A Realistic Way for People to Live Together

[Laz]

Some interesting points LHX...

but what im sayin, or trying to say in polite terms,is that when you act a fool in somebody elses vicinity - unnecessarily and purposely - you are inviting them to cut you down

That is the definition of a fool though, we don't care if we are cut down!

it really has less to do with rules and more to do with determining what respect is and what responsibility a person really has toward another person

And that is all to do with knowing who we are as a species, and knowing who you are inside. Have you come to terms with who you are yet? :0)

[AFK]

not everything organic is self-destructive

Indeed there are organisms that have persisted much longer than we ever have, and maybe, ever will.

And from a human perspective, in relatively simple terms. 

I think these damn grids blur our visions.  If we could strip them away and rebuild as LHX suggests, perhaps we could make it work. 

[LHX]

That is the definition of a fool though, we don't care if we are cut down!

its true - thats the ultimate stage on the inner journey

but after you emerge out of that hole - it seems like the next adventure is to figure out how to make something that endures...

And that is all to do with knowing who we are as a species, and knowing who you are inside. Have you come to terms with who you are yet? :0)

thats the question right there

if somebody did come to terms with who they are, then how would they act?

what does a water-walker look like in the desert?

[AFK]

if somebody did come to terms with who they are, then how would they act?

what does a water-walker look like in the desert?

1.  shrivel up into a ball
2.  shrivel up into a ball

[LHX]

not everything organic is self-destructive

Indeed there are organisms that have persisted much longer than we ever have, and maybe, ever will.

And from a human perspective, in relatively simple terms. 

I think these damn grids blur our visions.  If we could strip them away and rebuild as LHX suggests, perhaps we could make it work. 

it would at least be nice to be in a situation to test it out

move to greatness thru trial and error


everything points to us getting our grids stripped away eventually whether we like it or not

the things we have to do for a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T

who wouldve thought it would be so elusive

[LHX]

if somebody did come to terms with who they are, then how would they act?

what does a water-walker look like in the desert?

1.  shrivel up into a ball
2.  shrivel up into a ball

lmfao

running around looking for a exit sign or eject button

[Triple Zero]

> never to set in motion a process that results in
> any unnecessary disturbance in your vicinity
> (sirens, alarms, explosions, etc)

this might result for some people in a severe lack of fun. but it's fun at the expense of others, and if you wanna coexist peacefully it has to come from both ways .. but it's still no fun!
there goes my poetic-terrorist plan of distributing those red gas-horns on the tables of the university library

but seriously, like it was said, you NEED to break the rules now and then. without out-of-the-box thinking (and acting!) you'll hold up beautiful creative progress.

> > the only ones that will follow rules religiously
> > are the machines we create to do our bidding,
> > anything organic is gonna screw up the system.
>
> not everything organic is self-destructive
>

not everything that doesn't follow rules and/or "screws up the system" is self-destructive.

i'm not sure, but if we get a "second chance" (what this scenario is good for right?), i might even be willing to risk another Machine if that's what it takes in order to be able to break the rules. i'd rather have a Machine which i can hack and break the rules than a Prison where i can't.

[LHX]

but it's still no fun!

serious?

but seriously, like it was said, you NEED to break the rules now and then. without out-of-the-box thinking (and acting!) you'll hold up beautiful creative progress.

serious?

not everything that doesn't follow rules and/or "screws up the system" is self-destructive.

man - i knew people would start going on about rules

basically - this is all a elaboration of: ill stay out of your path if you stay out of mine

i'm not sure, but if we get a "second chance" (what this scenario is good for right?), i might even be willing to risk another Machine if that's what it takes in order to be able to break the rules. i'd rather have a Machine which i can hack and break the rules than a Prison where i can't.

lmfao

make rules in order to break rules?

you like breaking rules that much?


why not build a sand castle and then pour water on it?

as far as i can see, if you wreck somebody elses shit for no reason, you are asking them to wreck you

[Triple Zero]

but it's still no fun!

serious?

probably. kind of. and even if i weren't there's a grain of truth in it.

but seriously, like it was said, you NEED to break the rules now and then. without out-of-the-box thinking (and acting!) you'll hold up beautiful creative progress.

serious?

definitely.

without out-of-the-box thinking you'll stifle* creativity. (*that was the word i was looking for)

and out-of-the-box-thinking requires being able to break the rules now and then. it's just another box to think outside of.

not everything that doesn't follow rules and/or "screws up the system" is self-destructive.

man - i knew people would start going on about rules

basically - this is all a elaboration of: ill stay out of your path if you stay out of mine

yes, i understand the principle, and maybe it would even work.

but it will hamper creativity.
and i'm glad that fortunately you won't be able to pull it off

make rules in order to break rules?

you like breaking rules that much?

it's not that i like breaking them (well, maybe i do, but i might be willing to put that aside), it's just that i think it's important that they can be broken from time to time.

why not build a sand castle and then pour water on it?

i'm not saying to break the rules for great just breaking the rules even if you know beforehand it's gonna do no good.

as far as i can see, if you wreck somebody elses shit for no reason, you are asking them to wreck you

well i think sometimes it's important to risk that.

also, breaking the rules is not automatically "for no reason". but even breaking the rules "for no reason", say by random chance, can lead to something beautiful, something that was outside of the box before.

they're definitely good guidelines though.

[Laz]

As long as we're all trapped in our single view of the world meat sack, There's going to be selfishness and trickery and no harmony.

I think what is needed is for science to develop some kind of telepathy device so that our signle conciousness can be shared and made visible to all, only then will we be likely to be honest and truthfull.

[LHX]

well i think sometimes it's important to risk that.

also, breaking the rules is not automatically "for no reason". but even breaking the rules "for no reason", say by random chance, can lead to something beautiful, something that was outside of the box before.

they're definitely good guidelines though.

i hear what youre sayin now

and the term 'guidelines' sounds better than 'rules'


but do these guidelines suggest anything that would put a damper on 'outside the box'thinking?

[LHX]

As long as we're all trapped in our single view of the world meat sack, There's going to be selfishness and trickery and no harmony.

as long as we have bodies, there will be no harmony?

[Jenne]

if somebody did come to terms with who they are, then how would they act?

what does a water-walker look like in the desert?

1. shrivel up into a ball
2. shrivel up into a ball

lmfao

running around looking for a exit sign or eject button

And sometimes they think they've found it.  drugs, alcohol, "checking out"...in all manner of ways.  Even suiciding.

[Triple Zero]

but do these guidelines suggest anything that would put a damper on 'outside the box'thinking?

well, as long as they're guidelines, meaning you can also not follow them from time to time, it might be okay.

if these guidelines are supposed to be followed always (i would call them "rules" then), they will form the box (prison).

what box you may ask?

> never to set in motion a process that results in any unnecessary
> disturbance in your vicinity (sirens, alarms, explosions, etc)

what's unnecessary?
can you be sure?
if you'd rather be better safe than sorry you will be trapped inside the box.

> - unless otherwise requested, all communications will be placed at a 3rd party
> location, and will be placed there with the understanding that they may never be
> retreived or responded to

actually i don't quite understand this one, what's it for, and why?

who's the 3rd party? anyone?

> - never ask for a favor

in the broadest sense? that's gonna require some big adaptation. i'm not sure if i would call such a society "human" anymore.. have you ever considered how much a part of your communication consists of direct or indirect requests to another person? (favours?)

together with the last one, i think we're gonna need to evolve physically or plug ourselves continously into VR, because also, i can't even look at anyone without communicating.

> make available anything that i have an abundance of for you to use or not use
> as you see fit

sounds like a good plan, but is it even theoretically possible? what if the making-available costs some resources that deplete your abundance? (or even more convoluted situations)

rules are not just supposed to be broken, they will eventually break themselves.

either the rules are too loose to be useful
or they are too strict to be fruitful
or they will break or be broken continously and over and over again, like we do trying to break out of the B.I.P.

at least i think this is the case.

i don't think this problem can be solved by applying (more) rules. remember the aneristic strife?
you make rules, i will poke holes in them.
and not only will i break them, i will use the rules to break the rules.

either they will be too strict, and things will go completely rigid (solid)
or they will be too loose and they will accomplish nothing (gaseous)
or they will be "just right" OR SO YOU THINK and they will contradict themselves (liquid)

at least, this is what i think i believe.
but there is probably (i think) some fundamental math/logic backing me up here. (which is also powerful enough to contradict itself, but that doesn't make it useless, au contraire, it makes it the right way to go)

[LHX]

but do these guidelines suggest anything that would put a damper on 'outside the box'thinking?

well, as long as they're guidelines, meaning you can also not follow them from time to time, it might be okay.

if these guidelines are supposed to be followed always (i would call them "rules" then), they will form the box (prison).

what box you may ask?

> never to set in motion a process that results in any unnecessary
> disturbance in your vicinity (sirens, alarms, explosions, etc)

what's unnecessary?
can you be sure?
if you'd rather be better safe than sorry you will be trapped inside the box.

maybe it all goes back to the "do unto others" business

> - unless otherwise requested, all communications will be placed at a 3rd party
> location, and will be placed there with the understanding that they may never be
> retreived or responded to

actually i don't quite understand this one, what's it for, and why?

who's the 3rd party? anyone?

a internet forum is a 3rd party

this way - you have control over how and when you receive communications

i cant come up to you and holler in your ear
(but neither would the voluptuous women wiff dazzling story-telling ability)

> - never ask for a favor

in the broadest sense? that's gonna require some big adaptation. i'm not sure if i would call such a society "human" anymore.. have you ever considered how much a part of your communication consists of direct or indirect requests to another person? (favours?)

thats why i suggested refining communication

its a favor that salespeople dont get spit at or telemarketers get hung up on

nobody should be asking those types of favors - whether directly or indirectly

together with the last one, i think we're gonna need to evolve physically or plug ourselves continously into VR, because also, i can't even look at anyone without communicating.

we already discussed that something like this isnt viable with the current population

> make available anything that i have an abundance of for you to use or not use
> as you see fit

sounds like a good plan, but is it even theoretically possible? what if the making-available costs some resources that deplete your abundance? (or even more convoluted situations)

lol
call me a simpleton but i got my mind on gardens and orchards

rules are not just supposed to be broken, they will eventually break themselves.

either the rules are too loose to be useful
or they are too strict to be fruitful
or they will break or be broken continously and over and over again, like we do trying to break out of the B.I.P.

at least i think this is the case.

i don't think this problem can be solved by applying (more) rules. remember the aneristic strife?
you make rules, i will poke holes in them.
and not only will i break them, i will use the rules to break the rules.

so lets forget about rules then

the law that prohibits killing is a law thats exploited anyway

if there was no law against killing, people prolly wouldnt pull half the shit considered 'trivial' that they pull now

either they will be too strict, and things will go completely rigid (solid)
or they will be too loose and they will accomplish nothing (gaseous)
or they will be "just right" OR SO YOU THINK and they will contradict themselves (liquid)

at least, this is what i think i believe.
but there is probably (i think) some fundamental math/logic backing me up here. (which is also powerful enough to contradict itself, but that doesn't make it useless, au contraire, it makes it the right way to go)

what you say here makes me think that maybe the list i originally provided are nothing more than examples of the rule as it has been described in different forms


"Do unto others..."
"Do as thou wilt..."
are both basically the same thing


we live in disrespectful times now because there are mechanisms in place where institutions can interrupt you and you can not (legally) react to it

you can be sleep in bed, and somebody can interrupt that


likewise, people are willing to violate or invade others in what is considered 'minor' ways because the penalty for doing so is minor AND the person that got violated cant react for fear of punishment from somebody who isnt even involved in the situation


if we abandoned the rules that were set up to establish 'rights', then it seems possible that there would be a lot more respect in general