The whole, the larger pattern, of something like anti-smoking acts in a manner that can not be easily reduced to the behavior of its constituent elements; namely, people.

In the pictures I've included above, you'll notice that when the fish or the birds are alarmed, they all act exactly the same way, as if they were all somehow communicating or following the directions of a signal that only they can hear.

What I've learned recently, though, is that they're not doing any such thing. They're all acting in their own rational self-interest. Each individual or each bird in the pictures above is only acting the way it thinks it should; not according to any set of outside rules. Every bird and fish thinks its an independent soul, but to us, they all look like they are just joining the herd.

They're not joining a herd, though. They're conforming to a pattern, but each is only acting as an individual. Though they make a mass or a pattern that behaves as if it is a whole new entity acting on is own, it only consists of, if you'll forgive the term, "independent thinkers".

So, each person acts in their own self-interest and when that self-interest is driven by a falsely created fear, they act collectively without any real knowledge of participating in a collective activity.

There is probably absolutely nothing to distinguish today's eighteen year old from an eighteen year old of 60 years ago. On an individual level, you could subject today's eighteen year old to a battery of psychological and physiological tests and you might find that they are not only equal to the eighteen year old of 60 years ago, but, in fact, better.

Yet, I would assert, if the eighteen year olds of today were sent to fight an enemy like that of World War II, they would be slaughtered. An evil force like that which America fought in World War II would prevail.

Why?

This is why the whole thing gets screwed up.

We're used to living in a world of individualism, where we are, as individuals, the masters of our own cause and effect. When a mass movement like anti-smoking or neo-communism intervenes, it screws up this relationship. A larger force is at work, and it acts through the individual, not to promote their own interest, but to promote the interest of the larger pattern itself.

A larger pattern that does not promote the interests of individual autonomy weakens the individual on a level that can't be determined on the individual level. That's because it does so on a larger and very powerful level. In other words, it works to cut through the individual and everything they represent and seek the larger pattern, using the individual as only a medium, a path of least resistance.

If you have a job you hate, for instance, but still diligently work and attend that job, the bottom, resulting effect of you performing your duties is of benefit to society by what you produce as a worker. This is depsite the "elephant in the room": you hate your job. This is because "you" don't matter to the larger pattern that works through you.

What if you love your job? It still doesn't matter. You'll be rewarded to a greater extent, and that's a good thing, but the larger pattern has just found someone who is inclined to conform to it.

Don't be confused about one thing, though. The larger pattern is amoral. It doesn't care about you. It cares only about itself, and its own preservation. If someone hates their job and does well, so be it. Reward. If someone loves their job and does well. So be it. Reward. Or even no reward. As long as they conform to the larger pattern and the results are the same.

Meanwhile, everyone in this equation has just "been themself". No one has tried to consciously act in a way that is in accordance with any notion of larger patterns, which they are completely oblivious of.

So, in short, anti-smoking seeks to force a larger pattern on everyone, whether they like it or not. That pattern, I believe, is a very, very powerful force that has a natural explanation that includes all of the reasons for all of the great attrocities that have ever occurred throughout history. No Nazi thought of himself as the "bad guy". Neither did any communist or any fascist. They all thought they were serving a larger pattern that they believed was "good". No individual was being evil or stupid or immoral. They were acting in accordance with a larger pattern that cared as much about human morals as a doorknob does. They, though, as individuals, probably cared as much as you do or I do.

The constant wall that we are running up against with anti-smoking is the idea that individual anti-smokers can't be held to account for their collective tendencies. This is, in fact, because they are "Collective Tendencies"; they act as individuals and they are not "bad people". The larger pattern, though, is, I believe, a "bad pattern". We have a name for this "bad pattern" because it isn't a new pattern, it's as old as human civilization and maybe time itself.

It's commonly called Evil.

Evil, of course, has a counterpart, Good. The larger patterns I speak of are, I'll reitterate, amoral, they don't care. And, for our purposes, it isn't a matter of which works and which doesn't work for us as people. It only matters what works for the larger pattern. If we choose Evil for us, that larger pattern will work through us, no sweat. If we choose good, that larger pattern will work through us, no sweat. In short, we choose, the larger patterns are just being themselves, like hurricanes or volcanoes or tidal waves or a lottery win. The patterns in themselves don't care, but these patterns are a bit different from the random events that I speak of because we can pick and choose which we want for our world.

Like the force of gravity or electromagnetism or time, I seek to propose that these patterns that I speak of are actual, scientifically quantifiable and understandable entities.

This seems far fetched in the same way these other notions did in their time; I can't give you "a bottle" of gravity, or "a box" of time. We only understand these ideas by being able to identify how they behave. In and of themselves, they have no physical reality that any person can touch or feel or otherwise sense, except by their resulting behavior and influence.

These are very bold assertions. They are mine and mine only, though many others have had similar ideas. I've read them and it shouldn't be concluded that they agree with me. I intend to back these assertions up with legitimate writings, that can be easily referenced, in upcoming posts.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WinstonSmith,

Welcome back! (And, wow, when you make a comeback you do it with a bang! )

I'm reading your essays with interest, and I'm eager to see where you go with your ideas. I'm hoping like crazy you end with a workable solution of some kind!

You wrote:

quote:

These are very bold assertions. They are mine and mine only, though many others have had similar ideas. I've read them and it shouldn't be concluded that they agree with me. I intend to back these assertions up with legitimate writings, that can be easily referenced, in upcoming posts.

The ones you've read and shouldn't be concluded that they agree with you--are these different than the ones you'll reference in upcoming posts?

If so, could you provide sources for the writings you've read and shouldn't be concluded that they agree with you?

Thanks.

quote:

The constant wall that we are running up against with anti-smoking is the idea that individual anti-smokers can't be held to account for their collective tendencies. This is, in fact, because they are "Collective Tendencies"; they act as individuals and they are not "bad people". The larger pattern, though, is, I believe, a "bad pattern". We have a name for this "bad pattern" because it isn't a new pattern, it's as old as human civilization and maybe time itself.

It's commonly called Evil.

I hope I can frame my question so that it makes sense.

You call the anti-smoking pattern a "bad pattern" but you previously said that patterns are neither good nor bad. They just are.

If you were a rabid anti-smoker and recognized neo-communism and these patterns, would you consider the anti-smoking pattern as a "good pattern"?

I guess what I'm saying is that since you're pro-smoker/pro-choice, don't you consider "anti-smoking" to be a bad thing to begin with so that when you recognize anti-smoking as a pattern you call it a "bad pattern"?

Please tell me if I'm off the mark. (I think I am off the mark, but I don't know why.) I'm struggling to understand your philosophical essays on every level (just as I struggle to understand Nightlight's science). So no hard feelings if you tell me I'm dumber than a doornail and I got it all wrong!

Good responses. Thank you, TNSmoker.

And, please never think that I'm going to think your "dumb". It's very obvious that you're anything but. In fact, the questions that you ask are very good ones, but I'm glossing over these important details a bit to keep this within the realm of a readable post and keep it out of the realm of an online book.

Regarding whether a pattern is good or bad; this is completely subjective. I'll provide an example.

Let's say you have a beautiful weeping willow in your front yard. You've always liked it. After a few years though, you start having problems with your plumbing and you soon discover that the weeping willow's roots have grown through the ground into the pipes running beneath your house.

The weeping willow is a pattern. It's just there. It behaves in a certain way, it does what weeping willows do. When it was sitting there looking pretty, it was "good". When its presence caused you a problem, it becomes "bad". The weeping willow hasn't changed anything, it's just doing what it has always done. The values of "good" or "bad", though, are values that you've assigned to it, not because you have any particular feelings about weeping willows either way, but because the way that this weeping willow has behaved has either caused you a benefit or a harm.

In a similar way, we can determine whether patterns are good or bad, not on the basis of their being patterns, but on the basis of whether or not that pattern is having an effect that we desire or don't desire. This is what led me to a very important question:

When you look at something like global warming or anti-smoking, I've found that it simply doesn't do to paint everyone with a broad brush and say to yourself "they're an idiot" or "they're a bad person". These claims won't hold up in all circumstances (though they may in some). So, the question is, why are they doing what they're doing? I don't think that I'm "dumb" or "a bad person", so why do I disagree so vociferously?

You don't even want to go down this road. Its all just a bunch of ideological stone throwing; "Yes, it does cause harm. Here's the evidence", "No, it doesn't cause harm, here's my evidence diputing your evidence", "Well, you're just a bastard!", "No, YOU'RE the bastard!"

You can on and on and on like this forever and get nowhere.

It occurs to me that there has to be something larger going on, and there is (and, no, in case anyone is wondering, this is not going to turn into some religious or otherwise mystical argument).

I wanted to find a natural, scientific explanation for why people who claim to care greatly for society might behave in a way that is, in fact, detrimental to society. This is all pervasive throughout history, after all.

There is a new and developing science that seems to hint that larger patterns, including thinking people, don't behave in a way that is necessarily best for themselves, but best for the pattern. Nightlight has touched on this in his posts when he talks about "networks" which are a very closely related idea to what I'm speaking about with "patterns". It's difficult to distinguish between the two because they're really a matter of perspective. Networks form patterns and patterns form networks.

Here's the thing; they're ubiquitous, they happen everywhere throughout nature. No system can escape them, because there aren't any systems without them. From the Big Bang to a grain of sand, not only do patterns and networks emerge, but they seem to all work along similar rules, regardless of where they occur.

If you've read "The DaVinci Code" for instance you might be familiar with Fibonacci numbers or, as it is otherwise called "Phi" or "The Golden Ratio". 1.61803399. It repeats everywhere in nature, from spiral galaxies to DNA strands to your finger. If you have a normal finger without deformation and precisely measure each segment of your finger, you'll notice that the ratio of the base segment of your finger to the middle is about 1.618. The middle to the top; 1.618. You can carry this out if you want, but I wouldn't bother. Take my word for it. It's true.

In a similar way, networks and/or patters occur everywhere, and they apply to mass movements, like anti-smoking, as well.

I'm stealing my own thunder for future posts at this point, so I'll give you something to chew on from outside sources. I'll provide a comprehensive list in a later post.

These are not my complete references, which are a bunch of books that you may or may not have heard of by writers who hven't written about smoking and/or anti-smoking or capitalism and neo-communism. This is what I mean when I say that they "wouldn't agree with me". I could say they won't "necessarily agree with me", but I'm just taking for granted that they don't, since many of these writers are probably Leftists and are probably personally against smoking and probably personally agree with government intervention. I intend to write this a series of posts, so I'm going to list the books that lead me to these conclusions last, but the conclusions are mine, exclusively. I hope you'llr forgive me, but except where it cries our for it, I don't intend to footnote, but provide a list at the end.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3410/03.html

http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring02/004153.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Emergence-Connected-Brains-Cities-Software/dp/0684868768

http://books.google.com/books?id=YctWRSbQessC&dq=the+lu...int&ct=title#PPP1,M1

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WinstonSmith,

Ah, so I was on the right track! A pattern is all in the eye of the beholder...and even that can change according to circumstances (like your weeping willow example).

Thanks for the links. Will take a gander at them when I get a chance. I only asked for them because it wasn't clear to me if they would be the same ones that you will be referencing.

You are on track.

In case anyone is wondering, I have written "Evil: Part II", but I've included some images that bring my point home and I'm apparently an idiot when it comes to including these images in a post so that they're ordered the way I want them to be.

I'm not sure how many posts there will be in this series. I don't think it will go past part 10.

I'm trying to write them so anyone can understand them without going down long roads of scientific or philosophical discussion that most are not interested in, but ground them in everyday phenomena that everyone can understand. The images help toward that.

My hope is to create an impression of the larger way that anti-smoking and neo-communism works. I can't make everyone accept the ideas I'm going to talk about, but I think that if I present them, it will open us up a bit, and realize how serious and powerful the threat of institutionalized anti-smoking is.

I also want to fill in the gaps. How can something that is completely wrong make itself
real and true to the people who so vehemently fight for it? How did such a thing become part of our lives? How are people able to so easily completely deny the past, or even the reality around them today, and how does this phenomena become something so much larger than ourselves?

I think that it is because something larger is operating downward on people and causing them to think and behave in a way that is detrimental to them. Paradoxically, the people who ask for this "downward action" see it as a benefit to themselves, and even take situations that don't exist and make them realities, not because they are realities, but because a larger pattern acts on them. The thing that's difficult to understand is that none of these people are "faking" anything. Rather, such people are making themselves fit to a larger pattern and that pattern simply reconfirms what they think, not for the sake of the individual, but for the sake of the pattern.