Messages

[Glenn Beck]

Ayn Rand. The woman couldn't write, and her philosophy was just a reaction to her upbringing in the USSR.

Not to mention nothing even remotely good has ever come about from her philosophy besides Bioshock.
I mean think of all the bullshit shes given us, Tea Baggers, Glenn Beck, Glenn Beck, Bioshock 2.
Machiavelli has done more good for the world than her, and he could actually write too.

Plus she was practically the patron saint of creepy cougars. 

Machiavelli has done a lot of good.  If we are going to be ruled by evil they could at least do it right.

Never read him, but didn't he conclude that it was more strategic to be a benevolent ruler?

Only if it was less risky than being a total douche-fag. Since he was writing The Prince to a ruler who could be decently accurately compared to Al Capone in his heyday, it seems to me it was more like "You should maybe be a little nicer, but then, you're doing pretty good as it is, so keep doin' what you're doin'. i can haz jailbreak??" He did write it while in prison, ya know.

In all honesty though, he tended to be more in-between and less extreme than people give credit, but he did tend to favor the "bad guy" way of doing things in most issues. Example: "Is it better to be loved than feared? My reply is one ought to be both loved and feared; but since it is difficult to accomplish both at the same time, I maintain it is much safer to be feared than loved..."

Some thoughts from a fellow writer:

Redundancy is too redundant. You tend to be extremely repetitive. Example: "...the swordman's [sic] massive sword shatters Sir Bleys' sword". The word sword appears three times in a string of seven words; that is two times too many, especially when it is already established that both characters are using swords at this point. Suggested revision: "the figure's massive weapon shatters that of Sir Bleys", or something similar. Generally speaking, it is a good idea to avoid using the same noun more than once in a single sentence.

Descriptions are...? You like to use adjectives, but aside from the Prince being young, (young how? 10 or younger? mid-teens? early twenties? 37 which happens to be young compared to his 60+ year old companions?), and Lord Raerth being large (from the fact the prince addresses him in response to the question), and Master Shiceld being tall, We really have no idea what any of these people look like. Even when the prince pulsl back his cowl, we don't get a description of his face.

Improper use of adverbs and adjectives. The phrase "impishly young" has no business existing anywhere. "Impish" already implies a degree of mischief and youth. It is also wise to avoid using adverbs that end in "-ly", unless it can't be avoided, and even then it probably should be. Cut down on adjectives. Seriously, it makes you look like your writing erotic fan fiction and getting a little too excited at the prospect of seeing a favorite character naked. 

Commas, have both proper, and improper places, in sentences. Please, learn them.

Spelling and general grammar errors should be corrected. Even when I read through outdated drafts of stories I've altered considerably since the writing, I tend to correct these. Never know when I might want to lift a line or two from it for use in a later draft or a different work entirely, for that matter.

Aside from that, it was a nice read on the surface. I haven't read it as thoroughly as I should, but I will read it over more closely when I get some time, and maybe I will have more comments.

.... 1984 for President? Didn't 1984 serve from 2001-20now?

Does it have to be a whole line?

True, I guess.

Ironically, this doesn't stop me from being an idealist. I would love for an enlightened socialist oligarchy to take over the world, but after maybe one or two generations it would all fall down from corruption, revolt, etc., etc.

That sounds like a good observation.  Sort of like how we seem to place significance on that which is foreground in each of our 'perspectives' rather than background. Then "forget" that implicit inseparability between foreground/background and play a game with ourself that one side is somehow more 'significant'.

Which may or may not get someone into some serious trouble, but it's generally pretty funny when it does.   

Exactly. If we overlook the other part of the equation, problems begin to multiply. While it is true that it's all Chaos, you run the risk of oversimplifying it and become complacent and/or "forgetting" that there are opposing forces at work within Chaos. At least, that's how I see it.

So what's being Hobbesian involve?

It means I tend to think of human nature and human life as being "nasty, brutish, and short". I agree with Thomas Hobbes' theories, as laid out in "The Leviathan".

Something about a giant whale.

Or more seriously, my understanding is, there has to be someone in authority over a state.

Yes, but not just any authority. The idea is that people, without an iron-fisted tyrant, or some equally authoritarian ruler, are little more than an unruly mob that will gladly kill anyone who oppose them. Living in the times we do, it is rather easy to think of this as being the case. You are better off being crushed under the heel of a dictator than facing the far worse prospect of being faced with the tyranny of the majority. The dictator, if you mind your own business and do what he says, probably won't kill you. On the other hand, if you are more well off than your neighbor, he will probably try to kill you and take your stuff, if there is no fear that he will be punished. The dictator will need you for labor, or military service, or what have you. The neighbor just needs your stuff.

So what prevents socialism/communism from working the way it's supposed to?

People

Essentially, yes. The problem generally arises with the fact that there can't be a dissolution of the "ruling" class until the proletariat is willing to equally divide both goods and labor. Compound this with the fact that the people in power won't want to give up their power, even if the "people" are ready, and we end up mucking around in failed social experiment territory. But, then again, maybe I'm too cynical. I am a Hobbesian, after all.

Speaking as a former Poli Sci major, socialism, in its original context at least was supposed to serve as a transitional phase between the current state of affairs and true communist utopia. It was the stage at which the "state" owned all the businesses, goods, etc. and distributed them equally (or at least fairly) among the populace. True communism was a place in which there was no "state", because it was no longer necessary, because the people had come to a point at which they could freely share the goods and the labor, and all was well.

Of course, this is a rather simplified version, and again, what was originally meant by the term, when Marx was still alive and able to spell out what he meant. In a modern context, socialism generally refers to basically any government that ensures all or at least a goodly number of its citizens have access to basic needs like food, shelter, healthcare, etc. Whether that is a correct definition or not, it is an all too common one.

People tend to overlook the fact that communism is an economic theory and a political theory, that leads to dissolution of the government once the economic principles are adequately in place. The USSR was not truly communist, and it could fairly easily be argued it wasn't all that socialist either, but thanks to its very existence, the definitions have changed. Nowadays, just about everybody defines it in their own personal way.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I remember seeing a political cartoon many years ago that featured a "Russia: Then and Now" motif. In the "Then" section, which was indicating before the collapse of the USSR, it featured a food vendor's stand with a single sausage, advertised at one rubble, with a long line of people waiting to buy it. "Now" had the same vendor's stand, with a significant supply of sausages, advertised at millions of rubbles (can't recall how many, exactly), with only a single person in line. I believe it was a "1989/1999" comparison, but I can't recall, and I may be exaggerating at the price of the "now", but needless to say, it was a completely unfair price. The message was that Russia wasn't much better off under capitalism, though, that was fairly obvious I'm sure. That particular cartoon always amused me, and made me consider the dangers of extreme capitalism for the first time. that's basically the time I started advocating for a state of permanent and benevolent socialism, so I guess it's relevant.

According to every socialist I have talked to, including some Stalinists, Russia was State Capitalist.  The Stalinists claimed this was a necessary step toward true socialism.

I would agree with that assessment, disagree with Stalinists, and say that it really makes no difference, since the average American still refers to "communist" when referring to the USSR, Soviet satellite republics, and Maoist China. Which is certainly a misnomer, but the vernacular makes the definition, from a linguistic point of view.

Speaking as a former Poli Sci major, socialism, in its original context at least was supposed to serve as a transitional phase between the current state of affairs and true communist utopia. It was the stage at which the "state" owned all the businesses, goods, etc. and distributed them equally (or at least fairly) among the populace. True communism was a place in which there was no "state", because it was no longer necessary, because the people had come to a point at which they could freely share the goods and the labor, and all was well.

Of course, this is a rather simplified version, and again, what was originally meant by the term, when Marx was still alive and able to spell out what he meant. In a modern context, socialism generally refers to basically any government that ensures all or at least a goodly number of its citizens have access to basic needs like food, shelter, healthcare, etc. Whether that is a correct definition or not, it is an all too common one.

People tend to overlook the fact that communism is an economic theory and a political theory, that leads to dissolution of the government once the economic principles are adequately in place. The USSR was not truly communist, and it could fairly easily be argued it wasn't all that socialist either, but thanks to its very existence, the definitions have changed. Nowadays, just about everybody defines it in their own personal way.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I remember seeing a political cartoon many years ago that featured a "Russia: Then and Now" motif. In the "Then" section, which was indicating before the collapse of the USSR, it featured a food vendor's stand with a single sausage, advertised at one rubble, with a long line of people waiting to buy it. "Now" had the same vendor's stand, with a significant supply of sausages, advertised at millions of rubbles (can't recall how many, exactly), with only a single person in line. I believe it was a "1989/1999" comparison, but I can't recall, and I may be exaggerating at the price of the "now", but needless to say, it was a completely unfair price. The message was that Russia wasn't much better off under capitalism, though, that was fairly obvious I'm sure. That particular cartoon always amused me, and made me consider the dangers of extreme capitalism for the first time. that's basically the time I started advocating for a state of permanent and benevolent socialism, so I guess it's relevant.

I just decided to summarize that into one sentence. Although I did leave out the concept Eristic Illusion(to be fair its much less popular than the Aneristic illusion)

Excessive quotation is fun, but I'm glad that's cleared up. It makes more sense now that you've explained it, but I find the Eristic Illusion to be just as valid a concern (if not moreso, considering where we are) as the Aneristic, popularity not withstanding. 

Another question. If order is an illusion, then what is science?

The Universe doesn't have to follow mathematical laws, but somehow it does. And science works... it can't be an illusion.

Its not that order within itself is an illusion, its that the difference between order and disorder is an illusion.

Order is just chaos that fits within our limited understanding of reality, and disorder is chaos which does not fit.

Isn't that simply perspective? Order as the "true" fit is the Aneristic Illusion, and disorder as the "true" fit is the Eristic illusion, as Telarus pointed out above. But as everyone has been saying, Order and Disorder are merely flip sides of the same coin, Chaos.

"Reality is the original Rorschach."

So I think to answer your question, yes.

I think the implication here is that when you're no longer holding on to apparent dualities, you're free to make creative choices (some of which might be more orderly, some of which might be more disorderly) that include considerations for both order and disorder without being bound by either.

So it might be 'simply perspective' but when it comes in terms of self-limitation it seems like knowing where you make up dualistic distinctions could prove to be useful.

I should have been more clear, I was referring only to the second line of the quoted statement: "Order is just chaos that fits within our limited understanding of reality, and disorder is chaos which does not fit".  I meant that the idea that order "fits" and disorder doesn't is a matter of perspective, and precisely where the illusion comes into the equation.

tl;dr: Order and Disorder are both concepts (thus, as real as everything else), The illusion occurs when one puts one above the other as "true" or "right". It works both ways.

That clear it up for people who didn't actually read what was said?

They probably should have read it then.

I agree.

Another question. If order is an illusion, then what is science?

The Universe doesn't have to follow mathematical laws, but somehow it does. And science works... it can't be an illusion.

Its not that order within itself is an illusion, its that the difference between order and disorder is an illusion.

Order is just chaos that fits within our limited understanding of reality, and disorder is chaos which does not fit.

Isn't that simply perspective? Order as the "true" fit is the Aneristic Illusion, and disorder as the "true" fit is the Eristic illusion, as Telarus pointed out above. But as everyone has been saying, Order and Disorder are merely flip sides of the same coin, Chaos.

tl;dr: Order and Disorder are both concepts (thus, as real as everything else), The illusion occurs when one puts one above the other as "true" or "right". It works both ways.

That clear it up for people who didn't actually read what was said?

For extra bonus points, make it a Catholic Bible, and see if you can get them fighting with each other over whether that's ok.

It's okay, they can just burn the parts that aren't in the "regular" Bible.