Thank you! You make some interesting observations about the relationship between the left hemisphere and reductionist thinking that explain a lot about skepticism on the Internet these days. I wonder if the history and origin of reductionist thought can be traced to any specific civilisational age or event? Is it really a child of the Enlightenment, or a latent aspect of human nature that has expressed and regressed in phases since history began?
My take on it is that people have always been interested in taking things apart, nothing wrong with that. The trouble comes when you go from there to the metaphysical assumption that the isolated parts explain everything. I'm sure this tendency had been expressed in antiquity as well, but it only got really bad when there was no mitigating philosophy anymore, often provided by religion, the arts, theology, and pre-modern philosophy.
My comment from this great article... Maybe you should rethink where you are centered to. Maybe question the authority in your own head that latches onto things as being "true" vs "false".
Maybe reconsider your own judgement, that you have and can still fool yourself. Maybe those that think they are not fooled are in fact the fooled ones!
People are sick. Let's find THE cause. Ok it's viruses or bacteria. Problem solved.
Now let's find toxic chemicals that can kill these viruses to help people. (Never mind that toxic chemicals introduce their own issues)
Right hemisphere science:
There are a lot of factors to sickness. Viruses are a misinterpretation of the result of such sickness as the cause. How about we treat the obvious issues first, see what happens before we "go nuclear" with toxic drugs and shots?
Cult science thinking: (left brained with a dash of right brained "harmony" feelings)
The people who question virus theory are like flat earthers because we absolutely know that viruses exist. Our authorities told us so. It doesn't matter that there are huge doubts in how viruses are proven because we know the truth. Anyone who questions the truth is obviously crazy. And no, we are not crazy because we trust an authority over the actual data.
It is obviously true that there is a lot of left-brain nonsense going on in mainstream science, but I have never defended that sort of thing. It is equally obvious to me though that the no-virus people exhibit LH thinking on steroids. Sorry, we got to agree to disagree here.
Iv seen some excellent and nuanced takes on viruses, and how modern science interprets illness and then ascribes causal qualities to them that aren’t as proven as we have been led (forced?) to believe.
I hear what you’re saying in regard to aggressive attack dog style certainty-bros… but there is also the charitable take that these very visible strong opinions are just been held a bit too tightly and not handled with care, which doesn’t necessarily negate the premise of their argument that “viruses don’t exist”.
For what it’s worth I think it’s better to say “viruses don’t exist in the way we’ve been told” - this can then open up a convo around questions like “what is a virus?” “how might toxins, deficiencies and excesses cause illness?”
I think the critique of ascribing causality according to too-sure theory is valid, as is the idea that terrain can play a bigger role than often assumed. There are interesting questions around the interplay between the two. But the way many of these people blanket-dismiss anything related to this entire research field, mostly in video form no less, doesn't hold up in the least, and betrays a serious lack in curiosity amd deeper thinking. Stark contrast to other contrarian thinkers who honestly want to know more about reality, which is often complex and demands many different approaches.
Yeah I agree, and I do also value these “attack dog” barks because Ive found that when Im patient with them, I find there is usually smoke (and sometimes a fire!) that they haven’t been able to articulate as well as others. Having said that, they can also (and often do) have the effect of putting people off actually enquiring into the topic and running back to the mainstream. (as I wrote this it sort of reminds me of the effect parables can have - although in this case they’re shit ones)
Still thinking on 2020, what it meant, what it’s done… it’s like it continues to reveal itself more and more (like a photograph in a dark room) the further away we get from that fateful year.
Thank you! You make some interesting observations about the relationship between the left hemisphere and reductionist thinking that explain a lot about skepticism on the Internet these days. I wonder if the history and origin of reductionist thought can be traced to any specific civilisational age or event? Is it really a child of the Enlightenment, or a latent aspect of human nature that has expressed and regressed in phases since history began?
My take on it is that people have always been interested in taking things apart, nothing wrong with that. The trouble comes when you go from there to the metaphysical assumption that the isolated parts explain everything. I'm sure this tendency had been expressed in antiquity as well, but it only got really bad when there was no mitigating philosophy anymore, often provided by religion, the arts, theology, and pre-modern philosophy.
My comment from this great article... Maybe you should rethink where you are centered to. Maybe question the authority in your own head that latches onto things as being "true" vs "false".
Maybe reconsider your own judgement, that you have and can still fool yourself. Maybe those that think they are not fooled are in fact the fooled ones!
Reply to this great article: https://escapingmasspsychosis.substack.com/p/the-master-betrayed-11
Left hemisphere science:
People are sick. Let's find THE cause. Ok it's viruses or bacteria. Problem solved.
Now let's find toxic chemicals that can kill these viruses to help people. (Never mind that toxic chemicals introduce their own issues)
Right hemisphere science:
There are a lot of factors to sickness. Viruses are a misinterpretation of the result of such sickness as the cause. How about we treat the obvious issues first, see what happens before we "go nuclear" with toxic drugs and shots?
Cult science thinking: (left brained with a dash of right brained "harmony" feelings)
The people who question virus theory are like flat earthers because we absolutely know that viruses exist. Our authorities told us so. It doesn't matter that there are huge doubts in how viruses are proven because we know the truth. Anyone who questions the truth is obviously crazy. And no, we are not crazy because we trust an authority over the actual data.
It is obviously true that there is a lot of left-brain nonsense going on in mainstream science, but I have never defended that sort of thing. It is equally obvious to me though that the no-virus people exhibit LH thinking on steroids. Sorry, we got to agree to disagree here.
Im not sure *all* the “virus deniers” are LH?
Iv seen some excellent and nuanced takes on viruses, and how modern science interprets illness and then ascribes causal qualities to them that aren’t as proven as we have been led (forced?) to believe.
I hear what you’re saying in regard to aggressive attack dog style certainty-bros… but there is also the charitable take that these very visible strong opinions are just been held a bit too tightly and not handled with care, which doesn’t necessarily negate the premise of their argument that “viruses don’t exist”.
For what it’s worth I think it’s better to say “viruses don’t exist in the way we’ve been told” - this can then open up a convo around questions like “what is a virus?” “how might toxins, deficiencies and excesses cause illness?”
I think the critique of ascribing causality according to too-sure theory is valid, as is the idea that terrain can play a bigger role than often assumed. There are interesting questions around the interplay between the two. But the way many of these people blanket-dismiss anything related to this entire research field, mostly in video form no less, doesn't hold up in the least, and betrays a serious lack in curiosity amd deeper thinking. Stark contrast to other contrarian thinkers who honestly want to know more about reality, which is often complex and demands many different approaches.
Yeah I agree, and I do also value these “attack dog” barks because Ive found that when Im patient with them, I find there is usually smoke (and sometimes a fire!) that they haven’t been able to articulate as well as others. Having said that, they can also (and often do) have the effect of putting people off actually enquiring into the topic and running back to the mainstream. (as I wrote this it sort of reminds me of the effect parables can have - although in this case they’re shit ones)
Still thinking on 2020, what it meant, what it’s done… it’s like it continues to reveal itself more and more (like a photograph in a dark room) the further away we get from that fateful year.