Hope is a meaningless emotion.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Hope is not an emotion. It's a choice.

Originally posted by tankthinker
i think what he is trying to say is for people to stop hoping that things will get better and to do something about it

I think what he's trying to say is "I hate Obama! Please Join Me"!

i dont see a rallying call to him anywhere in the article, and why is criticism of Obama ignorance considered hatred?

As Karl said, what's the point of ANYTHING if you don't have hope?

Why have children?
Why work?
Why save money?
Why marry?

Without hope, we are hopeless...

Who needs hope when you can have ambition

Hope is like riding a carousel horse; no matter how fast you go you never get closer to the one in front. The idea, however, is to persuade you to stay on the horse, despite the evitable disappointment, in the 'hope' that things will change. But they don't because the very system is designed to prevent it." - David Icke

I would say to Mr. Icke, if you are riding a carousel to win a race or pass the other horses, you have to have something missing upstairs. People ride a carousel NOT to win a race or beat the other horses, but to relax, feel the wind in their hair and enjoy the ride. Not to be disappointed (evitable or inevitable) because they didn't "catch up " with the other horses.

No what Icke is saying is that people who hope in this engineered hope provided by the elite are metaphorically getting on a carousel, those who believe in the right type of hope that inspires action are the ones who choose to go to a horse race in which they can advance.

the idea is hope is a carousel, until you make it a horse race, by getting off the carousel and getting your self a damn horse!!!!

What Icke is talking about is hoping against hope, which is to hope for something that you don't really think is very likely to happen (like catching up with the other horses on a carousel). And I submit that his opinion about what is and is not likely to happen is very different than mine and many other people's.

What are you talking about he never says to hope against hope, he says to deny the hope made for you and do something you want to see happen or hope about.

Once you choose hope, anything's possible. ~Christopher Reeve

exactly, things are possible, but the engineered hope makes it so that they are only possible tomorrow and guess what, even tomorrow they will only be attainable tomorrow.

Hope is like a road in the country; there was never a road, but when many people walk on it, the road comes into existence. ~Lin Yutang

[edit on 6-1-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

walk = act upon

Originally posted by tankthinker
i dont see a rallying call to him anywhere in the article, and why is criticism of Obama ignorance considered hatred?

If you can read that page and look at those pictures think that he's NOT trying to convince you to agree with him, or else you're being manipulated, a sheep, gullible, tricked, controlled and downright stupid and if you think he doesn't hate Obama, I don't know what to say. It's pretty clear to me.

But this thread is about "HOPE".

[edit on 6-1-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

We can find gobs of testimony (including my own) internet and otherwise where the only thing left was Hope. Shaggy seems to undersand "Hope" in his song:

"I remember, wasn't so long ago
We had a one room shack and the livin was low
And my mama by herself raised me and my bro
Wasn't easy, but we did it with the little that go
Worked hard, got us up for school every day
And kept her eyes on the stars when the skies were gray
Gave us pride to survive, really showed us the way
Now I really understood what she was tryin to say

She said, "Son there'll be times when the tides are high
And the boat may be rocky, you can cry
Just never give up
You can never give up,"

In this life you could lead if you only believe
And in order to achieve what you need
You can never give up

And this hope
That keep me holding on
On and on
And this hope
That makes me carry on
On and on

Boom-boom, couldn't have made it alone
I got a wonderful life, two kids on my own
With a strong foundation that was carved in stone
And my mama for the love that made my house a home
Made me wonder some time if this was meant to be
All this for a humble little guy like me
And all I ever really wanted was a family
To teach my kids the same value that she gave to me

We nah turn no stepper, things a go better
Never let yourself be overcome by pressure
Cool yah me bredda, have faith instead a
Sid-dung and a watch and all a fight one another
Blaze like fire,we nah go retire
God nah sleep and a within him we inspire
We have to reach higher for what we require
we have to make our mark before the time expire

There's hope, yeah
Hope keeps it alive, yeah,
And it strikes an iron,
Hope keeps it alive,
Only the strong survive, "

In my own experiences, I can validate that this is true. Can someone who gave up on hope say it isn't? Fac et spera

[edit on 6-1-2009 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by tankthinker
i dont see a rallying call to him anywhere in the article, and why is criticism of Obama ignorance considered hatred?

If you can read that page and look at those pictures think that he's NOT trying to convince you to agree with him, or else you're being manipulated, a sheep, gullible, tricked, controlled and downright stupid and if you think he doesn't hate Obama, I don't know what to say. It's pretty clear to me.

But this thread is about "HOPE".

[edit on 6-1-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

aww come on man i was hoping for a more in depth counter, too bad

ok so lets see, obviously hes trying to convince you of his opinion, what exactly are you doing posting on this thread, presenting your ideas for no particular reason?

what he is not doing, is saying "PLEASE join me" he is presenting his opinion not putting up an i want you poster

and whether he hates Obama is irrelevant because his opposition is toward the Obama ignorance that people have

what you basically just did is one of those, "you disagree with Israel's policies in killing innocent civilians so you are automatically anti-semetic"

whether he is anti-semitic makes no difference to the debate if he has credible arguments against Israel or her policies and bringing it up just hurts the foundation of what the debate is really about,

and like you said its about hope, you are the one who brought up Obama

Originally posted by tankthinker
and like you said its about hope, you are the one who brought up Obama

Actually I'm not surprised Obama got mentioned here. That was the 2nd word in his campaign. His 1st word was "Change". Now for me, I recall a lot of "change" that wasn't good. Change is neutral, it can be good or it can be bad, it merely means different. Change can also be directionless. So, the Obama camp came up with "Hope" which is very difficult to force a meaning upon as something negative...hence my surprise at this thread title. It was a brilliant campaign in my mind, focusing on the positive. I have a lot of hope, just not in Obama. Rather, I hope that the government didn't sell the American people something they cannot deliver on. I'm not a fan of a lot of what the government has done, but I'm less of a fan of what this country would be like without a government at all. At this point all we can do is sit, watch and hope. To those individuals who still feel the need to do something about it, you can try to go out and vote again, but...

[edit on 6-1-2009 by saint4God]

I think the payoff to hope is always in the now.

The payoff to hope isn't the fulfillment of the dreams, but the feeling itself.

Having hope feels good. That's enough reward to make it worthwhile.

_________________________________________________

I know that's not what Icke was talking about, and of course if we don't change ourselves the future will be identical to the present. But I think pointing a finger at hope is misguided.

And I think there are actual real-world things that result from hope that are a sort of side benefit to the emotion. Hopeful people accomplish more than resigned people.

Or, to keep it to my own experience: when I am well (hopeful) I can accomplish much more than when I am in despair (depressed). But the accomplishments are the icing – the cake is hope.

__________________________________________________

late edit: rethinking "of course if we don't change ourselves the future will be identical to the present"

Actually, I think the change can come from without, but that's not under our control. The change can also come from within, and since that's within our control that's where I would choose to focus. Example: a person's financial security can be changed from without by finding a winning lottery ticket blowing down the sidewalk. Or it can be changed from within by doing their job well and asking for a raise. They can't make the first happen, so they might as well focus on the second while they hope for the first. Working hard doesn't make it any less likely that they'll stumble across a MegaMillions payoff.

[edit on 1/6/09 by americandingbat]

reply to post by americandingbat


well said

i just disagree with you on one thing,

hope are the ingredients, action towards that hope is the baking procedure and the accomplishments are the cake

of course my interpretation could be on a different perspective then yours but as long as we all have cake right

reply to post by TheRepublic


I agree with you. I first read Pandora's Box as a very young child and it confused me no end that "hope" would be in a box of things that plague mankind. Now, as an adult I understand more why that would be the case.

Hope seems positive, but it is like a drug or alcohol. It makes you feel better in the short run, but often "intoxicates" you so that you do not take effective action in the now that would actually bring about a favorable future for you in the long run. It shifts ones focus from the now, and the actions one needs to take now, to the future so that your present energy is wasted or ineffective.

For those who say "why do anything if you dont have hope?" Why not do them simply because it is the right thing in the moment to do them? Rather than do them for some future reason, constructed from your mind, why not do them because in the moment it feels very right, and in the moment it brings you into harmony with your current circumstances and makes you feel better NOW.

Someone else offered an example they purported showed hope saving a life. How much more often does hope prevent the saving of lives because people are sitting around hoping someone else (God perhaps) will solve the problems of our world?

Originally posted by tankthinker
aww come on man i was hoping for a more in depth counter, too bad

That's because I'm NOT trying to convince you to agree with my opinion, I'm just sharing it. No need to "counter" your opinion. There is room for both.

you are the one who brought up Obama

Did you click on the link in the OP?

Originally posted by americandingbat
I think the payoff to hope is always in the now.

SO true! Once we arrive or get what we're hoping for, there's no need to hope for it anymore.

Nice post, dingbat.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Hope seems positive, but it is like a drug or alcohol. It makes you feel better in the short run, but often "intoxicates" you so that you do not take effective action in the now that would actually bring about a favorable future for you in the long run.

All things in moderation, I guess.

But looking deeper, can we "blame" hope because someone doesn't take any steps to get what he wants? If a person sits around and does nothing, but he "hopes" things will get better, is hope really the culprit? Do we "blame" the drug when a person chooses to ruin his life with it? I don't. I believe in personal responsibility. Sure, if a person does nothing and yet hopes that his life will just magically improve, he's not going to get anywhere. But that's not hope's fault. That's the person's fault for using hope as a crutch.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

For those who say "why do anything if you dont have hope?" Why not do them simply because it is the right thing in the moment to do them?

Bravo!
i completely agree. you dont need hope to have joy in life. i get joy from doing what i know to be right, regardless of the outcome. even if doing the right thing could get you killed.

This entire discussion is hopeless
Ok - I am just joking and could not contain myself.

I think a definate alignment can be made between hope & faith as both deal in the realm of the as yet unknown. They both give power over to that unknown and allow the unknown to create the end result rather than add any input into this result.

The basic act of giving power over to anything other than yourself makes you powerless (Mmmm dah) and controllable. The powerful want you controllable as you are then easier to manipulate and decieve.
The sad thing is that the hopeful/faithful will ultimately attempt to justify this lack of power by saying things like "It was fate...", "It was mean't to be...", "It was their time...", "It was gods will..." this is again another act of giving power over.

Remain powerful by not being hopeful, by all means be positive and driven as these are tangible things which can make known that which is unknown. Command your destiny as this is commandable and anything you want to achieve can be achieved. To hope for a better tomorrow will do nothing to bring that to reality - work towards a better tomorrow!

What Ike was referring to was to not be powerless by playing the game according to their rules (the carousel's design dictates that you will never catch the horse in front - these are the rules of the carousel), by believing that that one magic device will give you the body of a greek god, that by simply saying "I will bring change" is enough - demand this change, fight for this change and most of all BE the change.

Some say life is nothing without hope - I say life is nothing without purpose

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic



But looking deeper, can we "blame" hope because someone doesn't take any steps to get what he wants?

I dont think you can blame hope in exactly the same way as a drug, because a drug is (at least in our accepted view of reality) an agent outside of yourself.

Hope acts as a drug, it is NOT a drug. It provides the same anesthetic as an external agent like alcohol might. So, no, you cannot blame an external drug in precisely the same way.

But you can analogize the act of hoping to the act of taking drugs. They are both choices made by an individual about how to spend their present time and energy.

So, for the answer to that you have to consider what hope actually is. It is an action. The act of "hoping" is one of mental projection into the future. When your conscious mind is in the future, it is not in the present facilitating action now. Can hope in small doses not completely derail a life? Certainly. If you spend 5 minutes a day hoping and the rest acting, sure. But the act of hoping itself is detrimental to your present, regardless whether small doses of wasted time utterly derail your life or not.

Any moment of your life you spend in the past or the future impairs your ability to see clearly and benefit from "what is" right now.



Edit for clarity.

[edit on 6-1-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

What Icke seems to be arguing against is empty promises, but he expands the argument to encompass all hope.

I agree with him that false hope can be offered to populations to keep them docile, and that this is a tactic frequently employed by politicians of all stripes. Whether or not the hope that Obama has offered the nation is a false hope is debatable, but not important in examining the meaning of the statement:

Hope is a meaningless emotion because its fruits are always in the future and, by definition, never in the NOW.

Hope is like riding a carousel horse; no matter how fast you go you never get closer to the one in front. The idea, however, is to persuade you to stay on the horse, despite the evitable disappointment, in the 'hope' that things will change. But they don't because the very system is designed to prevent it.

But it's more accurate to say that false hope is like riding a carousel horse but believing it's a racehorse. Hope itself can be like either one, or neither, but doesn't involve deception.

Originally posted by Argnot
I think a definate alignment can be made between hope & faith as both deal in the realm of the as yet unknown. They both give power over to that unknown and allow the unknown to create the end result rather than add any input into this result.

The basic act of giving power over to anything other than yourself makes you powerless (Mmmm dah) and controllable. The powerful want you controllable as you are then easier to manipulate and decieve.
The sad thing is that the hopeful/faithful will ultimately attempt to justify this lack of power by saying things like "It was fate...", "It was mean't to be...", "It was their time...", "It was gods will..." this is again another act of giving power over.

Why does having hope entail giving power over to someone else? It often means recognizing that there are external forces at work in our lives that we don't control, but it doesn't create those forces.

Also, giving power over to someone or something doesn't make you controllable by everything. Icke has set up a theoretical model in which hope is equal to powerlessness is equal to inaction; but those equations aren't necessarily true.

Remain powerful by not being hopeful, by all means be positive and driven as these are tangible things which can make known that which is unknown. Command your destiny as this is commandable and anything you want to achieve can be achieved. To hope for a better tomorrow will do nothing to bring that to reality - work towards a better tomorrow!

What exactly is the difference between having hopes and being positive? And I notice that your "mood" in your profile is "optimistic" – are you therefore asserting your powerlessness and willingness to be controlled by the global financial elite?

What Ike was referring to was to not be powerless by playing the game according to their rules (the carousel's design dictates that you will never catch the horse in front - these are the rules of the carousel), by believing that that one magic device will give you the body of a greek god, that by simply saying "I will bring change" is enough - demand this change, fight for this change and most of all BE the change.

I agree that these were the points that he actually made and backed up, more or less.

But he attaches to them the claim that "Hope is a meaningless emotion" as though feeling hope means playing by the rules.

He is turning his readers (the unpowerful but supposedly open-eyed) against the hopeful, focusing attention on the supposed ignorance of the powerless masses, giving his readers someone to feel better than.

And belief in one's superiority is at least as big a threat to real change, in my opinion, as hope (even false hope) ever could be.

Some say life is nothing without hope - I say life is nothing without purpose

Why not have both?

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Hope acts as a drug, it is NOT a drug. It provides the same anesthetic as an external agent like alcohol might.

Hope CAN provide an anesthetic, but it doesn't necessarily. There is "healthy" hope and "detrimental" hope, depending on how the user uses it. Just as drugs can be.

You say hope is an action, I say it's a noun to be chosen or abandoned. It's interesting to see how we define it. We're probably not seeing exactly eye-to-eye because of our definitions.

The act of "hoping" is one of mental projection into the future. When your conscious mind is in the future, it is not in the present facilitating action now.

See, you see hope as a verb, I see it as a noun. Hope is something I HAVE, not something I DO. But if you sit around "hoping" for something to happen, then, yeah, it's pretty worthless. That's "Hope without Action"

I saw this on an Obama blog and I love it:

Hope alone does not do nor accomplish anything; hope is simply inspirational. Hope without action is like driving a car without wheels. Hope without action turns into fear, which creates division and separation. Hope that one man alone can solve our worldly problems, creates the problem we are faced with--our worldly circumstances. Hope derives its weight from action, not from believing in it. However, without believing in our hopes, we might not be able to endure the life we live. The end of hope is where change happens.

Perhaps Icke was talking about Hope without action?

Any moment of your life you spend in the past or the future impairs your ability to see clearly and benefit from "what is" right now.

I think that can be taken too far. I'm all for living in the present, not worrying about the future or regretting the past. But if we actually lived entirely in the present, we'd be incapacitated. No one would work (you have to work to make money to have a home and put food on the table - all future consequences), we wouldn't go anywhere or do anything because that's all about looking into the future. We wouldn't learn from past mistakes, etc.

Originally posted by americandingbat
He is turning his readers (the unpowerful but supposedly open-eyed) against the hopeful, focusing attention on the supposed ignorance of the powerless masses, giving his readers someone to feel better than.

And belief in one's superiority is at least as big a threat to real change, in my opinion, as hope (even false hope) ever could be.

Whew! I got chills on that one! You are right on!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

You say hope is an action, I say it's a noun to be chosen or abandoned. It's interesting to see how we define it. We're probably not seeing exactly eye-to-eye because of our definitions.

Perhaps that is the case. Hope as a verb vs hope as a noun.

I suppose to be really clear one would have to define "hope" tightly at the outset to have this discussion make any real sense.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think that can be taken too far. I'm all for living in the present, not worrying about the future or regretting the past. But if we actually lived entirely in the present, we'd be incapacitated. No one would work (you have to work to make money to have a home and put food on the table - all future consequences), we wouldn't go anywhere or do anything because that's all about looking into the future. We wouldn't learn from past mistakes, etc.

That I would have to disagree with. We would not be incapacitated. Taking present actions that will have future outcomes would not have to cease. Planning and hoping are not completely equivalent. You can plan knowing full well that there is a high probability of failure. We have no evidence that other animals project desire into the future the way we do, or ruminate over the past and yet they learn from their mistakes. Your present memories of your past learning experiences are presently in your mind. I would argue that is different from projecting yourself backwards into the past and reliving it over and over. If I know a thing, I do not have to consider how I learned it, or the circumstances under which that learning occurred. That knowledge is part of my present makeup. It is there, now, available much more quickly than if I had to ruminate or consider backwards.

Granted, our society would likely not look the way it does if we did not project our hopes into the future. That seems certain, that our "hoping" (verb) has shaped our culture to a huge degree. Only time will tell whether or not this has been a good thing in the long run. It is "hope" I would argue, (that technology will come up with solutions to our environmental problems) that seems to be preventing many people from taking decided action in the present to live within our ecological means.

So yes, I would agree that as we have constructed our society hope is adaptive for living in that society. This begs the question, however, is our society truly adaptive to reality? Or is it, (as was proposed in the book "Ishmael") rather that humanity has gone rocketing off a cliff, and since we havent yet hit the ground assumes (hopes?) that it is flying rather than falling?




[edit on 6-1-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]