Messages

It is often said that through empathy we can overcome our animal nature because that is basically the difference between animals and humans (the fact that some animals DO experience empathy, or otherwise that they show all of the tell-tale signs is a fairly ironic lack of empathy on the part of the individuals who do claim such things). The fact that it is impossible to tell the difference between "showing all of the tell-tale signs" and genuinely experiencing it, even in humans, is also fairly ironic and indicative of a complete lack of it. Empathy is a topic for another day, though...

The question is, what does it mean to "overcome" our animal nature? Another question, somewhat related, is how would we know if we did and how do we tell the difference between our genuinely overcoming our animal nature and "thinking" and "feeling like" we've overcome our animal nature? There would be no apparent difference between "overcoming" it and deluding ourselves into thinking we've overcome it.

Is this just another campfire the neanderthals build to gather around in order to not realize how insignificant they really are?

I'll probably come back and respond more specifically to individual parts of that huge post, but for now I just wanted to say that I don't think you fully understand the BIP metaphor.

Have you finished the BIP?

The bars of your cell are made of the filters you perceive reality through, or rather the biases and conclusions you form as you go through life.  There more to it than this, but I'm just wondering what the boxing metaphor you invented has to do with the BIP?

Yea, I hadn't read the entire thing at the time I wrote the post... Another "discordian-esque" book I read characterized the world as a lunatic asylum, which is slightly more interesting/silly than a prison.

The BIP, a lot like My Discordia, is about examining the conclusions and filters and biases that I take for granted and have trouble noticing, and removing and replacing and redecorating until I am aware of and comfortable in my cozy little cell.  A "jailbreak" is not really about escaping the prison, merely finding a cell more to your liking.  You cannot escape the BIP.

Yup, I finished reading it after I read the post, and the next time I spend so much time making a post I'll definitely make sure I know what I'm talking about.

Also, in the many years since the BIP, many threads have been made advancing and discussing the ideas contained within.  A very lot of them.  Chances are, if you take the time to look many of them over, you will find yourself thinking about the BIP and related concepts on quite a different level than you currently are in your new-to-it stage.

Yes, I don't doubt my conceptualization of my conceptualizations will change. You're going to change one way or the other over time anyway, so you might as well change in ways that you decide.

I've started reading "the Black Iron Prison", and it has expressed an idea that I've heard countless times in books I've read that I should have paid for but didn't (more out of a lack of actual money to pay for it rather than any sense of rebellion). I realize I didn't have to pay for any of it, making the title ironic. Someone, somewhere, paid for it. Most of these books are guilty of the exact same pigeonholing that the BIP is guilty of, however. It claims that, paraphrasing, everyone is responsible for the mess we're in, blah blah blah BUT YOU CAN BE DIFFERENT.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not doubting the truth of any of the preceding claims. That would be absurd. The genre of book I'm referring to where this idea is found is "self-development"/"self help" (for men/women, respectively). There are some fairly disturbing statistics on the amount of money given to people with claims like this ($11 billion market size circa 2013)[1]. I'm not 100% on the veracity of that claim, and am simply saying that up front. How much it is isn't really as important past a certain point. Friends will talk to friends and people will download things *cough cough* and the important thing is that there are already a lot of people out there being "freed" from their black iron prison, albeit with a different name and a different metaphor. The question is, does this idea really lead to action or just a bunch of drones who know they're imprisoned?

Personally, I don't think the metaphor in the BIP was extended out far enough. Life itself is like a prison. No one we can ever know of asked if we wanted to be born beforehand. It's quite hilarious, in an absurd sort of way, that your existence was the decision of (hopefully) two people who had no information on the outcome of that decision and who would ultimately play a large part in whatever outcomes proceeded without having any information about what those outcomes would be. I can't think of any similar metaphors, but imagine yourself being one of the parents of Dyllyn Klebold or Eric Harris. Now, statistically, the odds of something like that happening are worse than winning the lottery (I think? I didn't calculate any odds and found it hard to calculate), but it is interesting (to me) to note how little attention is paid culturally to the future parents of children in 'Murika. There are no requirements to be a parent other than another person who chose you or you got drunk, yet in order to drive (which, compared to the scale another Columbine can have, is relatively harmless) you need to pass a stringent (as sarcastically as possible) written and performed test.


Shifting gears to a slightly different metaphor I probably didn't think of but came out of twisting some things with NLP was that everyone is stuck in a box that encompasses everything they are and everything that is important to them. Now, outside of this box is another box which contains everyone with similar ideas and similar important things, and without awareness that you are in that box, that box is all that there is. When you break out of your individual box, you are able to see other people who are in boxes and you are freed from your box, stuck in a bigger box that again becomes all that there is. This metaphor gives the user the illusion of superiority because the others haven't yet managed to see that they are in a box. As you progressively open up more boxes, you start to see fewer and fewer boxes and the box you're in progressively becomes bigger. After a certain point, it becomes seemingly impossible to even see any other people, let alone the end of your box. It also makes you wonder what the hell they're all doing, because they're all so "inferior" compared to you and what the big deal with all of their "petty" issues is. However, all you see are people in boxes. The people who reverted to going back into their boxes look exactly the same as those who have not yet broken out.

Combining the two metaphors from above makes it a little bit different from the BIP: everyone is trapped in a prison regardless of how independently they think. It is simply a bigger or smaller prison that you trap yourself in. In theory, so long as recognition that you are still in a box doesn't leave your awareness, you may be able to escape the illusion of superiority. The art of navigating the social world, then, would require moving into and out of smaller and bigger boxes as the situation called for it.

Basically, this thread is about the dangers in this idea of "freeing your mind" becoming simply another cultural movement that looks good on paper that doesn't pan out in reality. While overt racism (calling someone the n-word, for instance) may have largely been thwarted, there is another much more insidious form of racism quite aptly named "covert" racism which is either done while conscious but in a way that the individual can not be blamed for it (an employer firing a gay person for being gay, but saying that it was because they were a terrible employee for some reason), or without conscious intention in a way where they give the other person subtle body language differences that make the employee act differently and therefore come off in such a way that confirms an unlikable personality, bad worker, etc. Neither of those types of racism is limited to strictly that form, either; as long as each is done with the respective conscious/unconscious styles of thinking, it is considered that specific type of racism. While I don't ordinarily go to extreme lengths in citing things, because I have what appears to be a good memory for shit I'm interested in and don't really research them (sometimes leading to surprises when it isn't as I remembered), here is a link that, at the very least, gives a better description of the differences between the two than I did. [2]

Summed up, this is my "unboxed" brain looking at all of what appear to be boxed brains. I have some ideas about where this could head, but this is a lot of shit already written and interaction would be nice, but it is not COMPLETELY necessary; It wouldn't be the first time I've rambled on and on for pages.

PS: Please do not let any sense of superiority that seeps through in my authoritative claimsmaking put you off; any and all of these claims can be called out and any and all of the things that follow from the flawed logic, if deemed to be so, are then also called into question. I wouldn't go to the trouble of thinking this shit up and typing it if I didn't want input.

Sources cited:
[1] http://nymag.com/health/self-help/2013/schulz-self-searching/
[2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00057.x/abstract

Thirded, I think that sums up a lot of new peoples experiences here on the board, mine included.

Fourthed It definitely summed my posting activity up, though to a certain extent that was me normally. In light of this information, I'll tone that part of me down. I find it interesting how the "Law of Eristic Escalation" works so reliably.

I hope all the bad things in the world happen to you and only you.

If I could have taken the role of jebus christ, I would have. Possibly because it didn't seem like he had any say in the matter, but also because I have what they call a masochistic personality. Every Friday night, in honor of Principia Discordia, I have my friend tattoo a new quote from it using a pointed piece of heated metal. Last night's was "When in doubt, fuck it; when not in doubt, start doubting". Although it seemed like what he had written took a long time for such a short statement and that this hasn't been the first time he's intentionally fucked it up, I have both lots of and no faith that he wrote what I told him I wanted him to write.

While I'm not sure what it was that you appear to be so upset about, remember this: Whether you think you're right or wrong, you're right.

Do nothing with this post, unless you have the authority to delete it please. It was especially stupid and clearly in the wrong forum.

[valid]

If by "equally valued and valid" you mean "valueless and irrelevant", then yes, you would be correct. And here I thought I would find people who spoke my kind of language, considering it proclaims to be about bringing people together with a philosophy that considers all things true, false, meaningless and meaningful at the same time.

Uh oh, guys, we're doing Discordia wrong.

Well duh, there is only one way to do Discordia, certainly no different perspectives could cone to light since the principia isn't vague in its ideology at all.

Yea, I think you missed that last meeting. We do those now, too, and it doesn't matter if you're present or not; it's expected that you telepathically receive the message. The first rule of Discordia is don't talk about discordia, and the second rule of discordia is that the first rule is invalid if you're listing off the rules of Discordia. The third rule is that the first and second rules don't matter unless you say they do.

I'm glad you guys are here to stop me from becoming a true believer. Thank you for that. Whatever I said that peeved you guys off, make sure you take it doubly serious from now on, especially that part about how my experience with mental health is the correct one. It's definitely right, just like all of the other valid perspectives.

[This has an inherent assumption that all perspectives are equally valid and valued. This is not the case for me. Some perspectives, such as racism or such I find no logic or value in. I see no particular reason why I should either.]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yahoo answers is full of shit and dumb? That's like me showing you a link to 4chan and saying there's some examples of trolling there.

I'll get round to the rest later.

Your cynicism is impressive, but misplaced in this particular case. It used to be that I, too, thought people were just saying it. I'm not saying yahoo answers users AREN'T dumb, because they have quite a population of atheist regulars there to troll up-err answer the  heart-wrenching questions thought up by the good ol' Christians. Don't they know the only real way to troll is in real life, where you're called an extremist or in some cases a terrorist rather than a troll?

I'm not going to try convince you, because cynicism is really a b**** (birch) to argue with and I don't feel like scouring the internet to prove points you won't believe anyway. Have a fantastic day.

You post shitty links and this is now somehow my fault?

Yeah, my cynicism is totally misplaced. Perhaps if you did bother looking for something that actually substantiate your points I'd bother a little more.

Consider:

Your attempt at invalidating my perspective is not going to work, simply because I recognize it as such.

This has an inherent assumption that all perspectives are equally valid and valued. This is not the case for me. Some perspectives, such as racism or such I find no logic or value in. I see no particular reason why I should either.

Claiming "your perspective" is somehow valid, just because it involves you, does not seem rational to me. If anything, it sounds quite childish and self centred.



QG, feel free to request this crap gets split out.

If by "equally valued and valid" you mean "valueless and irrelevant", then yes, you would be correct. And here I thought I would find people who spoke my kind of language, considering it proclaims to be about bringing people together with a philosophy that considers all things true, false, meaningless and meaningful at the same time.

This thread is like when therapy becomes about therapy.

More like when two opposing arguments meet and then one of them proceeds to attempt to destroy the other without letting the other side argue back. Sometimes, I like to imagine I'm arguing with a psychologist but then pull out a gun and shoot him and win. What does psychology have to say about that?

Also, this one time at band camp, I stuck a flute up my urethra.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but your assumptions and sense of superiority will never hurt me.

Am I crazy yet? Do I get my straitjacket or do I need to make it clear I mean to harm someone? One time I almost threw a paper airplane at someone driving a city bus. If that hit him in the eye and I tackled him, we never would have made it off of that bus alive. How's THAT for dangerous? *smirks*

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yahoo answers is full of shit and dumb? That's like me showing you a link to 4chan and saying there's some examples of trolling there.

I'll get round to the rest later.

Your cynicism is impressive, but misplaced in this particular case. It used to be that I, too, thought people were just saying it. I'm not saying yahoo answers users AREN'T dumb, because they have quite a population of atheist regulars there to troll up-err answer the  heart-wrenching questions thought up by the good ol' Christians. Don't they know the only real way to troll is in real life, where you're called an extremist or in some cases a terrorist rather than a troll?

I'm not going to try convince you, because cynicism is really a b**** (birch) to argue with and I don't feel like scouring the internet to prove points you won't believe anyway. Have a fantastic day.

Basically, it will result in people not wanting to get better, and in turn not getting better because they find those mental health support forums a welcome community for them to participate in only as long as they have their mental illnesses.

What? Are you serious here? Are you seriously implying that mental health support forums actively make people regress when they're improving because the need to remain part of a community at the obvious cost of their mental health?

I'm not saying this doesn't occur, but I think you'd be more accurate if you were talking about forums that involved pretty much anything else. Games. Films. Clothing. Wicca. I can see this occurring in all these places but this surely must be frowned upon at the least in any semi-respectable forum devoted to mental health.

I know you said you aren't denying the possibility that communities do that, but I saw this and thought of you <3 (don't hit me too hard, we just met a couple days ago):

"Tbh I have social anxiety and go on forums where there are hundreds of girls and guys like you. It's really motivational to connect with people who relate with you 100%. You feel less alone... Like for me obviously, I'm a[ ]part of a social anxiety community and have made sooo many friends. I feel like I have some where I belong for once and have even met someone who I really care about... But like I was saying, you should join a support site. If you don't have anything you feel is "wrong" with you, maybe join a site where you can vent about relationships and get advice for them...."

She's a teenager now, but where is she going to be in five years? It's hilariously ironic because it's a forum for social anxiety that she's going to become a social butterfly on, while in real life... Not so much. She has social anxiety, remember? Something to brighten your day.

Source: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140724200851AAxJlfP

EDIT: UGH, I forgot a set of quotes. That probably confused things.

In the most literal sense, no. He didn't stop anyone from dying, he just increased the rate at which they died exponentially.

I hate you and everywhere you've ever been.

I would quote myself, but I'm not going to do that simply because you have the power to re-read what I wrote.

zackli, I don't know what exactly your experience with mental illness was, but telling other people that your experience trumps theirs is not a way to make friends.

Stupid Poe's law... You sound JUST like one of them, and I'm not even TRYING to rationalize you away; it's just a convenient side effect. Them, obviously, being one of the people who is a mental health worker condescending to one of his or her "patients". Your attempt at invalidating my perspective is not going to work, simply because I recognize it as such.

If I cared about making friends, I would probably be out making friends and not philosophizing about human nature.

PS: If you actually read my "experience with mental illness", I am actually downplaying my own opinion as a "mere" rationalization as well. The fact that I am asserting it as something more than a rationalization is illusory, because EVERYTHING is a rationalization. It's a way for the individual to make sense of his or her world, which does not necessarily include other people's perceptions of the world. This is how that phrase came about. It discounts the other person's reasoning and makes the one speaking feel superior, much like you saying that I'm not making any friends by saying my "experience with mental illness" was superior to everyone else's.

Which leads to questions of "genuine" suffers of X and the attention seekers who probably make up the majority of the content. I'm guessing there's some where there's very little actual help and support but flamewars galore allday, everyday.

While it does lead to the "one true scotsman" fallacy, and there are flame wars, I highly doubt that the flame wars occur to any sort of noticeable extent. "Support" forums, due to their implications in real life, are much more heavily moderated than most other forums. I know I can't speak for every support forum, but the people on the one I was on all appeared to "genuinely" have illnesses. Some even had their diagnoses in a list as a signature underneath their name, and I wish I was joking. They take their labels VERY seriously over there.

The "one true Scotsman" fallacy raises the question of what it actually means to "have" the illness to begin with though. This is just pure speculation, but I think most mental illnesses are more along the lines of situational and environmental factors than they are "biological" ones. Some of the worse ones like schizophrenia are one of the more obvious candidates for genuine biological influence, but people completely overlook the power of the "situation" (I think that says more about human nature than just about anything an abnormal psychology class could teach you) in most cases and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

While it may not be completely relevant, think of the statement that something is "just a rationalization" when someone hears an excuse for why someone is addicted to something, for instance. Think also of how, often times, that rationalization is genuinely believed. When you understand the implications of that combined with the fact that people are animals, a fairly disturbing realization occurs. Rationalizations are just excuses. But so are "genuine" reasons. There is no functional difference or way to differentiate between genuine reasons and "rationalizations", so either they're all valid or none of them are. The fact that it is also "just" a rationalization for dismissing the petty arguments of others tainted by an emotional conflict of interest has not escaped me. That is part of what led me here.