Toward 2011

This has been a productive year for me.
Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self is out, finally...
The traffic to this site has more than doubled. I'm currently averaging forty visits a day.
Most of these visits stay between 7 and 12 mintues.
Many of these visitors return at a later date to read more.
The days I release new material, the visits quadruple.
My multi-language experiment has opened my work up to new audiences, albeit poorly translated. Obviously, given my subject matter, a global audience is preferred.

I couldn't have done this without you, the audience, the reader, the thinker and so I thank you.

According to the stats, my most popular essays are:
1. Capitalism isn't evil, it's stupid
2. The Philosophy Generator
3. A comment on Canadian nationalism
4. The War on Reason (in English, although most popular as Причина войны)

I also publish material at science20.com, which gets a great deal more traffic than I do. Check out the most popular essay I have there...
Shame Theory

Thanks again for reading, love to have more comments...
Looking forward to 2011, the year of accountability.

As always,
Best Thoughts,
Brian Taylor

Book Release

Post Paper Publications and Brian C. Taylor are proud to release  

Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self

ISBN	978-0-557-99909-5
Copyright	Brian C. Taylor (Standard Copyright License)
Publisher	PostPaper / Lulu Enterprises
Published	December 20, 2010
Language	English
Pages	310
Binding	Perfect-bound Paperback
Interior Ink	Black & white
Dimensions (inches)	6.0 wide × 9.0 tall

 The book contains charts, photos, a bibliography and index. 


    Synopsis:
    Some of the problems we face in modernity are of our own design, but we are manipulated to desire the design. In philosophical terms, it is the semantic deception of dialectical theses. Explaining what this means, how it works and what can be done to combat it is the goal of this book.    We used to rely on our wits. Now our problems are solved for us. This is a pleasant state of affairs, but it does not speak to our essence, nor even allow us to practise it. In a way, the system is living our lives for us. What if the system is wrong?
    In this short work Brian C. Taylor, writer, philosopher and social critic follows our ideas about the self through the ages, into modernity, into consumerism, the war on terror and other timely concerns that aim to socially engineer our ideas. His goal is to scientifically return your authenticity.
    Chasing philosophers through the ages, following our own ideas about the self, to dismantle both himself and modernity, the author brings in this tiny work, with candour, wisdom and depth, a dismantling of thought, a critique of the species, a pathway to virtue.

    Quotations from the book:
    "We are not talking about God here, nor even the grand scheme of society, we wonder about ourselves. By realizing when someone or something asks us to believe in it, in its intention, to create some reality out of an idea, we can begin to wonder about the value of following the rule."

"If modernity is the cause of complexity and systemic complexity is the cause of the rampant ineptitude that keeps rearing its ugly head, and we, in our infinite confusion, attempt only to counter this problem by adding further complexity, are we not just denying there is even a problem?"

"No matter how you reduce it, the events that took place on Manhattan Island, September 11, 2001 were a direct result of the intentions of the American government."

“Here, in our modern times, we don’t have to look to conspiracies or politics, just turn on your TV and watch some commercials. Is it not a paranoid delusion that sells anything to rid you of it? Is it not a hallucination that plays a jingle in your head when you see the golden arches of McDonalds? Do you not feel depressed when you can’t get what you want? Blame your thoughts on your environment for the problem, not the environment. You are the problem, change your thinking.”



Paperback is available at the following stores:


The Digital Download is available at the following sites:

Intentional Claus

Intentional Claus
The Santa Intention

Globalization and the New World Order

The following is a snippet of Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self. 

 

Globalization is inevitable and it is a good thing too. The sooner we all get over our issues with this fact, the better. The reason for my believing this to be true is due to the failure of the systems we design. Specifically, the counterproductive, paradoxical aspects of those systems. We've already mentioned the semantic deception of a dialectical thesis and how our need to express our individuality from within conformist boundaries confounds our beings. Further adding to our problems are the ideas of nationhood and “spreading democracy,” religion and yes, even the double standard the war on drugs represents. Now, ask yourself, are there any countries in this world where you can't buy a Coke? The answer is no. So why is it that the Coke company can get along with everyone, yet our supposed leaders cannot. Please note, I didn't say we can't get along, it is not we that start these fights amongst our little, global parcels. One way or another, we are told who to hate. 

 

The speech that should be given here is redundant. How many more times do you have to hear, “We're all one people. We've only got one planet. Everyone deserves the right to live as they see fit, providing they're not hurting anyone. Peace. Love. Etc.”? We, as I've stated and believe, for the most part, are good people. We work hard, we raise our kids, we seek joy. If we all were allowed to leave each other alone, we wouldn't have any problem. Alas, we are raised to want to be different, to have nationhood, to have culture, to differentiate, to expect growth and realize superiority, the list of erroneous philosophies rages on, programming us to fail at the one reasonable reaction that life affords us, prudence. Thus, globalization will be the result of collapse.

I say, if you find yourself resistant to Globalization, examine what kind of notions you harbour about it. We are one people, we do find ourselves partaking of the same pleasures and pains. For me globalization represents the opportunity to work out those pains together. If the world of business can become globalist, why can't we all? It is, after all, why we're here. We are here. We're all here. We're all here together. We may never know why, but we know what we can do. We also know we can't do it alone and what we have to do, we all have to do. William S. Burroughs said, “We're all here to go... We're all here to go, into space. But what are you and you and you and you and you and you and you here for?” I suppose this is true assessment and a fair question. Eventually, we will have to leave the Earth. The life cycle of the Sun guarantees this fact, however far off in the future this transformation will take place. 

Perhaps it is the nerd in me, but I think Star Trek is the pinnacle of globalization and should be its desired outcome. So too shall it be attached to my globalist paradigm, I have decreed. The “prime directive” of the “Federation of Planets” goes well beyond global concepts, but it must first have been achieved globally for it to work universally, that being, a strict policy of non-interference. “Don't love your neighbour, leave the poor bastard alone.”

   

Business is pushing this one currently. The world of trade has a monopoly on the idea of globalization. It has been argued that this definition is changing because of modern travel, the internet, the environmental movement and other “global village” concerns. Business, of course, has profit as its goal and for certain businesses, the idea of “everyone being on the same page” is not profitable. Although this seems rather transparent to me, I suspect there are at least one billion people who would like to argue the opposite. However, if you are in the business of killing people, I think it's plain to see how globalism, “one world-ness,” is counterproductive. This is why I don't get too excited about the so-called New World Order, the idea of the utopian future shifts and changes with each passing age. This particular gaggle of idiots is just premature. 

We will have our new world order, when we are ready, when it is ready. We won't make it, it will make us. The median will be determined by our balancing of all extremes, of all differences, into something that we can be proud to call human.

Although there are tangible results, from within the already successful business/trade aspects of globalization, as well as the burgeoning “attitude shifts” developing within this new global paradigm, the evaluability of the phenomenon itself is limited. There is also the usual problems we have with knowing we are doing right, as we do it. Some hindsight is preferred. There is certainly a very real opportunity for danger represented by the suggestion that the entire human species follow some particular philosophy or other. Unless of course, the philosophy be that we strive to do our best possible thinking, working toward virtue in all endeavours. 

This continues to be my wish.

When you reduce globalization to its fundamental components, it becomes attached to emotions, such as competition introduces a desire to see your opponent fail and cooperation develops a desire to see your partner succeed. There are also going to be emotional compromises in achieving some virtuous mean, particularly if you currently find yourself comfortable in some extreme or deficient aspect of modernity.

I am strongly in favour of all humans getting on the same page, the right page, the page this book attempts to define. Of all the possible typification that can describe the human species, eudaemonic and virtuous are the ones most likely to contribute to any lasting success. I'm unable to score it as a perfect interpretation because of the dangers present in adopting other, more directional paradigms, such as in the socially engineered forms we find ourselves presently combating, “think this about that.”

1. Internal Dialogues & Delusions of Grandeur.

Taken from my forthcoming book, Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self.

Q: What's this book about?

A: We used to rely on our wits. Now our problems are solved for us. This is a pleasant state of affairs, but it does not speak to our essence, nor even allow us to practise it. In a way, the system is living our lives for us. I'm not suggesting we return to some wilder version of ourselves, but rather that we, by living this way, lose some of what it is that makes us free. By being dependent we are proven needy and by maintaining that dependency, we change our ability to think about some things we must. 

 

Q: What is Social Engineering?

A: To do Social Engineering is to manipulate the intentions of a group of people. 

 

Q: To what end?

A: It varies, you might want to sell a car or a hamburger, you might want to elect a politician or start a war. Mostly, you just want to change minds.

Q: So then, I imagine there are various parties doing various engineering to different ends?

A: Yes, there are various classes of social engineering. Traditionally this phenomenon has been examined by looking at groups, but I maintain a more granular approach. Groups are just collections of individuals. When a person matures they are expected to be responsible and accountable, I can't imagine why we should expect society to be any different. 

 

Q: Social Engineering must be a very common and old phenomenon.

A: It is. A soon as humans clumped together into groups, perhaps even just families, we've had to engineer social ideas that we adhere to. It is a natural process of a social being. 

 

Q: So why write a book, now?

A: There are certain types of social engineering that represent possible dangers. For example, you may not be aware that your ideas are being intentionally manipulated and, on another level, the manipulation itself could be dangerous. Sometimes these manipulations are secret malignancies. 

 

Q: How do these dangers apply to me?

A: They could have a great impact on your life. Ideas are what we are talking about being manipulated. Ideas represent a great deal of living, particularly in our hyper-modern, western society. One doesn't have any choice but to be bombarded with other people's intentionality, pick up a paper, turn on the news, go to work...

Q: I work for the newspaper. I don't feel endangered...

A: Well, what is your intention for this piece?

Q: I'm here to understand your overall theory. I want to be able to encapsulate it for my readers. 

 

A: Why?

Q: What do you mean, why? 

 

A: Suppose you get it wrong. Suppose I get it wrong. What happens if we fail to make it clear?

Q: People would get the wrong idea.

A: What happens if my idea was the greatest idea ever?

Q: The people wouldn't benefit... Okay, I get it, but you still haven't answered my question. Give me a concrete modern example of dangerous, secret Social Engineering. 

 

A: The so-called war on terror. Even if we ignore all of the more conspiratorial aspects of the war on terror, even if we only speak in widely accepted truths, we still must take certain things for granted. Some of these things that we hand over freely are very powerful motivators, they are the sorts of things people are willing to kill and die for. These motivators are explicitly engineered with a very distinct and direct goal. This danger to life and limb, however, is not what concerns us. Nor do we care about the reasons for your succumbing to the engineering. We want to know the true motivations of the engineers. We seek transparency for individual understanding and authenticity. 

 

Q: Now you're into conspiracy theory.

A: I think that there are times when crazy stories are more believable than sane ones, but as I said, we don't need these alternative investigations, we can learn all we need to know by pursuing the ultimate ends of the things we humans do. Ask yourself the key questions, who, what, where, when and especially why. When you're considering the why, remember our society's primary motivator, to grow. 

 

Q: What's the matter with growth?

A: Remember earlier, you asked me to give you an example of a dangerous, secret social engineering? (I nod.) The idea that growth equals progress is a great example. The danger of this belief is illustrated by the fact that nature tells us all things end. This is one of the fundamental laws of the universe. Only a human would come to the conclusion that ideas such as institutions, corporations, religions or any other alike thinking group could indefinitely become more than what it already is. This planning toward perpetual growth is even more dangerous when it leads to actions such as stripping the Earth of natural resources. These are the places where ideas effect the world. 

 

Q: I can see your point. What are we supposed to do about it?

A: To start with, become aware of it. Awareness is key, every intention starts there and if we are going to change things, we need to fight fire with fire. There seems to be this attitude that to change things is too difficult or even impossible, so we don't even try. We say “well, what are ya gonna do?” like that's some kind of answer. So, although awareness is key, we must also do something and changing our mind counts. This is the goal of Anti-Social Engineering. 

 

Q: What is Antisocial Engineering?

A: Well, it means two things. Firstly, if it is Antisocial, all one word, Engineering, then we are talking about the de-socialization of a particular group. This occurs via things like the anonymity of the internet and the segregation of the self. If it is Anti-Social Engineering, with the hyphen, then it indicates an intentional stance of awareness toward social engineering. One uses anti-social engineering to achieve a truer personal authenticity through examining one's intentions.

Q: How does that happen?

A: It happens through contemplation, honesty and logic. In the book I discuss the value of maintaining the socially engineered idea that we “support our troops.” What does that actually mean? What do I have to do in order to comply with this request? Are there other intentions involved in maintaining the idea of supporting the troops? Are there variations on troop support? Is the message a case of persuasion or manipulation? This is where the nuts and bolts of doing philosophy come into play. 

 

Q: You mean the parts where you go on and on, defining definitions. (Taylor laughs.)

A: Yes, those parts. I think everyone should be thankful for the high number of times I say things like, “Here, we must ignore the unfathomable conundrum that such and such represents...” Seriously, my book doesn't really teach you how to do philosophy. Rather, it points to philosophy and says, “this is what you can do.” It's my hope that everyone who wants to think well would be turned on by philosophy, perhaps thinking of themselves as a philosopher, with a small P.

Q: But you, very explicitly, instruct us on how to think.

A; Not exactly. I talk about how thinking is done and give the reader a way to examine that thinking. I don't ever say, “think this about that,” because that is precisely what I'm trying to combat. But I do talk about my own thoughts and explore common questions.

Q: Are you trying to change the world?

A: Yes, but one mind at a time. This book may or may not tell you something you don't already know, this is not my goal. What I want is for the reader to think about what he already knows. There's not enough good thinking going on these days. I think social engineering has something to do with that. 

 

Q: Is this a textbook? It's pretty... deep. 

 

A: No, I've written this book, as I've researched it, over the last four years. I have a knack for reducing ideas to their lowest common denominators and I've attempted to keep the book conversational. There is some fancy college talk, but if you want to have a deep conversation you have to be able to comprehend deep thoughts. For instance, chapter seven, On the nature of Reality & our Perception of it, is basically a summary of John Searle's Philosophy of Mind lectures, but we need to understand intentionality if we're going to discuss intentions. 

 

Q: What is the ultimate goal? The ultimate message?

A: I'd like to see everyone thinking well and fully about everything that matters. I am happy to define the parameters of every term necessary to describe how to think without suggesting what to think.

Q: More than once in your book, you refer to the human species as idiots or sheep. You use the phrase “rampant ineptitude of modernity” as a catch-all for the phenomenon of the things in modern life you don't like. Are we really that bad off?

A: Yes. We may have jobs, air, water, money, comfort, even toys and other needless pleasures, but these things do not come without a price, nor are they a right of existence. We take these things, perhaps all things, for granted. We assume there will always be clean air, water, jobs, etc... This is the type of foolishness that warrants my use of the word “idiot.” I don't exclude myself from the idiocy, “Idiot” just reflects the expected levelling off that comfortable commonality demonstrates. An idiot is an ordinary guy, working his way through life by common design. As for the rampant ineptitude of modernity, I've been looking at that all my life. Anyone who let's things slide, lies, cheats or is generally lazy contributes greatly to this ineptitude. The ineptitude is exemplified whenever someone who should be accountable, isn't. It is a phenomenon that is particularly rampant in western societies. We skimp, we cut corners, we pass the buck. Here, I make an effort to not perpetuate this folly.

Q: Do you think you're better than everyone else?

A: No. Although your question is too general. Firstly, everyone would have to agree that there are better or worse people in the world, by some general consensus. So, if by that standard, I fall into the “better” category, could I fairly call myself “better” then? No, because secondly, your question essentially asks in its generality, “Do you think you're the best ever?” Which I do not. Finally, what do you mean by “are better?” Do you mean “doing better” or “being better?” Although I am who I am, I also can only be that on the inside, whatever that is. You and everyone else are concerned with what I send out into the world, this is how we are all judged, by what we do, not by what we say we are. So, if I am “better” than others, it is only because of what I do, not what constitutes the vehicle of my actions. The vehicle does not make the indelible marks, the acts do. I, at least, make my efforts knowing that this is true and understanding virtue.

Q: Is that some kind of intellectual elitism?

A: Elitism is a state of mind that is very real in the world today, but you can be an elitist cowboy pimp if you want. Elitism has gotten a bad reputation because it's become synonymous with the wealthy, who happen to exercise a great deal of control. In reality elitism is only an opinion that expertise has its place. I have no problem with experts sharing their expertise, or even leading our intentions, as long as they're forthcoming about it and I retain the option for veto. The problem with elitism isn't the elite part, it's how we define what we are to be elite about. For instance, Politicians often have no useful expertise. They are experts of nothing. Big Business is only interested in profit, they shouldn't be considered in policy matters because of this single minded bias. Yet these things become mashed together on a daily basis. Also, elitism is like a charge that is levelled at someone, it could easily be a product of your own insecurities. Elitism is easily a matter of opinion.

Q: More than once in your book you say that we are at the beginning of a “new enlightenment.” What does that mean?

A: In the first Enlightenment, Europe sort of hashed out the kinks of western modernity. It would still take a couple more hundred years to work out the bugs, but we sort of woke up from the Dark Ages and didn't like the way things were going. Some scientific advances and a few revolutions later, the Enlightenment gave the populace its freedom by realizing its power. The influence of church and state had been lessened. The working class became recognized. The powers that be still sought control, but their forced intentions could not always be transparent, now that the common folk had a voice. Social Engineering needed to go underground. So, where in the old Enlightenment we woke up to our conscious servitude, in this new enlightenment we realize our unconscious servitude.

Q: Is this your “hyper-manipulated self?”

A: Almost, before the hyper-manipulated self can be realized, it needs to be manipulated to be manipulated, this is what makes it “hyper.” Modernity, has been engineered to pre-programme us to be susceptible to manipulation, thereby making any subsequent engineering easier.

Q: Why do we need to be controlled?

A: We don't need it, yet we now seek it because we've come to expect it. Here's how it works, from within  the the socially engineered Freudian idea that we are all damaged goods. They tell us that “they” know better than “us.” Then they tell us that we are really monsters capable of horrible atrocities. Then they tell us they need us to go commit horrible atrocities. (Taylor pauses, taking a sip of his coffee.) We comply, which provides them with their proof. If you commit the same horrible atrocities off the battlefield, in your own name instead of the name of freedom, whatever that is, then you're a monster. So horrible atrocities “over here” is okay, but “over there” is wrong. This is total control. They only tell us what we do so we'll believe we do it. When, in actuality, we're only complying with the programming. They've made us this way. We need their control now, or we are nothing. This doesn't have to be as important a decision as whether or not we should support the troops, support the war, or fight in it. It could be something as simple as choosing to buy product A instead of product B. There's a great hyper-manipulative Subway commercial on TV right now that demonstrates a young man, in his apartment, filming himself pretending to do various things that demonstrate who he is. I presume he is doing so for some social media website. At any rate, after pointing out some of his belongings, he puts on sunglasses and a helmet, then rides his stationary bike. The tag line reads, “I choose therefore I am different.” This is the hyper-manipulation of hyper-reality. We need to attach meaning to our reality because so much of it is pointless.

Q: Isn't this going to make people angry? I mean, aren't you really saying that the whole system is wrong and needs to be changed?

A: God, I hope so. We need the same kind of revolution that was supposed to end totalitarianism. It didn't work the first time, it just pushed it underground. But it goes beyond politics, into the economy, culture, ethics, the personal and universal foundations of society, whatever they may be. It seems not to matter where you live in the world, you have somebody either in your face or behind your back, informing you what life is and isn't to be. These forced intentions are not always copacetic. Also, because we are hyper-manipulated, we ourselves perpetuate the phenomenon. That's why I say change starts one mind at a time.

Q: What is this? (See chart below.)

A: This is the Philosophy Generator. It is an organizational tree that helps to source, type and evaluate your ideas on any given subject. Paradigm, at the top, is broken into experiential norms or social norms. A paradigm is just an intentional stance, a way of thinking about things. Social norms are paradigms that you learn of via the influence of others. All social norms are engineered by either persuasion or manipulation. By working an intention through the Philosophy Generator we are able to dismantle it and do our best possible choosing. It is a contemplative pathway to assignee's prerogative. 

Q: What is Assignee's Prerogative?

A: AP is a recognition that each of us assigns our own value or weight to any particular paradigm. It is the opposite of hyper-manipulation.

Q: Don't people know that anyway?

A: No. Everybody does that anyway. Most people don't think about it, therein lies the danger. Almost everyone has paradigms that are personally valueless, they retain them only because others find them valuable.

Q: What if they're right?

A: They may be right and that is fine. The problem is that we are deciding on the rightness or wrongness of ideas without thinking about them, or perhaps thinking incorrectly or incompletely about them. The desire to believe any idea is innate, all I'm attempting to do is attach some virtue to the choosing, which is an idea as old as Philosophy itself. I've just tried to develop a way to recognize and clear away any confusion that intentionally clouds our minds. Along the way, we will be re-examining some key ideas and definitions. We have much to gain by turning convention on its head and shaking things up, in this day and age.

Q: Are you saying that by doing so, we can think better, which is going to make us better individuals, which is going to produce better societies and you're going to show us how?

A: I've already started. I realize steering folks away from tradition is going to make some uncomfortable but if change was easy, we wouldn't be having this conversation.