Conspiracy Theorist: Generalist or Specifist?

[symbolicsorcery]

I have a very curious and interesting question I want to ask everyone, some will find it easy to answer, others more difficult, but it is a PERSONAL question, a question about self-identity.

In order to even ask the question, I will first frame it and impart it appropriately.


CONSPIRACY THEORY:

1. Conspiracy-- a secret plan, plot, or agenda, usually connotes gains at other's expense.

2. Theory-- a set of propositions, assertions and conjectures linked together operationally to explain data, events, or other ideas.


My favorite part about conspiracy is the THEORY! Let me explain what I mean. Someone who favors the conspiracies is mostly concerned with what they SAY. You read into it and ask yourself, "What does this mean for me? Does this mean I should change or do something?" Whereas someone is favors the theories reads into the structure of theory itself, its beauty or sloppiness, and its ability to explain. Someone might wonder, "... this proposition seems plausible, but the whole theory is complicated and jumbled. Is there a simpler more elegant way to see the plausibility? Or might we boost the plausibility to a near-certainty by modifying the theory?"

When I started reading conspiracy theory, I was much more concerned with the former point of view, that is the CONSPIRACIES! "If the government would kill its own citizens on 9/11, then that could have been me or my family!" "What kind of future do I have if our money system is equivalent to slavery?!" "How should I prepare if there is some sort of economic collapse imminent?"
--

Once you realize that whatever happens, they can't touch your soul, then there's no reason to get hung up on worrying about number 1. Moving on with life for me meant being a theorist for theory's sake.

Taking this path, you will be better able to come up with your own theories to explain the world-- good ones too! Ones that will really impress you! Not only that, but you will be better able to judge other theories or modify them so that they are more coherent. In time, theories begin to take on an organic life-like character.
--

A theorist can be roughly put into two categories: Specifist or Generalist.

1. Specifist-- one who focuses attention on the minutest details of specific events, like the Kennedy assassination, the death of princess Di, or even 9/11.

2. Generalist-- one who spreads across all the relevant domains, like money, drugs, religion, government, military, world economic patterns, international relations, world ecology, holistic health, or even as far as human origins, psychism, astral/akashic connections, consciousness, and the nature of reality.

It's hard to think of a true specifist when put that way, but names like Webster Tarpley, Steven Greer, or Jim Tucker come to mind. The most obvious candidate for a generalist would be David Icke. Others like Alex Jones leave certain things out but still have a very general viewpoint.

The generalist tradition bifurcates into either the GLOBALIST-Generalist, or else the CONNECTIONIST-Generalist. A globalist seeks theories which explain all, or at least most of, reality. The connectionist finds the densest associations between different theories.

Really these remarks apply to all domains of theory, not just conspiracy theory. In fact mathematics inspired these thoughts, I'm just finding it useful to apply it to this as well.
--

I want to ask everyone a personal question: How do you identify yourself along these lines? Are you a generalist or a specifist, and to what degree?

Please think about this. I don't want this to be a poll where you just pick one. Really give it some thought and share your comments!

-- symbolicsorcery

[Guest]

I'd be in both groups, but I don't theorise, I deal in facts. If someone else wants to label THE facts a 'conspiracy theory', let 'em.

[mastermg]

I guess im both also but more on the specifist side. A true wise person should know something about everything.

[rsol]

im sort of with ctrl on this one. Most of us here are questioning government conspiracy theory. Everyone has a general theory of the world. It may not look to an organization as a root cause for conflict. All specialize on their given field or on what they have easy access to information.

Im into metaphysics, so i tend to lend myself to an evolutionary principle of thought as well as society. I also give time to the idea that this may be less complicated than we think.

As far as having theories? I tend to be scientific. I dont just create theories I test them in any manner I can. One test subject being (most importantly) our friends and haters, the public. I fight with the self assured everyday to get them to rethink. I combat opinion with facts, and they argue back with more opinion. They dont get through the door without an opinion based on fact.

[shZ]

Quote:I'd be in both groups, but I don't theorise, I deal in facts. If someone else wants to label THE facts a 'conspiracy theory', let 'em.

I concur, and I would consider myself to fall under both "catageroies," as balance is an essential and fundametal conept to me in just about anything. Western Academia, which is the only one most of us are familiar with as we've been immersed in it from the cradle, and most of remain imprisoned in it till the grave, is highly biased in terms of relying soley on "left brain" functions. I suppose you could call it an application of the hegalian dialectic to cognative functions. I believe complemetary coexistance yeilds the maximum benefits in any sphere of life, reasoning, or what have you... as opposed to cut throat competition and opposition that historically and via personal experience has only demonstrated compartmentalization, resulting in mutual destruction.... or at the very least a serious intellectual handicap, as is superimposes a distinct dividision on a whole, splitting it up in to thesis and antithesis. I'm not fond of those words. The dilema of sematics and their relation to subcontious evaluation, perception, and processing don't seem coincidental to me. The choice of terminology impose an natural bias towards the latter (i.e. mutual destruction) with out careful reconsideration and evaluation of a deeper meaning.

EDIT: I guess put simply, in order to grasp any subject matter, a macro and micro analysis are fundamental to get a wholistic sense and understanding of it my opinion.

"Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water my friend." -Bruce Lee (aka Léih Síulùhng)

[symbolicsorcery]

Thanks for pointing out the dualism in these ideas. Good ideas usually come in pairs. I don't want to sound like you have to choose one and not have any of the other.

Facts have such great value, and the theories would be null without good facts. But keep in mind that it is the *connecting the dots* between the facts that makes good theories. And good theories serve as a guide for which evidence to look at, without which it would be too hard to sort through all of the factual data.

So it is really a dynamic interconnectedness between specialization and generalization which makes this type of intellectual game so fascinating for the human mind. However, I have a personal preference for theory; but I quickly give enormous credit to all the specialists and fact-finders. So again the same dynamic interconnectedness exists between the community of conspiracy theorists.

Maybe your preference depends on what kind of mood you're in. Or maybe it doesn't. The point is to be conscious of this duality, because I think most research communities focus too heavy on specialization. It is most likely the overspecialization in the establishment scientific community that causes the general public to refuse to connect the dots and understand that our views need to be taken seriously.

EDIT: On a personal note, my theory mood correlates with smoking cannabis in my apartment, and my specialist mood also correlates with trying to explain my point of view to other people.

[rsol]

most bad theorists tend to pick the theory first an the facts last. This is the way I spot them. We do NOT have many good theorists. Our role here is a sorting job. We trawl through all the news and if it seems relevant to our cause, up it pops. I feel if we go further than that we risk neglect of our duties. The theories are for those who think its all just opinion.

[the real enigma]

A great thing i like to do is watch a file on the pc and as facts and theories are popping up, i verify with them what i can find on the net, whether there is substance or not.

[GeneralSpecific]

according to my name I'm both

[StingingNettle]

Conspiracy's that get busted open and caught are interesting and I'm glad when I do see something get exposed and become a common truth. But hey we know that there are conspiracy's out there being plotted and or have come to frutiation that haven't been caught (at least by the general public, and law). These are the ones that we intent to love because it alows us to play detective. The process of discovery is just to exciting.

[SerialExpLain]

I would say both but the things that are truly important I feel are things that one day will be apparent to everybody.

There are degrees of threats inherent in many different sectors. I naturally focus on environmental issues and how they impact humanity from a medical standpoint as my background is in public health.

So, environmental issues as they impact public health I would say is a very specific area of interest as the ramifications are extremely concerning when they are apprised realistically.

[LoopRadar]

Quote:most bad theorists tend to pick the theory first an the facts last. This is the way I spot them. We do NOT have many good theorists. Our role here is a sorting job. We trawl through all the news and if it seems relevant to our cause, up it pops. I feel if we go further than that we risk neglect of our duties. The theories are for those who think its all just opinion.

I second that.

LR