@Oliver

Let me guess; you learned the english language without ever having to hear it?

[Insert quote from Baruch Spinoza]

{Insert neurological explanation of the fruitage of fame]

[Insert libilous comebacks]

"Dan Ariely" sprang to mind when I saw this post. The behavioral economist and author of "Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions" suffered severe burns to his face and body and argued with nurses - who insisted on ripping bandages off slowly - that it was less painful to have them torn off rapidly. According to his account; he eventually won the argument with the nurses.

I noticed for some of the political videos the kids are just regurjitating what they've heard from their parents.

@Len Zen

I will submit to you that some of my comments have been motivated somewhat by the flux of emotional content within. But then I haven't claimed to be a perfected being. Nevertheless I do recognize that I'm walking a fine line sometimes that isn't clearly the correct path. For example when I said to "Timothy P" that his "idea of a full load is enough to build a shit-house." This statement could merely be an insult hurled back at Tim for his insult, or it could be a carefully planned statement perfectly suited to Tim's psychology. Maybe saying "loving" things to Tim is not what Tim wants to hear.

Tim picked his battle with me; and in so doing revealed elements of his psyche to me. The little dance I'm doing with Tim is entirely for his benefit. His mind will curl back on itself as he attempts to out-wit me and persistently fails with humiliation. He's going to have to change his tune if wants the love and respect he seems to want. Instead of riding my ass and trying to look good by diminishing my image, he'll have to actually grow up and formulate his own thoughts.

I got into a similar head-to-head argument with a White-Supremacist Anti-Communist Russian, and after a series of witty insults, he had to settle into his rational mind and we managed to talk him out of his political stance. For this person, a battle is precisely what he needed, and what I gave him. These are tough decisions to make, but hey, I'm open to new ideas. If you can, explain to me an alternative...

See; personally I would like it if "Love" was as simple as giving someone what they want. But it really isn't. Take for example you have a small child that wants to eat a big ol' bag of marshmallows. But you know that eating a big bag of marshmallows will make the child sick. So you say "If you eat that bag of marshmallows you will be sick" and the child says "Oh man! You are such a downer, can't you just let me have my fun, why do you always have to be so damn critical?" and you say "I'm your goddamn parent, you do what I tell you to do!"

See, when loving a child it is necessary to recognize that love is not the same as giving people what they want.

Here Gautama open his speech with:

"I have taught the truth which is excellent in the beginning,
excellent in the middle, and excellent in the end;
it is glorious in its spirit and glorious in its letter.
But simple as it is, the people cannot understand it.
I must speak to them in their own language.
I must adapt my thoughts to their thoughts.
They are like unto children, and love to hear tales.
Therefore, I will tell them stories to explain the glory of the Dharma."

Why? Are they selfish or something?

"I have recognized the deepest truth,
which is sublime and peace-giving,
but difficult to understand;
for most men move in a sphere of worldly interests
and find their delights in worldly desires.

The worldly person will not understand the doctrine,
for to him there is happiness in selfhood only,
and the bliss that lies in a complete surrender to truth
is unintelligible to him"

Yup, pretty sure he is saying most people are selfish.

"What the enlightened mind considers the purest joy, he will call resignation.
Where the perfected one finds immortality, he will see annihilation.
What the conqueror of self knows to be life everlasting, he will regard as death"

That's pretty warped, they got everything backwards?

"The truth remains hidden from him who is in the bondage of hate and desire.
Nirvana remains incomprehensible and mysterious
to the vulgar whose minds are beclouded with worldly interests.
Should I preach the doctrine and mankind not comprehend it,
it would bring me only fatigue and trouble."

Right you are Gautama; you will preach the doctrine to all these selfish fools and they will not understand it and you will gain trouble and fatigue. That is the way of these things. At least we aren't in denial of the fruits of our actions, eh? So what do we do Master Buddha?

"Whether Buddhas arise, O priests, or whether Buddhas do not arise,
it remains a fact, and the fixed and necessary constitution of being,
that all conformations are transitory.
This fact a Buddha discovers and masters,
and when he has discovered and mastered it,
he announces, teaches, publishes,
proclaims, discloses, minutely explains
and makes it clear that all conformations are transitory."

Oh! We don't try to please them and sate their desires?

"he announces, teaches, publishes,
proclaims, discloses, minutely explains
and makes it clear that all conformations are suffering."

"he announces, teaches, publishes,
proclaims, discloses, minutely explains
and makes it clear that all conformations are lacking a self."

"Struggle then, O general, courageously;
and fight thy battles vigorously,
but be a soldier of truth
and the Tathagata will bless thee."

@Len Zen

We could discuss that; but keep in mind you have said "I am not a practitioner of anything"

Not having tried to practice anything; I don't see how you are in a position to give me advice.

If you look at the history of wise-men-who-told-the-world, a good portion of them disturbed the status quo, used heavy language and were ultimately excommunicated or executed. Jesus Christ, one notable example, used strong language like "Ye blind Pharisees! Ye hypocrites! Brood of vipers!" he also rampaged through the temple upsetting all of their displays of wares. Finally he was crucified. Socrates tried telling all the wise-men that they were wrong and that they really knew nothing, he was forced to imbibe poison after a lengthy trial. Giordano Bruno simply tried to advance a heliocentric model of the solar-system and was immolated at the steak.

I could go on listing such figures and their behaviors and the rewards they got from society. Just think about it; all of these people are in someway revered as prophets or wise-men or saviors. They didn't do what you are suggesting, they did what I am doing. How do you square that up with your fancy vision?

To add; one of the most notable and earliest perversions of Emersonian Individualism was Reebok's U.B.U. ("You be You") campaign. The commercials depict people performing all kinds of activities while quotes from Emerson's "Self-Reliance" are read aloud and ends with the slogan "Reebok let's U.B.U."

Of course this is obviously a contradiction of Emerson's philosophy. Aline Brosh wrote an article for The Harvard Crimson titled "Stomping on Individualism" in which she wrote:

"The postmodern randomness of the the quintessential American philosopher, Reebok is trying to address not only our need to buy any particular brand of ads is meant to stress individuality and uniqueness, as does Emerson's philosophy. But the ads distort that philosophy by implying that Emersonian self reliance can be found in, of all things, sneakers."

She sums it all up as a particularly successful trend in marketing and a bad omen for the American "Individual":

"What is ominous is that Reebok ads are remarkably successful at achieving what all advertising attempts to do, namely associating a product with an identity. It's the old ploy--eat Wheaties and you'll be as bouncy and healthy as Mary Lou Retton--but it has an added twist. The U.B.U. ad campaigns refers not just to appearance or to health or to product quality. It refers to how we see ourselves as Americans."

Sources:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1988/10/11/stomping-on-individualism-pbrbeeboks-are-just/
Reebok Commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hslN0C8GGaA

Reminds me of Thomas Hobbes De Corpore Politico (The Body Politic). He basically argues that when entering into a body politic, such as the United States of America, you subjugate your inalienable rights to the political forces. That is to say if you are going to be a member of a country you have to abide by that countries laws and processes or GTFO. In the USA you can vote, protest and do a number of things that people in less democratic nations can do. But media mavens and public relations bandits are good at stirring up the right kind of emotions (propaganda) to advance their ideological views. Not only are they good at propaganda, the vast majority of Americans are media illiterate and self-deceived. A kind of perversion of 'American Transcendentalist' ideals - Emerson's "Individual" became an egotist and not the lofty ideal he shared with Thoreau.

Just to give an idea of how far away the American Individual is from Emerson and his compatriots:

"'individualism is a word recently coined to express a new idea. Our fathers only knew about egoism." - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

"The history of humanity [is] the record of a grand march...at all times tending to one point--the ultimate perfection of man. The course of civilization is the progress of man from a state of savage individualism to that of an individualism more elevated, moral and refined." - "The Course of Civilization." Democratic Review (1839)

"Democracy, freedom, has its roots in the sacred truth that every man hath in him the divine Reason, or that... all men are created capable of so doing. That is the equality and the only equality of all men. To this truth we look when we say, Reverence thyself; Be true to thyself." - Ralph Waldo Emerson, Journal Entry, 1833

"Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness." - Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance" (Norton, p. 1165)

@Timothy P

As a matter of fact Tim, that is exactly what I think of you. Your concern for me goes as far as what you can get from me. You get annoyed and amused, and that is your fixation. I've never attributed anything more than this to you.

@Oliver

Okay, as long as you are aware that you are saying "Duh" to something that computational and representational neuroscientists actually debate as if it wasn't so obvious. Something which Neurophilosopher and Eliminativist Paul Churchland felt was necessary to include in "The Engine of Reason; The Seat of the Soul", which is the Valtz Chair of Philosophy (UCSD) professor's most noted work.

I think your second statement is a bit wrong, because neither butter nor bread map very well onto absolute metrics versus eigenvalues. The comparison is off because butter and bread or so dramatically different as to never approximate the same results at all, whereas a facial-recognition system that was made with either absolute metrics or eigenvalues would be indistinguishable to the untrained observer.

The latent point I'm making is that no such thing as absolute metrics objectively exist. It is not just facial-recognition but all feature-detection systems must perform some kind of relative comparison rather than grasping for absolute values. But if you look up "eigenfaces" on the intarwebs, you are going to see exactly what I'm talking about. There is nothing of conscious significance in these images; we do not see that one person has a larger nose than another, the differences are far more subtle than anything we consciously acknowledge.

@Oliver

Do you even know what I'm talking about?

@Oliver

If it was neurocomputationally viable to recognize absolute metrics it should probably work as good, if not better than using eigenvalues.

I think this was featured in Deepak Chopra's "7 Spiritual Laws" and one of those BBC documentaries like "Dangerous Knowledge" or "The Elegant Universe", I can't remember which one. But I've been curious about it ever since.