Possible evolving western philosophical context of the Q phenomenon

Yesterday’s post pointed to the sudden emergence into the mainstream press of the Qanon phenomenon. And, in this internet age, of course, with a twist, one which turns its meaning inside out, upside down. We hear now about Q on the MSM media (I hear 65 articles using the same language and attitude in 24 hours!) as ridiculous, a conspiracy, fake news!

Q as fake news. Get that? Let that little so-called factoid, or conclusion drawn from, basically, an emotional reaction, ruffle your feathers. On the contrary: If you are a “deplorable” (HRC’s term, remember?), then actually, it didn’t ruffle your feathers; in fact, that the MSM now officially, and unanimously hates Q is not only perhaps the best argument for its possible veracity, but for our questioning (thanks to Q) of so-called “reality” of what is constantly being fed to us to “shape the narrative” by the MSM.

Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: dcf936 No.2436694
[Across all major MSM networks]
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/03/what-is-qanon-conspiracy-theory-group-showing-up-to-trump-rallies.html
Full visibility has many advantages.
Right on schedule.
Q

 

Full visibility means, basically, most of the people who are interested in and can read about the world beyond their noses, and do, in this country. Yes, that’s most people. Even my friends with whom I have stayed silent (see last post). Qanon is out of the bag, folks, and “God only knows” what happens next.

Interesting that today I would disocver a new “scientific” report claiming that when 25% of a group adopts a new social norm, then the entire group adopts it. True? Whatever the percentage, this, what Rupert Sheldrake named the morphic resonance (or morphogenetic) field phenomenon, does appear to be real.

Tipping point for large-scale social change

This idea, that our perception and our action are driven, not empirically, by the gradually amassing of atomized data, but rather by placing any amount of data into certain perceptual fields, is not new. You might say that it started with Immanuel Kant, who declared that we don’t see the world directly, but rather, “darkly,” through innate forms (or frameworks) of Space and Time. In other words, according to Kant, it’s as if we see the world through a set of glasses with a certain perscription, only we don’t realize we have the glasses on.

Kant thought these frameworks innate; I would argue that they are learned, and can thus be changed.

All through my graduate school studies in philosophy, I was fascinated with this framework idea, and, post-Kant, of evolving perceptual fields, ala, for example, Thomas Kuhn, who, in 1962, first broached the idea that scientific revolutions occur by means of a “paradigm shift,” wherein suddenly, or gradually, a new generation of scientists begins to see the entire world differently, no longer, in his example, through the lens of Newton, but of Einstein. And that this wasn’t a “logical” shift — not a deductive or inductive series of steps that led predictably and inexorably in one direction, but rather: all of a sudden, everything unexpectedly changed, and scientists started to see the world in a brand new manner.

Gestalt psychology also picked up on this idea, that masses of data are organized into forms (frameworks) by the mind. That those forms are not there in the outside world, but imposed on the world through human perception. Or, maybe I should say, are created in the world through our perceptions. We are creative agents, and, if quantum theory is to be trusted, then each tiny quantum particle doesn’t even exist until it’s perceived. The very act of perception brings it into form.

Back in 1982, Ken Keyes published a book that quickly became all the rage in New Age circles. Called The Hundredth Monkey, it claimed to show how social change comes about, suddenly, and seemingly miraculously, across vast distances, once enough — monkeys in this case — change their behavior. True? Possibly, though not proven. But the idea remains, and many implications flow.

Read this post all the way through, to get the flavor of how Keyes’ book can be interpreted in various ways, all of them interesting, and reminiscent of the ideas and authors presented here.

http://www.wowzone.com/monkey.htm

In the year 2000 Malcolm Gladwell published a book that also quickly became a phenomenon, The Tipping Point: How Little things Can Make A Big Difference. 

Viewing from the vantage point of 18 years past the millennial shift, and the rise of the internet and social media, the book feels almost antiquated, and seems to be utilized mostly as a marketing tool. Check out goodreads reviews for this book.

Okay, then there’s the Q phenomenon, and placed in context of all the above, have we now reached a real tipping point?

This Qanon post from today makes me think so.

There is a reason why we needed to go mainstream prior to the EVIDENCE being dropped.
You have more than you know.
D5.
WWG1WGA.
Q

Get that?

THERE’S A REASON WHY WE NEEDED TO GO MAINSTREAM PRIOR TO THE EVIDENCE BEING DROPPED. YOU HAVE MORE THAN YOU KNOW.

Does this “evidence” refer to the HRC server? The unredacted FISA memo? Pedogate? Satanism? Bribery and blackmail?

Who knows. Perhaps all the above and more.

It’s about time. Whatever you want to call it — a changed atmospheric field phenomenon may be about to reorganize voluminous data in a way that will pop in brand new meaning for all of those who have been waking up, slowly or suddenly, all these decades, years, and now nine months (Q), faster and faster, to weeks, days, hours . . .

Paradigm Shift.

100th Monkey Effect.

Tipping Point.

Let’s go.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Possible evolving western philosophical context of the Q phenomenon

  1. kelley says:

    One of the most profound discoveries I ever encountered, occurred in 1961 as a NROTC freshman at OSU. I was attending a Psych 101 class meeting in a “perceptual psychology” lab where we would explore the many ways our “senses” can trick us or can be tricked. The one “experiment” that shocked me to my core & has informed my thinking about the subject of “truth” ever since was the following: There were about 20 students & near the end of our time in the lab, we were asked by the instructor to be seated in a small room arranged with theater like rows of seats facing a blank wall. The instructor explained that he would turn off the lights & wanted us to then describe out loud & in unison, what, if anything, we observed. The lights went out & a small pin-prick of light appeared in front of us which slowly began to move randomly in that dark space. At first we all seemed to disagree on how or in what directions the light was moving but within a few short minutes we began to agree on what we saw as our comments indicated. At that point the instructor announced that a second light would appear & we were to continue our comments about our observations. When the 2nd light appeared next to the 1st,, they both appeared to stop but soon began to randomly move in unison just as the first light had done. The only thing new was that it took us less time to began agreeing about what we “saw”.
    Then a third light was introduced, same process but even less time for this group of “strangers” to agree on what was happening in that tiny room . Finally the room lights came up and the instructor pointed to a small box bolted to the wall in front of us & explained that the lights we saw had come from there but had never moved. The “apparent” motion was explained by our “individual” eyes trying to orient themselves in a dark space. Staring at an isolated star in a dark sky will produce the same result. The shocking, disturbing & most important part of that experiment, however, was that this diverse group of individuals had come to agree that they were seeing the “same” movements when in fact no movement was happening. In other words, we had come to agree on an observable “truth” that was not true at all. The instructor “explained” this discrepancy by saying that we are, “apparently sociologically wired in such a way as to have a VERY powerful need to ‘fit in’ to whatever group we are in proximity to (physically or psychologically). So powerful is that “need” that we are quite willing, even eager to abandon our own interpretation of reality in order to be “accepted by others.”
    The implications for me were staggering, scary & liberating all at once. All :authority was now a legitimate target for questioning. Our “criminal justice” system with its interpreted laws & jury trials was suddenly exposed as counterfeit at best & intentionally demonic at worst. All religious “belief” now turned on its head & open to serious inquiry as to its legitimacy & claims on our lives. And now here all these years later, Quantum Physics has also laid bare our misunderstandings & misinterpretations of the observable universe by its recognition that it is our act of observing & interpreting that “creates” the “universe” we each inhabit & that the “underlying stuff” from which everything arises (including us) and becomes available for observation & interpretation, is itself unknowable.
    I wonder to this day, why this knowledge has not become more widely known or applied? But I think I “know” the answer. Such a view of “the world” undercuts & de-legitimizes every human institution & the power of those who claim authority, power & special privilege. It would return us to a time when humans, like all other creatures on this planet, lived in awe of this place we call earth & were simply grateful to have the opportunity to experience “life” (whatever that is), without the “need” to control or reshape what we are presented with. But curiosity is also a very powerful force & our imaginations are always toying with “what-if”. What if I were God? What if I were able to make the rules for how living out our time should proceed? Clearly nothing has stopped us so far from doing exactly that. Humanity has taken that road & it has led us to the brink of oblivion. We can let it go, but will we?

  2. James Freeman says:

    I have recently found the ‘Dream Bot’ over at the National Dream Center and it is often fascinating to see what flows from our “collective unconsciousness”.

    I think it could be interesting to look at the daily runs and see how all of this formerly ‘niche redpill info’ starting to flood into the sleepy mainstream consciousness may start bleeding into the Deambot results. Or maybe that is back-ass-wards – maybe the truth will also start seeping into the sleepy mainstream consciousness via their dreams as well as through Qanon posts 🙂

    https://nationaldreamcenter.com/forum18/Forum-DreamBot-Runs

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *