Friday, August 25, 2006
Information Age is about context, not content
What happens when you are flooded with information? Information ceases to have the value it once did. Why pay for a newspaper when you can look it online for free? Why waste valuable time sitting through TV commercials for mediocre coverage when you can find better information online?
Some people think my passion in life is writing. It isn't. It is actually about contexts. I enjoy juggling various contexts around and discarding ones that lack the data to back them up. For example, Nice Guy is entirely a context. It is a view of the way to look at the world. A Don Juan has a completely different context than a Nice Guy. A business owner also has a completely different context than an employee. It is not so much that a context is 'wrong' or 'right', but they lead to entirely different places. A Nice Guy context leads to a different place than a Don Jaun context. Like a bucket of chips, I choose and discard different contexts. Some contexts you'll never be fully sure about but others you can track down the facts (or lack of facts) and discard it. The mental boundary in people's minds today is not information (which is easily available and infinite) but context.
There is a difference between the egghead and the wise man. The egghead knows much information about nonsense (in other words, a poor context). The wise man knows much nonsense about information (in other words, a rich context). The egghead is rich with information, the wise man is rich with contexts.
In a constantly changing world, you must allow the possibility of new contexts or you will be left behind. As example to this, consider people who cling to the old way of saving money to get rich. Yes, you might get rich if you save money but only within sixty years or so. These people will be outpaced by those who adopted a new context, of putting themselves into massive debt on assets, to get ahead. I believe Nice Guys are in a context of a previous era.
The anxiety of man is living today with yesterday's contexts. We are no longer in the Industrial Revolution. You do not pass Go and expect to get pensions from companies like your grandparents did. Health care from businesses is no longer assured. A happy and long lasting marriage is not probable. One of the benefits of altering your contexts is that you will lose that anxiety you used to have. You will no longer fear women because you now have an entirely different context. When a feminist starts saying, "Shame on you! You are a man! This means you only have responsibilities and do not deserve any pleasures," you have the ability to laugh at her.
I cannot respect someone who cannot challenge their contexts. You do not have to agree with mine or anyone else's contexts, but a context cannot be written in stone no matter how much you agree with it. Facts are written in stone, not theories (and the contexts those theories create). Some people tell me, "It is the theory that is fundamental!" I say, "No, it is the facts that are fundamental. We must change our theories based on the data." To them, they would rather discredit or not look at competing data.
So why would someone be unable to challenge their contexts? Feminism is a stubborn context that does not respond well to being challenged. Why is that?
1) People adopt the context that fits their narcissism.
Women will adopt the context of feminism because it fits their narcissism. A poor person will adopt the context that rich people are screwing out the common man because it also fits his narcissism (and vice versa for the rich man and poor man). People who play video games will think it is the apex of civilization while those who do not play video games will think it is a waste of time. Those who have many degrees will have the context that degrees make them smart. Those who flunked out of college will likewise call college a 'waste of time'.
My favorite example of this is people driving their cars. When a car goes faster than them, that driver is a "maniac". When a car goes slower than them, that driver is an "idiot". It is all relative based on that person's driving speed! So young people, who tend to drive faster than most, think most people on the road are idiots. While old people, who tend to drive slower than most, think most people on the road are maniacs ("those damn crazy kids!").
2) People stick with contexts that fit to their other contexts
Hence, those who hate religion will tend to subscribe to the context that religion is a source of civilizational decline in the world (or the reverse). Those who hate Western Civilization will only see the West spawning evil. Those who have the context that the world is going to doom and gloom will only see the downside of every issue. Their bigger context affects their smaller contexts.
Much of the bias in the media is due to this. They have a pre-existing template and so every story, even the selection of stories to cover, gets their contexts pre-painted due to the original Mother Context.
3) People become stubborn with contexts if they have never been challenged
As Thomas Paine used to say, "Time makes more converts than reason." What I call "The Way" is exactly this flaw. "The Way" becomes so since no one allows for any other possibilities, for any other options. By removing the entire outside, the remaining context becomes "The Way". This is how tyrannical societies tend to work by removing the outside as much as possible.
This is why many older men suggest to younger ones to meet foreign women in other countries. They are not saying to marry foreign women. They are saying that, by removing all foreign women, your typical American woman (or British woman, Canadian, etc.) becomes the de facto standard of all women. By meeting these various foreign women, you have a better idea of how women in your home country compare (or don't).
If you have a context and had no one challenge you on it, what happens? Well, you never had to explain your context to other people, to publicly defend it, to give reasons for it. All you know is that those who challenge your context (which is the only one you know so to you it is "The Way") must be dearranged, misfits, or losers of society. These people find the challengers not as challengers but as "outside the norm" and must be de-legitimized because, in their minds, you already have unlegitimate viewpoint. This is why Feminism, which has never been challenged, must destroy her critics instead of debate them in the arena of ideas.
Feminism is such a stubborn context because it holds all three of the above 'barriers'. Feminism has not been challenged, it feeds people's narcissism, and it fits other contexts higher up. When someone views all of society as an artificial creation, then one can easily believe in feminist laws to "progress" society. The pride of the person and the age of the context as well as the influence of other contexts prevents people from opening their minds.
To those from Sosuave, you know that your life changed when you changed your context away from the Nice Guy mindset. Just ask yourself, "If my life has so changed by altering that context, what other contexts could there be out there?" And with that, you embark on a series of life changing discoveries that will improve and enrich your lives more than those narcissists and arrogant elitists could imagine.
I am not saying that it's all fact but having a thread title such as this about something that has genuine points and things unproven that you can read up on with an open mind is the height of ignorance
but instead of reading on it and proving why it's stupid just call the idea that something you don't have knowledge of is possibly happening is impossible right so just call it p*ssy
