Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Jay's Analysis: Brave New World- How far along are we?

 For those that are interested in understanding the way society is manipulated and ordered to benefit an elite class, this is your analysis. Loved it. Listened twice. Do you see parallels to our so called modern progressive society? I sure did!

Thanks to Jay @ Jay's Analysis for providing half of this lecture for our enjoyment.
Jay's Analysis is always linked and accessible via the side bar of the blog.
 "In this analysis, I cover Aldous Huxley’s classic 1932 dystopian novel Brave New World from a historical, philosophical and esoteric perspective. What is Huxley saying? Was he involved in erecting the scientistic state we now live in? Did he leave clues in his famous Berkeley lecture that suggest this? How does this relate to Bacon, Shakespeare and esoterism? Why are there curious references to Marx, Ford and Rothschild in the novel? How did Huxley know about cloning in 1932 and does this future-historical fiction work prove “Hidden Metaphysics"?"


  1. Also a very interesting interview with Jay Dyer at Corbett Report-

    James and Jay talk about the similarities between stagecraft and statecraft and why many people are happy not knowing the truth even when they know they are looking at an illusion.

    1. Hi james
      yes, I heard the interview at Corbett's and want to put it here, but, meant to get this one up last week! so behind the times.....
      Did you read Jay's analysis on that movie- a movie I did enjoy btw
      but Jay's analysis is very good- I will link both interview and analysis when I get to them
      am working of a refugee post at the moment- hopefully it will be up today or tomorrow?

    2. Hi Pen, I just went and read Jay's review. It's very thought provoking - as is much of his stuff.
      His writing reinforces for me something I have become increasingly aware of. We are products of our culture. Our culture tells us what to think, how to think and how to understand what we see and hear. Our culture shapes our consciousness. It is mind control, in other words.

      Our culture, in turn, is shaped by the dominant forces in our society down through the centuries; religion, law societies, banks and their chief instrument that they collectively own and control - government.

      Linking up with the Brave New World episode, the 'soma' that we all imbibe every day is the belief in the necessity for and the beneficence of Authority. It's all a deadly illusion.

  2. Hi Penny,
    It is interesting that you would choose to feature "Brave New World" here. I have commented several times on the Saker blog recently that a new world is coming, given the events that (to my mind) herald the end of the US empire. I think it is pretty obvious that the new world will in no way resemble the Huxley's new world. It is possible to see where he could get his idea of a completely regimented "totalitarian" society given the trend toward regimentation of that time, but the chaos of today belies that trend. It reminds me of the impossibility of loading a herd of frogs into a wheelbarrow.
    However, there are some points that can be made about the "scientistic" philosophy that Jay sees at work in the book, in the sense of the misuse of science for essentially no purpose other than the maintenance of a non-evolving system -- for no purpose at all, in other words. It is possible for an evil oligarchy to misuse knowledge, but the problem today is that the school of knowledge misuses itself. By that I mean there is a reductionist philosophy at work, possibly somehow connected to the utiliarian idea of the foundational "happiness" (or more likely "satisfaction") of human society, but at a more critical level, namely in the assumption that by reducing nature to its smallest conceivable parts we can somehow understand it. This relates to the removal of metaphysics from the school of knowledge. Reductionism has reached its final frontier in particle physics, where "fundamental" particles are mathematical points having no spatial extension, being the "excitations" of underlying "fields". The reductionist field-particle paradigm has failed completely to explain anything about the universe. I would be happy to argue with anyone about this, I have studied it quite a bit and even have a theory complete with equations giving the relation between the masses of particles, in which the essential spatial extension of the particles is allowed.
    However, that aside, it is possible to understand the universe quite simply as a sensing system, which evolves in complexity to create more and more sense, and eventually grows into living systems like ourselves who, as soon as we are aware of ourselves, begin to create new systems, tools, weapons, agricultural and industrial practises, social systems, etc. which provide us with the evidence that the universal sensing system is also a system that grows, i.e. creates new systems out of existing systems. The reductionist paradigm completely misses this purpose of the universal system -- indeed, in modern physics where God is removed from the system, purpose itself is also removed, and the universe becomes a system of random events that somehow, God knows how, evolves supposedly purposeless creatures like ourselves.
    So much for the reductionist paradigm, which is under scrutiny by the physicists themselves these days. And so much for a brave new world that bears any resemblance to Huxley's, even though it is easy to see the efforts being made by the Mustapha Monds of the world to imprison us in a media matrix that will blind us to our imprisonment. They will fail, of course. The frogs will continue to jump out of the wheelbarrow.

    1. Good comment D. George. I would add that the Utilitarianism of Bentham, Mill and others was an exercise in Moral Relativism and reducing ethics to numbers. It is ultimately nihilistic as is scientism and Quantum Physics that followed on from Hume and Kant.

      Quantum theory proposes two contradictory theses at the same time. One, that we shape reality with our thoughts and decisions so we are, in effect, God. And two, that the quantum world, the basis of our reality, is beyond both cause and effect and is not knowable through our senses. Therefore we cannot know anything.
      In one view we are all powerful and in the other powerless.

      If one wishes to practise mind control, one has to first induce a state of confusion in the subject

    2. ." I think it is pretty obvious that the new world will in no way resemble the Huxley's new world"

      Sure hope it doesn't and that's partly why I am here. To raise awareness.
      That said, some aspects of that creepy world are here present day
      Not sure if you listened to Jay's talk? But imo the signs are obvious.
      The perception management- the massive drug use in our societies- the heavy indoctrination- the subservience to illegitimate authority

      As to the rest of your comment, which is quite a bit to digest..I found this statement intriguing

      "However, that aside, it is possible to understand the universe quite simply as a sensing system, which evolves in complexity to create more and more sense, and eventually grows into living systems..."

      I think about the complexity of our system often, being a gardner/woods walker and TRUE environmentalist-

      The elites global push towards monoculture of everything is intentional- because it's pretty obvious diversity brings evolutionary possibilities/change that is uncontrollable and monoculturing of living creatures destroy or reduces evolutionary possibilities- Simply put the psycho elites may have deluded themselves into believing by impeding or preventing change they can control everything.

      Look at the idea of AGW? It is sold to us on the basis that earths climate is always the same and we, humans alone are changing it.

      The earths climate is never "the same"
      The plants never stay in one place
      The animals don't either
      But for some reason the elites don't accept this obvious reality-
      Likely because they like everything circumstance as controlled as possible- for their benefit- and they are truly deluded in thinking they can control this system for their benefit.

      It's not possible

      Great comment anyway

    3. And yes D George the frogs will continue to jump out of the wheelbarrow :)
      I like that example

    4. Hi Penny,
      Thanks for your comment. The Nobel laureate Robert Laughlin as well as an earlier physicist whose name I don't remember (my eyesight and laziness stops me from hunting a lot of things down these days) have pointed out that at some point further reductionism is pointless and it is time to look at complexity building instead. My observation is that systems grow from the inside out, very rarely from the outside in where there may be a leap of simplification.
      Also the universe as a sensing system can be understood right at its simplest system, an electron-proton system i.e. a hydrogen atom (an electron by itself will also do). The system is simple: the electron (which is a shell surrounding the proton, itself a shell) is a sensor. It senses an electromagnetic ray (photon), and responds, sending out a photon. The photon is then sensed by another electron. So the system is comprised of a sender, a sensor, and what is sent (a sense). All the growth of the universe -- and it is worth realizing that growth precedes life in that living (regenerative) systems grow out of systems that do not regenerate -- proceeds from this simple system and is nothing more than the collective expressions of it. No one knows yet how "life" occurs but it involves catalytic reactions. If we accept the universe as a sensing system, then we can give it a capacity that physics cannot give it, which is the power of imagination (which is nothing more than the power to create an image, which is the product of the sensing system!). And it is not a large leap from there to an "evolving" God, in the form of Nature but with the power of Imagination. It does not need to be intelligent design, although at the level of complex human imagination and given our brain power and the fact that our brain is an electromagnetic transmitter we can say there is intelligent design at work -- ours! -- but simply by the power of imagination, the universe evolves. I will add since it occurs to me right now that we humans and the rest of the Earth interact with each other, and we can never achieve the kind of static system that Brave New World shows. I did listen to Jay's talk, a lot of it anyway, and stayed until the end. I can see where the self-proclaimed Masters of Earth would like to go, but it isn't going to happen. I know some of them worry about overpopulation; my answer to that is to downsize the humans, there is no law that says we have to be six feet tall, we could be microsized if necessary!
      Anyway, thanks for your comment, my words above reflect where my thinking mainly lies, I don't have much ambition for straying much abroad from that. Politically I hate the lying murdering thieves and hope for global healing.

    5. Hi D George:
      had to unmoderate your comment now that this post is two days old.
      I will read it and get back to you, I am behind on responding

  3. Hi James,
    I'm not sure of the philosophical connection of quantum physics to earlier philosophers, but your comment that it is beyond cause and effect, and not knowable through our senses, is an apt comment. I see it as being due to the fact of uncertainty in measurement of the electron, which the physicists (strangely, I think) put onto the actual particle rather than onto the measurement, saying that the particle itself has no definite position/momentum rather than that our measurement of it is necessarily imprecise. Einstein fought them, and I believe he was right, because in a spatially extended electron model in which the electron is a rotating sphere, it is possible to introduce variables, namely the expansion and contraction of the electron radius and also its rotation on three axes, that meet the requirements of Bell's theorem but are not random, simply unknowable (since we can never know exactly where an electron is in its expansion-contraction cycle, and we can never know which axis it is going to flip onto).
    Thus the universe is "Einsteinian" in that it is deterministic, but it is also uncertain in being beyond our measurement capacity. That removes the "unknowability" part of the contradiction you mention. As far as our decisions forming reality is concerned, I have an idea about that, which is that we are all avatars (of ourselves if not of God); but since God did not know what God was doing when God created the universe (being only a very rudimentary sensing system at the time) and does not know any better than us where the electron is, exactly, the universe is as uncertain for God as it is for us, even while God carries out God's "plans". However, there is another feature of the universe that is not recognized, which is that all signals (electromagnetic radiation, or photons) are sent to the future, and all signals are received from the future, in every frame; and guess where God lives? It is something I keep in mind every day! (But my god is a joker, so I feel fairly safe most of the time.)

  4. Hi D. George, the only thing I know for sure about God is that I'm not it/him/her.
    Re philosophy and science, you might be interested in two Jan Irvin interviews with David Harriman

  5. and james and D George thanks for that interesting exchange! I didn't have time yesteday to get back to comments, but, wow!

    1. Hi Pen, I'm learning a lot from David Harriman but, then, I'm into logic :) and I'm increasingly getting into philosophy (which I thought I never would)

      I've nearly finished his book, "The Logical Leap". There's a five hour video lecture series of his on Youtube which I can thoroughly recommend (if you've got time)

      What was surprising for me is the effect dodgy philosophy has on science and then on the rest of us.