically called "normal" but is anything but natural. And of course, "Mother Mary sightings" (or Elvis for that matter) are considered messages from Heaven.

As an aside, statistical normalization is usually applied with respect to ethnic diversity which means both native-ness (aboriginals) and immigration with the norm being capitalized, civilized (normal) society, which in the metacognitive model is itself eccentric as it is metacognitive.

Monday, August 13, 2012

Is cognition a metacognition?

The key to this puzzle (in the big picture) is understanding parts of the brain--which is where I am headed with this inquiry.

(Note: this is a work in progress -- my real question is "is Putin autistic?" because there is someone similar where I live who is a business leader who is cruel and who rocks in a chair like autistic do. But here it is, a similar discussion, and the other will have to wait.)

Because humanity has become so synthetic, this cannot be pulled away from philosophy despite its being pseudo-science at best. Oligarchy, the philosophic "right," consistently loses the "war of words" to democracy, the philosophic center. Oligarchy wins because oligarchy it is cruel and violent, and it perpetuates its violence by leveraging a reduced "set" of thinking, which is rational reduction. Rational comes from Latin ratio, which essentially competes with natural human "sense," (or common sense). It is mathematical thinking , but, as it happens rationalists lack a sense of proportion. Surprisingly (and tellingly), rational reduction also competes with logic. Rational reduction is, by definition, an oversimplification of whats before a philosopher (presumably an oligarch). Logic, coming from Greek logos, or language, clearly implements fluency to define reality as fluency is how both the individual, and society, self-organize. Sense and logic are holistic in that they include observation, as learning, and also visceral "thinking" as a neurological link to the environment, which can be included under the topic of empathy.

Logic is often rationally reduced to exclude language, and hence fluency, so definitions of logic that agree with rationality must be marked suspect.

Rational reduction
A rational reduction in thinking must be accompanied by a reduction in the use of the brain so that thinking is no longer holistic, but synthetic. Spindle neurons (or cells) have two long threads that specifically connect parts of the brain, so, in the rationally reduced brain, one might expect either missing or spindle neurons, or, in my belief, a strong possibility of dormant, or "sleeping," spindle neurons. The reason for this is that metacognition is not an extension of the dialectic and Sorates' dialog (of child-rape and national death), but it defines it a lot better by suggesting different parts of the mind (without naming them), that, of course have to map to parts of the brain (that cognitivists are apparently unable to name).

The psychology of state
Cognitivists struggle hard to make themselves appear humanistic by embracing the therapeutic relationship as the "alliance," and leveraging empathy. A quick read of psychological ethics will reveal that the therapeutic relationship as defined by associations is anything but empathic, as oligarchic therapists seem unable to keep their hands off their patients genitals (which puts them on "the impulsive-compulsive-obsessive continuum"). What cogntivists are really interested in is old-school Viennese psychoanalysis because it's dirty secret ~is~ rational reduction. Freud may not have "rationally reduced" his patients to sex objects, but Jung certainly did. (The Freuds have an even darker dirty secret.)

In short, old-school psychoanalysis is philosophic as psychology was the last philosophy to join Science, and must therefore be oligarchic and not democratic as it was aristocratic. Cogntivists are most certainly oligarchic as they can't help but apply Zeitgeist to Socrates' pedophilia (as if parents naturally want their school-age children raped by philosophers--try bothering a wolf pup near its parents).

Brain bits
My present leap (of faith) is that the reduced set of brain parts (that is not a voluntary reduction) may be a maladaption by normal people to societies (and civilization) that is controlled by people who are altered to be cruel, and have altered language (and hence logic) to be rationally reduced, and thus have forced normal people to abandon major parts of their brains, specifically those parts that connect with the surrounding environment. Following this line of logic, the only normal people who would not thus altered are aboriginals who have not been civilized. They, to keep their societies "clean" (as nature keeps wildlife genetically clean) by whacking potential oligarchs. (No wonder Jung referred to aboriginal child-care as "monkey love.")

Cognition, as the basic component psychological activity, does not actually have a specific definition. Most people see it in the word "recognize" where "see" is the operative word, as in "seen before" as an image of a person or thing. Cognizant is also another common use, which suggests "aware," usually on a factual level, which is much different. Cognition is not the only word psychologists cannot nail down; neurosis is another such word, that psychologists bandy about all day and thus say nothing useful. Together, these words could probably be used to confuse whole societies. If you hear them, you must question the context that they are specifically being used (and, also, don't fail to ask for fMRI evidence).

In the above context, metacogntion is two parts of the mind, and thus two parts of the brain. I will throw out "part of the prefrontal cortex (that scores IQ tests), and part of the limbic system (that is thought of as the Id by old-school psychoanalysists). So therefore cognition must be that, or part of that. It is a reduced view of human thought by people with reduced thinking who have created mathematical processes that provide causal or relational relationships as "proof" that they have superior knowledge (Actually, it's insurance math that they use.). Thus, to survive, cognitivists must control societies by rationally reducing the brain sets of school-aged children, providing a whole new form of rape called metacogntion that is new only in that it's modern (or classical), rather than pre- or post-modern.

Hope this helps.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Forced upgrades in the historical context

The point of Internet technology when it became public in the early 90s was to eventually provide all people with free or nearly-free information exchange and possibly telecom-type services.  The economic growth of the 90s was such that corporations seemed beneficial (for the first time in history) and there was no reason not to accept good will from the information corporations (such as Google, and now FaceBook) as free software services.  (Obviously, the services are not completely free as they include advertising, but some are such as Google Docs.)

Recently, there has been a rash of forced upgrades among these free-ish services that actually reduce the usability of the services.  Gmail is an example, to be followed by Google Docs, and very soon FaceBook will force users to the Timeline format even though the majority has stuck w/ the list of "threaded" discussions that it began with.

I believe that this is "our" fault because nearly all the early web software was put into (versions of) the public domain for free use, and, at a certain point, we allowed proprietary corporations to replace volunteer managed free software with privately held free services.  We asked for this when we allowed corporations to provide our free infrastructure; they control us because we comply as part of being "nice."

The problem has come to terms now that these forced upgrades are apparently pushing us backwards.  I believe that corporate process of throwing all the talent on the street in favor of robot-like sycophants (esp from other countries w/ ancient oligarchies) that began in earnest a decade ago with the destruction of the North American information technology industry has assured that corporate developers would reach the limits of their ir "creative" and "technical" abilities sooner or later.  It has been later, but it is now; there have been no significant benefits in half a decade and no epiphanies in a decade.

Around the middle of the last decade, I realized that the problem is not technical, but psychological.  We had been relying on leadership that insisted on calling itself "hacks" when the entire human race views hacks as computer criminals -- the leadership would not change to adapt to this obvious perception problem.  I know that means that the entire "free software" leadership suffers from what is called "concrete thinking," a serious personality defect with obvious symptoms.  We followed lunatics, and we cannot extricate ourselves.  If we succeed in replacing corporate free services w/ free software it will be as a solo effort, and of course that is not realistic nor even the point of free software.

I think a third problem is that we are not willing to deal with these problem people, not just in technology, but in everyday life.