"The old Heraclitus from Ephesus, whom I often return to, has been said to describe the inner struggle like this:
“Just like the spider, sitting at the center of its web, immediately senses when a fly has torn one of the threads and quickly rushes to that spot as if wounded by the rupture, in the same way it is with the human soul – when some part of its (word-)body is injured, it swiftly moves to that place, almost impatiently attending the damage, with which it is firmly and harmoniously connected.”
When we’re torn. When something we’ve believed all our lives turns out to be false. When a conviction suddenly loses its grip – we return to the wound, almost impatiently turning it over in our minds. We rationalize, try to stitch things back together. Restore our web."
If we "are" a body of words (and a part of the logos) then, if someone can manipulate one of the keys, or fundamental groundwork of our system of beliefs then we desperately, like Heraclitus spider, have to restructure our web, our understanding. And as you mentioned, in Russia they have practiced this knowledge for ages.
Hi Max... I was knee deep in exam checking so apologies not to reply earlier. I will read your post today.
The Heraclitus metaphor of the spider and its web perfectly captures the psychological mechanism that cognitive warfare seeks to exploit. You are right, the attack isn't just about implanting a falsehood, but about creating a rupture in our "body of words", our coherent understanding of the world.
When that thread is torn, as you say, we are compelled to rush to the wound. This "impatient turning it over in our minds" is precisely the state of cognitive distress and disorientation the adversary wants to induce. They don't just want us to believe a lie; they want us to become so consumed with repairing our own web of understanding that we are paralyzed and unable to act effectively.
This is where the modern, technological aspect of this warfare becomes so insidious. An adversary no longer needs to patiently wait for one fly to stumble into the web. With the tools mentioned, they can target and tear at the foundational threads of our belief systems with precision and at scale, forcing that desperate restructuring you describe not just in an individual, but across an entire society. The goal is to make us doubt the integrity of the web.
I'm glad you embraced the metaphor as intended—it vividly captures the agitation and stress many leaders deliberately pursue today. This is an aspect of warfare strategy that deserves great attention.
"“Pulsed electromagnetic energy, particularly in the radiofrequency range, plausibly explains the core characteristics of reported AHIs, although information gaps exist.”" Is there any point in investigating just who is developing and testing this technology? How it is funded? And where's the hardware - (star-wars technology aimed from satelites)? Or do we just accept what's happening and try and get ethical guidelines for it? Or say 'stuff it' and just focus on developing our own personal coping mechanisms?
I know that the US Senate committee are demanding answers on this, and the CIA have been less than transparent. There are also about 390 personnel that suffered still on long term leave due to the symptoms... so we do for sure need more public disclosure and solutions beyond our own coping mechanisms.
This is from my comment below -- "You ask the most critical question: How do we defend ourselves? Your suggestion to start with detection is absolutely correct and is supported by recommendations from the National Academies. They specifically proposed equipping personnel with the capability to measure and characterize RF energy exposure in real time. Pinpointing the physical nature and origin of an attack is the indispensable first step in establishing attribution and developing countermeasures.
Beyond physical detection, the National Academies also point toward a second layer of defense: building cognitive resilience. This involves training personnel to recognize manipulation, understand their own cognitive biases, and essentially harden the mind against the intended effects of an attack. It's a two-front battle: one fought with sensors to defend our physical space, and another fought with education and training to defend our cognitive space."
"...as well as a sense of locality or directionality".
This would seem to suggest soundwaves reaching both ears, what might be termed "auditory parallax". Just as we have binocular vision, we have binaural hearing.
//
"...drugs, bugs, waves, and bytes...Nanotech, Biotech, Infotech, and Cognitive science"
This is all too horrifying to contemplate, yet contemplate we must.
//
"The next frontier of defense will not be one of walls or firewalls, but of minds, resilient not merely in knowledge, but in the capacity to think and know".
With the big question being: how? What defense is there against unpredictable directed soundwaves?
It seems to me one first step is detection. If we can detect the presence of unusual directed sound waves, and pinpoint their origin, then we might be able to find the source mechanism, and ultimately identify the culprit.
Yes, I think that the concept of "auditory parallax" is a perfect way to describe the neurological mechanism at play. The "sense of locality or directionality" that victims reported is one of the key pieces of evidence suggesting an external, targeted energy source, and your framing of it as a function of binaural hearing powerfully underscores that conclusion. It helps move the conversation from a mysterious phenomenon to a specific, perceivable physical event, as the Senate committee report indicates.
I share your sense of horror at the "drugs, bugs, waves, and bytes" arsenal. It is a deeply unsettling frontier, but as you say, we must contemplate it AND we must get transparency on it. The weaponization of these sciences is not theoretical; it is an active and accelerating field of development for our strategic foes.
You ask the most critical question: How do we defend ourselves? Your suggestion to start with detection is absolutely correct and is supported by recommendations from the National Academies. They specifically proposed equipping personnel with the capability to measure and characterize RF energy exposure in real time. Pinpointing the physical nature and origin of an attack is the indispensable first step in establishing attribution and developing countermeasures.
Beyond physical detection, the National Academies also point toward a second layer of defense: building cognitive resilience. This involves training personnel to recognize manipulation, understand their own cognitive biases, and essentially harden the mind against the intended effects of an attack. It's a two-front battle: one fought with sensors to defend our physical space, and another fought with education and training to defend our cognitive space.
We have a long road ahead of us. Many in our governments, especially in the intelligence communities, don't want transparency. They want to keep their secrets.
On a related note, I've heard about experiments interpreting EEG output to "read" thoughts. This is another area that's even more disturbing. Sure, it can be of great benefit to those who've lost their ability to communicate verbally, but it can also all too easily be used for nefarious purposes.
Collin, I dont know if you ever read my piece, "4.4. When Robots Go Rogue and Humans Lose Their Bearings". (https://substack.com/home/post/p-162028951?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web) In that text I described how one can interpret Heraclitus and his take on cognitive disorder:
"The old Heraclitus from Ephesus, whom I often return to, has been said to describe the inner struggle like this:
“Just like the spider, sitting at the center of its web, immediately senses when a fly has torn one of the threads and quickly rushes to that spot as if wounded by the rupture, in the same way it is with the human soul – when some part of its (word-)body is injured, it swiftly moves to that place, almost impatiently attending the damage, with which it is firmly and harmoniously connected.”
When we’re torn. When something we’ve believed all our lives turns out to be false. When a conviction suddenly loses its grip – we return to the wound, almost impatiently turning it over in our minds. We rationalize, try to stitch things back together. Restore our web."
If we "are" a body of words (and a part of the logos) then, if someone can manipulate one of the keys, or fundamental groundwork of our system of beliefs then we desperately, like Heraclitus spider, have to restructure our web, our understanding. And as you mentioned, in Russia they have practiced this knowledge for ages.
So long for now, Max
Hi Max... I was knee deep in exam checking so apologies not to reply earlier. I will read your post today.
The Heraclitus metaphor of the spider and its web perfectly captures the psychological mechanism that cognitive warfare seeks to exploit. You are right, the attack isn't just about implanting a falsehood, but about creating a rupture in our "body of words", our coherent understanding of the world.
When that thread is torn, as you say, we are compelled to rush to the wound. This "impatient turning it over in our minds" is precisely the state of cognitive distress and disorientation the adversary wants to induce. They don't just want us to believe a lie; they want us to become so consumed with repairing our own web of understanding that we are paralyzed and unable to act effectively.
This is where the modern, technological aspect of this warfare becomes so insidious. An adversary no longer needs to patiently wait for one fly to stumble into the web. With the tools mentioned, they can target and tear at the foundational threads of our belief systems with precision and at scale, forcing that desperate restructuring you describe not just in an individual, but across an entire society. The goal is to make us doubt the integrity of the web.
I'm glad you embraced the metaphor as intended—it vividly captures the agitation and stress many leaders deliberately pursue today. This is an aspect of warfare strategy that deserves great attention.
"“Pulsed electromagnetic energy, particularly in the radiofrequency range, plausibly explains the core characteristics of reported AHIs, although information gaps exist.”" Is there any point in investigating just who is developing and testing this technology? How it is funded? And where's the hardware - (star-wars technology aimed from satelites)? Or do we just accept what's happening and try and get ethical guidelines for it? Or say 'stuff it' and just focus on developing our own personal coping mechanisms?
I know that the US Senate committee are demanding answers on this, and the CIA have been less than transparent. There are also about 390 personnel that suffered still on long term leave due to the symptoms... so we do for sure need more public disclosure and solutions beyond our own coping mechanisms.
This is from my comment below -- "You ask the most critical question: How do we defend ourselves? Your suggestion to start with detection is absolutely correct and is supported by recommendations from the National Academies. They specifically proposed equipping personnel with the capability to measure and characterize RF energy exposure in real time. Pinpointing the physical nature and origin of an attack is the indispensable first step in establishing attribution and developing countermeasures.
Beyond physical detection, the National Academies also point toward a second layer of defense: building cognitive resilience. This involves training personnel to recognize manipulation, understand their own cognitive biases, and essentially harden the mind against the intended effects of an attack. It's a two-front battle: one fought with sensors to defend our physical space, and another fought with education and training to defend our cognitive space."
Thank you for that, Colin.
"...as well as a sense of locality or directionality".
This would seem to suggest soundwaves reaching both ears, what might be termed "auditory parallax". Just as we have binocular vision, we have binaural hearing.
//
"...drugs, bugs, waves, and bytes...Nanotech, Biotech, Infotech, and Cognitive science"
This is all too horrifying to contemplate, yet contemplate we must.
//
"The next frontier of defense will not be one of walls or firewalls, but of minds, resilient not merely in knowledge, but in the capacity to think and know".
With the big question being: how? What defense is there against unpredictable directed soundwaves?
It seems to me one first step is detection. If we can detect the presence of unusual directed sound waves, and pinpoint their origin, then we might be able to find the source mechanism, and ultimately identify the culprit.
Yes, I think that the concept of "auditory parallax" is a perfect way to describe the neurological mechanism at play. The "sense of locality or directionality" that victims reported is one of the key pieces of evidence suggesting an external, targeted energy source, and your framing of it as a function of binaural hearing powerfully underscores that conclusion. It helps move the conversation from a mysterious phenomenon to a specific, perceivable physical event, as the Senate committee report indicates.
I share your sense of horror at the "drugs, bugs, waves, and bytes" arsenal. It is a deeply unsettling frontier, but as you say, we must contemplate it AND we must get transparency on it. The weaponization of these sciences is not theoretical; it is an active and accelerating field of development for our strategic foes.
You ask the most critical question: How do we defend ourselves? Your suggestion to start with detection is absolutely correct and is supported by recommendations from the National Academies. They specifically proposed equipping personnel with the capability to measure and characterize RF energy exposure in real time. Pinpointing the physical nature and origin of an attack is the indispensable first step in establishing attribution and developing countermeasures.
Beyond physical detection, the National Academies also point toward a second layer of defense: building cognitive resilience. This involves training personnel to recognize manipulation, understand their own cognitive biases, and essentially harden the mind against the intended effects of an attack. It's a two-front battle: one fought with sensors to defend our physical space, and another fought with education and training to defend our cognitive space.
We have a long road ahead of us. Many in our governments, especially in the intelligence communities, don't want transparency. They want to keep their secrets.
On a related note, I've heard about experiments interpreting EEG output to "read" thoughts. This is another area that's even more disturbing. Sure, it can be of great benefit to those who've lost their ability to communicate verbally, but it can also all too easily be used for nefarious purposes.
I have a book arriving this week "The CIA: An Imperial History" by Hugh Wilford. Will let you know how it is.
Yes, I have read a lot about those experiments and I do worry about the diirection we are heading in with respect to nefarious actors!
I look forward to your review!