*************

“don’t hit each other when you’re angry or upset”
The emotional charge is still present, and you still may *want* to hit, but you are taught that it is inappropriate to let your emotions manifest in that physically violent manner.

versus

“assert rational control over your thought processes when you’re angry or upset”
This is a request to suppress the emotional charge altogether.

These are two very different requests, from my perspective. The former still allows for the emotional experience, while the latter is a request to cast it away. Instead of rational control by way of suppression, I vote for making rational decisions during an emotional state when the thought process may be more befitting rational decisions (e.g., not during a state of outrage or euphoria).

Banishment in either case seems entirely unlikely — that reptilian brain isn’t going anywhere — but if we continue to be apologists for the second case, if we don’t endeavour to keep raising that bar (as we have in the first case), then i think we’re at a fairly contemptible state. It’s an evolutionary onus to be attentive to both cases.

(My last denoting of something as ‘off-topic’ had no teeth to it; it was just meant to be an observation (though as more off-topic things now show-up here, i do feel myself cranky and teething – wondering aloud (not inviting discussion in this thread): there should be an implementation introduced which is a workable solution for everyone involved)).

Is this project titled ‘The Process’ a secular version of The Process Church, or is it a project with similar concepts and ideas?

I cant find any infos for people new to this project and was wondering exactly what it is about.

Judging from what the reconstructed archive from wikipedia says, there seems to be 3 different projects.

Transmedia and TOPI seem to me like they are The Process applied to Genesis P-Orridge’s “Psychick Philosophies” and the main page seems to be like something different with a similar approach.

Was the old process.org simply just about shocking people into a state of new awareness? or was it something more?

I also studied the Skinny Puppy lyrics from the song ‘Process’ and saw a striking resemblance to TOPI/Transmedia.

Maybe Im just confused… Is the process about attaining a guitless state of self-awareness?

It seems to me that the old process.org was some sort of collaboration effort for information/art that had relevance to making people more aware of current issues. Can someone help me with this?

Perhaps as with stereotyping, where you assert that because it is a given our recourse is to “populate intelligently” (though I’d add a precursor: “become aware of held stereotypes, where they come from, and what they are for”) the subjective lens is also a given. One could (erroneously) proceed about life behaving as though banishing it is possible, and, as such, (erroneously) assume that they are seeing clearly and making sound judgments. This seems like wishful thinking, if not bald denial.

I’ll use this example from Spinoza’s Ethics:
“… it clearly appears that we perceive many things and form universal ideas:
1. From individual things, represented by the senses to us in a mutilated and confused manner, and without order to the intellect. These perceptions I have therefore been in the habit of calling knowledge from the vague experience.
2. From signs; as, for example, when we hear or read certain words, we recollect things and form certain ideas of them similar to them, through which ideas we imagine things. These two ways of looking at things I shall hereafter call knowledge of the first kind, opinion or imagination.
3. From our possessing common notions and adequate ideas of the properties of things. This I shall call reason of knowledge of the second kind.”

I think each of these given points acknowledge the synthesis of deciphering intake, its effects, and subsequently stereo typing. With these ideas I would say that stereo types can be conceived and evolve in a sort of “Allegory of the cave” type way. You understand what you perceive from a labeling perspective and deduce to justify quality by the merit which your reality shows as greater, lesser, positive or negative. Thus, modeling an architecture of labeling around quality and how it relates to its ordering quality.

So in essence all intake can become stereo typed can it not? A pin pressing into my flesh I stereo type as negative because my nerves / senses send waves to my brain which deciphers them and concludes that. Same would go for what I believe certain words to emote. Even, as was “hoped” against, there are persons who stereo type individuals who happen to believe in any form of non-religious based science as mislead persons. Each would conclude the opposite, but isn’t this part of the endless spiral of stereo typing outside of simplistic ideas, which even then can essentially be cause for debate as any firm believer in Cynicism might suggest?
Does this make sense? Stereo type it!

WRT Plasmafist’s off-topic safety nets – i definitely lean in the direction that there’s something totally unbalanced in the equation involving resources spent by a society on members who themselves generate little-or-less for that same society — that is an article of its own, though.

Natural selection proves that some people are too inept to live. Its just an unfortunate sign of the times that the safety nets set up around us allow for these individuals a habitat in which they may thrive in their own gluttonous shrouded impotence.

Now bridging to the comment made by ‘Plasmafist’: I think it’s erroneous to presume that critical thought requires above average intelligence. I have the megalomaniacal privilege of teaching college undergrads, and have found the majority of them to be functioning at average-or-just-below-threshold intellectual ability. I am impressed, intellectually speaking, by a student maybe once a year. However, I have been moved, over and over, by their ability to examine stereotypes, and even more emotionally volatile topics such as their own religious beliefs, abortion, homosexuality, etc., and to think beyond. I have only anecdote & interpretation, but what seems to be effective is a warm, nonjudgmental arena in which they can air not only tenderly held beliefs, but also the ones about which they feel ashamed, coupled with warm, excited encouragements to think beyond, to develop a productive balance between wonder and skepticism, and, finally (and this is the difficult part for me, but human will is a reality that must be acknowledged if real change is to occur) that doing so needn’t demean their existing perceptions/beliefs (the part of me that loves Richard Dawkins’ work always cringes at this spot, but Dawkins is not especially attentive to what makes people change, only that they should).