Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > General
Register FAQ Chat Social Groups Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 30-09-2008, 10:21 PM   #1
krakhead
Premier Subscribers
 
krakhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dark Side Of The Room
Posts: 11,372
Lightbulb What the thinker thinks, the prover proves

From Robert Anton Wilson's 'Prometheus Rising'

I've recommended this chapter of this amazing (IMHO) book several times today.

I thought I'd make it easier for people.

Here's the chapter in question.

Quote:
William James, father of American psychology, tells of meeting an old lady who told him the Earth rested on the back of a huge turtle. "But, my dear lady," Professor James asked, as politely as possible, "what holds up the turtle?" "Ah," she said, "that's easy. He is standing on the back of another turtle." "Oh, I see," said Professor James, still being polite. "But would you be so good as to tell me what holds up the second turtle?" "It's no use, Professor," said the old lady, realizing he was trying to lead her into a logical trap. "It's turtles-turtles-turtles, all the way!"

Don't be too quick to laugh at this little old lady. All human minds work on fundamentally similar principles. Her universe was a little bit weirder than most but it was built up on the same mental principles as every other universe people have believed in.

As Dr. Leonard Orr has noted, the human mind behaves as if it were divided into two parts, the Thinker and the Prover. The Thinker can think about virtually anything. History shows that it can think the earth is suspended on the backs of infinite turtles or that the Earth is hollow, or that the Earth is floating in space, comparative religion and philosophy show that the Thinker can regard itself as mortal, as immortal, as both mortal and immortal (the reincarnation model) or even as non- existent (Buddhism). It can think itself into living in a Christian universe, a Marxist universe, a scientific-relativistic universe, or a Nazi universe—among many possibilities. As psychiatrists and psychologists have often observed (much to the chagrin of their medical colleagues), the Thinker can think itself sick, and can even think itself well again.

The Prover is a much simpler mechanism. It operates on one law only: Whatever the Thinker thinks, the Prover proves. To cite a notorious example which unleashed incredible horrors earlier in this century, if the Thinker thinks that all Jews are rich, the Prover will prove it. It will find evidence that the poorest Jew in the most run-down ghetto has hidden money somewhere. Similarly, Feminists are able to believe that all men, including the starving wretches who live and sleep on the streets, are exploiting all women, including the Queen of England.

If the Thinker thinks that the sun moves around the earth, the Prover will obligingly organize all perceptions to fit that thought; if the Thinker changes its mind and decides the earth moves around the sun, the Prover will reorganize the evidence. If the Thinker thinks "holy water" from Lourdes will cure its lumbago, the Prover will skillfully orchestrate all signals from the glands, muscles, organs etc. until they have organized them- selves into good health again.

Of course, it is fairly easy to see that other people's minds operate this way; it is comparatively much harder to become aware that one's own mind is working that way also. It is believed, for instance, that some men are more "objective" than others. (One seldom hears this about women...) Businessmen are allegedly hard-nosed, pragmatic and "objective" in this sense. A brief examination of the dingbat politics most businessmen endorse will quickly correct that impression.

Scientists, however, are still believed to be objective. No study of the lives of the great scientists will confirm this. They were as passionate, and hence as prejudiced, as any assembly of great painters or great musicians. It was not just the Church but also the established astronomers of the time who condemned Galileo. The majority of physicists rejected Einstein's Special Relativity Theory in 1905. Einstein himself would not accept anything in quantum theory after 1920 no matter how many experiments supported it. Edison's commitment to direct current (DC) electrical generators led him to insist alternating current (AC) generators were unsafe for years after their safety had been proven to everyone else.'

Science achieves, or approximates, objectivity not because the individual scientist is immune from the psychological laws that govern the rest of us, but because scientific method—a group creation—eventually overrides individual prejudices, in the long run.

To take a notorious example from the 1960s, there was a point when three research groups had "proven" that LSD causes chromosome damage, while three other groups had "proven" that LSD has no effect on the chromosomes. In each case, the Prover had proved what the Thinker thought. Right now, there are, in physics, 7 experiments that confirm a very controversial concept known as Bell's Theorem, and two experiments that refute Bell's Theorem. In the area of extra-sensory perception, the results are uniform after more than a century: everybody who sets out to prove that ESP exists succeeds, and everybody who sets out to prove that ESP does not exist also succeeds. "Truth" or relative truth emerges only after decades of experiments by thousands of groups all over the world.

In the long run, we are hopefully approximating closer and closer to "objective Truth" over the centuries. In the short run, Orr's law always holds: Whatever the Thinker thinks, the Prover will prove.' And if the Thinker thinks passionately enough, the Prover will prove the thought so conclusively that you will never talk a person out of such a belief, even if it is something as remarkable as the notion that there is a gaseous vertebrate of astronomical heft ("GOD") who will spend all eternity torturing people who do not believe in his religion.

EXERCIZES

Sad as it is to say, you never understand anything by merely reading a book about it. That's why every science course includes laboratory experiments, and why every consciousness- liberation movement demands practice of yogas, meditations, confrontation techniques, etc. in which the ideas are tested in the laboratory of your own nervous system.

The reader will absolutely not understand this book unless he or she does the exercizes given at the end of each chapter.

To explore the Thinker and the Prover, try the following:

1. Visualize a quarter vividly, and imagine vividly that you are going to find the quarter on the street. Then, look for the quarter every time you take a walk, meanwhile continuing to visualize it.See how long it takes you to find the quarter.

2. Explain the above experiment by the hypothesis of "selective attention" that is, believe there are lots of lost quarters everywhere and you were bound to find one by continually look- ing. Go looking for a second quarter.

3. Explain the experiment by the alternative "mystical" hypothesis that "mind controls everything." Believe that you made the quarter manifest in this universe. Go looking for a second quarter.

4. Compare the time it takes to find the second quarter using the first hypothesis (attention) with the time it takes using the second hypothesis (mind-over-matter).

5. With your own ingenuity, invent similar experiments and each time compare the two theories—"selective attention" (coincidence) vs. "mind controls everything" (psychokinesis).

6. Avoid coming to any strong conclusions prematurely. At the end of a month, re-read this chapter, think it over again, and still postpone coming to any dogmatic conclusion. Believe it possible that you do not know everything yet, and that you might have something still to learn.

7. Convince yourself (if you are not already convinced) that you are ugly, unattractive and dull. Go to a party in that frame of mind. Observe how people treat you.

8. Convince yourself (if you are not already convinced) that you are handsome, irresistible and witty. Go to a party in that frame of mind. Observe how people treat you.

9. This is the hardest of all exercizes and comes in two parts. First, observe closely and dispassionately two dear friends and two relative strangers. Try to figure out what their Thinkers think, and how their Provers methodically set about proving it. Second, apply the same exercize to yourself.

If you think you have learned the lessons of these exercizes in less than six months, you haven't really been working at them. With real work, in six months you should be just beginning to realize how little you know about everything.

10. Believe it possible that you can float off the ground and fly by merely willing it. See what happens. If this exercize proves as disappointing to you as it has to me, try number 11 below, which is never disappointing.

11. Believe that you can exceed all your previous ambitions
and hopes in all areas of your life. "Believe" or "convince yourself mean to do what an actor does: pretend until the pretense begins to feel real. Or, as Jazz musicians say: "Fake it until you make it."

It's Turtles, Turtles, Turtles all the way......

I can't get out, my horns won't fit...
__________________
This message brought to you by
Krakhead Inc.
“You simply cannot invent any conspiracy theory so ridiculous and
obviously satirical that some people somewhere don't already believe it.”
Rwy'n dy garu di
krakhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2008, 12:18 AM   #2
tejas
Senior Member
 
tejas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: I live everywhere and nowhere
Posts: 1,053
Default

Awesome, Robert Anton Wilson was a G

I agree completely with his universal agnosticism!
__________________
Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici

"Wisdom is knowing how little we know," - Socrates

He who knows both knowledge and action,
with action overcomes death and with
knowledge reaches immortality

Last edited by tejas; 01-10-2008 at 12:18 AM.
tejas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2008, 12:30 AM   #3
thirdwave
Premier Subscribers
 
thirdwave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,968
Default

I like how he shakes things up, I always recommend his books to peeps..
__________________
“Perhaps you who bring this sentence against me are more afraid than I who receive it.” -Giordano Bruno

Listen & Subscribe to THA Talks
Facebook Page
thirdwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2008, 02:14 AM   #4
drael
Senior Member
 
drael's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: I am everywhere
Posts: 3,321
Default

Good stuff. Of course why, skeptics and beleivers are equally strange, and why when people fall back on logick and scientism it makes me laugh. Yeah dont worry, of course ur right.

Its funny we all beleive and rely on this impossible thing called proof.
__________________
"It only seems like yesterday -
You broke the spell and turned away
The darkness of the night.
... You turn it on and break the spell -
I know it's true, I know it's true -
I dream..."
drael is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2009, 11:48 PM   #5
krakhead
Premier Subscribers
 
krakhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dark Side Of The Room
Posts: 11,372
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kandah View Post
My mind just exploded into tiny ballons.
Is that a good thing?

__________________
This message brought to you by
Krakhead Inc.
“You simply cannot invent any conspiracy theory so ridiculous and
obviously satirical that some people somewhere don't already believe it.”
Rwy'n dy garu di
krakhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-2009, 12:34 AM   #6
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
size_of_light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,716
Default

Good post Krakkers.

But if the thinker then thinks that the prover doesn't exist, it's the provers job to not be there, but by not being there to prove the thinker's thought, then the prover proves he's proved the thinker's thought and so dis-proved the thinkers thought in the very act of proving it.

Although that's just what the thinker thinks. He'll need a prover to prove it and by now the thinker's thinking that the prover's been disproved and proved in proving that he's been disproved although the thinker can't prove either so he doesn't know what to think and why would he bother anyway, since whatever he thinks at this point can't be proven either way?

Then again, how would he even know this? He certainly can't prove it.

Or can he?

I might need therapy now. Thanks for the help.

Last edited by size_of_light; 15-01-2009 at 02:51 AM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:31 PM.