So People became separated in their minds for whatever reason, I'm not some kind of biologist, into the Super Ego and Id. In a Dialectical type fashion The Super Ego confronted the animalistic Id and created the Ego, the self. We are self conscious because of the way the Super Ego and Id brush up against each other. This clash is the source of guilt and other emotions only humans have.
The State is a psychic projection of this internal state of affairs where the Super Ego, exemplified in The MachineTM brushes up against our base internal desires, the Id, and turns us into citizens.
The movements of the 60s with sexual revolution and whatever else are then superficial because they merely furthered the clash between the Id and the Super Ego with them on one side and the government on the other. All it did was make us (here I can nly speak for America) more egotistical and guilty. More repressed as citizens. (This can also be linked to the concept of recuperation of the situationists where any radical tendencies are defanged and then put to service by The MachineTM, which might make it only seem like the sexual revolution movement was superficial. )
So then this seems to jam with the Buddhist notion of Ego Death and being Mu. At this point since I am not that well versed in Buddhism I am kind of lost.
I am also then a bit disconcerted with the way this argument goes due to the eternal nature of the Chao. If we are pretty much incapable of seeing Chaos for what it is and instead we must be satisfied with whirling arrays of order and disorder, does that mean that we are stuck with this repugnant Super Ego and with it The MachineTM itself?
It could be possible that while the Super Ego and it's notions of order are impossible to escape, we can shift the relationship between the Super Ego and Id such that our Ego lives much more at ease. At which point then the anarchist project becomes feasible as it changes the organization of people and the balance between order and disorder by removing the State Capitalist machine and replacing it with an array of other more local rule making bodies. Of course then that might imply that the Buddhist notion of being Mu is unattainable, though it still leaves the process of Zen up for use to balance out the forces of order and disorder in our minds.
This is just a different way of understanding the forces of Order and Disorder, though I've been reading alot of the Illuminatus! books lately soit could just be a regurgitation of that. In any case, what do you think about this?
Honestly, my kneejerk reaction is that the Id Ego and SuperEgo are just another type of narrative to describe the internal processes of thought and identity, and do you really want your narrative of self being influenced by Freud?
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 12, 2013, 01:55:40 PM
I'm not some kind of biologist, into the Super Ego and Id.
Um...
That just made my fucking day. Thanks!
:lulz:
I think that Id, Ego and Superego were simply words used to describe observed processes that were not well-understood (and continue to be not well-understood today). We use different words for them now that are more sciency, like amygdala and cerebral cortex and corpus colossum and Broca's Region and so on, and we know that ACTUAL STUFF HAPPENS and that the brain is really complicated and systems are very intertwined, but we still don't really understand it.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 12, 2013, 05:38:24 PM
:lulz:
I think that Id, Ego and Superego were simply words used to describe observed processes that were not well-understood (and continue to be not well-understood today). We use different words for them now that are more sciency, like amygdala and cerebral cortex and corpus colossum and Broca's Region and so on, and we know that ACTUAL STUFF HAPPENS and that the brain is really complicated and systems are very intertwined, but we still don't really understand it.
Please forgive my not knowing that, I'm not some kind of Civil Engineer, into amygdalas and cerebral cortex's you know :lulz:
:lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2013, 05:40:54 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 12, 2013, 05:38:24 PM
:lulz:
I think that Id, Ego and Superego were simply words used to describe observed processes that were not well-understood (and continue to be not well-understood today). We use different words for them now that are more sciency, like amygdala and cerebral cortex and corpus colossum and Broca's Region and so on, and we know that ACTUAL STUFF HAPPENS and that the brain is really complicated and systems are very intertwined, but we still don't really understand it.
Please forgive my not knowing that, I'm not some kind of Civil Engineer, into amygdalas and cerebral cortex's you know :lulz:
:lulz:
"I'm not going to bullshit you; I'm not a DOCTOR, I'm not some kind of MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL...I'm a PROFESSOR, and this is what I'm professing."
- Professor Cramulus,
Diabetics Are Awful People.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on June 12, 2013, 02:47:41 PM
Honestly, my kneejerk reaction is that the Id Ego and SuperEgo are just another type of narrative to describe the internal processes of thought and identity, and do you really want your narrative of self being influenced by Freud?
If we have to choose a narrative then it makes sense to me to just use whatever one is useful in describing the terms. Talking about the civil rights movement in terms ofthe swirling of atoms doesn't seem to be particularly useful in communicating an idea.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 12, 2013, 04:57:31 PM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 12, 2013, 01:55:40 PM
I'm not some kind of biologist, into the Super Ego and Id.
Um...
That just made my fucking day. Thanks!
What I really meant is that I don't know of a biological or evolutionary reason for the human mind to be separated in such a fashion, merely that it seems to be that way. Certainly I don't think that the Ego and Id are actual biological parts of the brain, only that they are easier to talk about than the different physical structures in the brain, especially since the interaction between government and citizens seems to be a psychic process rather than a physical one.
im curious, have you actually read anything of psychoanalysis beyond some wikipedia article?
i personally think your analogies and comparisons are weak and superficial, do you have it in you to make something more elaborate?
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 12, 2013, 08:23:40 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on June 12, 2013, 02:47:41 PM
Honestly, my kneejerk reaction is that the Id Ego and SuperEgo are just another type of narrative to describe the internal processes of thought and identity, and do you really want your narrative of self being influenced by Freud?
If we have to choose a narrative then it makes sense to me to just use whatever one is useful in describing the terms. Talking about the civil rights movement in terms ofthe swirling of atoms doesn't seem to be particularly useful in communicating an idea.
There are more useful ones than Id Ego and Superego. Like, about a billion times more useful for any of my purposes. If you like that one, that's fine for you, but I kinda hate it with several passions and I find a lot of times when people are going down that path it's because they haven't explored the idea that this is just one of many grids, and it may not automatically be the best.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on June 12, 2013, 09:12:30 PM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 12, 2013, 08:23:40 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on June 12, 2013, 02:47:41 PM
Honestly, my kneejerk reaction is that the Id Ego and SuperEgo are just another type of narrative to describe the internal processes of thought and identity, and do you really want your narrative of self being influenced by Freud?
If we have to choose a narrative then it makes sense to me to just use whatever one is useful in describing the terms. Talking about the civil rights movement in terms ofthe swirling of atoms doesn't seem to be particularly useful in communicating an idea.
There are more useful ones than Id Ego and Superego. Like, about a billion times more useful for any of my purposes. If you like that one, that's fine for you, but I kinda hate it with several passions and I find a lot of times when people are going down that path it's because they haven't explored the idea that this is just one of many grids, and it may not automatically be the best.
Theres this whole field in psychology that is denominated "groups and institutions" with its own theory and practice, and then there's also "psychoanalysis of institutions"... i mean, im trying to not be rude, but to me it just sounded like psych 101 fappery
Quote from: The Johnny on June 12, 2013, 09:37:34 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on June 12, 2013, 09:12:30 PM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 12, 2013, 08:23:40 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on June 12, 2013, 02:47:41 PM
Honestly, my kneejerk reaction is that the Id Ego and SuperEgo are just another type of narrative to describe the internal processes of thought and identity, and do you really want your narrative of self being influenced by Freud?
If we have to choose a narrative then it makes sense to me to just use whatever one is useful in describing the terms. Talking about the civil rights movement in terms ofthe swirling of atoms doesn't seem to be particularly useful in communicating an idea.
There are more useful ones than Id Ego and Superego. Like, about a billion times more useful for any of my purposes. If you like that one, that's fine for you, but I kinda hate it with several passions and I find a lot of times when people are going down that path it's because they haven't explored the idea that this is just one of many grids, and it may not automatically be the best.
Theres this whole field in psychology that is denominated "groups and institutions" with its own theory and practice, and then there's also "psychoanalysis of institutions"... i mean, im trying to not be rude, but to me it just sounded like psych 101 fappery
Yeah, they taught us id, ego, and superego basically as part of a history lesson. "Hey guys, it's important to understand the history of psychology. OK, now you know. Let us never speak of this again".
psychoanalysis is a very specialized and technical language, so one either goes balls out and develops the idea THROUGHLY with it or one simply does not use it, any middle ground i consider it as "omg, my psychobabble sounds so interesting"
also, applying the terminology which was designed as a map to the territory og the mind, and transitioning as using it as a map of the territory of society is at best sketchy...
the more i think of it the more ragefrotthy im getting
Quote from: The Johnny on June 13, 2013, 01:54:39 AM
psychoanalysis is a very specialized and technical language, so one either goes balls out and develops the idea THROUGHLY with it or one simply does not use it, any middle ground i consider it as "omg, my psychobabble sounds so interesting"
also, applying the terminology which was designed as a map to the territory og the mind, and transitioning as using it as a map of the territory of society is at best sketchy...
the more i think of it the more ragefrotthy im getting
Well abandoning the psychoanalysis language I would still like to talk about what kind of options are available for those dissatisfied with the status quo, if the institutions which they seek to oppose, such as the state, are just projections of their minds. My main point of ambivalence here being whether collective or individual action would then be more effective. I've thought myself that a combination of the two would be the most pragmatic approach as it cuts off both the physical and psychic manifestations of the state. Then again physical and psychic approaches are both prone to ideology and co option. Or could it be alternatively that The Machine
TM is a mental construction which is eternal and essential to the human mind much like our instinctual desires and as such the path of anarchism is at best naive if it thinks it can destroy coercive law-making bodies in a real capacity. If we cannot rid ourselves of the insecurities and guilt that make us want to form and strengthen governments then governments will always exist by this logic.
Implying governments are an undesirable outcome.
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 13, 2013, 03:15:50 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 13, 2013, 01:54:39 AM
psychoanalysis is a very specialized and technical language, so one either goes balls out and develops the idea THROUGHLY with it or one simply does not use it, any middle ground i consider it as "omg, my psychobabble sounds so interesting"
also, applying the terminology which was designed as a map to the territory og the mind, and transitioning as using it as a map of the territory of society is at best sketchy...
the more i think of it the more ragefrotthy im getting
Well abandoning the psychoanalysis language I would still like to talk about what kind of options are available for those dissatisfied with the status quo, if the institutions which they seek to oppose, such as the state, are just projections of their minds. My main point of ambivalence here being whether collective or individual action would then be more effective. I've thought myself that a combination of the two would be the most pragmatic approach as it cuts off both the physical and psychic manifestations of the state. Then again physical and psychic approaches are both prone to ideology and co option. Or could it be alternatively that The MachineTM is a mental construction which is eternal and essential to the human mind much like our instinctual desires and as such the path of anarchism is at best naive if it thinks it can destroy coercive law-making bodies in a real capacity. If we cannot rid ourselves of the insecurities and guilt that make us want to form and strengthen governments then governments will always exist by this logic.
Are you having some sort of episode?
I thought the thing that causes governments to form was the natural development of a highly advanced social primate species.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 13, 2013, 03:41:33 AM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 13, 2013, 03:15:50 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 13, 2013, 01:54:39 AM
psychoanalysis is a very specialized and technical language, so one either goes balls out and develops the idea THROUGHLY with it or one simply does not use it, any middle ground i consider it as "omg, my psychobabble sounds so interesting"
also, applying the terminology which was designed as a map to the territory og the mind, and transitioning as using it as a map of the territory of society is at best sketchy...
the more i think of it the more ragefrotthy im getting
Well abandoning the psychoanalysis language I would still like to talk about what kind of options are available for those dissatisfied with the status quo, if the institutions which they seek to oppose, such as the state, are just projections of their minds. My main point of ambivalence here being whether collective or individual action would then be more effective. I've thought myself that a combination of the two would be the most pragmatic approach as it cuts off both the physical and psychic manifestations of the state. Then again physical and psychic approaches are both prone to ideology and co option. Or could it be alternatively that The MachineTM is a mental construction which is eternal and essential to the human mind much like our instinctual desires and as such the path of anarchism is at best naive if it thinks it can destroy coercive law-making bodies in a real capacity. If we cannot rid ourselves of the insecurities and guilt that make us want to form and strengthen governments then governments will always exist by this logic.
Are you having some sort of episode?
I'm confused by what you mean by that.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on June 13, 2013, 03:37:01 AM
Implying governments are an undesirable outcome.
I find them to be undesirable if there are better alternatives for living. Though my ambivalence in the last post shows that governments may not be undesirable given certain conditions of humanity.
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 13, 2013, 04:04:05 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 13, 2013, 03:41:33 AM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 13, 2013, 03:15:50 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 13, 2013, 01:54:39 AM
psychoanalysis is a very specialized and technical language, so one either goes balls out and develops the idea THROUGHLY with it or one simply does not use it, any middle ground i consider it as "omg, my psychobabble sounds so interesting"
also, applying the terminology which was designed as a map to the territory og the mind, and transitioning as using it as a map of the territory of society is at best sketchy...
the more i think of it the more ragefrotthy im getting
Well abandoning the psychoanalysis language I would still like to talk about what kind of options are available for those dissatisfied with the status quo, if the institutions which they seek to oppose, such as the state, are just projections of their minds. My main point of ambivalence here being whether collective or individual action would then be more effective. I've thought myself that a combination of the two would be the most pragmatic approach as it cuts off both the physical and psychic manifestations of the state. Then again physical and psychic approaches are both prone to ideology and co option. Or could it be alternatively that The MachineTM is a mental construction which is eternal and essential to the human mind much like our instinctual desires and as such the path of anarchism is at best naive if it thinks it can destroy coercive law-making bodies in a real capacity. If we cannot rid ourselves of the insecurities and guilt that make us want to form and strengthen governments then governments will always exist by this logic.
Are you having some sort of episode?
I'm confused by what you mean by that.
I mean that you are using a lot of words, but your meaning is not particularly clear, and I'm uncertain of what to make of that.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 13, 2013, 04:08:59 AM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 13, 2013, 04:04:05 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 13, 2013, 03:41:33 AM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 13, 2013, 03:15:50 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 13, 2013, 01:54:39 AM
psychoanalysis is a very specialized and technical language, so one either goes balls out and develops the idea THROUGHLY with it or one simply does not use it, any middle ground i consider it as "omg, my psychobabble sounds so interesting"
also, applying the terminology which was designed as a map to the territory og the mind, and transitioning as using it as a map of the territory of society is at best sketchy...
the more i think of it the more ragefrotthy im getting
Well abandoning the psychoanalysis language I would still like to talk about what kind of options are available for those dissatisfied with the status quo, if the institutions which they seek to oppose, such as the state, are just projections of their minds. My main point of ambivalence here being whether collective or individual action would then be more effective. I've thought myself that a combination of the two would be the most pragmatic approach as it cuts off both the physical and psychic manifestations of the state. Then again physical and psychic approaches are both prone to ideology and co option. Or could it be alternatively that The MachineTM is a mental construction which is eternal and essential to the human mind much like our instinctual desires and as such the path of anarchism is at best naive if it thinks it can destroy coercive law-making bodies in a real capacity. If we cannot rid ourselves of the insecurities and guilt that make us want to form and strengthen governments then governments will always exist by this logic.
Are you having some sort of episode?
I'm confused by what you mean by that.
I mean that you are using a lot of words, but your meaning is not particularly clear, and I'm uncertain of what to make of that.
You're right that I'm a bit scattered. I don't have a particular right answer to the specific question proposed: What can be done by those who are dissatified with the status quo if the government is a projection of our collective heads.
I am unsure of what the answer might be which is where I am asking for some assistance.
If The MachineTM is a mental construction which is eternal and essential to the human mind much like our instinctual desires then we can't ever really get rid of coercive government.
If The MachineTM is a mental construct which is malleable and able to be surmounted, then the anarchist project can still be fulfilled for those interested in it.
Going further if the anarchist project has potential for balancing out order and disorder in human life, is individual action, like Zazen or something, or Collective action, like public revolution, the more effective path to getting rid of the construct of coercive state government? I am currently of the opinion that a combination of the two is necessary, but I am open to the ideas of others on this point or any other.
My post being a series of questions might seem a bit dense. I hope that cleared up my meaning a bit.
I feel like your understanding of The Machine and my understanding of it aren't on the same wavelength at all. (Not to imply that one is right or the other is wrong, just that we're talking at right angles to each other.)
When I say The Machine, I guess my understanding of it is that it is the grouping of the globalized state-capitalist government structure which is centered in the Euro-American World. It is not only the various Statist governments but also the global capitalist economy and the general objectification it propogates. Here I would make a distinction in a similar way Marx and Malcolm X did between House Slaves( the bourgeoisie ) and the field slaves (the global proletariet whether they be white collar or blue collar or anything in between). The house slaves are controlled by The Machine just as we, the proles, are. They are just exploited in a slightly different way.
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 13, 2013, 03:15:50 AM
Well abandoning the psychoanalysis language I would still like to talk about what kind of options are available for those dissatisfied with the status quo, if the institutions which they seek to oppose, such as the state, are just projections of their minds.
My main point of ambivalence here being whether collective or individual action would then be more effective. I've thought myself that a combination of the two would be the most pragmatic approach as it cuts off both the physical and psychic manifestations of the state. Then again physical and psychic approaches are both prone to ideology and co option. Or could it be alternatively that The MachineTM is a mental construction which is eternal and essential to the human mind much like our instinctual desires and as such the path of anarchism is at best naive if it thinks it can destroy coercive law-making bodies in a real capacity. If we cannot rid ourselves of the insecurities and guilt that make us want to form and strengthen governments then governments will always exist by this logic.
First of all, States are not "projections of the mind" they are real entities, look up the Parable of the Barstool. Also, making a psychological reductionism of a socio-historical process of why States exist and were created is simply that, a reductionism.
I was going to adress the rest of the post, but its way too scattered and it replicates the problem with the first paragraph, psychological reductionism to very complex phenomena.
I think the central point in the argumentation is the possibility of the "anarchist project", and if it indeed is, there are a bunch of threads that explore that already.
Quote from: The Johnny on June 13, 2013, 04:54:56 AM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 13, 2013, 03:15:50 AM
Well abandoning the psychoanalysis language I would still like to talk about what kind of options are available for those dissatisfied with the status quo, if the institutions which they seek to oppose, such as the state, are just projections of their minds.
My main point of ambivalence here being whether collective or individual action would then be more effective. I've thought myself that a combination of the two would be the most pragmatic approach as it cuts off both the physical and psychic manifestations of the state. Then again physical and psychic approaches are both prone to ideology and co option. Or could it be alternatively that The MachineTM is a mental construction which is eternal and essential to the human mind much like our instinctual desires and as such the path of anarchism is at best naive if it thinks it can destroy coercive law-making bodies in a real capacity. If we cannot rid ourselves of the insecurities and guilt that make us want to form and strengthen governments then governments will always exist by this logic.
First of all, States are not "projections of the mind" they are real entities, look up the Parable of the Barstool. Also, making a psychological reductionism of a socio-historical process of why States exist and were created is simply that, a reductionism.
I was going to adress the rest of the post, but its way too scattered and it replicates the problem with the first paragraph, psychological reductionism to very complex phenomena.
Sure a state can hurt you and in that sense it exists, but it can only hit you as hard and as fast as one of it's dogs(military officers) or pigs(police officers) can hit you. In this sense the state only has power because people listen and follow it's instructions. One could say Yahweh exists too since the crusades happened but that wouldn't really be true. In terms of the individual approach then if one gets rid of the mentality of subservience to the state then the state's power will be reduced. Then again most dogs and pigs are not that easily swayed as they are devout statists so more collective forms of resistence become necessary to not get your brains smashed out by the invisible hand of the market or the one eyed monster of government.
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 13, 2013, 05:24:03 AM
One could say Yahweh exists too since the crusades happened but that wouldn't really be true.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: Please, making such logical fallacies is just insincere, an "yahweh" is an "invisible entity" in the sense that it's an abstract; the State is a very real and tangible institution, with power and officials and the ability of enforcement.
Others might have heard me say this multiple times and might be sick and tired of it by now, but not you so ill repeat it: discourse =/= practice. I say this in the sense that even if you dont have a subservient mentality, and you still act subservient, the State's power remains the same.
Good luck with that "collective resistance", go and wake up the "sheep" from their "slumber".
I think you might get more productive thinking if you look at The Machine as a personification of cultural inertia. States are real solid things that exist, the idea of The Machine is the stuff that keeps a state (or any group) steamrolling people over a cliff in spite of the fact that everyone insists that's not what they want.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on June 13, 2013, 03:37:01 AM
Implying governments are an undesirable outcome.
Personally, I despise roads, bridges, and the rule of law.
BACK TO THE JUNGLE! OOOOOK!
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 13, 2013, 04:08:59 AM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 13, 2013, 04:04:05 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 13, 2013, 03:41:33 AM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 13, 2013, 03:15:50 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 13, 2013, 01:54:39 AM
psychoanalysis is a very specialized and technical language, so one either goes balls out and develops the idea THROUGHLY with it or one simply does not use it, any middle ground i consider it as "omg, my psychobabble sounds so interesting"
also, applying the terminology which was designed as a map to the territory og the mind, and transitioning as using it as a map of the territory of society is at best sketchy...
the more i think of it the more ragefrotthy im getting
Well abandoning the psychoanalysis language I would still like to talk about what kind of options are available for those dissatisfied with the status quo, if the institutions which they seek to oppose, such as the state, are just projections of their minds. My main point of ambivalence here being whether collective or individual action would then be more effective. I've thought myself that a combination of the two would be the most pragmatic approach as it cuts off both the physical and psychic manifestations of the state. Then again physical and psychic approaches are both prone to ideology and co option. Or could it be alternatively that The MachineTM is a mental construction which is eternal and essential to the human mind much like our instinctual desires and as such the path of anarchism is at best naive if it thinks it can destroy coercive law-making bodies in a real capacity. If we cannot rid ourselves of the insecurities and guilt that make us want to form and strengthen governments then governments will always exist by this logic.
Are you having some sort of episode?
I'm confused by what you mean by that.
I mean that you are using a lot of words, but your meaning is not particularly clear, and I'm uncertain of what to make of that.
I thought it was just me.
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 13, 2013, 04:04:05 AM
I find them to be undesirable if there are better alternatives for living.
Like, say, Somalia? Or Liberia?
Quote from: The Johnny on June 13, 2013, 06:32:16 AM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 13, 2013, 05:24:03 AM
One could say Yahweh exists too since the crusades happened but that wouldn't really be true.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: Please, making such logical fallacies is just insincere, an "yahweh" is an "invisible entity" in the sense that it's an abstract; the State is a very real and tangible institution, with power and officials and the ability of enforcement.
Others might have heard me say this multiple times and might be sick and tired of it by now, but not you so ill repeat it: discourse =/= practice. I say this in the sense that even if you dont have a subservient mentality, and you still act subservient, the State's power remains the same.
Good luck with that "collective resistance", go and wake up the "sheep" from their "slumber".
So the only way to get rid of the state's power would be to change both the subservient mindset and the subservient action, fine.
In terms of the sheeple thing I don't think it's about waking sheep up from their slumber to realize some grand truth. I do think however that it is possible for groups of people to agree on the nature of their quarrel with the state. It seems to be that people often believe that their experiences are not shared by others. If people can agree on what they don't want and what they do, then they can take a group action just like any group does.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on June 13, 2013, 03:52:41 PM
I think you might get more productive thinking if you look at The Machine as a personification of cultural inertia. States are real solid things that exist, the idea of The Machine is the stuff that keeps a state (or any group) steamrolling people over a cliff in spite of the fact that everyone insists that's not what they want.
I can agree that States are real solid things that exist if the state is the state of affairs where a group of people rules over another with force, in the case of America, the government of this state being the really existing people in branches of government, the police, and the military.
In terms of the Machine being a personification of cultural inertia, if we agree that we don't want to be steamrolled off the cliff then I guess my question would be why don't we just stop doing those things, (which was apart of my original question) since it is the case that no one likes it.
If it is that we cannot stop doing these things because the cultural inertia of the machine can never be stopped then the anarchistic project and any that attempts some radical change is doomed to failure.
On the other hand if there is a way to bring the machine to a halt, or at the very least slowed, then radical change becomes possible ( the means for which I do not know).
What I am trying to get at by calling the state a psychic projection is that it is a real thing that exists and it is made up of people, on either side of the authoritarian relationship, who believe in the existence of the state and act as such. If it is that this state of affairs is really not desirable for most people then cultural inertia toward robotic acceptance is a seemingly good explanation for why it continues.
On the third hand though it brings up another point of debate about whether, even though people insist they don't want to be pushed off the cliff and don't want to push others over it, are those sentiments really true? Do we have an unconscious desire for this state of affairs which drives us to accept it's existence rather than change it. If this is true then nothing really can be done then it seems.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 13, 2013, 06:39:17 PM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 13, 2013, 04:04:05 AM
I find them to be undesirable if there are better alternatives for living.
Like, say, Somalia? Or Liberia?
Not really. I find anarcho-communism to a seemingly pleasant way to live, then again I've always lived under state so I guess I can't really say what kinds of arrangements are pragmatically better.You would have to get rid of the state before you can really experiment with how to live without one, just like you have to leave home and be poor all on your own before you can know what to do in such a situation.
I am however open to other living arrangements, such as living under a less terrible state of affairs than this one.
I do know that I don't like the idea of labour unconnected to survival and I don't particularly like the idea of living under the rules of other people, much less rules that were created and enforced in ways that are not really influence-able by me personally.
:lulz:
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 13, 2013, 07:01:17 PM
I do know that I don't like the idea of labour unconnected to survival and I don't particularly like the idea of living under the rules of other people, much less rules that were created and enforced in ways that are not really influence-able by me personally.
Well, then, we should abolish the universe while we're at it. You and I had no say in things, and it's obviously not set up to cater to our American Exceptionalism™.
Okay, so:
Everyone split off into tribes of about 150 people, each occupying an adequate roaming territory with plentiful resources. Only come into contact with other tribes to exchange genes once in a while, to keep things fresh.
There. Once you manage that, you've regressed humanity far enough to render institutionalized government unnecessary.
Quote from: Cainad on June 13, 2013, 08:19:29 PM
Okay, so:
Everyone split off into tribes of about 150 people, each occupying an adequate roaming territory with plentiful resources. Only come into contact with other tribes to exchange genes once in a while, to keep things fresh.
There. Once you manage that, you've regressed humanity far enough to render institutionalized government unnecessary.
Yeah, and I'm gonna get MY 150 people to sneak up on HIS 150 people while they sleep, bash 'em on the head, and run off with their women and their shit.
WOOOOOOOOOOOO!
I refer to this as Doktor Howl's Gimme Your Sammich Theory.
this may be relevant:
(http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/6615/ethicsandlove.jpg)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 13, 2013, 08:21:09 PM
Quote from: Cainad on June 13, 2013, 08:19:29 PM
Okay, so:
Everyone split off into tribes of about 150 people, each occupying an adequate roaming territory with plentiful resources. Only come into contact with other tribes to exchange genes once in a while, to keep things fresh.
There. Once you manage that, you've regressed humanity far enough to render institutionalized government unnecessary.
Yeah, and I'm gonna get MY 150 people to sneak up on HIS 150 people while they sleep, bash 'em on the head, and run off with their women and their shit.
WOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Right, so we just need some kind of system to prevent-
Oh. Ooohhh.
Yeah.
Cultural inertia exists for a reason, partly because it's the reiteration of our patterns of action driven by fear and desires as a species, a.k.a. "SHUT UP! Monkey is driving the bus!"
Besides that, there's infrastructural constrains, we need a power/water/comms/transportations/gas network for starters and that cannot be managed by anarchist communes... we also need a type of centralization for research and technology to flourish...
Who would build the bridges? Who would create medical pills or do brain surgery? How would electricity, water and basic services be maintained?... To have the quality and expectancy of life we currently have its an implicit that we need centralization and specialization in the social roles/functions of the individuals.
I used to be an anarcho-syndicalist, then I realized I was being ridiculously optimistic about humanity.
We're all selfish little monkeys, we always will be.
Having a government makes the exploitation more predictable than having wandering robber gangs.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 13, 2013, 04:16:17 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 13, 2013, 04:08:59 AM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 13, 2013, 04:04:05 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 13, 2013, 03:41:33 AM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 13, 2013, 03:15:50 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 13, 2013, 01:54:39 AM
psychoanalysis is a very specialized and technical language, so one either goes balls out and develops the idea THROUGHLY with it or one simply does not use it, any middle ground i consider it as "omg, my psychobabble sounds so interesting"
also, applying the terminology which was designed as a map to the territory og the mind, and transitioning as using it as a map of the territory of society is at best sketchy...
the more i think of it the more ragefrotthy im getting
Well abandoning the psychoanalysis language I would still like to talk about what kind of options are available for those dissatisfied with the status quo, if the institutions which they seek to oppose, such as the state, are just projections of their minds. My main point of ambivalence here being whether collective or individual action would then be more effective. I've thought myself that a combination of the two would be the most pragmatic approach as it cuts off both the physical and psychic manifestations of the state. Then again physical and psychic approaches are both prone to ideology and co option. Or could it be alternatively that The MachineTM is a mental construction which is eternal and essential to the human mind much like our instinctual desires and as such the path of anarchism is at best naive if it thinks it can destroy coercive law-making bodies in a real capacity. If we cannot rid ourselves of the insecurities and guilt that make us want to form and strengthen governments then governments will always exist by this logic.
Are you having some sort of episode?
I'm confused by what you mean by that.
I mean that you are using a lot of words, but your meaning is not particularly clear, and I'm uncertain of what to make of that.
I thought it was just me.
No, I think he's either sixteen or schizophrenic.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 14, 2013, 05:46:55 AM
I used to be an anarcho-syndicalist, then I realized I was being ridiculously optimistic about humanity.
We're all selfish little monkeys, we always will be.
Having a government makes the exploitation more predictable than having wandering robber gangs.
This! Although, the fact that I would most likely be part of one of those gangs is why I'm still pro-anarchy :evil:
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on June 13, 2013, 09:00:36 PM
this may be relevant:
(http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/6615/ethicsandlove.jpg)
Very apt, I was going to post the same thing.
I've always interpreted that as "Hey, dumbass, People WANT to do that shit"
If no one wanted war, there wouldn't be war. If no one wanted murder, there wouldn't be murder. The sad fact is that most people are primates, and primate behavior involves shit flinging, murder, territorial squabbles and US vs THEM (monkeys hunting down 'outsider' monkeys and killing them has been observed in nature). Sure, some humans want peace and love and no government and could, possibly take care of themselves. However, there are billions of humans and most of them aren't prepared for common local emergencies (tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, fires etc), let alone any sort of self sufficiency.
As for The Machine... I see it more as the whole mess. The pro-government people, the anti-government people, the business people, the protesters, the college students, the rednecks, the blue collar workers, the while collar criminals, the gun nuts, the stoners etc etc. Even those fighting against the machine, are a part of The Machine. One dude fights against the Machine and nails some shit to a door, a couple generations later and his action has created a whole new bit of the Machine so people could fight over which group was really with their Invisible Friend (the dude in the funny hat, the dudes with the belt buckle shoes, or whoever was getting backed by the King at any given moment).
Freeing humanity isn't going to happen. The best we can do, I think, is free ourselves as much as possible within our own neurological system.
Well fine I had suspected that the anarchist project was naive at best, though you seem to be confirming it. So then what can be done to change the way the global state capitalist machine works to act in the favor of more people? What can actually be done with this kind of world?
Then again I might be eating the menu here. Focusing on one's life in a more individual way in terms of reshaping how one relates to the world and is treated by it seems to be a better solution from this angle. Changing the world in some universal grand way is a recipe for all kinds of foolish things and is generally focusing on the wrong level of the problem, if that problem is about the way we live our lives individually.
So then the first scenario of my last post is true and we are kind of stuck with the products of our past and our current biology. Thanks for all your help.
No, I think there are ways to effect change. We don't have to be stuck. It does, however, take mass action.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 16, 2013, 09:02:51 PM
No, I think there are ways to effect change. We don't have to be stuck. It does, however, take mass action.
Well certainly. Though I think maybe my mistake was being a little too focused on how to impose some kind of anarchist ego-trip on others so that they would want to take mass action. I think I need to learn a little more about doing nothing constructively and being mu. There are times to act and there are times to do nothing, times to go with the flow and times to fight desperately. It takes a certain amount of illumination to discern the difference and a certain something something else to find that illumination within rather than without.
I think there are ways to constructively work with other people in ways that do jive with non servium like doing a Really Really Free Market or something, and many of thsoe can be considered mass action. But I am also starting to think that more innovation is necessary to try and figure out more effective ways of living than this. While we don't have to be stuck in the squo but we are stuck with our past and the way it has shaped us and the actions we take. People who went through the depression collected pennies way after it was over. That's apart of the cultural inertia of The Machine. Working individually with one's self is then the first step.
My point here I guess being that Mass Action needs to happen organically. The geese have to break out of their bottles individually and then recognize each other as brethren. If you try to recognize the other geese before you break out the bottle you end up with a distorted vision of those around you, a vision that will remain for some time. Which of course ends up with us treating each other as though we were still in bottles, which is functionally the same.
I suppose that is a larger problem with revolutionary movements. Often they revert back to what they had before, just in some transmuted form. They didn't resolve the fascist drive within themselves before they deposed the fascists who ruled over them externally.
Uncle BadTouch?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 16, 2013, 10:46:17 PM
Uncle BadTouch?
I suppose shade is kind of nice. Though when it's not too hot it feels kind of good to just sit on the grass in the sun.
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 16, 2013, 10:52:14 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 16, 2013, 10:46:17 PM
Uncle BadTouch?
I suppose shade is kind of nice. Though when it's not too hot it feels kind of good to just sit on the grass in the sun.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 16, 2013, 11:29:22 PM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 16, 2013, 10:52:14 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 16, 2013, 10:46:17 PM
Uncle BadTouch?
I suppose shade is kind of nice. Though when it's not too hot it feels kind of good to just sit on the grass in the sun.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
I did google Uncle BadTouch and http://Uncle BadTouch.org/ came up. Was that what you were talking about?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 16, 2013, 09:02:51 PM
No, I think there are ways to effect change. We don't have to be stuck. It does, however, take mass action.
...We'd have to move our masses.
That's hard to achieve...
(http://clearlychic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/thesecolorsdontrun.jpg)
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 16, 2013, 05:39:27 AM
Well fine I had suspected that the anarchist project was naive at best, though you seem to be confirming it. So then what can be done to change the way the global state capitalist machine works to act in the favor of more people? What can actually be done with this kind of world?
Then again I might be eating the menu here. Focusing on one's life in a more individual way in terms of reshaping how one relates to the world and is treated by it seems to be a better solution from this angle. Changing the world in some universal grand way is a recipe for all kinds of foolish things and is generally focusing on the wrong level of the problem, if that problem is about the way we live our lives individually.
So then the first scenario of my last post is true and we are kind of stuck with the products of our past and our current biology. Thanks for all your help.
You're living in the time period under which government is at its most benevolent in history.
What are you upset about?
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 16, 2013, 11:34:27 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 16, 2013, 11:29:22 PM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 16, 2013, 10:52:14 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 16, 2013, 10:46:17 PM
Uncle BadTouch?
I suppose shade is kind of nice. Though when it's not too hot it feels kind of good to just sit on the grass in the sun.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
I did google Uncle BadTouch and http://Uncle BadTouch.org/ came up. Was that what you were talking about?
Oh, boy.
You fuckers are a persistent bunch.
Handle technically has "Wolf" in it.
just saying...
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 17, 2013, 09:24:05 PM
Handle technically has "Wolf" in it.
just saying...
Yeah, but there's nothing else to do in this sewer, is there? No. So we fuck with the Loveshady arse biscuit.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 17, 2013, 01:48:40 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 16, 2013, 09:02:51 PM
No, I think there are ways to effect change. We don't have to be stuck. It does, however, take mass action.
...We'd have to move our masses.
That's hard to achieve...
(http://clearlychic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/thesecolorsdontrun.jpg)
For all the twee cynicism people are so fond of bandying about, social conditions have changed phenomenally for the better in many areas of life in just the last 40 years.
That's not a reason to disregard the negative changes that are taking place, like the consolidation of wealth and corporate power, but it does give me cause for hope.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 17, 2013, 04:25:34 PM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 16, 2013, 11:34:27 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 16, 2013, 11:29:22 PM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 16, 2013, 10:52:14 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 16, 2013, 10:46:17 PM
Uncle BadTouch?
I suppose shade is kind of nice. Though when it's not too hot it feels kind of good to just sit on the grass in the sun.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
I did google Uncle BadTouch and http://Uncle BadTouch.org/ came up. Was that what you were talking about?
Oh, boy.
You fuckers are a persistent bunch.
S/he probably isn't one of them. If she's not, she'll let us know. If she is, she'll talk around it like they all do. If there really is more than one, which I doubt.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 17, 2013, 11:26:39 PM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 17, 2013, 01:48:40 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 16, 2013, 09:02:51 PM
No, I think there are ways to effect change. We don't have to be stuck. It does, however, take mass action.
...We'd have to move our masses.
That's hard to achieve...
(http://clearlychic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/thesecolorsdontrun.jpg)
For all the twee cynicism people are so fond of bandying about, social conditions have changed phenomenally for the better in many areas of life in just the last 40 years.
That's not a reason to disregard the negative changes that are taking place, like the consolidation of wealth and corporate power, but it does give me cause for hope.
Ah, Nigel, you're missing the real point of defensive pessimism-you're either right or pleasantly surprised.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 18, 2013, 04:38:17 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 17, 2013, 11:26:39 PM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 17, 2013, 01:48:40 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 16, 2013, 09:02:51 PM
No, I think there are ways to effect change. We don't have to be stuck. It does, however, take mass action.
...We'd have to move our masses.
That's hard to achieve...
(http://clearlychic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/thesecolorsdontrun.jpg)
For all the twee cynicism people are so fond of bandying about, social conditions have changed phenomenally for the better in many areas of life in just the last 40 years.
That's not a reason to disregard the negative changes that are taking place, like the consolidation of wealth and corporate power, but it does give me cause for hope.
Ah, Nigel, you're missing the real point of defensive pessimism-you're either right or pleasantly surprised.
Yeah, but I can't do that because it renders everything I'm doing with my life meaningless. :p
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 17, 2013, 11:31:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 17, 2013, 04:25:34 PM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 16, 2013, 11:34:27 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 16, 2013, 11:29:22 PM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 16, 2013, 10:52:14 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 16, 2013, 10:46:17 PM
Uncle BadTouch?
I suppose shade is kind of nice. Though when it's not too hot it feels kind of good to just sit on the grass in the sun.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
I did google Uncle BadTouch and http://Uncle BadTouch.org/ came up. Was that what you were talking about?
Oh, boy.
You fuckers are a persistent bunch.
S/he probably isn't one of them. If she's not, she'll let us know. If she is, she'll talk around it like they all do. If there really is more than one, which I doubt.
I suppose there isn't a way to prove that I'm not, though I genuinely don't understand a lot of what is happening over on that Uncle BadTouch site after looking at it for a bit.
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 18, 2013, 06:24:02 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 17, 2013, 11:31:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 17, 2013, 04:25:34 PM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 16, 2013, 11:34:27 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 16, 2013, 11:29:22 PM
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 16, 2013, 10:52:14 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 16, 2013, 10:46:17 PM
Uncle BadTouch?
I suppose shade is kind of nice. Though when it's not too hot it feels kind of good to just sit on the grass in the sun.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
I did google Uncle BadTouch and http://Uncle BadTouch.org/ came up. Was that what you were talking about?
Oh, boy.
You fuckers are a persistent bunch.
S/he probably isn't one of them. If she's not, she'll let us know. If she is, she'll talk around it like they all do. If there really is more than one, which I doubt.
I suppose there isn't a way to prove that I'm not, though I genuinely don't understand a lot of what is happening over on that Uncle BadTouch site after looking at it for a bit.
Good, that probably means you're reasonably mentally healthy.
One thing loveshady and his (probably cockpuppet) acolytes won't ever do is flat-out deny being loveshady. They'll verbally dance around it and try to evade the question, but they won't flat-out lie. Which is, I suppose, a virtue. Good that he has one.
So, basically, if you just say you're not Uncle BadTouch or one of his "minions" (which I am unconvinced really exist, I think they're all just him pretending to be teenage girls) I have no reason to not believe you.
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on June 12, 2013, 01:55:40 PM
So People became separated in their minds for whatever reason, I'm not some kind of biologist, into the Super Ego and Id. In a Dialectical type fashion The Super Ego confronted the animalistic Id and created the Ego, the self. We are self conscious because of the way the Super Ego and Id brush up against each other. This clash is the source of guilt and other emotions only humans have.
The State is a psychic projection of this internal state of affairs where the Super Ego, exemplified in The MachineTM brushes up against our base internal desires, the Id, and turns us into citizens.
The movements of the 60s with sexual revolution and whatever else are then superficial because they merely furthered the clash between the Id and the Super Ego with them on one side and the government on the other. All it did was make us (here I can nly speak for America) more egotistical and guilty. More repressed as citizens. (This can also be linked to the concept of recuperation of the situationists where any radical tendencies are defanged and then put to service by The MachineTM, which might make it only seem like the sexual revolution movement was superficial. )
So then this seems to jam with the Buddhist notion of Ego Death and being Mu. At this point since I am not that well versed in Buddhism I am kind of lost.
I am also then a bit disconcerted with the way this argument goes due to the eternal nature of the Chao. If we are pretty much incapable of seeing Chaos for what it is and instead we must be satisfied with whirling arrays of order and disorder, does that mean that we are stuck with this repugnant Super Ego and with it The MachineTM itself?
It could be possible that while the Super Ego and it's notions of order are impossible to escape, we can shift the relationship between the Super Ego and Id such that our Ego lives much more at ease. At which point then the anarchist project becomes feasible as it changes the organization of people and the balance between order and disorder by removing the State Capitalist machine and replacing it with an array of other more local rule making bodies. Of course then that might imply that the Buddhist notion of being Mu is unattainable, though it still leaves the process of Zen up for use to balance out the forces of order and disorder in our minds.
This is just a different way of understanding the forces of Order and Disorder, though I've been reading alot of the Illuminatus! books lately soit could just be a regurgitation of that. In any case, what do you think about this?
This post is mired in Cartesian Duality.
I can't believe I was the first one to go there.
:lulz: