Go down

[Adios]

Standing up.
Why would anyone allow another to dictate their direction?
Why would anyone surrender their personhood to another?
Why would anyone rather exist on their knees instead of living on their feet, even if it means death?
Why would anyone sheepishly follow another without putting their own effort forth to reach an opinion?
Why would anyone give up the opportunity to spit in the devils eye and laugh?
Why?

[rubickspoop]

fear
apathy
ignorance

some possible reasons
i hope it helps 

[MMIX]

Hawk the devil wants to know why you think it is so damn funny to spit in his eye when god is a much bigger tit than he ever was . .

[Kai]

fear
apathy
ignorance

some possible reasons
i hope it helps 

comfort vs discomfort too.

[Faust]

Love or compassion

[Faust]

Hawk the devil wants to know why you think it is so damn funny to spit in his eye when god is a much bigger tit than he ever was . .

Barf

[MMIX]

Love or compassion

? relevance  . . .

[Richter]

Standing up.
Why would anyone allow another to dictate their direction?
Why would anyone surrender their personhood to another?
Why would anyone rather exist on their knees instead of living on their feet, even if it means death?
Why would anyone sheepishly follow another without putting their own effort forth to reach an opinion?
Why would anyone give up the opportunity to spit in the devils eye and laugh?
Why?

As much as it's pleasant to think otherwise, all meatbags are not created equal. 
Worthwhile questions to ask anyone, though. 

[Cramulus]

Why would anyone allow another to dictate their direction?

trust in that person

Why would anyone surrender their personhood to another?

respect or reverence for the other

Why would anyone rather exist on their knees instead of living on their feet, even if it means death?

love of those that would also die

Why would anyone sheepishly follow another without putting their own effort forth to reach an opinion?

apathy, lack of confidence

Why would anyone give up the opportunity to spit in the devils eye and laugh?

self-preservation

[Faust]

Love or compassion

? relevance  . . .

see what cram posted.
basically everything in the first post could be linked to having a kid

[Adios]

Love or compassion

? relevance  . . .

see what cram posted.
basically everything in the first post could be linked to having a kid

True enough. Cram must have put some thought into his reply. Dying for someone is much easier than living for them, isn't it?

[Faust]

Depends on the persons mentality. Just like fetishes there people out there who will go for anything.
Some people feel fulfilled by living for someone else.

[Template]

Depends on the persons mentality. Just like fetishes there people out there who will go for anything.
Some people feel fulfilled by living for someone else.

It's hard to notice what all is a matter of personal preference or ideology.  The first paragraph of this excerpt that Cain posted elsewhere might help.

For me, ideology is defined only by how the coordinates of your meaningful experience of the world, and your place within society, relate to the basic tensions and antagonisms of social orders. Which is why for me no attitude is a priori ideological. You can be an extreme materialist, thinking that economic development ultimately determines everything; then you are truly ideological. You can be a fanatical millennialist religious mystic, and you are, in a certain way, not outside of ideology. Your position can be that of perfectly describing the data and nonetheless your point is ideological.

For example, I would like to use the wonderful model of Lacan. Let's say that you are married and you are pathologically jealous, thinking that your wife is sleeping around with other men. And let's say that you are totally right, she is cheating. Lacan says that your jealousy is still pathological. Even if everything is true it is pathological, because what makes it pathological is not the fact that is it true or not true, but why you invest so much in it—what needs does it fulfill? It's the same with the Jews and the Nazis. It is not a question that they attributed false properties to the Jews; the point is why did the Nazis need the figure of the Jew as part of their ideological project?

[Adios]

Depends on the persons mentality. Just like fetishes there people out there who will go for anything.
Some people feel fulfilled by living for someone else.

It's hard to notice what all is a matter of personal preference or ideology.  The first paragraph of this excerpt that Cain posted elsewhere might help.

For me, ideology is defined only by how the coordinates of your meaningful experience of the world, and your place within society, relate to the basic tensions and antagonisms of social orders. Which is why for me no attitude is a priori ideological. You can be an extreme materialist, thinking that economic development ultimately determines everything; then you are truly ideological. You can be a fanatical millennialist religious mystic, and you are, in a certain way, not outside of ideology. Your position can be that of perfectly describing the data and nonetheless your point is ideological.

For example, I would like to use the wonderful model of Lacan. Let's say that you are married and you are pathologically jealous, thinking that your wife is sleeping around with other men. And let's say that you are totally right, she is cheating. Lacan says that your jealousy is still pathological. Even if everything is true it is pathological, because what makes it pathological is not the fact that is it true or not true, but why you invest so much in it—what needs does it fulfill? It's the same with the Jews and the Nazis. It is not a question that they attributed false properties to the Jews; the point is why did the Nazis need the figure of the Jew as part of their ideological project?

I need further clarification please.

[Captain Utopia]

...

For me, ideology is defined only by how the coordinates of your meaningful experience of the world, and your place within society, relate to the basic tensions and antagonisms of social orders. Which is why for me no attitude is a priori ideological. You can be an extreme materialist, thinking that economic development ultimately determines everything; then you are truly ideological. You can be a fanatical millennialist religious mystic, and you are, in a certain way, not outside of ideology. Your position can be that of perfectly describing the data and nonetheless your point is ideological.

For example, I would like to use the wonderful model of Lacan. Let's say that you are married and you are pathologically jealous, thinking that your wife is sleeping around with other men. And let's say that you are totally right, she is cheating. Lacan says that your jealousy is still pathological. Even if everything is true it is pathological, because what makes it pathological is not the fact that is it true or not true, but why you invest so much in it—what needs does it fulfill? It's the same with the Jews and the Nazis. It is not a question that they attributed false properties to the Jews; the point is why did the Nazis need the figure of the Jew as part of their ideological project?

I need further clarification please.

The illusion of "I" seems to take on, at least at some level, the property of self-destructive behaviour patterns which do not directly benefit the individual - actions which make no sense at a surface level reading of evolutionary forces.

It being easier to move forwards than sideways, we have a tendency to assume that we do what we do because on some level, it "is" in our best interests. If our species is very lucky, we will never run out of fresh examples of this fallacy.

The price of liberty (seems to be) eternal vigilance, etc.