A Few Thoughts on These Bars & Walls

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It's a little hard to run from yourself, when the legs you are running with are part of the thing you're running away from.  But you'll run anyway, like a man on fire tries to run from whatever it is that is causing the pain.  Fight or flight, and like most mammals, we'll usually try running first.

So you make a mad dash, and bounce right off the walls and bars of your Black Iron Prison.  When it's all over, you're bruised up a bit...And right back where you started. 

Conclusion #1:  Flight doesn't work.  Try something else.

The next response open to a mammal is to fight.  But what are you going to fight?  The cop inside your head?  The daily obligations that keep you in that Black Iron Prison?  Hardly an option...Most of the bars are made out of things and/or people you love.  Hurting them won't set you free, it will at best make the situation worse, make YOU worse, and maybe get you the regular kind of jail cell.

Conclusion #2:  Fight doesn't work, which means...

Conclusion #3:  None of the pre-programmed portions of your brain, ie, neural circuits 1 or 2, will get you out.  Something else is in order.

Fact is, the walls and bars of your Black Iron Prison are a result of conditioning done to you by yourself and by society.  You have been conditioned to believe that there are walls and bars.  Your brain cannot process anything else, because - at least at this level - you are functioning under memetic false consciousness.  You may be the inmate, but you're also the guard and the warden.

You hear people babble about "magick", and how it's a method to "reprogram" yourself, presumably to deal with the BIP that we all experience every day.  If that's not what it's meant to deal with, then what good is it?  Problem is, it doesn't seem to be working.  I have yet to hear of a practicioner springing himself.  Maybe that's because they're concentrating on the cell, but not on the warden or the guards.  Or maybe because it doesn't work, even as a psychological tool.

And here's a disturbing thought:  You have been conditioned by yourself and society to see a cell that isn't there (everyone has, some don't realize it, most don't care).  To what other degrees have you been conditioned?  What have you been conditioned to NOT see (cue fnord jokes, yeah, yeah)?

And the last question I have is WHY we have conditioned ourselves (or been conditioned) in such a fashion?  A lot of work goes into this sort of thing, and nobody asks why?

Or Kill Me. 

[LMNO]

I'll have to think about this for a bit.  I like how you brought the 8-circuit model into the discussion.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'll have to think about this for a bit.  I like how you brought the 8-circuit model into the discussion.

I don't think it's avoidable. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

A surprising majority of people in our culture tend to think of "survival" as an individual endeavor. They embrace the notion of survival of the fittest; a single powerful human surviving and thriving, even at the expense of others in its society. This, of course, makes as much sense from a survival perspective as the individual sparrow rising up to survive without its flock, as the bison without its herd, or the ant without her hill. Not only does "survival of the fittest" always entail the survival of a breeding population (those who compete even against would-be mates and allies are clearly not fit to breed and pass on their genes) but among social species, "survival" refers not merely to the population, but to the culture. As human beings, our cultures are intrinsic parts of our definition. The culture itself is what vies to survive, and in some cases, to dominate; we as individuals exist to disseminate and propagate our culture. Our programming.

From an individualistic perspective, unfairness within a society may seem like a bad thing. Patriarchy, for example. However, patriarchies often function very, very well, for centuries, working to propagate themselves. Many cultures that contain inequities and even systems we view as evil, such as slavery may function very well. As such, they are not failures until they fail, usually as a result of the member individuals literally refusing to continue to propagate the culture, in part or in whole. We are a social species, and culture is part of our survival, but we are also an intelligent species, and we tend to concern ourselves not only with the propagation of our all-important culture, but with such ideas as the happiness and well-being of those within it. Because society, and culture, evolved to afford our species protection and heighten our survival, it is constantly adjusting to suit our needs and desires. This is our programming. We shape it.

But recently, what exactly we are propagating and protecting with our culture has shifted. We still exist to propagate our culture, but our culture has changed what it views as "people". We, a social creature, developed the culture meme as the greatest part of our survival arsenal, but culture may no longer be working for us. That means it is concerned less with adjusting to suit our needs and desires, and more to adjusting to suit the needs and desires of the new superorganisms among us. This is our programming. Who shapes it?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Many cultures that contain inequities and even systems we view as evil, such as slavery may function very well. As such, they are not failures until they fail, usually as a result of the member individuals literally refusing to continue to propagate the culture, in part or in whole.

That would depend, of course, on what the definition is for "success".  In terms of functionality, you are correct.  In terms of the living conditions for most of the members, it's a trap.

But recently, what exactly we are propagating and protecting with our culture has shifted. We still exist to propagate our culture, but our culture has changed what it views as "people". We, a social creature, developed the culture meme as the greatest part of our survival arsenal, but culture may no longer be working for us. That means it is concerned less with adjusting to suit our needs and desires, and more to adjusting to suit the needs and desires of the new superorganisms among us. This is our programming. Who shapes it?

In order of importance, IMO, it goes like this:  Inbound signal, the individual, the people around the individual.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Many cultures that contain inequities and even systems we view as evil, such as slavery may function very well. As such, they are not failures until they fail, usually as a result of the member individuals literally refusing to continue to propagate the culture, in part or in whole.

That would depend, of course, on what the definition is for "success".  In terms of functionality, you are correct.  In terms of the living conditions for most of the members, it's a trap.

But recently, what exactly we are propagating and protecting with our culture has shifted. We still exist to propagate our culture, but our culture has changed what it views as "people". We, a social creature, developed the culture meme as the greatest part of our survival arsenal, but culture may no longer be working for us. That means it is concerned less with adjusting to suit our needs and desires, and more to adjusting to suit the needs and desires of the new superorganisms among us. This is our programming. Who shapes it?

In order of importance, IMO, it goes like this:  Inbound signal, the individual, the people around the individual.

"Success" in terms of successful propagation. From a purely survivalistic standpoint, individual happiness doesn't matter. But the way the systems of culture have worked for millennia is that they have to create enough contentment within their members to ensure cooperation, and discontent creates internal pressure which drives social change.

In a society where much of our signal is generated by and to serve the interests of non-human entities, IMO, we really have a problem. If culture has evolved to serve corporations, that short-circuits the discontent>internal pressure>social change mechanism, and that changes the answer to your last question significantly.

And the last question I have is WHY we have conditioned ourselves (or been conditioned) in such a fashion?  A lot of work goes into this sort of thing, and nobody asks why?

The answer used to be simple: it was us. Collectively. But we've created a new us, and culture serves that us now.

[Freeky]

This all is a lot bigger than I have the knowledge or capacity to speculate on, but I'll be reading to learn, anyway.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"Success" in terms of successful propagation. From a purely survivalistic standpoint, individual happiness doesn't matter. But the way the systems of culture have worked for millennia is that they have to create enough contentment within their members to ensure cooperation, and discontent creates internal pressure which drives social change.

In a society where much of our signal is generated by and to serve the interests of non-human entities, IMO, we really have a problem. If culture has evolved to serve corporations, that short-circuits the discontent>internal pressure>social change mechanism, and that changes the answer to your last question significantly.

And the last question I have is WHY we have conditioned ourselves (or been conditioned) in such a fashion?  A lot of work goes into this sort of thing, and nobody asks why?

The answer used to be simple: it was us. Collectively. But we've created a new us, and culture serves that us now.

1.  We've been working on this shit for about 10000 years.  We should be able to do better than "survival", now.

2.  Then we need a better us.  This one is defective.  It is in fact so defective that if it was a tangible thing, you'd take it back and loudly demand a refund.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

"Success" in terms of successful propagation. From a purely survivalistic standpoint, individual happiness doesn't matter. But the way the systems of culture have worked for millennia is that they have to create enough contentment within their members to ensure cooperation, and discontent creates internal pressure which drives social change.

In a society where much of our signal is generated by and to serve the interests of non-human entities, IMO, we really have a problem. If culture has evolved to serve corporations, that short-circuits the discontent>internal pressure>social change mechanism, and that changes the answer to your last question significantly.

And the last question I have is WHY we have conditioned ourselves (or been conditioned) in such a fashion?  A lot of work goes into this sort of thing, and nobody asks why?

The answer used to be simple: it was us. Collectively. But we've created a new us, and culture serves that us now.

1.  We've been working on this shit for about 10000 years.  We should be able to do better than "survival", now.

2.  Then we need a better us.  This one is defective.  It is in fact so defective that if it was a tangible thing, you'd take it back and loudly demand a refund.

point 2, see OP conclusion #1.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"Success" in terms of successful propagation. From a purely survivalistic standpoint, individual happiness doesn't matter. But the way the systems of culture have worked for millennia is that they have to create enough contentment within their members to ensure cooperation, and discontent creates internal pressure which drives social change.

In a society where much of our signal is generated by and to serve the interests of non-human entities, IMO, we really have a problem. If culture has evolved to serve corporations, that short-circuits the discontent>internal pressure>social change mechanism, and that changes the answer to your last question significantly.

And the last question I have is WHY we have conditioned ourselves (or been conditioned) in such a fashion?  A lot of work goes into this sort of thing, and nobody asks why?

The answer used to be simple: it was us. Collectively. But we've created a new us, and culture serves that us now.

1.  We've been working on this shit for about 10000 years.  We should be able to do better than "survival", now.

2.  Then we need a better us.  This one is defective.  It is in fact so defective that if it was a tangible thing, you'd take it back and loudly demand a refund.

point 2, see OP conclusion #1.

Um...Not seeing the connection.

[Verbal Mike]

Things of this scale don't depend on even an average of satisfaction; it's enough that power to change things is concentrated in such a way that (sufficiently many of) those who can change things don't, because they don't want to, don't need to, don't see a valid alternative, etc. Simplistically, if the 1% is in charge, and the 1% is happy with the way things are because they are in charge, then the satisfaction and even wellbeing of the 99% doesn't matter in the slightest. In reality, it's much more complicated than that; many of the 1% would like to see a better world, and many of the 99% – who are as a whole not served by the general set-up – are willing to die to keep anything from changing, due to false consciousness. But ultimately, as we saw in the recent patriarchy discussions, it's just really difficult to even see the walls we build in socialization, and how we build them, and the inertia of that ignorance is probably one of the main reasons "we" keep doing it.

[Phox]

"Success" in terms of successful propagation. From a purely survivalistic standpoint, individual happiness doesn't matter. But the way the systems of culture have worked for millennia is that they have to create enough contentment within their members to ensure cooperation, and discontent creates internal pressure which drives social change.

In a society where much of our signal is generated by and to serve the interests of non-human entities, IMO, we really have a problem. If culture has evolved to serve corporations, that short-circuits the discontent>internal pressure>social change mechanism, and that changes the answer to your last question significantly.

And the last question I have is WHY we have conditioned ourselves (or been conditioned) in such a fashion?  A lot of work goes into this sort of thing, and nobody asks why?

The answer used to be simple: it was us. Collectively. But we've created a new us, and culture serves that us now.

1.  We've been working on this shit for about 10000 years.  We should be able to do better than "survival", now.

2.  Then we need a better us.  This one is defective.  It is in fact so defective that if it was a tangible thing, you'd take it back and loudly demand a refund.

Damn straight we need a better us. But the downside is, to get a new "us" would require a complete restructuring of society, which most likely leads to The Road Warrior, and let's be honest, living in the realities of a Mel Gibson film would drive us right back to "survival".

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"Success" in terms of successful propagation. From a purely survivalistic standpoint, individual happiness doesn't matter. But the way the systems of culture have worked for millennia is that they have to create enough contentment within their members to ensure cooperation, and discontent creates internal pressure which drives social change.

In a society where much of our signal is generated by and to serve the interests of non-human entities, IMO, we really have a problem. If culture has evolved to serve corporations, that short-circuits the discontent>internal pressure>social change mechanism, and that changes the answer to your last question significantly.

And the last question I have is WHY we have conditioned ourselves (or been conditioned) in such a fashion?  A lot of work goes into this sort of thing, and nobody asks why?

The answer used to be simple: it was us. Collectively. But we've created a new us, and culture serves that us now.

1.  We've been working on this shit for about 10000 years.  We should be able to do better than "survival", now.

2.  Then we need a better us.  This one is defective.  It is in fact so defective that if it was a tangible thing, you'd take it back and loudly demand a refund.

Damn straight we need a better us. But the downside is, to get a new "us" would require a complete restructuring of society, which most likely leads to The Road Warrior, and let's be honest, living in the realities of a Mel Gibson film would drive us right back to "survival".

What makes you say that?

[Phox]

"Success" in terms of successful propagation. From a purely survivalistic standpoint, individual happiness doesn't matter. But the way the systems of culture have worked for millennia is that they have to create enough contentment within their members to ensure cooperation, and discontent creates internal pressure which drives social change.

In a society where much of our signal is generated by and to serve the interests of non-human entities, IMO, we really have a problem. If culture has evolved to serve corporations, that short-circuits the discontent>internal pressure>social change mechanism, and that changes the answer to your last question significantly.

And the last question I have is WHY we have conditioned ourselves (or been conditioned) in such a fashion?  A lot of work goes into this sort of thing, and nobody asks why?

The answer used to be simple: it was us. Collectively. But we've created a new us, and culture serves that us now.

1.  We've been working on this shit for about 10000 years.  We should be able to do better than "survival", now.

2.  Then we need a better us.  This one is defective.  It is in fact so defective that if it was a tangible thing, you'd take it back and loudly demand a refund.

Damn straight we need a better us. But the downside is, to get a new "us" would require a complete restructuring of society, which most likely leads to The Road Warrior, and let's be honest, living in the realities of a Mel Gibson film would drive us right back to "survival".

What makes you say that?

Which part? About restructuring society? I am of the opinion that our current system is so institutionalized that attempts to change it have as much chance of failure as success, and worst case scenario is total degeneration (admittedly, not most likely scenario). (<= All opinion, with only anecdotal observation and vaguely generalized historical trends, and a tendency to assume people are assholes informing it, so you know, don't take it as cold, hard fact...  )
Also, today I'm feeling a might more misanthropic than is strictly healthy, so...

Or the thing about Mel Gibson movies? I'm fairly certain that any rational person would go into complete mental shut down at the realization that Mel Gibson has been right about anything ever, and become some sort of marauding ghoul or a catatonic wreck of a person. (Fact.) 

ETA: SWEET GIBBERING ZOMBIE FUCKING CHRIST. WHY THE FUCK CAN'T I SPELL THE WORD "RIGHT"?

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

"Success" in terms of successful propagation. From a purely survivalistic standpoint, individual happiness doesn't matter. But the way the systems of culture have worked for millennia is that they have to create enough contentment within their members to ensure cooperation, and discontent creates internal pressure which drives social change.

In a society where much of our signal is generated by and to serve the interests of non-human entities, IMO, we really have a problem. If culture has evolved to serve corporations, that short-circuits the discontent>internal pressure>social change mechanism, and that changes the answer to your last question significantly.

And the last question I have is WHY we have conditioned ourselves (or been conditioned) in such a fashion?  A lot of work goes into this sort of thing, and nobody asks why?

The answer used to be simple: it was us. Collectively. But we've created a new us, and culture serves that us now.

1.  We've been working on this shit for about 10000 years.  We should be able to do better than "survival", now.

2.  Then we need a better us.  This one is defective.  It is in fact so defective that if it was a tangible thing, you'd take it back and loudly demand a refund.

point 2, see OP conclusion #1.

Um...Not seeing the connection.

I'll elaborate in a separate post. Getting killed at work at the moment.