Can anyone ever truly find themselves actually persuaded to the unique cause and collaboration among equals as so fervently advocated in such detail, anon, however belabored and yet alas so inadequate, here on FoolQuest.com?

Or only tabooed and rejected out of hand? It's like proverbially herding cats! And to reiterate, beware cross-purpose! Moreover, speaking up about anything new may reveal, alas, precisely why no one has proverbially ever beaten the author to the figurative punch:  Blithe silence has been the product of taboo! Taboos variously so secret, entrenched and inconceivable. Taboo so haplessly run afoul and revealed, right here on FoolQuest.com Your own intimidated taboos alas, gentle reader, holding us all back. Unless and until no longer...

 

    

 

 

  DANGEROUS IDEAS

intimidation, self-serving, denial and craven conspiracy of silence

Divide and conquer: If you're not suppose to talk to me, then what am I not supposed to tell you?

“If you had an idea that was going to outrage society, would you keep it to yourself?”  — Charles Darwin

“All great truths begins as blasphemies.”  — Bernard Shaw
 

    By Aaron Agassi with Dr. Chen Yehezkely

Taboo often serves as an heteronymous reinforcing mechanism of unconditional allegiance to hypocrisy, authoritative denial, manipulation, coercion, oppression and persecution of pariah. A taboo is different from an explicit prohibition that can be examined and challenged, because what is taboo is an unspoken injunction against even speaking of whatever is so taboo. Indeed, there are even forbidden thoughts and blindspots. Unspoken expectations of taboo are detrimental to transparency and open agenda setting. Items barred from open agenda become Transactionally ulterior malagenda. Taboo evokes crimestop demanding the rejection by silent neglect, of interesting and important matters. Taboo is unspoken injunction against even speaking of whatever is so taboo. Indeed, as taboo an expression of sych ambivalence, there are even forbidden thoughts. Taboo is challenged by setting an open agenda in direct violation of whatever said taboo. But arguing with people who can't think straight and won't say what they really men, is frustrating. They seem like fools, but not to be suffered gladly.

Generally speaking, most of what is seldom or never tried and remains obscure no matter how actually quite promising and effective, only remains so neglected because of taboo, one way or another. For taboo raises conditioned dystress. And taboo need not be all that dramatic, nameless pathos calling attention to itself. Taboo is an expression of ambivalence. Small wonder then, ambivalence regarding taboo, and taboo upon ambivalence. Taboo can be a knee-jerk or a blind spot of crimestop FNORD . And if difficult personal objectives are not to be achieved only by long and arduous and onerous conformity, compliance and self-sacrifice, then any path to success can only be ferreted out by creativity, the eustress of curiosity, investigation, feasibility study and risk assessment, along any path less taken, into those very realms of taboo thought, in quest of that proverbial better mousetrap.

What has even been called: Totalitarian Interactivity, notwithstanding whatever illusion of choice, essentially leads the site visitor about by the proverbial nose, channeling attention step by step, into whatever the target audience is intended to consider most important.

And unless there seems to be any reason for suspicion or ambivalence, simply knowing what to do relieves dystress. But FoolQuest.com garners attention so rarely if at all, only in so far as content is seen, saliently and evocatively, to address whatever particular interests and concerns of the site visitor in whatever their own personal dystress. Alas that even then, all suggested plans of action are all still rejected out of hand as taboo. But most of what is never tried and remains obscure no matter how actually quite promising and effective, only remains so neglected because of taboo, one way or another. For taboo raises conditioned dystress. And taboo need not be all that dramatic, nameless pathos calling attention to itself. Taboo can be a knee-jerk FNORD or a blind spot of crimestop. And if difficult personal objectives are not to be achieved only by long and arduous and onerous conformity, compliance and self-sacrifice, then any path to success can only be ferreted out by creativity, the eustress of curiosity, investigation, feasibility study and risk assessment, along any path less taken, into the realms of taboo thought, in quest of that proverbial better mousetrap. And all of this is personal, not conventional. Collaboration among equals therefore demands relationship, helpful to one another, not objectification and domination.

Taboo is recursive: A taboo is different from an explicit prohibition that can be examined and challenged, because what is taboo is an unspoken injunction against even speaking of whatever remains indeed so taboo. The memplex of taboo, first and foremost, recursively prohibits by behavioral conditioning, all explicit expression of of taboo. Hence, vagueness may be the instinctual danger signal of taboo, awkward questions and worse answers. Indeed, lip service notwithstanding, that after all, we only learn from our mistakes, formal education systematically rewards right answers and punishes mistakes. The resultant taboo upon questions towards clarification of whatever may not be fully understood, relegates conversation to the comfortably familiar, ruling out novelty and discovery in the Dialectics of conversational adequacy in cooperative miscommunication detection and repair, even active reading and listening at all. This amounts to an effective taboo upon reason itself and honesty as well.

Taboo is an expression of ambivalence. Small wonder then, ambivalence regarding taboo, and taboo upon ambivalence. To begin at the beginning, some opine that taboo begins from sympathetic magic, even most innocent and benign, wherein it is deemed that like produces like, and any part or representation of anything or other, even howsoever shorn, separated and distant therefrom, remains nevertheless forever part, connected and bound thereto no less. And furthermore, what is there that is more part and semblance than one's own name? Therefore to speak of the devil directly, is tantamount to summoning him up, and can only tempt grizzly fate! More prudent, then, by far, ever to speak thereof only in euphemism and epithet.

All such ceremonial spectacle of pageantry as so often entailed notwithstanding, is after all, merely quaint as to render incongruous and even mysterious, the arising sense of menace associated with the thinking and the practice of taboo.

Most dramatically, taboo as mass psychological denial mechanism, wholesale cultural bad faith, and all protected by ostracism and persecution, is by far the more actually perilous. And even more specifically, it is very taboo, rather, upon disturbing ideas, much less action thereupon, that undermines all sagacity and compassion. Hence aversion to taboo might not be deemed entirely inappropriate, for all of the bad karma of hateful unreason embodied in the generally poisonous meme of taboo. But what profit can there be in such virulence even such as approaching veritable taboo upon taboo itself? For though the person embracing taboo, thus assumes the rearguard, nevertheless the person who scorns taboo, is by no means thereby automatically Avant-garde. Worse: those who scorn taboos are indelibly part and parcel of precisely the social mechanism summarily hoisted upon its own petard for observing them. Thus, in that famous Galilean Rabbinical turn of phrase: How can the devil cast out the devil?

Indeed, as regards admonition of guarding one's tongue, true enough as to the power and danger even in mere words, such as false alarm and panic, incitement of riot and pogrom, secrecy or privacy compromised, and certainly just of thoughtless gossip generally, and the wisdom to think twice before tempting fate and calling down the curse of calumny upon ones neighbors. Therefore, instead let cooler heads prevail. Whither, then, emancipation from the tragedy of taboo? Surely, by the salient honesty about reality of just dragging important ideas out into the sanitizing lucidity of daylight, even kicking and screaming, gentle but firm, out at long last from the murky and muddled shadow of taboo and ambivalence. Therefore, avert not thine eye, gentle reader!

There may be a tendency to evaluate actual events from any socially normative standpoint: what is taboo beyond acceptance, and what, to the contrary, is taboo from scrutiny and criticism and controversy. But much goes on between people that isn't supposed to, and much of approved and expected interaction is sham and hypocrisy. Considerations of relationships, encounters or interactions, actual or hypothetical, may tend to raise the question: Can this be licit? But so what either way? Is there no better question that as to what we have become accustomed? Whereas, from a democratic attitude of autonomy, the better questions might to be: Does this actually happen? What is really going on? How commonly and pervasively, statistically? What is known about such events and circumstances? In general, and in whatever specific case, is this beneficial or detrimental to each partner? Is there consent reciprocally? In the face of distress and vulnerability, what is exploitation and abuse and what is nurture and succorance?

When any sort of a veto or indefinite tabling of discussion is not, in turn, for any practical purpose, open to revocation, and when every discussion of such obstruction is itself subject to similar obstruction, this effectively constitutes a TABOO (also sometimes spelled: TABU or TAPU). Because beyond even the most dire cultural or personal shame, embarrassment or simple bad manners, let alone even sheer fairytale unpremeditated magical realism and the provocation of horror and ambivalent denial and projection, a taboo is frequently not merely any cautionary restriction or particular open and explicit prohibition and not merely any howsoever sacred or blasphemous or otherwise an object, meme or notion of whatever awe, dread and reverence, but typically being so fraught with deep denial, often even forbidden from very mention or certainly to cogent question even for better definition, thus either characterized by subtext of unspoken common understanding and even conspiratorial bad faith antirationally shrouded in relentless obscurantism. By the Metaphor of newspeak, in '1984' Orwell also most famously noted how a culture in systematic denial may actually strip the very language of expression of whatever taboo ideas and observations. A challenge to taboo must either be ignored or the challenger or some scapegoat attacked. And this too, must be somehow however vaguely surreptitiously rationalized and disguised.

• Taboo against collaboration among equals
• Taboos of anti-intellectualism: anti-critical bias and the concealment of controversy
• Quantum silly taboo
• How taboo upon Epistemology and Methodology undermine Scientific Method
• Inductivism: the taboo upon conjecture  
• Posting board taboos upon self hyperlinks
• Malagenda second degree pipedream and heteronymous taboo upon all salient agenda discussion 
• The taboos upon Active Reading and Listenning
• Justificationism: the taboo against uncertainty and the truth that hypothesis begins in unfounded conjecture
• Cryonics and actually the taboo upon relevance in and of itself
• Taboos that still shield serial bullying
• The taboo upon outreach underground
• Ideo brainstorms guilty secrets: Taboo marketing  
• sex! Pimp Cult and Moralistic condoms

   Forbidden psychotherapy and $filthy lucre$ 

Surrealism partakes in a tradition of the flouting of taboo extending back from antiquity as in Stoicism or even Zen and the rabid taboo against ego. But all such influences of Nihilistic value destruction in every dishonest guise are eventually replete with taboo of their own, as evidenced from antiquity in the Zen and Stoicism, up up the bleeding edge of Behavior Modification that so welcomely infiltrates what passes for education, manifesting also in the veritable latter day cult of exhortation to willful positivity that so shamefully taboos not only the admission of unhappiness but autonomy in any relevantly meaningful exploration in quest for happiness.

Indeed, as Dr. Chen Yehezkely likes to point out, the most effusive praise can be a far more frustrating and devious diversionary tactic away from taboo realizations FNORD and instead for the enforcement of taboo and truth suppression, than any the most virulent condemnation, baiting and Appeals to Humor, Ridicule and Spite or social mockery, ostracism and persecution, as mad, foolish, stupid, unintelligible and pretentious. Much as all such taboo is so often readily enforced by exactly the latter devices of bullying and flaming in the suppression of dissent towards the concealment of controversy. Indeed, squeamishness regarding Cryonics and even radical life extension so vividly demonstrates how taboo supersedes and undermines even sheer survival instinct, let alone reality and pleasure principles. 

“I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones.” — John Cage

 

 

The ever flagrantly agenda of FoolQuest.com

 

We've all heard the ingratiating banter, the glowing sales pitch Setting The scene, the entire mysterious buildup to the point, God willing, only should it ever arrive! Well, this one is mine. But the point is to build and heighten anticipation, not impatient irritation, so I'll be mercifully brief. And if it's not entertaining, you can always skip ahead. I won't be angry.
Put forward an to the agenda, the central issue of FoolQuest.com: I only strive to open a conversation, one all too often glossed over, and often with such disastrous results. And yet remaining taboo, even though nothing one might imagine as considered all that shocking. A taboo after all, attaches to some or other trigger of collective ambivalence that people struggles to evade and to avoid discussing openly, even as the begged question hangs in the very air about them. Indeed, the proverbial elephant in the room. Not everyone is very good about simply holding up their end of the conversation. Sustaining even the most positive response to the forbidden topic of this website, has been challenging.

 

To make matters worse, the most patronizing will so tactfully evade, while others are actively opposed to having the present discussion at all, even to the point of insult, abuse, tantrums and intimidation, in policing the taboo at all costs. Many, offended, simply hate. Others, if they can't change the topic completely, will suffocate the conversation by shifting the topic to anything of seeming hairsbreadth close resemblance, until exhausting the oxygen supply in the room. Such is the most infuriatingly tactfull of soft-flame agenda subversion tactics of taboo enforcement, struggling to remain friends. But damn it all, I just won't take a hint! And nowadays, that's a pervasive developmental disorder. And we used to call it: philosophy. Alas, it shall remain in the very nature of taboo, that no one will actually come out and actually explain whatever any objection. Perhaps that's because to do so would constitute an actual discussion on topic, topic exactly as such, whereof it seems they so virulently disapprove!

 

But why? Perhaps what becomes so threatening remains the implication that we have timidly compromised on freedom and confront unhappiness as a consequence. Of course people are saying precisely that only all the time! Perhaps beyond mere lamentation, only the call to action actually so offends. And yet calls to action ring out across the land, often far more extremist than my own. But crackpot straw man arguments are often even coddled rather than thrashed, precisely because their extremism is so unrealistic as to make their cause entirely seem untenably utopian, to present a false dilemma and ignore moderate and sensible responsible options. And all such dubious industry merely in order to preserve status quo. Many are offended at criticism of what is flagrantly unserious, half-baked at best, what is just untrue and wouldn't work, in status quo and sham opposition alike. For most people saticfice, making do with unsatisfactory options while seeking refuge in fantasy and pipedream.

 

Or else, should anyone come to suspect, rather, that perhaps I am the one lost in naive fantasy, then go ahead, burst my bubble. On my honor, I must withstand criticism no matter how blunt, so long only so long as remaining cogent and civil. There will be every temptation to dismiss me as quite mad simply because I think to know precisely what I want here. Alas that those who are supposed to know best, are all too often so dangerously misguided. And that latter even so to say, the more reasonable such contrarianism becomes, the more mad it sounds, after all coming so straight faced. And yet, should ever one might come better to understand me, the realization may dawn that, indeed remaining so maladapted and stubborn, yet I remain so often averse to all conventional sublimation. Of course, if there under any circumstance, any worthy substitution presents itself, then tell me anything that I have not already heard before and rejected for what impress me as very good reasons and well researched, that I have indeed already spelled out at some length for anyone even remotely interested, indeed even in such flagrant rejection of every common wisdom and value.

 

Gentle reader, so you indeed find within yourself initiative, but yearn for support, resources to work with and others at your side? Indeed, what is so mad about that? Ah, there's the rub! -And the taboo. Alas that my proposal remains so unique. If only I could find anyone already doing anything similar enough, I would simply join in if they would have me. And yet no one can be alone in being lonely, and by indeed the preceding criteria precisely. Therefore, let's talk more seriously.
 

In response, post to the for others to weigh in, orif it's private.

 

FoolQuest.com: blundering upon new taboos with every stray thought!

But what little remains meaningful important for people to discuss not therefore taboo?