Messages

I take back all my criticisms of this film.  Has anyone here read the script Fox wanted to use for the film?

Oh, where to start.  The modern day setting kinda misses the point, since its the possibility of all out planetary destruction that sets Ozymandias' plan into motion.   To get around this,, Fox changed the entire ending, which involved...er...Ozy going back in time to kill Dr Manhatten.  Or something.

Apparently Warner Bros wanted to tread a similar route, especially with the modern day setting, and Snyder told them if they did, he'd walk.  Snyder also said he'd only be willing to use the Alan Moore approved script (the one written before Hollywood crushed his soul), though with some minor alterations.

[Don't stiff your boss unless you can absolutely get away with it.]

Don't stiff your boss unless you can absolutely get away with it.

Your boss likely has his job for one of three reasons: competence, political manoeuvring or nepotism of some kind.  Any of these reasons spell trouble: a competent boss knows how to do things better than you, a political boss is likely better at manipulating the bureaucracy than you and a boss who gained their position due to nepotism has friends higher up the command chain.  That means, if you're going to try and get rid of them, you do so in such a way they will be without question removed and, preferably, under circumstances where showing their face ever again isn't an option.  Otherwise they are going to come after you with everything they have.

Your own mind is unreliable – keep your memories somewhere safer

All kinds of emotions and feelings, beliefs, education and various other factors can impinge on how we recall things.  As such, while useful, your brain is not entirely trustworthy for storing such facts.  Instead, keep a journal, and try to record things as close as possible as to when they happened. 

Nothing is more cut-throat than a royal court.

A court is based around two things, the monarch (those with powers) and courtiers (those who attempt to flatter the monarch for favours).  Makes no difference whether this is Versailles under Louis XIV, the current White House or where you work.  Some people have power, some people manipulate those who have the power, and everyone else is a serf.  Courtiers like to operate in secret, are contemptuous of public debate (or just the public generally) and, despite a superficial appeal to knowledge and rationality, are almost always driven by base emotions and desires.  Unstable emotions near the focal point of power and an expertise at manipulation are always a bad mix.  However, take them away from the court and they are usually powerless.  Exile is always the most feared punishment.

Trust, but verify.

Wearing your suspicion on your sleeves will not win you any friends.  Furthermore, it will just warn people who may intend you actual harm just to be more careful when dealing with you.  The best posture you can have is one of welcoming openness, while still keeping an eye on those who may have interests contrary to your own.  An addition to this rule is to not trust technology, even if you have to use it.  Like everything else, machines can be tricked (and if they couldn't, all the hackers in the world would have to find another hobby).

Saying too little never hurt anyone.

Whereas talking endlessly about whatever pops into your head is likely to end up in something you didn't want to slip getting out.  Note: this rule can be ignored if you are Deadpool.

"That's funny."

Secrets with entertainment value rarely remain secrets for long.

Nothing costs too much, so long as what is gained is worth more.

Expending resources going after a prize is always worthwhile if the prize has higher value than the resources expended.

Truth and Fiction

It is worth giving away 99% real information to convince someone to swallow 1% disinformation.

Never trust a sociopath.

Sociopaths have their uses; in the right situation (don't ask how I know this).  However, they are by definition people with poor impulse control and a comfortable attitude towards violence.  Better people can usually be found.

Who's the real source?

When trying to track down information, endeavour to find out who gave the information to the person giving the information to you.  It is very easy to make something look real if you have seven or eight people all report something, in their own words, which came from the same individual. 

Revenge and Money are the best motivators.

Enough said.

Endeavour to be at every point on the compass.

Disappearing is impossible in the world we live in – that is, unless you want to be a hermit off in the mountains or desert somewhere.  For those of us who like hot water and 24-hour shopping, however, there is another option.  Instead of appearing to be nowhere, be everywhere at once.  If you cannot vanish, the next best option is to lay down as many false trails as possible. 

Your gut instinct is wrong and stupid.

Well, not always.  But against sufficiently clever people, it will be.  Your first reaction is likely what your opponents expect and have planned for.  Remain unpredictable, but always in a different way to how you were unpredictable the last time.

Don't take it personally.

Most of the time, people's anger is not directed against you.  You're a prop, for something else going on in their life.  And even if you're not, cultivating this attitude and belief will make it harder for people to get an emotional reaction from you, allowing you to think clearly and rationally even when under pressure.

You only get smarter by playing a smarter opponent.

Shamelessly stolen from the film Revolver, but still very true.  Sharp enemies keep you sharp.  It's what they are good for.  When you're forced to think and learn and plan ahead, you're no longer reacting, coasting and taking it easy.

Whining is undignified.

All of history is unfair, get a helmet.  Whining may feel good, but getting on with solving the problems and doing the right thing feels much better.

Underestimating the opposition is the leading cause of embarrassing defeats.

It never hurts to consider the possibility that your enemies are just as smart as or even smarter then you.  At the very worst, you overcompensate when dealing with someone.

All warfare is based on deception.

It therefore follows that the best war to fight is one your opponent isn't even aware of – at all.

Every rule can be broken.

Rules are guidelines, ideals, how things work best in theory.  In fact, the existence of rules presupposes that they will be broken or bent at some point.

It must just me then who's tired of seeing the same argument, with the same people, making the same points, influencing exactly no-one because all the participants are set in their ways, in thread after thread.

Later then.  You all enjoy recycling your posts.

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=21354.0

FFS.

[is]

Society is based, at its most basic and ultimate, around conflict.

This is not the Hobbesian conception of a "state of anarchy" from which a sovereign can save us, if we only give up some of the freedoms we can grasp within this anarchic condition.  Instead, I am saying that society is conflict, that even with the establishment of political structures and forms, laws, civil society and the state, ultimately it all comes down to conflict.

This is not to say society is in a state of permament, all out warfare.  Such a claim is easily dismissed, by the lack of overt violence most of us face in our day to day lives.  Nevertheless, it is filled with various antagonisms which range a spectrum, of which total war is one extreme.  War is a continuation of politics and so, it would seem, politics is a continuation of war by non-violent means.

This more peaceful operation of conflict, which usually occurs once a war is over, is an ossification of the state of conflict which ended the warlike stage of its being.  Furthermore, the techniques used to win the previous war set down the conditions for the next.  As an example, the victory of the United States over the Soviet Union was in part due to a global communications network, global market, sabotage of vital resources and use of WMDs.  These same methods are now being used by todays terrorists, with the internet being a tool for radicalization and communication, the market allowing diffuse technologies to be acquired by terrorists, systems disruption becoming an increasingly popular tactic and WMD deployment being the nightmare scenario of every state combatting terrorism.

This conflict takes place on many different planes: it can be gendered (male vs female), socio-economic (proletariat vs bourgeoisie), ethnic, sectarian, ideological and social.  In theory, it can even take place in an individual through conflicting subprocesses, though this isn't something I've devoted much thought to, as of yet.

Laws exist wherever there is conflict, and its use is not to regulate conflict, but as a weapon used by a particular group.  How the law actually works, as opposed to "legal theory" is a good way to understand which groups hold more power in any given society.  For instance, no matter what drug laws are meant to do, they are most often used to target deprived and minority communities and deprive them of their adult male population, creating all the implications that entails.

Most political theories agree with this position in general, but disagree with it on a particular point - namely that they can transcend those conflicts and create a new, better society where they do not exist.  So for instance liberalism works from the position that the mechanisms of the free market provide incentives and distribute wealth in a roughly fair manner, overcoming the inequalities of the feudal system that preceeded it and creating conditions where it is better to cooperate than compete.  Vulgar Marxists believe that the proletariat revolution and the seizing of the means of production by said proletarians will overcome the inequalities of the liberal capitalist system and thus bring an end to class warfare.  Fascism claims it can transcend social conflict totally, through cleansing of "undesirable" elements, including ethnic groups, those who hold a particular political ideology and those with "defects" which can cause biological harm to the overall group.  Theocracy is much the same, in that all submitting before God and religious law can stop this conflict and bring about "Heaven on Earth".

Very few groups however claim this condition is endemic and potentially unending.  Agonism is one, the political theory that it is preferable to build a society around the potentially positive benefits of political conflict. More sophisticated understandings of dialectical materialism are another.  Discordianism is potentially a third.  There are likely others, but they are unimportant right now.

More to follow.

Why is Apple Talk full of a bunch of shitting blog threads that make me want to go and look over at TCC for a good conversation?

Also,
Nick Davies was in the newspaper, bitching at the lack of sourcechecking in newspapers and  the paper didnt check any alternate sources about what he was saying.

Thus proving his point, surely, if in a roundabout way?  I still need to read that book, btw.

You mentioned a swan link in the orig post about Attica, leeme check...

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=14098.0



Swans surrounding the central image on the plate from Delos.


Oh, and it seems you brought up the Graiai while Hugh was plaing hoity-toity-know-it-all:

That psychotic crone is actually an aspect of the Wiccan Goddess, unless it is Hekate, unless it is Athena in menopause, unless it is....well take your pick. I tend to think that while Eris may be into the all sweet and nice tickles for those upon whom that approach may work, She is also the deity who provoked Yahweh to be so evil in the Old Testament. It is good to keep this perspective. (The same sweet wind that cools you on a hot day, is the wind that can blow a massive storm which destroys your entire livelihood.)

BAM! In comes Greek geek knowledge.  Enyo/Eris was considered one of the  Graiai, or the the three Gray Sisters, who were apparently beautiful. They were described as "fair-faced and swan-like" but they's had gray hair from the day they were born and they shared one eye and one tooth, but they lost even that when Perseus stole their eye and later threw it in a lake.

Also ""[Depicted on the chest of Cypselus at Olympia] Aias is fighting a duel with Hektor [in the Trojan War], according to the challenge, and between the pair stands Eris in the form of a most repulsive woman. Another figure of Eris is in the sanctuary of Ephesian Artemis; Kalliphon of Samos included it in his picture of the battle at the ships of the Greeks." -Pausanias, Guide to Greece
5.19.1

However, I tend to think she was probably in good shape as she was hauling dead bodies around the battlefield of Troy and she was said (in Dionysiaca) to look like Rheia, the loverattle goddess.



Rather like the above, only probably with a nose and alot of armour, covered in blood.

That doesn't sound like me at all.  That sounds like someone who actually did research.

I should really keep notes of things like this, or else I just forget it all.  Thanks.

They're even attacking his daughter's facebook, which seems a pretty low blow.

No problem Hoops, I'm just glad it was even readable.

Telarus, I did wonder if there was an Etruscan/Attican link, but I hadn't researched it, so I didn't want to speculate too freely.  Also, swans are ringing a bell for some reason...but I can't remember why.  I'm pretty sure its not because of Taleb and Black Swans (although that it an amusing case of synchonicity), but I'm not sure what it is.  If I wasn't so tired, I might be able to remember.

"Submitting meekly and letting talented reformers sort out the mess"?  But yeah, that little irony was not lost on me either.

http://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Eris.html

Required historical reading.

We tend to a historical interpretation here.

I actually did a lot of the research on original ancient Greek attitudes to Eris a few years ago, when I had to take several modules in classical history and literature.  And Eris was, historically, seen as a war goddess, among other things. 

Eris, like Hermes, seems to have undergone several interpretations based on Greek cultural mores of the time.  For example, as a Goddess of Competition (in her "good" aspect, according to Hesiod) would've actually been seen by most 7th and 6th century Greeks as bad, since they considered commerce as a dishonourable livelihood.  The exception to this was Attica, which thrived on trade and where there is some evidence of Eris worship.  Changes in how Hermes was viewed (changing from a pest-like King of Thieves to a god of communication, wits and commerce) happened in a similar place at a similar time.

Equally, the family to which Eris belonged were not exactly held in highest regard by the Greeks, either.  Remember, Ares wasn't just a god of warfare, he was a god of bloody slaughter, a brooding and violent killer, quite unlike Athena, the goddess of rational, wise and prudent warfare.  Eris' mythological association with him probably did not help improve her reputation outside of Attica, and the more popular Cult of Hermes quite likely vyed for worshippers that might have gone to Eris in places where she wasn't viewed so negatively.  Also remember after the Peloponnesian Wars, the Athenians were not the most popular Greeks in all of Greece, and the Thirty Tyrants stamped down heavily on deviant approaches to worship, as their execution of Socrates seems to indicate.  An Erisian cult would've been considered politically dangerous, if it was still active at that time (the proof we have of ancient Eris worship in the Greek mainland ONLY comes from the sixth century).

In Rome, she would've fared little better.  The Roman Republic sneered quite openly at Greek culture, seeing it as inferior, indulgent and childish.  A Dionysus based cult caused significant political turmoil at one point during the Republic's history, as I recall as well, which didn't improve this attitude to Greek culture.  Things changed as the Republic moved towards Empire, Eris was likely equated with Bellona to nullify the more disruptive aspects of her nature and Romanize her.

Rat, it sounds like, in some ways, you are advocating philosophical anarchism.  Which I can live with.

Also, I'm going to split all non-stupid wingnut utterances off into a new thread.  Please stand by...