Watch videos with subtitles in your language, upload your videos, create your own subtitles! Click here to learn more on "how to Dotsub"

TVP Teamspeak Q&A Seminar - 2012-05-13 - Participation

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
Today is 13th of May, Sunday, 2012, Jacque Fresco seminar. This discussion is about questions and answers. Sometimes a person asks a question in a field that they know very little about. In other words, if a person not familiar with electronics at all, says "what if the machine breaks down?" An electronics person doesn't know what he's talking about. Is it the transistor, the capacitor, the circuit, the welding? If you don't talk about specifics, you're not communicating. When a person says to me "you can't predict the behavior of people," they're telling me that they don't know how to predict the behavior of people, and it's a subject that I can't do anything with it, unless they say "what do you do with people that insist that they're right?" In other words, that's a specific question. A specific question is "how do you arrive at your decision and why is your decision any better than any other decision?" Now, I person that asks that question may or may not understand the answer. The assumption that people understand the answer that you've given them is an assumption and projection. So in order to check it out, if you have the time and you have a few people, you can say "what do you think I mean by that?" and if they come off with something off, you know that they didn't get your intention. So, people that work on automobiles, automobile engineers, not mechanics, mechanics are a little different than engineers, engineers understand the efficiency ratio of the parts, how much miles you get for gallon of fuel, and the technician understands the function of all the parts of the car. If you say "automobiles are unsafe", with conviction, that doesn't tell you how to make them safer, that doesn't tell you anything, unless you say "if you make the break (?) an inch larger, the car will stop sooner," something you can use. A non-answering question is "how are you going to control the population? You can't control the population, they'll go right on multiplying." The question is "how do you control the population?" Not "you can't control the population, they'll go right on multiplying". That does not give you alternatives. When a person says "you can't make airplanes absolutely safe." Well, what the hell does that tell you? Nothing, except that person's limited ability to participate. A man would say "if you made airplanes safer", that doesn't tell you anything you can use, so you have to discredit that. If a person says "governments have been corrupt ever since history began." That doesn't tell you how to make them uncorrupt, so you tell that person that they have nothing to offer. Unless you show a method of making a government work, unless you say "I would like to know what your view on this." If a person comes up to me and says "what is your view on automobile safety?" I said "do you know anything about automobiles, the mechanisms, the valves, what they're for? No." Then you can't talk about the anatomy of the automobile. If you know nothing about the human body, you can't talk about anatomy. Say "people get sick and we don't always know why." Well, that's something that you can't do anything with. Now, if you say "the soil is exhausted, the plants aren't growing," you've offered nothing, but if you take surplus food, grind it into small particles, mix it in with the soil, if the plants can assimilate that, it needs water, not just nutrients ground up in soil. The water is the conveyor of the substance of the plants, but if you say "we're running out of top soil." "What do you suggest?" is the next question to that person that says "we're running out of topsoil." "What do you suggest? Well I don't know." Then shut up, do you understand how I mean that, you think? People can't ask questions unless they know the anatomy of the subject. It goes back to the same thing. When Richie used to say, "Daddy what make an airplane or what makes an automobile move?" Why you say, "Many different things fuel combustion chambers, cylinders, wheels, transmission, what do you want to know, specifically?" Many things are involved in the movement of a car, but if you say, "You can't predict human beings, they all come from different environments and they have all very different reactions, you can't make them act the same way." That doesn't tell you anything, except the person's limitations that they're talking about. Now a lot of people that are permitted to talk today, in the future they won't be. In other words if you come into a medical conference and say, "Well, doctor Jones what do you think of this concept, doctor Smith what do you think of this concept?" But if you're just an outsider, non-medical person, they don't say what do you think of the concept, so at a medical conference you have medical people, at a aeronautical conference you have aeronautical people, so the kind of questions they ask are related to the fine machine only. Now, if it's a discussion of airport safety, then you have FHA people, airport designers and you say, "what's the matter with the runway?" Well whenever a heavy plane lands the runway cracks. Well, what's the standard recommendation of thickness and reinforcement in the runway? Why do you need (?) in the runway or a grid of wires? So if the concrete cracks it doesn't change elevation. If you have wires in there it keeps it at the same elevation even though it's cracked. If you're not equipped to understand the answer, you can't ask questions. If a guy says "You know electronics can fail too." Well, that's participation but offering nothing, so sometimes I will not engage a person if I feel they are not talking about the subject. If they say, "you can't predict human behavior, different people have different views." All that's true, give me the different views. "Let's make our building ten stories high instead of four." Why do you want to do that? Just talk about the subject. If you say you can't make automobile absolutely safe. What do you feel the limitations are? - "Well, the driver may be distracted." - Then you a want a system that affects the distraction of drivers, if they use a cell phone and they're driving, and talking and the kids are fighting in the back, those are distractions. So you want a car that's not subject to distractions. - How do you do that? - "I don't know." If you say "all you want soldiers to do is operate the machine gun, that's all you want them to do. You don't want them to discuss philosophy on the trenches, they could discuss (?)Mark Twain against somebody else, but that would be irrelevant to the war. What they do is blindfold a soldier and he used to take the gun apart blindfolded, did you ever seen that? Then he has to assemble it blindfolded. That's what they need in case you don't have light, you're in the trenches and your machine gun jams they want you to know how to undo the jam, but if you talk about philosophy and the history of guns, that does not undo the jam, unless you become very familiar to a certain type of machine gun. Aeronautics conferences are on the characteristics of different airplanes. They tried to photograph German airplanes during the war and tried to show that they can't make a turn as fast as American planes can, therefore take advantage of that disadvantage of a German airplane. When the German pilot lands on an American airbase and surrenders the airplane, they take it up to study it's turn characteristics and to write a report on what it could do and what it can't do. That gives you American pilot an advantage of knowing the rate of climb of that airplane. If you don't know that then you're just going to rely on your own ability, so a (?) is a guy that reports on the performance of the enemy airplane, but if a guy says "well you can't predict that, until you capture a plane". So he says "you must capture a plane" so you offer a foreign pilot fifty thousand dollars, if he flies, in cash. You do whatever you have to do to get that information, but if you say "you can't get a German airplane," that doesn't tell you anything. What are the methods of getting a German airplane? People come with ideas. "Will it work? I don't know." Then you put it to test, if it works you use it. If it doesn't you set it aside, so remember this, this is something you have to remember, People will talk about all kind of things, but not when their car breaks down, they take it to an auto mechanic. When the air conditioning breaks down they take it to an air conditioning mechanic. You can go to the baker, he can say, "well, I don't know, check the input and output," but he doesn't know so everybody likes to feel competent, everybody likes to feel, they want to participate, the question is, can they? The only way you can participate in anything is to offer a tangible referential description. If you believe that all things are affected by other things it means that human behavior is predictable, if you believe that conditioning shapes behavior. If you think it's inborn, you can't think about it. If you believe that human behavior is inborn, you can't predict, you say, "who the hell knows what the inborn emotion is going to be?" So if you can't predict it you can't deal with it, but if you believe that people scratch their heads because it itches, or they think it itches, that's alright, as long as you know why, but every action, a person adjusts his glasses, it means the air pressure is bad or the vision is not good or if the glasses are too low, they move it up, you have to ask them "why did you move your glasses?" You can say guesses, but that's not why they move their eyeglasses. If you believe that human behavior is based upon what Skinner is known for is "reinforcement". He says people people will do anything is you reinforce them in their terms. If you want a child to pick fruit for you, if they pick a basket of fruit, and you say "that was very nice of you to do that", and you say "what would you like to do?" He says "daddy, I would like to go in a merry go round" and you take them on a merry go round. Reinforcement for what he does, you will perpetuate that behavior. If you spank them and give them negative reinforcement to certain behavior, they will stop that behavior only when you're around, because when you're not there, they may beat up another kid, push him in a swimming pool, if you're not there, so beating a person, makes them behave a certain way, only when you're around. When the teacher walks out of the classroom, there's a lot of noise and all that, but when the teacher comes back everybody is silent again, because they're not rewarded for talking when the teacher is there. When a guy lands and says "I just shot down two or three German planes," the captain says "what method did you use?" and he says "I want you to talk to the new pilots about the method you used." That would be information, to the pilot. "You got to really know how to fly and out outmanoeuvre the enemy." That doesn't tell you anything, although it sounds sincere, "you got to outmanoeuvre the enemy," you have to beat him to the punch. That sounds enthusiastic, "have faith in yourself, have faith in your ability to fly, confidence" Those words do not tell you how to stabilize the airplane. If you let go the airplane is self-stabilizing. If you don't know those things, it's hard to communicate. And if a person says, "you didn't answer my question", it would be "you didn't answer my question in terms I can understand it". Because if don't know they didn't answer, like if you said "electronics breaks down sometimes," the guy in the field of electronics really doesn't get anything from that. But say "the capacitor, or the weld broke, on the soldered copper wire, going into the transistor." The guy knows where to look, but he doesn't know where to look, when you say "it broke down". If you tell a doctor "it hurts!" he knows something hurts, but if you say "my knee hurts, the top part of the knee, or the bottom part of the knee," he's got a little more to work from, but if you say "it hurts all over", what hurts all over?" You can't do anything with that, so the only thing a doctor can do anything with is "do you have gas, do you have belching?" And he's got a handbook that says "a lot of belching is eating foods that produce a lot of gases, or emotional stress. He's got a handbook, so when you say "I belch continuously all day long I can't stop belching, he might take out his handbook and look at that, and compare it to what other doctors found. He can't do anything else, except compare it. The average person does not compare mechanical systems, nor can they talk about the design of cities. If you say "many people require different kind of cities and different kind of houses." Now, if they do, if everybody would like to drive their own car, individual car, for everybody, they would cost a million dollars a piece. If you make dies and (?)out a hundred chevies that look alike, they're much cheaper. Do you understand that? So most cars, most Fords, most Volskwagens, whatever they are look like. You can make each one different, but it would be out of the range of cost, so the person says "do you allow for individuality in that society?" Individuality to me means differences in values by different aspects of the culture. We can't afford all kinds of individuals. Then a guy wants to wear a suit with three creases in it. Well, that's individual, but it's unsane individuality. Unsane individuality is when people say "I got a new dance", it's this. You don't need to get up. Well, that's an individual, but that dance doesn't do anything for people, convincing them of that, do they want to know, what do you think of this type dancing? Well, I would say it's no different or no better, no worse than existing dancing, But I can't deal with that kind of problem. If I say dancing is a nothing thing, I mean what does it contribute? It contributes to the wellbeing of people, they feel good dancing, is that important? Well, what if they want to see a bull fight and they feel good, watching a bull fight? Feel good is not the ultimate answer, it's the collective utility of the answer that I would go by. What would benefit people most, to know about basic things, how they work, how a flashlight work, how automobiles are interconnected, how we relate to the environment. If you say man is part of nature, say without food man could not survive, that's what I mean by that, when I say, he's part of nature, if oxygen is not in the air, he would die, so he thinks he's part of nature, because he doesn't know that we depend on nitrogen, lightning fixes the nitrogen in the soil, it makes it available to plants. Now, is that the purpose of lightning? No, lightning occurs and then nitrogen becomes modified, but lightning is not there to modify the nitrogen, you can tell by nitrogen would be electricity would flow only in the ground and modify the nitrogen only, it wouldn't go through the atmosphere and hit a tree and a little girl on a bicycle then it means it wasn't design for a purpose. If you had ice weather, say "the purpose of winter is to give us a change in seasons, we need change." Well people living in the tropics never heard of winter time, that are brought up there, and they wouldn't know what you're talking about. If they say "what is the winter for?" Say "well is to give us a change in season." The average person, not being a meteorologist, meaning a student of weather, doesn't know what question to ask, but there are a lot of kids that would love to participate. So they will say "So what if a person doesn't want to live in that city?" They're looking for participation. If you say "the water supply is not even in all the houses, can you make it even so that all the people can get water when they wanted? That's what they want to know, but you can't say "what if I don't want to live in that city?" That's just bringing up an argument for the recognition of participation, so real participation is "how would you acclimate people to this design if they we're brought up to like individual housing?" You can't do that unless you tell them where people get their values from, if you live in an igloo or a thatched hut, or a wigwam, those become normal to you, and if you say "but what if I don't want to live in a wigwam?" It's just a person bringing up contradictions, but no other reason than participating. Do you understand that? What is real participation? When the brakes fail, what do you do? Gee, you crash. "-Well can you make brakes that are less apt to fail? - No." "Then shut up," that's what it means. So, your assumption that you've answered a person's questions is an assumption, unless you ask them, "what do you think I mean?" and they come up with something entirely different, say apparently I was unable to get that across, or the don't have the background to understand what went wrong with the electronics. If you tell them "the kidney and the spleen are not working properly", and they say "oh," but they don't know anything. In order to know things you have to get the book, "Handbook of the spleen", and handbook on the anatomy of different organs, how they work, what they do. Do the organs work or are they controlled by emotions? Well, if you study emotions and the effect on organs, which is another subject altogether, that's psychology of illness, it isn't always the failure of the kidney, it could be a failure of love of life in you, if your whole family is killed in an automobile accident, you may not want to live anymore, and they call that "the will to die". And there are some people that can will death. I know it seems strange but they go to bed at night and they don't feel alive and they don't sleep well, they miss the other people, and their live has been cut, or what they call their life. Now, if people live in a world that where everybody is friendly, everybody is concerned about your well being, when your closest friend dies, you're not left alone, "How am I going to pay the rent? How am I going to eat?" People live alone today and I would say that if everybody tried to work to enhance the lives of everybody else, you wouldn't be desolate when somebody died, your family that was important to you. Does that make sense to you? Now, do you know what I mean by answering questions? You can't unless a person is in that discipline. If a person says "The human nature keeps changing, that's why you can't predict what people will do." Say, he's telling you that he doesn't know of any method of predicting behavior. Now, have you ever watched the Blue Angels fly? They have good communication, if they don't... One of them did the loop, the Blue Angels, too bigger loop, too near the ground, and all the planes crashed. - Are you familiar with that? - No. That was the end of the Blue Angels, so if the pilot, the main guy has erroneous judgement and they all are trained to follow the pilot, then they all die. Now if the pilot makes an erroneous decision and you know it, and you fly out of that quadrant, it worked out alright, you're kicked out of that squad, because that's the only way people have of knowing things, is that the expert in the field knows more about it than you do. It's true that a refrigeration engineer might be able to make your refrigerator work well, but he knows more about it that the baker does. So when you call upon an expert they're not always experts, but they are more of an expert than you are. And that's all we can go by. If a meteorologist tells me "we expect a very stormy winter," he has more methods of arriving at that prediction than I do. Could he be wrong? Yes, but could I be wrong? Many times more than he would. Do you understand that? So we go by a guy that says "the best place to catch fish is near a reef." - "How long have you been fishing? - Sixty five years. -How many fishes have you caught? - Four thousand tons." Well, you better listen to him then the guy next door that caught two or three fish. Could he be wrong? Yes, he could, but not as much as the average person. Is the city perfect? No, the word perfect has no meaning. It means there's every operation in that city for the benefit of all people in that city all the time. The answer is no, there's no such thing and if you can recommend the method to make it more substantial, recommend that method. Do you understand that in communication then? There is no communication with people that are not schooled in that discipline. So what you have to do is to teach him that discipline first, that their behavior is not their own, it's shaped by culture. If you can convince him do that first, and then go off in different direction you're better off. If they believe that every person is an individual and individuality is within the person, if you can't disprove that, get out of the conversation, because you can't take it anywhere. If you believe, yesterday, did you see those two dogs, they snapped at you, the guy told me, "Fresco, don't touch the dogs, they snap." He gave me forewarning, but if you bring up those same dogs with kids that feed them fresh food that the dogs likes, (?)every time the kid comes over the dog is less apt to snap. I wouldn't say wouldn't snap, less apt to snap. If people are extensional to one another, not say "I love you, I need you, I want you, you mean more to me than anything in the world", if they don't behave in that way, they can't establish confidence in the other person. If a person has confidence in another person, you really can't do that unless you know more about the subject than the other person. If I have confidence in the pilot flying a plane, and I can't fly as well as him, I flown with him a lot and he gets me there, that's all I have confidence in, the fact that he got me there. Is he a confident pilot? I don't know under what conditions he's confident and under what conditions he's not. I think I told some of you here about the Islamic people when they were in an airplane and the pilot say he smelled smoke and he went back and he made a fire on the floor to heat up the tea. Obviously, they don't understand the significance of that, the people that did that, but they always understand that fire heats tea, making a fire on the floor they did not, were unable to understand that. I'm sure they did made the fire because they knew that but they wanted tea, I don't think they did, the journey to Mecca, on the way they made a fire in the airplane heating the tea. Are they dumb? No. They don't understand the relationship of fire to the inside of the airplane, especially at high altitudes where they have air circulating and limited oxygen. If you open the window on an airplane all the air would be sucked up, and some people say "I would like a little ventilation." If the windows were openable, there would be a lot of dead people in crashes and you wouldn't know why, unless they notice one window was unhinged in the broken parts. (?) you should know this, when a plane crashes the FAA takes it into a hanger and lays out the windows and the door, and the landing gear and they look at everything and if there's an air pressure problem, the (?) is blown out, the windows are blown out and they know what to look for. FAA, are they perfect? No, but they know better what to look for than the average person. So when the FAA say they do a list of probable cause of the crash. Now if you say "The man assassinated another person because he was brought up in Italy, with a value system that differs with people that don't assassinate people that they disagree with. But if a person is conditioned to beat up on another guy, that looks at his wife sexually, is he bad or is he a victim of culture? That's what I mean. So if you get mad at somebody it means that you really don't understand this subject. So if a guy says "you want to fight?", he believes that if he beats you in a fight he's right. He may be better at fighting than you, but it doesn't make him right. Normal, a lot of normal people believe that the guy who's better at fighting is right. "Might is right", you heard that shit. So if you're right, you can get the shit kicked out of you. So if they say "why don't you explain your ideas to a lot of people to see how they feel about it?" If you explain, if you have an atheist lecture to a group of Catholics, they're going to vote him out. If you lose a debate, say you're an a debating team, (?)you lose the debate, the guys like the guy that won the debate. Does it mean he was right? No, it just meant that the people listening to him were familiar with that point of view more than the other point of view. So even if you win a debate, it doesn't mean you're right. You say "God made all this, it can't come about any other way." Most people would shake their heads, that doesn't make them right. So, when you get into a debate, you don't enter to win, you enter to see how many people you can primarily effect in the discussion and if you're pooh pooved, do you know what that means? They say "that guy is full of shit," and they all walk out, it means you had no relevant approach to those people. Do you understand questions and answers? There are no answers. Answer is "can you answer this question? What makes war?" Like there's an answer, "this is the answer." It's a whole study of kingdoms and habits of thought and this nation is different than other nation, and believes their way is the right way, so they try to kill the other nation. Are they bad? No. Are they murderers? No. They're victims of a different culture. So, if you can't get to people, instead of saying they're dumb, either you don't have the time to build a referential language, or they don't have the background to understand you. That's possible. I wanted you to get this bit so you don't waste your time. I don't talk to people that raise questions like "you can't predict human behavior". I can't do anything with that. You mentioned you wanted to go over intellectual traps. Intellectual trap is the habits you picked up; a habit is an intellectual trap. You revert back to that say "Somebody had to make all this." That's an intellectual trap. If you're trained in religion first, then the intellectual trap is assuming God made all this. And if you behave badly, I say "the Devil got into you". That's an intellectual trap. You had the free will to kick the Devil out of you. There are people that look at a girl, and want to have sex and say "get out of me Satan!" And they try to kick their own values out. That's intellectual trap. It means that if you're schooled as an Indian, you dance around the fire, that's an intellectual trap. A habit, established habit is an intellectual trap. - Yes, stating a problem is similar... - Very difficult... (?) It's almost impossible, because if a guy bought a whole bunch of electronic equipment, sound equipment, everything, and he knows nothing about electronics, he says "my system isn't working," that's all he can say, but he can't say it's a transistors, the capacitors, circuitry, he can't say that because he doesn't know that, but if he says "it's not working", the expert it's the guy that turns up the volume and it doesn't go up, he looks inside, he sees a burnt out transistor, he knows where to look. But the average person says "my car isn't working right, it tends to veer to the left or right" and the mechanic says "okay". Those words, even "my car isn't working right", he says "what's wrong with it?" Well, it veers to the right, he thinks in terms of tire pressure. The words the average person use triggers that, but it doesn't happen on the average person, unless they have been to a mechanic four times and the mechanic stated that they say "it might be the air pressure in my tires" so he checks the air pressure, only after he knows, but a person can't know it's the air pressure. A person can't know it's the humidity, the humidity in the air that carries the allergens that you're allergic to, unless they know about the transfer of allergens. So you think you can talk to people, that's why it's good to ask a person "what are you majoring in?" The guy says "electronics". "And what else are you interested in?" He says "human behavior". "How much human behavior have you worked with? "Well, I liked Charles Gordon's concepts of behavior, or I like the Gestalt concept", you know, the you know what areas of behavior they're indoctrinated in or habituated in. Can a guy be a mechanist and habituated? I would say no because a mechanist, listens to what people says but then puts it to test to see if it works. And if it works, they're not victims of habituation. Now, let me give you an example, of stating the problem. Only in mechanics is that obvious, when a person says "my refrigerator doesn't work." Well, they don't know whether if it doesn't get as cool as it should, has it turned off, they don't know. The expert is the guy that knows the anatomy of the refrigerator. You can talk to him, but you can't talk to a person, that knows nothing about refrigerators. A person that knows nothing about say, airplanes, can't say "what makes it stable?" He doesn't know when you said "the dihedral makes it stable", he doesn't know what that means. How much dihedral? How do you determine that? In aeronautics you're given the method of determining that. In automotive science, you say "can this automobile climb hills?" The average person says "yes". "Can it climb a hill forty five degrees?" "No, that's too much, your car cannot handle that." "Can a war tank handle that? No." So if you have a table in your war tank, that says do not try to climb hills in excess of forty five (?)degrees. That's how to use a mechanism. Don't try to do upside down flying in a non-stunt plane. A stunt plane shuts the fuel off when it's upside down, otherwise it will spill all over the plane. So a stunt plane has a bypass mechanism that shuts the fuel when you turn upside down, but if you say that the plane is equipped for stunting, that means those people took care of it, so when you talk about a given subject, architecture, structural bridges, the way the structure is arranged, you can talk to people. But if they say "what makes a bridge stand up?" you say "have you got three days?" the person says "no, I haven't", "then come back when you have more time", because there's many little things you can discuss, but things are not subject to questions and answers. In school, they say "there's a question and answer period", we even talk about it, but you really can't have questions and answers, you can have, "are you informed technically?" Person says no, then tell him what technology is and how technicians arrive at decisions. Do they know how to arrive at decisions outside their field? Maybe not, (?)you have to find that out. An electronics expert doesn't know how to check behavior. He says "most people I know are selfish, therefore it's natural". He's made the wrong assumptions, even though he knows electronics A to Z. He can't transfer that to another field, so questions and answers are really in the future will not be that "what is your background?" and the person tells you, then you talk to them in terms of their background. There are no such things as questions and answers, even tough I use that term, "any questions? Anything you don't understand?" but if it's no question just a bunch of statements, that is feeling always permitted to participate, (?)that girl had a lot of participation in her life, but no communication. (?)She always tells people of her own limitation when she talks. Do you understand what that means, that there's no such thing as questions and answers? You can't answer questions. You can teach them about electronics, or you can teach them about the characteristics of technology how one part affects another. There's a code usually in automobiles that tells you what to do. Without that code the average person drives a car until it breaks down. This is what they do. They drive until it cuts out, because they can't afford to take it in every time there's slight differences, they don't always have the money, so the word democracy cannot be manifested. If you can't afford to take you car in or your wife to the doctor when she has chronic headaches, and take her in to have an MRI which is over a thousand dollars, say "Well, look, why don't you eat a little less and don't stuff your guts so much," you try roundabout systems if you're poor. So the word democracy does not permit you to behave democratically, unless you have the purchasing power to do so, so I'm not interested in words like freedom, democracy, individuality, because they aren't telling me anything, something about the person's limitations is all they tell me. A person says "I believe in individuality." I don't have to make a painting that makes sense to you as long as it makes sense to me. That's not sharing ideas then. If you make a painting that means a lot to you, your love of (?)is for green and yellow (?), it shows strength, all that is projection. I can't deal with that. I say "go and paint if you enjoy it, if it makes you feel good, but don't at me and say '- Will you frame my paintings in your exhibition hall?' - If the painting you do gives everybody a different value system, I can't see the benefit of it." If you tell him that the word "water" means anything then it's a loss of communication. If it means (?)subject to interpretation. If water means something you drink, contaminated, uncontaminated water, salt water, acidity in the water, that means something, but if you just talk about water in one way and everybody interprets their own way, you'll have a divided civilization. "Why do we have to have one way?" We don't have to have one way, we have to have a verifiable way, not anyone way. One way is "god made everything". A verifiable way is plants won't grow if you don't water them, or keep the soil, or keep certain insects from attacking the leaves. That's a verifiable way. So language has to do with verifiability. That's why you can't communicate with everybody. You can only communicate with those people that are relevant to the subject you're trying to communicate. If your mother says "a person is guilty, I know it, I can see it in his face". Well, nobody is ever guilty of anything, they just have different methods than you have. That's very hard to accept that a person is a disturber of presence, if I had a person that was a continuous disturber, ‚ÄčI might say "you'll have to leave the session", because I have to consider everybody there. The disturber (?)says "I don't agree with anything you said I believe I have free will no matter what you say." I say "you'll have to leave". He says "you're avoiding my question." No I'm not, I have to consider, or I will consider the majority of people. I'll let a person talk if they're sincere, but if they're using it as a gimmick, "what if I don't agree with you?" That's bringing up opposition. If they say "I don't agree that your building will be stronger if you run your bracing (?)." Then I say "then show me where it doesn't work." But if they say "I don't agree with you, they want to participate." So participation means "fundamental referential criticism." People don't talk about a subject, they talk about their feelings regarding the subject, do you know the difference? "I don't know if I want to live in a round city, what if I want to live in a square city?" "Well", you say, "what are the benefits and how do you arrive at that?" That would be inquiry, when you ask questions, you have to say "tell what a question is." "Does it have a referent?" If it doesn't the question could mean anything. So participatory democracy is a ridiculous statement. It cannot be, you can't participate in democracy, unless you define that term. What do you mean about that? And do you agree with participatory democracy? The guy says "Yes, I do." Then why do you take your car to an auto mechanic, why don't you take it to a butcher? Let him try to fix your car, or the chicken raiser or somebody... You always take it to the right person because the wrong person can't participate. Now, when they talk of participatory democracy, I say, "how will you grow more food?" I want them to participate, they don't know, then (?) say "study agriculture and then come back to The Venus Project and work, or try something, work at it." I don't see anything detrimental in that, but if you can do that when you talk to people, you tell them that you're not asking a question (?). "I am too," they don't even know that, so you say "first you have to read a book on semantics become familiar that language is subject to interpretation because, if it is then I fear that you don't understand it as I want you too," so you have to give them the basis that enables you to make more appropriate decisions I'll post the questions to Jacque and Roxanne right now. Okay, thanks, Sean. First question "do you have a transitional solution for technological unemployment before a Resource-Based Economy can be attained? Have you considered the importance of getting governments on board with such a transitional idea? Example, decreasing working hours, do you have a plan for transitional government? No, we only have a plan for transitional Resource-Based Economy. - Not within this system. - No, not within this system. Jack Catran stated that you grew up with around four or five other intellectuals as a young man, what happened with these other men, did you ever become socially aware or help... Did they ever become socially aware or help you toward the Resource-Based Economy direction? (?)to ever extend they can. They are now deceased. Yes. Well, Jack did several books trying to introduce whatever he could...Jack Catran. Yes. You surrounded yourself with some interesting individuals like Catran, why did they stop being part of the Sociocyberneering and Resource-Based Economy idea? They never stopped. They worked at it all their lives. Yes, Jacque Catran did. The people that Jacque really spent a lot of time when he was younger are kids that he really introduced to Science and aviation too, they all went into aviation, mostly didn't they? And they worked with you, building the Trend Home, didn't they? - Yes. - The first aluminum prefabricated home after WW2? - Yes. - And weren't they go to at one time you asked them all to meet you at Tuamotu... - Some South Pacific Islands... - Yes, you thought a war was going to happen, and as I remembered you asked them to all meet you there because after the war you wanted to start a new direction in (?)society, but you were the only one that showed up there, is that right? Yes, yes that's true. They just didn't were not able to carry that out. - They didn't have the money to travel out there. - I see. In the collapse do you think the government will use the army in the streets to keep their power or do you think the army will protect the public? No, the army will protect the government, because that's the way they're brought up. The army is to serve the interest of the establishment, not the majority of people. As witness, the police spraying mace or some other object into people's eyes when they were not fighting back. The police serve the interest of the establishment, not the public. In the past I read in an old newspaper advertisement on your website that you identified yourself as a behavioralist when attending public lectures back in the 1960's, 1970's. Would you still identify yourself as a behavioralist today? The behaviorialist, I would say it's greatly modified today. Yes, I believe environment shapes behavior, but I'm interested in the specific aspects of the environment that shape particular kinds of behavior. Whether be serial killers, gangsters, whatever people are, they're shaped by their subculture, the culture they're exposed to, and the conditions they're exposed to. How useful is evolutionary psychology, do you think there's such a thing as evolved behaviors, particularly in non-verbal animals? I would say that that's a very difficult subject to answer, I can only say that animals behave with their limited receptors, to whatever extent their receptors tell them. Their receptors are not sophisticated and that's why they're called primitive. The human being is capable of a wide range of receptors or instruments to improve their ability to function such as microscopes which extend their sensitivity into realms (?)that they themselves cannot perceive visually. They can use instruments and the instruments serve extensional devices, but human beings without instruments would be very primitive indeed. Also in terms of "evolved behaviors" animals really react to their environment, whatever receptors they have, if it doesn't work well within their environment whether you call them evolved whatever change mechanisms or apparatus that they have, if it doesn't work well in the environment, they die out, so "evolved" is kind of a strange word. - Yes. - Evolved behaviors. You have often said that in the future the field of psychology will be replaced with behavioral science. That means a study of the effects of environment on behavior. (?) the mechanisms that are the primary shaped... primary mechanisms responsible for certain types of behavior. If you're brought up in a society where people have ten or fifteen wives, that would be normal to you upbringing. If you're brought up in a society where a person has one wife, or if you are brought up in a society where religion dominates, that will affect the value system of that society. So I'm a great believer in the effects of environment on human behavior. I don't think there's a republican gene or a democratic gene, I think all the genes deliver is the color of the eyes, the shape of the head and the certain propensity, reflexes, yes, all that is controlled by genes, but values are learned. The rest of this question is "(?) is very similar to behaviorism because behaviorism identifies the conditions which generate behavior." If it does that then I'm all for it. Is it true that psychologists refer their patients subjects to you to work on? Not all psychologists, some psychologists. Also, didn't...when lawyers started coming to some of Jacque's lectures in the 1960's or 70's, wasn't it? Then they brought judges and then the judges, like there was one judge who that worked with juveniles and instead of sending them to juvenile home, they would send them to either to juvenile home to Jacques lectures. Yes, that's true. It says in the book I read a New York Times reporter attended your lectures in the 70's. He then went on to commit suicide. Is that because he could not handle this information, became depressed etc. ? - Do you know who he's talking about? - Yes. Some newspaper reporter came to a couple of my seminars and he said "what you say makes sense, if I can't get that out, I'll kill myself. I believe I can get it out, I believe that what you say makes so much sense that people can be turned around." Well, he was turned around, but he was unable to turn around people around and he killed himself because he really believed that I had the answers to questions and all he had to do was write about it and people would understand it. It's not that simple. I imagine that there are other reasons why he did that, I couldn't imagine... No, he was not that well enough equipped to handle that problem. Yes. Have you ever B.F. Skinner novel called Walden Two and if so, what are your thoughts on it? It was insufficient because the methods of building cities, the methods of dealing with problems were not sufficient or sophisticated enough. - There was another book called that Jack Catran... - Wrote. - Yes, Jack Catran was one of the guys that... - What about the book? He was trained when he was younger that tried to talk about a Resource-Based Economy, but he wrote the book Walden Three, which was kind of chaotic, but had a lot of references to Jacque's work and the main character was taken after Jacque and talked about a city in the future. I've heard that you've produced some books or publications for sociocyberneering members back in the 70's. Would it be possible for you to make these freely available online for us to read, please? I would say that the book The Best That Money Can't Buy is an updated version of those books. Yes, it took some of that information and included it there and added more. Yes. Is there any more news on when there may be new lecture audio materials from the 70's available at your online store? We've been waiting a little while for this. Thanks. Actually we just got forty tapes from (?)Carl Giesler, who used to go to the lectures, you'll head him with a German accent. He found forty more tapes, so for the last several weeks we've been pulling (?)them in. Today we're just pulling in changing of the tapes or several that broke... (?)So we're working on those now, putting them in new cases and putting them into the computer. So we've pulled in about forty hours, so first, that's the first step, we had to pull it into the computer, but we are working on it. I can't say when exactly we'll have it, but maybe we'll make them into mp3's or something more accessible, I'm not sure. Have you ever been tempted to change the system from within? No, I never had been tempted to change the system from within. I attempt to inform people as to the (?)effects, the prime effectors in our society and the harmful effects of the free enterprise system. I don't think there's a (?)step back within this system to bring it without problems into a Resource-Based Economy, there's no openings for that within this system. No, it requires a different value system, a different approach. This system will forever uphold this system, until it just crashes. - Until it can not longer work. - And the examples of that are all over, we're polluting the air... - Yes, all over the world, not just America. - Yes. Please explain why socialism is not a good transitional tool. I never said it was not a good transitional tool, it's not the best, it's not updated. Socialism was great, when it was designed, but today we have much better systems, much more effective to enhance the lives of people in much faster way than the old time socialism. Socialism was concerned about the working class, we're concerned with knowledge and we're concerned with surpassing the need for work, in other words, we think machines can replace jobs that are monotonous or boring or dangerous, that people think in terms of work to earn a living. In the future you don't need to think in terms of work, you will be provided for and you can study anything you want to study in school, so I would say that most jobs will be phased out, most of the early professions will be phased out. I had my finger off the hook, you said "most of the early professions will be phased out." Okay, Jacque, why didn't you take the opportunity to make money and then change the world with that money? Because then they would say "well, that guy is a son of a bitch, he became a millionaire and now he talks against the system. I don't trust him." Actually, Jacque did work within the system a lot when he was younger, he had many different inventions and ideas and just because you have good ideas that are better than what's out there does not mean it will take on and make a lot of money with them. There's a lot of tremendous inventors that didn't get anywhere in this system for various reasons, but whatever money Jacque did make, we always turned it back into making more products and making the resource center, and perpetuating these ideas and introducing them to others. Why could you not turn around your own brother to these ideas, why did he go into acting instead? Because I wasn't skilled enough to reach him and those days, we're talking about forty, fifty, sixty years ago, I was not able to reach him, I really tried, I really tried. I could not reach him at the time. I was not as skilled. - You were the younger brother too. - Yes. - How much older was he from you, do you remember? - About five, six years older. What's the relation between Jacque and Roxanne? We've been living together and working together for since 1976. - Yes. - That's the relation. We relate fairly well in most areas, and I would say if that continues, which it will, and I'm glad that Roxanne has been enormous help. Without Roxanne I don't think we could have got our books published or most of our films made. She's very good at film production and she's very good at translating. We pretty much worked on just about anything together and mostly it was a learning process for me, learning how to make models, Jacque taught me how to do technical illustrations which transferred to fine arts, he taught me how to do model making and I learned on his designs which is really fascinating. Then I helped make a living with that to help support this project. And then I worked on with everything else I could help with. When people ask if we're married I say we're as good as or better than married. Okay, Jacque, looking backwards in time if you could change certain paths you made in life, what are some of the things you would have done differently? I can't answer that, I don't know. - Is there anything you regret? - No, nothing, everything I learned (?)from all of my experiences, I learned something useful. Jacque, in your lectures you question the role of emotions in machines, emotions may be used in machines as a (?), for their algorithm to perceive more variance in their evolving intelligence. I would say emotions are the feelings you have about things. Is what you do about it that counts. If you feel that war is terrible and if you do nothing to try to put an end to it, I would say it's useless. We don't put emotions in machines because we don't know how. No machines have ambitions, no machine feel good, they just produce a lot of goods and services and they have no feelings nor are they concerned whether they produce cannons, submarine, bombers or (?)respiratory systems. The machine has no feelings and the machine cannot have feelings. They don't even know how to put feelings in the machines, although you can make a machine that will verbalize as tough it had feelings. It would be like a movie actor, acting the part, but they really don't feel. We don't really want machines to have emotions, we want them to take on an action pattern. We don't want people sitting and (?) and being emotional without doing something about it. Right. Jacque, have you ever read Jack Catran's book "Is there intelligent life on Earth"? Yes, I have. I think it's some kind of roundabout way of talking about things. I would be more direct than Catran was. Catran always kept up, he spoke with Jacque quite regularly. - Yes. - He always sent Jacque his new books and things. How do you increase interest towards life, towards some activity, towards learning and researching? Well, you have to understand the person you're working with. Then you have to design the system so it fits their background. You have to design the approach to that person based on their background. This person might be talking about himself or herself, I don't know if it within oneself. - What age do you hope to live to? - I don't think about that. I just go on (?)working. I may die tomorrow or I may live on, I don't know. But I don't concern myself with that. This question "how do you justify the fancy sprinkler in the water?" I think this person might be talking about the, it is the only way I could think about a fancy sprinkler, one of the house computer rendering drawings, there's a jet of water in the front of the house. Well, that would be a filter system. (?) there's no fountains unless they are water filters. There are no fountains for just for luxury or to amuse people, everything in the future will have a function. So if you see a water fountain it's part of a water treatment plant. - And that does helps the fish in there too... - Yes. - To aerate the water. - Yes. Have you ever turned around a fundamentalist Christian Baptist and how? Well, first at all, I approached him with the Bible. By approaching him with the Bible, it says in the Bible or at least in the Ten Commandments "Thou shall not kill", you shall not judge other people, otherwise you will be judged. And I point out all the statements of the Ten Commandments and how far we come from it. When we get mad at another country we bomb the hell out of them and we kill them, we all join that and the Churches bless the armies, and they bless the war tanks, particularly the Catholic Church sprinkles Holy Water on the war tanks, and the Catholics in Italy bless the war tanks fighting Americans, and the Catholics in America bless the war tanks in America. I would say that the Church seems to conform to social institutions. If they did not conform they would be poorly attended and the Church that does not conform is not advocated as a method of social deliverance. And what method did you used to turn around the fundamentalists? The Bible itself. Show them that it's almost impossible to live according to the teachings of Christ... Okay he said "in the monetary system", I had my finger off of it one minute. In "The fat man on the left" book it said you love bran muffins. We actually never read "The fat man of the left" book. Yes, (?)Nate is tremendous researcher who did Jacque's Wiki page, and he found that, but anyway it said you love bran muffins, this is true. I happen to like apple pie and bran muffins but that has nothing to do with anything. Yes, he said "can we have the bran muffin recipe?" We don't have one. Do you think the government and banks will forgive debts? No, never. They can't operate unless they create debt. What's Jacque primordial slime? You know how you always talk about the people come and bring primordial slime with them. Well, I said when the animals crawled down the primordial slime, they dragged some of the slime with them meaning their background and experience. (?)this person is asking what is your primordial slime? Poverty, hunger, scarcity, all that was the prime motivators for social change, human suffering, war, poverty, hunger. That's good. Okay, I guess that's it for now. Thank you very much for the opportunity to express these values. Yes, we appreciate your questions, some of them were really good. I guess next week if all goes well, we will talk to you then. Thanks, everyone. Yes. I appreciate all the work that you all are doing out there. Yes, thanks again from my end for everything everybody else is doing, it's tremendous help. Okay, thanks again everyone! Okay, so that's the end of the seminar Sunday, 13th of May, 2012.

Video Details

Duration: 1 hour, 4 minutes and 19 seconds
Year: 2012
Country: United States
Language: English
Producer: The Venus Project
Director: The Venus Project
Views: 7
Posted by: ltiofficial on Feb 19, 2016

TVP Teamspeak Q&A Seminar - Participation - 2012-05-13

Note: This is LTI's 'internal working location' for this video, so please do not publicly pass around this URL. All completed and fully proofread 'official' translations can be found at the Repository location at, which we highly encourage you to embed &/or pass around.

To join/help with these translation efforts: (LTI Forum)

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub above to caption this video.