Poll
Question:
Have you read the Illuminatus! Trilogy?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 9
Option 2: No
votes: 3
Option 3: Currently reading
votes: 2
Option 4: Fleabag
votes: 2
Option 5: HaarUUMPH!!
votes: 2
Just wondering... you know?
Years later, you'll be laughing at the same post by a newer "Discordian", and you will get the acute impression that you are old and bitter.
This concludes your obvious commentary for the thread.
Unless that's all this forum ever does. :lol:
Quote from: Felix Mackay on September 21, 2006, 05:40:21 AM
Years later, you'll be laughing at the same post by a newer "Discordian", and you will get the acute impression that you are old and bitter.
This concludes your obvious commentary for the thread.
Unless that's all this forum ever does. :lol:
QFT
You mean that piece of crap written by two guys high on acid? Yeah, unfortunately.
At what point did you decide it was a peice of crap? Cuz it'd be a really painful thing to read if you weren't into it.
About page 20.
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on September 21, 2006, 10:50:27 AM
At what point did you decide it was a peice of crap? Cuz it'd be a really painful thing to read if you weren't into it.
Shortly after I started posting here.
Heh, I never even read it until after I got here.
I read it about two months ago, but I registered here some time last year and I cant figure ou why...
RAW is nothing more than another acid-addled shit-brained hippie retread who has managed to eke out a fairly comfortable existence by simultaneously exploiting the need of certain kinds of people to be outsiders while fitting in to their chosen subset of outsiders and the inability of the same kinds of people to have an original thought, ever.
So basically he was L ron hubbard? He did this in all via the book, or IRL? If someone would be silly enough to pander to someone because they tell you what you want to hear they are somewhat guilty in there own way. elaborate please and I apologise if this gets asked by every new person.
Quote from: Felix Mackay on September 21, 2006, 05:40:21 AM
Years later, you'll be laughing at the same post by a newer "Discordian", and you will get the acute impression that you are old and bitter.
This concludes your obvious commentary for the thread.
Unless that's all this forum ever does.  :lol:
(http://bbs.whofailedtoday.com/img/smilies/mittens.gif)
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 21, 2006, 10:58:29 PM
RAW is nothing more than another acid-addled shit-brained hippie retread who has managed to eke out a fairly comfortable existence by simultaneously exploiting the need of certain kinds of people to be outsiders while fitting in to their chosen subset of outsiders and the inability of the same kinds of people to have an original thought, ever.
his thoughts on consciousness, time & space, and reality are quite interesting actually and studdied to this day in philosphy class country wide (my brother who is a theology maj. out of fordum U. in NY, and now has his masters in history did a 200 page report on RAW)
as far as his originality ..... comon he was totally original ..... thats why a subculture sprang up around his works and thats why you ended up here ..... get over it and move on ..... and if ya don't like drugs ..... to quote bill hicks ..... i want you to take all your albums and records and all that gerat music that has enhanced yer lives through the years, and burn it ..... cause the folks who made those albums, REAAAAAALLLLLL FUCKING HIGH
Quote from: davznothere on September 22, 2006, 06:08:31 AM
thats why a subculture sprang up around his works and thats why you ended up here .....
Okay, you're an idiot.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2006, 06:09:55 AM
Quote from: davznothere on September 22, 2006, 06:08:31 AM
thats why a subculture sprang up around his works and thats why you ended up here .....
Okay, you're an idiot.
ok so now yer going to just ignore the historical truth of the matter ..... Discordinism, (greek left over from 3000 years ago crap which is in no way shape or form relevant to NOW aside) has only been around as a subculture for what 40 years now ..... yer gonna tell me that before PD was printed on a xerox machine ina lawyers office some 40 eyars ago or wtf ever ..... that before that discordianism was prevelent as a religion ..... greek mythos aside
Quote from: davznothere on September 22, 2006, 06:28:45 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2006, 06:09:55 AM
Quote from: davznothere on September 22, 2006, 06:08:31 AM
thats why a subculture sprang up around his works and thats why you ended up here .....
Okay, you're an idiot.
ok so now yer going to just ignore the historical truth of the matter ..... Discordinism, (greek left over from 3000 years ago crap which is in no way shape or form relevant to NOW aside) has only been around as a subculture for what 40 years now ..... yer gonna tell me that before PD was printed on a xerox machine ina lawyers office some 40 eyars ago or wtf ever ..... that before that discordianism was prevelent as a religion ..... greek mythos aside
Though we were talking about Wilson.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2006, 06:45:52 AM
Quote from: davznothere on September 22, 2006, 06:28:45 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2006, 06:09:55 AM
Quote from: davznothere on September 22, 2006, 06:08:31 AM
thats why a subculture sprang up around his works and thats why you ended up here .....
Okay, you're an idiot.
ok so now yer going to just ignore the historical truth of the matter ..... Discordinism, (greek left over from 3000 years ago crap which is in no way shape or form relevant to NOW aside) has only been around as a subculture for what 40 years now ..... yer gonna tell me that before PD was printed on a xerox machine ina lawyers office some 40 eyars ago or wtf ever ..... that before that discordianism was prevelent as a religion ..... greek mythos aside
Though we were talking about Wilson.
ok ..... we were and i'm talking about the subculture that sprang up around his writings ..... the cult if you will ..... how many people were turned onto Discordianism because he decided to use quotes from PD as chapter headers ? ..... thats all i'm saying ..... from my understanding of history it was RAW who provided the leap pad so to speak for this whole subculture we are drowning in
HATRED VS FACTS ITT
ARGUMENTUM AD LAILSAUCE!!!1!!1!!
could i have possibly, conceivably....statistically or otherwise been this obtuse when i started my trip?
the thought might be painful that any of us were that near-sighted at some point.
dave, for what it's worth, you haven't a fat cell's chance in a tweaker's body against rog or turd. but then...
and whereas i find discourse in their appraisal of RAW, you have to admit that illuminatus read like a junky with the jitters.
besides, the more you come to know, the less you'll believe you do. and other hudu mumbo jumbo.
Hey man, if you read the Trilogy, you'd know why it read like an acid trip. People can hate it if they want, personlly I am finding more and more in common with Dave :mrgreen:
RAW is also one of Discordianisms greatest profits, in Mal-2's own words (if you believe it), and goes by the holy name of Mordecai Malignatius, KNS. I think.
are you philipino?
cause i see you eating your dogma.
and i said "junky with the jitters."
i would hardly compare the two. one's a lot less painful. the other more dignifying.
Hahaha no I'm not remotely filipino, and what that has to do with eating up dogma is beyond me.
I do suck up RAW's and Mal-2's dogma, probably because it's so entertaining, and so much more fun that science, which I used to snarf down like... someone who's really hungry.
. . .*
*{it should be noted that an elipses is not a common punctual operative, to collect and display prose properly- like a shetland pony- but, rather, an Abstension of prose. Therefore, all elipses are of Death, and Should Be Regarded As Plague! This particular elipses, however, is an abstension of an obscure slavic phrase that loosely translates to "Choke on my camel's rancid carcass."}
just sayin
Ah.
i always thought it read more like ADHD ..... which is just my cup of meth .....
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on September 22, 2006, 08:42:25 AM
I do suck up RAW's and Mal-2's dogma
that's all that needsto be said, really.
ECH,
thinks you ought to try thinking for yourself sometime. you might find it addictive
Quote
his thoughts on consciousness, time & space, and reality are quite interesting actually and studdied to this day in philosphy class country wide (my brother who is a theology maj. out of fordum U. in NY, and now has his masters in history did a 200 page report on RAW)
Really?
I'm currently studying philosophy at A-level in the UK, my teachers had never heard of RAW, or discordianism, I recently got a copy of Quantum Psychology (an interesting book), but my teachers hadn't heard of it, and one of them got a degree in philosophy.
Maybe the courses are very different, but I wasn't under the impression RAW had made that much of an impact to get that kind of recognition.
Quote from: Kai Wren on September 22, 2006, 03:02:26 PM
Quote
his thoughts on consciousness, time & space, and reality are quite interesting actually and studdied to this day in philosphy class country wide (my brother who is a theology maj. out of fordum U. in NY, and now has his masters in history did a 200 page report on RAW)
Really?
I'm currently studying philosophy at A-level in the UK, my teachers had never heard of RAW, or discordianism, I recently got a copy of Quantum Psychology (an interesting book), but my teachers hadn't heard of it, and one of them got a degree in philosophy.
Maybe the courses are very different, but I wasn't under the impression RAW had made that much of an impact to get that kind of recognition.
maybe they are and it might even be Prof. Specific .... but anyway it was interesting cause i heard of him after i got out of school ..... and was traveling a little bit ..... my brother asked me if i heard of him and by that point i was full onto some discordian gibberish .....
DIS FRED IS RIDING THE SHORT BUS
(http://bbs.whofailedtoday.com/img/smilies/shortbus.gif)
note how he daftly picks and chooses what to respond to
it's a slightly sedimented opinion of mine that the first thing to observe when understanding a person is their animal-level behaviour. moreso then just pack-status mentality, though...
"I do suck up RAW's and Mal-2's dogma"
"that's all that needsto be said, really.
ECH,
thinks you ought to try thinking for yourself sometime. you might find it addictive"
I suck up their dogma because I like it, and decided to. You don't think it was MY choice to suck up their dogma? That was the point. I don;t think you can read the Trilogy and not think for yourself at the end, unless you decided to discredit the book and not suck up anything from it, like Cain and TGRR.
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on September 25, 2006, 07:08:45 AM
"I do suck up Christ's and St Paul's dogma"
"that's all that needsto be said, really.
ECH,
thinks you ought to try thinking for yourself sometime. you might find it addictive"
I suck up their dogma because I like it, and decided to. You don't think it was MY choice to suck up their dogma? That was the point. I don;t think you can read the Bible and not think for yourself at the end, unless you decided to discredit the book and not suck up anything from it, like Moses and Mohammed.
Fixed, for more obvious example of stupidity.
Nice one, makin yourself Moses or Mohammed hahaha.
Well, it's kinda true, except with the Bible it'd be more like believing in God and all that jazz. And if you do accept the shit in the Bible, then yeah, you're obviously going to believe in God by the end of the book.
Oh, and Mohammed didn't discredit Jesus' teachings. He is the most quoted prophet in the Koran.
your factoids aren't impressive. i've met muslims that know less about their religion than president bush does.
and nice Strawman Fallacy.
i know it doesn't look impressive, but it's only a flaccid fallacy.
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on September 25, 2006, 08:48:36 AM
Nice one, makin yourself Moses or Mohammed hahaha.
Well, it's kinda true, except with the Bible it'd be more like believing in God and all that jazz. And if you do accept the shit in the Bible, then yeah, you're obviously going to believe in God by the end of the book.
Oh, and Mohammed didn't discredit Jesus' teachings. He is the most quoted prophet in the Koran.
Hey, whats that? Flying way above your head? Oh yeah, its the FUCKING POINT!
Quote from: Prater Festwo on September 25, 2006, 09:07:33 AM
your factoids aren't impressive. i've met muslims that know less about their religion than president bush does.
...And? How muslim the muslims you've met are has nothing to do with Mohammed. :-P
Quote from: NapaDiscordian]Oh, and Mohammed didn't discredit Jesus' teachings.  He is the most quoted prophet in the Koran.
Quote from: Prater Festwo
your factoids aren't impressive. i've met muslims that know less about their religion than president bush does.
Quote from: NapaDiscordian
...And?  How muslim the muslims you've met are has nothing to do with Mohammed.  :-P
read the above underlined and tell me how that doesn't relate to unimpressive factoids of yours.
and for your own records, yes. muhammed did denounce a lot of Jesus' Teachings.
i.e "I am the son of God", "No one goes to the Father, but through me..." or that wacky part where jesus says that the Ten commands and all rabbinical law are mute, because he is the son of god and he says so.
just sayin (that you're still a fucking retard)
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on September 25, 2006, 07:08:45 AM
I do suck up RAW's and Mal-2's dogma
Quote from: ECHthat's all that needs to be said, really.
ECH,
thinks you ought to try thinking for yourself sometime. you might find it addictive
Quote from: stinky hippie boyI suck up their dogma because I like it, and decided to. You don't think it was MY choice to suck up their dogma? That was the point. I don;t think you can read the Trilogy and not think for yourself at the end, unless you decided to discredit the book and not suck up anything from it, like Cain and TGRR.
wow.
blatant stupidity and outright self-ownage ITT.
ECH,
wonders how you can be too stupid to figure out how to use quote tags
This is all besides the point, because anyone who sucks up dogma is a dogmatist - no matter if its from RAW, Jesus or Scientology. Its all the same crap, someone elses ideas that you parrot because it makes you feel good.
Way to go in surrenduring your mind, monkey-boi
Damn! I try to find out how many people read Illuminatus! and I end up gettin destroyed.
:x aw fuck it
Quote from: Prater Festwo on September 24, 2006, 09:19:05 AM
note how he daftly picks and chooses what to respond to
it's a slightly sedimented opinion of mine that the first thing to observe when understanding a person is their animal-level behaviour. moreso then just pack-status mentality, though...
Well, aren't YOU just the little psychologist. :lol:
psychology is half-baked, too.
or, well..at least half of it is coked-out.
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2006, 12:13:51 PM
This is all besides the point, because anyone who sucks up dogma is a dogmatist - no matter if its from RAW, Jesus or Scientology. Its all the same crap, someone elses ideas that you parrot because it makes you feel good.
Way to go in surrenduring your mind, monkey-boi
i couldn't agree more .....
although it's a bit ironic that you are a proponent of free minds ..... considering how quickly you jump on ideas you disagree with .....
see ya again in 14 days
Quote from: davznothere on September 28, 2006, 06:11:54 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2006, 12:13:51 PM
This is all besides the point, because anyone who sucks up dogma is a dogmatist - no matter if its from RAW, Jesus or Scientology.  Its all the same crap, someone elses ideas that you parrot because it makes you feel good. 
Way to go in surrenduring your mind, monkey-boi
i couldn't agree more .....
although it's a bit ironic that you are a proponent of free minds ..... considering how quickly you jump on ideas you disagree with .....
see ya again in 14 days
Jumping on ideas you disagree with is dogmatism?
Really?
AYRTS? IA?
Being anti dogmatic is a form of dogmatism, just like the middle path of Buddhism is a kind of extreme, and Communism is a form of government.
I voted "HaarUUMPH!!"
Thats the "I gently placed my balls against the cover and absorbed the entirety its wisdom into my mancratch" button, right?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 29, 2006, 03:20:51 AM
Quote from: davznothere on September 28, 2006, 06:11:54 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2006, 12:13:51 PM
This is all besides the point, because anyone who sucks up dogma is a dogmatist - no matter if its from RAW, Jesus or Scientology. Its all the same crap, someone elses ideas that you parrot because it makes you feel good.
Way to go in surrenduring your mind, monkey-boi
i couldn't agree more .....
although it's a bit ironic that you are a proponent of free minds ..... considering how quickly you jump on ideas you disagree with .....
see ya again in 14 days
Jumping on ideas you disagree with is dogmatism?
Really?
AYRTS? IA?
(http://poee.co.uk/boards/Smileys/default/roglol.gif) I think he really is...
Fucking whoa. I read the acronym and understood it. :-o
Quote from: davznothere on September 28, 2006, 06:11:54 PM
although it's a bit ironic that you are a proponent of free minds ..... considering how quickly you jump on ideas you disagree with .....
Several people have weighed in on this. I'd like to weigh in too! :D
"Jumping on ideas disagreed with" is neutral-minded. Correcting errors must be a part of any system. Without error correction, errors proliferate.
Just look at New Age: "All ideas are welcome" and it soon became a fat load of craptasticness.
Close-mindedness is rejecting ideas without due consideration, i.e., faulty error-checking. "It's not a bug, it's a feature -- the path to salvation!"
Open-mindedness is good error-checking. Giving new ideas due consideration, accepting what's correct even if it means completely re-evaluating everything you know, and rejecting what's wrong even if it means dumping all over morons like you.
(For logical completeness, can anyone tell what the opposite of New Age is -- ie, the rejection of all ideas, right or wrong?)
The military.
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on September 29, 2006, 03:57:16 AM
Being anti dogmatic is a form of dogmatism, just like the middle path of Buddhism is a kind of extreme, and Communism is a form of government.
i certainly agree with that statement ..... i also find now that i'm a father and i've broken the age of 30 that alot of my more radical ideas have started to temper, i often find myself, particularly these days, re-evaluating my ideas and belief structures, kinda like when i was younger i would just suck everything in and spit it back out, more as an experience than anything else. Now i find that i'm going back and saying "That was sweet, lets try it again, but this time, chewing a little" ..... and from what history has showed us is that most forms of government look really swell on paper, once they have some time to be put into practice though then eventually breakdown into despotism ..... everytime through all of history .....
Which is why anarchy is the best :lol:
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on September 29, 2006, 03:57:16 AM
Being anti dogmatic is a form of dogmatism,
Nothing means anything. Black is white. You're an idiot.
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on September 30, 2006, 12:37:04 AM
Which is why anarchy is the best :lol:
So why don't you move to Somalia? I mean, if anarchy is a great system and all. Just remember to write a will and take an AK47 with ya...
Quote from: Cain on September 30, 2006, 01:26:01 AM
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on September 30, 2006, 12:37:04 AM
Which is why anarchy is the best  :lol:
So why don't you move to Somalia?  I mean, if anarchy is a great system and all.  Just remember to write a will and take an AK47 with ya...
These cafe anarchists are hilarious. If all the cops disappeared tomorrow, they'd be the FIRST people crying for them to come back.
Quote from: Felix Mackay on September 21, 2006, 05:40:21 AM
Years later, you'll be laughing at the same post by a newer "Discordian", and you will get the acute impression that you are old and bitter.
This concludes your obvious commentary for the thread.
Unless that's all this forum ever does. :lol:
quoted for truth. i found this out last night.
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on September 30, 2006, 12:37:04 AM
Which is why anarchy is the best :lol:
son, if anarchy ever actually HAPPENED, you'd be one fucked puppy.
ECH,
doubts you'd survive long enough to get hungry
LAIL-flavored troofpaste ITT.
So what?  The world is overpopulated anyway.  And anarchy doesn't imply violence, except to the close minded.
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 01, 2006, 07:28:03 AM
So what?  The world is overpopulated as it is. 
And anarchy doesn;t imply violent, except to the close minded
1. Then do your part, son.
2. Which includes 99% of humanity. You'd be someone's ham sammich by noon.
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 01, 2006, 07:28:03 AM
anarchy doesn't imply violence, except to the close minded.
Or those who studied history. Or understand game theory. Or think for a minute.
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 01, 2006, 07:28:03 AM
So what? The world is overpopulated anyway. And anarchy doesn't imply violence, except to the close minded.
4chan.org
a prefect working structure of evidence as to why anarchy cannot be peaceful.
Im sure it would be nice if we all went around singing sweetness and light in a happy anarchistic world. But even that would get boring in about five miniutes and someone would start busting heads.
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 01, 2006, 07:28:03 AM
So what? The world is overpopulated anyway. And anarchy doesn't imply violence, except to humans, whose primate brains are hardwired for it.
fixed.
ECH,
loves when hippies try to ignore basic human nature
Quote from: faust on October 01, 2006, 11:50:10 AM
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 01, 2006, 07:28:03 AM
So what? The world is overpopulated anyway. And anarchy doesn't imply violence, except to the close minded.
4chan.org
a prefect working structure of evidence as to why anarchy cannot be peaceful.
Im sure it would be nice if we all went around singing sweetness and light in a happy anarchistic world. But even that would get boring in about five miniutes and someone would start busting heads.
I'm guessing that site is unmoderated? If so, most people here have trolled at FuckedCompany and so know exactly what you mean.
Oh god, what a horrible thought. Anarchy would equal 24/7, IRL FC. Ouch.
I LUVS TEH ANARCHY!
\
(http://img445.imageshack.us/img445/646/adultbaby3as8.jpg)
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 01, 2006, 07:28:03 AM
So what? The world is overpopulated anyway. And anarchy doesn't imply violence, except to the close minded.
i LOL'ed. and yeah, cain, 4chan is almost entirely unmoderated. it's actually one of the more fun places on the internet but it's still totally apeshit nuts.
So, what then, if not anarchy? As believers in chaos, I figured maybe anarchy would get a lil more support from y'all. I guess maybe you think people SHOULDN'T live in chaos?
I guess maybe you think chaos exists?
lol, pattern recognition
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 02, 2006, 02:51:40 AM
So, what then, if not anarchy? As believers in chaos, I figured maybe anarchy would get a lil more support from y'all. I guess maybe you think people SHOULDN'T live in chaos?
Anarchy = the rule of the strong. I didn't know you were into anti-statist fascism. Fascist.
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 02, 2006, 02:51:40 AMSo, what then, if not anarchy?
1. realize there is no solution
2. bitch about it
3. laugh about it (until your sides hurt)
4. send this message to 5 other people and it will all get better, honest
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 02, 2006, 02:51:40 AM
So, what then, if not anarchy? As believers in chaos, I figured maybe anarchy would get a lil more support from y'all. I guess maybe you think people SHOULDN'T live in chaos?
OK, listen up moron, cuz I'm only gonna 'splain this ONCE.
chaos DOES NOT mean the same thing as disorder.
Chaos is the primal fabric from which order and disorder BOTH are made. Chaos could be defined for the layman as "real ultimate potential". EVERYBODY lives in chaos, whether they recognize it or not. All anarchy is is a system trying to disguise itself as a lack of a system whereby the strong get to prey on the weak with no regard to consequence or any system of morality. If anarchy were ever to become the dominant paradigm, someone like me would come by, rape your wife, sell yhour daughter to slave-traders, take all of your shit, and shoot you in the face. someone like you would be helpless to do anything but whimper softly in the corner.
capisce?
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 02, 2006, 01:56:29 PM
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 02, 2006, 02:51:40 AM
So, what then, if not anarchy? As believers in chaos, I figured maybe anarchy would get a lil more support from y'all. I guess maybe you think people SHOULDN'T live in chaos?
OK, listen up moron, cuz I'm only gonna 'splain this ONCE.
chaos DOES NOT mean the same thing as disorder.
Chaos is the primal fabric from which order and disorder BOTH are made. Chaos could be defined for the layman as "real ultimate potential". EVERYBODY lives in chaos, whether they recognize it or not. All anarchy is is a system trying to disguise itself as a lack of a system whereby the strong get to prey on the weak with no regard to consequence or any system of morality. If anarchy were ever to become the dominant paradigm, someone like me would come by, rape your wife, sell yhour daughter to slave-traders, take all of your shit, and shoot you in the face. someone like you would be helpless to do anything but whimper softly in the corner.
capisce?
Factual arguments are anti-Anarchist.
:magickl hosrie:
:mittens: to the last three posts.
QuoteI guess maybe you think chaos exists?
lol, pattern recognition
Yeah, he's right, the rest of us be wrong.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 02, 2006, 01:56:29 PM
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 02, 2006, 02:51:40 AM
So, what then, if not anarchy? As believers in chaos, I figured maybe anarchy would get a lil more support from y'all. I guess maybe you think people SHOULDN'T live in chaos?
OK, listen up moron, cuz I'm only gonna 'splain this ONCE.
chaos DOES NOT mean the same thing as disorder.
Chaos is the primal fabric from which order and disorder BOTH are made. Chaos could be defined for the layman as "real ultimate potential". EVERYBODY lives in chaos, whether they recognize it or not. All anarchy is is a system trying to disguise itself as a lack of a system whereby the strong get to prey on the weak with no regard to consequence or any system of morality. If anarchy were ever to become the dominant paradigm, someone like me would come by, rape your wife, sell yhour daughter to slave-traders, take all of your shit, and shoot you in the face. someone like you would be helpless to do anything but whimper softly in the corner.
capisce?
Awww, does that make you feel better about yourself? Pretty meaningless paragraph, and if you're trying to belittle or intimidate a 16 year old with shit like that, uh.... good luck?
Total inability to refute ECH ITT
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 02, 2006, 01:56:29 PM
OK, listen up moron, cuz I'm only gonna 'splain this ONCE.
chaos DOES NOT mean the same thing as disorder.
Chaos is the primal fabric from which order and disorder BOTH are made. Chaos could be defined for the layman as "real ultimate potential". EVERYBODY lives in chaos, whether they recognize it or not. All anarchy is is a system trying to disguise itself as a lack of a system whereby the strong get to prey on the weak with no regard to consequence or any system of morality. If anarchy were ever to become the dominant paradigm, someone like me would come by, rape your wife, sell yhour daughter to slave-traders, take all of your shit, and shoot you in the face. someone like you would be helpless to do anything but whimper softly in the corner.
capisce?
ECH FOR PRESIDENT DICTATOR!!!!!!!
He Has The Balls To Be Honest-toa,
almost forgot what century we're living in...
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 02, 2006, 10:50:22 PM
QuoteI guess maybe you think chaos exists?
lol, pattern recognition
Yeah, he's right, the rest of us be wrong.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 02, 2006, 01:56:29 PM
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 02, 2006, 02:51:40 AM
So, what then, if not anarchy? As believers in chaos, I figured maybe anarchy would get a lil more support from y'all. I guess maybe you think people SHOULDN'T live in chaos?
OK, listen up moron, cuz I'm only gonna 'splain this ONCE.
chaos DOES NOT mean the same thing as disorder.
Chaos is the primal fabric from which order and disorder BOTH are made. Chaos could be defined for the layman as "real ultimate potential". EVERYBODY lives in chaos, whether they recognize it or not. All anarchy is is a system trying to disguise itself as a lack of a system whereby the strong get to prey on the weak with no regard to consequence or any system of morality. If anarchy were ever to become the dominant paradigm, someone like me would come by, rape your wife, sell yhour daughter to slave-traders, take all of your shit, and shoot you in the face. someone like you would be helpless to do anything but whimper softly in the corner.
capisce?
Awww, does that make you feel better about yourself? Pretty meaningless paragraph, and if you're trying to belittle or intimidate a 16 year old with shit like that, uh.... good luck?
you gonna add a point to that or are you just going to say its wrong?
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 02, 2006, 02:51:40 AM
So, what then, if not anarchy?  As believers in chaos, I figured maybe anarchy would get a lil more support from y'all.  I guess maybe you think people SHOULDN'T live in chaos?
We already DO.
Jesus, open your fucking eyes.
TGRR,
Knows that the Pentagon ALONE produces more chaos than all the fucking hippie "anarchists" in the world.
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 02, 2006, 10:50:22 PM
Awww, does that make you feel better about yourself?  Pretty meaningless paragraph, and if you're trying to belittle or intimidate a 16 year old with shit like that, uh.... good luck?
Does it actually HURT to be that stupid, or do you just have a low buzzing noise in your ears?
I bet it only hurts when he bumps into shit.
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 02, 2006, 10:50:22 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 02, 2006, 01:56:29 PM
Chaos is the primal fabric from which order and disorder BOTH are made. Chaos could be defined for the layman as "real ultimate potential". EVERYBODY lives in chaos, whether they recognize it or not. All anarchy is is a system trying to disguise itself as a lack of a system whereby the strong get to prey on the weak with no regard to consequence or any system of morality. If anarchy were ever to become the dominant paradigm, someone like me would come by, rape your wife, sell yhour daughter to slave-traders, take all of your shit, and shoot you in the face. someone like you would be helpless to do anything but whimper softly in the corner.
Awww, does that make you feel better about yourself? Pretty meaningless paragraph, and if you're trying to belittle or intimidate a 16 year old with shit like that, uh.... good luck?
Sounds like a WARNING to me.
But you're right.
I remember when I was 16. I was intelligent. I was handsome. People respected me. I had a lot of friends. I had a bright future, tons of potential -- the world was my oyster! Nothing could stop me from changing the world! I was immortal! Those assholes on the internet couldn't touch me! Nothing anyone did made any difference, because I was me and I fucking ruled!!!!
And then, all of a sudden,
I graduated.
And I realized:
I'm fucking screwed.
Garr, I'm not sayin I'm god or immortal or any of that ego shit.  I'm just sayin it's useless to try to prove my view on anarchy wrong with a bullshit hypothetical like the one you came up with.
Although getting screwed the minute ya graduate sounds like what's happenin to both my bros...    :?
QuoteDoes it actually HURT to be that stupid, or do you just have a low buzzing noise in your ears?
Is that what that noise is?
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 06, 2006, 05:23:33 AM
Garr, I'm not sayin I'm god or immortal or any of that ego shit. I'm just sayin it's useless to try to prove my view on anarchy wrong with a bullshit hypothetical like the one you came up with.
Why? Anarchy = no government, no enforcers of laws. If you want to see anarchy, try reading the history of Europe from the Peace of Westphalia to the First World War. THAT is anarchy, pure and simple. It even works off many of the same basic assumptions (rational egotists, game theory, self reliance etc).
In Anarchy, I can do whatever the fuck I feel like to you or anyone else, because quite frankly you can only rely on your own ability to stop me. And if I'm the stronger, you can't stop me.
Therefore anarchy = rule of the strong
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 06, 2006, 05:23:33 AM
Garr, I'm not sayin I'm god or immortal or any of that ego shit.  I'm just sayin it's useless to try to prove my view on anarchy wrong with a bullshit hypothetical like the one you came up with.
Although getting screwed the minute ya graduate sounds like what's happenin to both my bros...    :?
Of course, we don't need PROOF to laugh at your puerile political views.
But there really IS plenty of proof.  You want an anarchist state?  Move to Somalia.
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 06, 2006, 05:23:33 AM
Garr, I'm not sayin I'm god or immortal or any of that ego shit. I'm just sayin it's useless to try to prove my view on anarchy wrong with a bullshit hypothetical like the one you came up with.
Oh
My
God.
Are you really that gullible?
"Hey, Mikey, guess what?"
"What's that, Georgie?"
"There are no laws anywhere, Mikey!"
"Well, ya gotta remember, Georgie, that we as people have a responsibility to socie--"
"Hey, Mikey, guess what? I JUST SAW THIS ON JACKASS!!!!!"
"Woah, Georgie, hold up! That could be dangerou--AUGH!!"
"Hey, Mikey... are you dead?"
Anarchy: A billion little tyrranies.
I smile at the thought, but not for the reason most people would.
Quote from: Cain on October 02, 2006, 10:24:50 AM
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 02, 2006, 02:51:40 AM
So, what then, if not anarchy? As believers in chaos, I figured maybe anarchy would get a lil more support from y'all. I guess maybe you think people SHOULDN'T live in chaos?
Anarchy = the rule of the strong. I didn't know you were into anti-statist fascism. Fascist.
As apposed to... the rule of Bush's/Obama's military tribunals?
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 02, 2006, 01:56:29 PM
Quote from: NapaDiscordian on October 02, 2006, 02:51:40 AM
So, what then, if not anarchy? As believers in chaos, I figured maybe anarchy would get a lil more support from y'all. I guess maybe you think people SHOULDN'T live in chaos?
OK, listen up moron, cuz I'm only gonna 'splain this ONCE.
chaos DOES NOT mean the same thing as disorder.
Chaos is the primal fabric from which order and disorder BOTH are made. Chaos could be defined for the layman as "real ultimate potential". EVERYBODY lives in chaos, whether they recognize it or not. All anarchy is is a system trying to disguise itself as a lack of a system whereby the strong get to prey on the weak with no regard to consequence or any system of morality. If anarchy were ever to become the dominant paradigm, someone like me would come by, rape your wife, sell yhour daughter to slave-traders, take all of your shit, and shoot you in the face. someone like you would be helpless to do anything but whimper softly in the corner.
capisce?
There's mafia anarchy, as we have now, and then there's anarcho-syndacilism style shit. And then, even better, anarchy-transhumanism! : D
I make no claim to humanities propensity for change, as that would preclude a crystal ball, as so much of human behaviour is dependent on externall events. For example: no printing press, no human rights.
Capisce?
QuoteAs apposed to... the rule of Bush's/Obama's military tribunals?
There's no difference. Ever heard of what they did to "criminals" (meaning people who disagreed with the warlords) in Somalia? Its not pretty reading. You think waterboarding is bad, wait until you're forced to kill members of your own family because of the "shame" they may have bought on you for fraternizing with another warlord's people. Welcome to anarchy.
Quote from: Cain on March 16, 2007, 05:41:10 AM
QuoteAs apposed to... the rule of Bush's/Obama's military tribunals?
There's no difference. Ever heard of what they did to "criminals" (meaning people who disagreed with the warlords) in Somalia? Its not pretty reading. You think waterboarding is bad, wait until you're forced to kill members of your own family because of the "shame" they may have bought on you for fraternizing with another warlord's people. Welcome to anarchy.
See my previous post.
Anarchism is Utopianism, pure and simple. The idea that repression is based purely around the state, especially in an age when so many sub-state actors are giving states a run for their money in vindictive and irrational violence (Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah ringing any bells), is simply ignoring facts. As long as there a presumption that there is some underlying human harmony that would exist (if it wasn't for the state ruining it) is present in Anarchism, its simply impossible to take seriously.
Except perhaps by those like Rudolf Rocker, who actually seem to value freedom and understand that anarchism best serves as an antithesis to authoritarianism, acting within that relationship to preserve individualism. Thats about the only defensible position I have seen on anarchism ever and its pretty divorced from most of the theory.
Ever see that movie, "The Anarchist cookbook"?
I don't wanna ruin the ending for those that haven't seen it, but, yeah, that's what happens.
It's back to "survival of the fittest" or "survival of whoever can backstab the most without getting caught".
Nothing would make me happier than for anarchy to be a workable system. Seriously, it would be great if it could be done, but I just cannot see it happening, not without some sort of psychological evolution which would mean humans as we currently understand them are not involved. I presume that was what HTRJ meant by transhumanism, though as with most branches of Anarchism you can never be totally sure what someone means until they clarify themselves.
Quote from: Cain on March 16, 2007, 06:23:31 AM
Anarchism is Utopianism, pure and simple. The idea that repression is based purely around the state, especially in an age when so many sub-state actors are giving states a run for their money in vindictive and irrational violence (Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah ringing any bells), is simply ignoring facts.
Well looky here now, I don't know why you're accusing me of that stance, as I never said anything so sheepplish.
"Verily, verily I say unto you, not all the Sinister Ministers of the Bavarian Illuminati, working together in multitudes, could so entwine the land with tribulation as have yer baseless warnings.
- Lord Omar"
Oh, and both Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda were created and armed by Mossad and the CIA. Those two later agencies were in turn created and armed by the Pentagon military industrial complex. You know, destructive order at work.
Do I get sent to the brig for quoting the Principia? : DTo me, to say that all anarchy implies to think of the state in magical faery Marxist terms, is as silly as to to think that of the state.Quote from: Cain on March 16, 2007, 06:23:31 AM
As long as there a presumption that there is some underlying human harmony that would exist (if it wasn't for the state ruining it) is present in Anarchism, its simply impossible to take seriously.
We already live in anarchy. Quote from: Cain on March 16, 2007, 06:23:31 AM
Except perhaps by those like Rudolf Rocker, who actually seem to value freedom and understand that anarchism best serves as an antithesis to authoritarianism, acting within that relationship to preserve individualism. Thats about the only defensible position I have seen on anarchism ever and its pretty divorced from most of the theory.
Not everybody is as stupid as the clueless kid wearing the Che T-shirt. Others have more longsighted vision than that.
Quote from: Lysergic on March 16, 2007, 07:49:47 AM
Ever see that movie, "The Anarchist cookbook"?
I don't wanna ruin the ending for those that haven't seen it, but, yeah, that's what happens.
It's back to "survival of the fittest" or "survival of whoever can backstab the most without getting caught".
I give the film a 6/half outa' ten. Good try though.
Quote from: Cain on March 16, 2007, 01:23:19 PM
Nothing would make me happier than for anarchy to be a workable system. Seriously, it would be great if it could be done, but I just cannot see it happening, not without some sort of psychological evolution which would mean humans as we currently understand them are not involved. I presume that was what HTRJ meant by transhumanism, though as with most branches of Anarchism you can never be totally sure what someone means until they clarify themselves.
Transhumanism is a nice dream.www.kurzweilai.net
Anyway, the sexual revolution came "outa' the blue" too, you know. wilhelm Reich, and all that?
Yes, the sexual revolution emerged with the confluence of cheap birth control, and inhibition-supressing drugs.
And then, as a partial result of that, we get the AIDS epidemic, and the fundamentalist backlash.
And why do you think we are currently living in Anarchy? As I see it, anarchy is that tenuous state between revolution and authoritarianism, where the Idealists still think everyone will be nice to each other now that the State is gone, right before the guy with the biggest gun starts making rules & forcing his will on the others.
Call me a treehugger if you like but I look forward to a psychological (dare I say spiritual) quantum leap, amongst the monkeys on this planet. I'm not living under any illusions that this is coming anytime soon but I still like to dream.
As a 'glass is half full' type of guy I tend to focus on small instances of evidence regarding general trend. As a realist I have to accept that at this rate it'll be a while yet but, as HtRJ points out - sometimes things like this just happen- by surprise. Look at the internet - I can now talk about this kinda shit with thousands of other people whom I'd never bee able to before. Opportunities arrive out of the blue. Hope springs eternal.
http://somethingpositive.net/sp12102002.shtml
:mittens:
I can never remember the URL for that.
Quote from: DJRubberducky on March 16, 2007, 03:18:29 PM
http://somethingpositive.net/sp12102002.shtml
Right, because if it wasn't for the British police force (I'm a Brit, so...) people would, like, be commiting crimes. Oh wait...
we couldn't really steal that cartoon for one of our pamphlets now could we?
QuoteRight, because if it wasn't for the British police force (I'm a Brit, so...) people would, like, be commiting crimes. Oh wait...
Well, I dunno about you, but I was deterred as fuck from being Brazilian looking after the Stockwell shooting....
Quote from: Hit the Road Jack on March 16, 2007, 04:25:11 PM
Quote from: DJRubberducky on March 16, 2007, 03:18:29 PM
http://somethingpositive.net/sp12102002.shtml
Right, because if it wasn't for the British police force (I'm a Brit, so...) people would, like, be commiting more crimes.
Oh noes! What happened to your bolded text, RJ?
Quote from: LMNO on March 16, 2007, 04:29:30 PM
Quote from: Hit the Road Jack on March 16, 2007, 04:25:11 PM
Quote from: DJRubberducky on March 16, 2007, 03:18:29 PM
http://somethingpositive.net/sp12102002.shtml
Right, because if it wasn't for the British police force (I'm a Brit, so...) people would, like, be commiting more crimes.
Oh noes! What happened to your bolded text, RJ?
You deleted it.
And that's what guns are for.
So, how would the entire situation not devolve into gangs and militias fighting each other?
No, srsly. I'm interested in hearing how you would sustain a society without a police force.
Quote from: LMNO on March 16, 2007, 07:13:19 PM
So, how would the entire situation not devolve into gangs and militias fighting each other?
No, srsly. I'm interested in hearing how you would sustain a society without a police force.
........... flee to the Canadian mountains, LOL.
Well, it's a loaded question. I'd tell you when we get there, but right now, it's not so easy for me to give you any crystal ball opinions. I know that from experiancing life ithe Greek island of Crete, where there is about 5 policeman for the etire island (only a slight exageration), people get along fine. There is no gang warfare. There are no police to handle it, even if there was. So, that's one example. And you can feel free to provide me with any conflicting evidence regarding Crete. What about Chicago, you ask? Well... do you see us getting anywhere near statelesness in our lifetimes without there first being a devestating WW4 systems crash? There ya' go.
Question: Are there any other systems that help enforce the social status quo on Crete?
For example: Mafia, Militias, the Church, etc. I would suspect there are. So in a sense, you're trading one set of enforcement for another. Not exactly anarchy.
What do you think makes Crete different from the UK, in that respect then? I'm sure you know what most towns in this country are like on a Friday night, for example, so I have to wonder what makes it different.
As an aside, I know when I was in Peru I was on an island on Lake Titicaca which was very similar to how you describe Crete, in fact I think all the cops were on the mainland.
The island of Luing off the west coast of scotland has a police force of 1. He also sells paraffin. If you want to buy some, you just walk right in the front door of his house and shout "hello".
There are 12 people living on the island of Luing. I suspect if there were a couple of hundred the place would be a war zone.
Quote from: LMNO on March 16, 2007, 07:29:21 PM
Question: Are there any other systems that help enforce the social status quo on Crete?
For example: Mafia, Militias, the Church, etc. I would suspect there are. So in a sense, you're trading one set of enforcement for another. Not exactly anarchy.
Humans are humans, so of course there are going to be systems of Destructive Discord, negative grids of reality trough which people choose to percieve the world. So yes, there is a strong religious prescence, but it's nothing that wouldn't die out ina generation or two if under slightly different conditions, as it has everywhere else. And besides, no one pays much attention to it anyway. Condoms aren't decreed to be the devil's playthings, for example.
Are there any militias? Well, no, not rly. Why would there be?
Is there a mafia? No. Not unless you count the odd drug dealer here and there. But hey, the CIA grows most of that shit anyway! : D
Quote from: Cain on March 16, 2007, 07:31:43 PM
What do you think makes Crete different from the UK, in that respect then? I'm sure you know what most towns in this country are like on a Friday night, for example, so I have to wonder what makes it different.
As an aside, I know when I was in Peru I was on an island on Lake Titicaca which was very similar to how you describe Crete, in fact I think all the cops were on the mainland.
Well, you do know Britain is one of the worst places to live in the EU, right? So then, we have to ask why that is. To a lesser or greater extent, I think it has to do with making an example of us, for the New World Order. We are kind of a test scheme here. So, you'd have to look at all sorts of things, like how our schools differ from those of other EU countries, to how much drug shit is pushed by intelligence agencies, all sorts of things. But let's not forget, that Crete has a a helluva' lot more sun than we do! It's smaller, less entangled in politics... just more laid back.
"Humans are humans, so of course there are going to be systems of Destructive Discord, negative grids of reality trough which people choose to percieve the world. So yes, there is a strong religious prescence, but it's nothing that wouldn't die out ina generation or two if under slightly different conditions, as it has everywhere else."
I should have wrote "as it has in other parts"
Quote from: Hit the Road Jack on March 16, 2007, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 16, 2007, 07:31:43 PM
What do you think makes Crete different from the UK, in that respect then? I'm sure you know what most towns in this country are like on a Friday night, for example, so I have to wonder what makes it different.
As an aside, I know when I was in Peru I was on an island on Lake Titicaca which was very similar to how you describe Crete, in fact I think all the cops were on the mainland.
Well, you do know Britain is one of the worst places to live in the EU, right? So then, we have to ask why that is. To a lesser or greater extent, I think it has to do with making an example of us, for the New World Order. We are kind of a test scheme here. So, you'd have to look at all sorts of things, like how our schools differ from those of other EU countries, to how much drug shit is pushed by intelligence agencies, all sorts of things. But let's not forget, that Crete has a a helluva' lot more sun than we do! It's smaller, less entangled in politics... just more laid back.
I wondered if it had anything to do with population size myself. You can get a few thousand to get on quite well with minimal policing, but obviously with more people you not only have the opportunity for violence to break out more often, chances are you wont know (and so wont care) about who you attack and, because of the size of society, you can actually still get by quite well even if you do upset a few people, unlike smaller communities who can ostracize such an individual.
Quote from: Cain on March 16, 2007, 07:49:12 PM
Quote from: Hit the Road Jack on March 16, 2007, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 16, 2007, 07:31:43 PM
What do you think makes Crete different from the UK, in that respect then? I'm sure you know what most towns in this country are like on a Friday night, for example, so I have to wonder what makes it different.
As an aside, I know when I was in Peru I was on an island on Lake Titicaca which was very similar to how you describe Crete, in fact I think all the cops were on the mainland.
Well, you do know Britain is one of the worst places to live in the EU, right? So then, we have to ask why that is. To a lesser or greater extent, I think it has to do with making an example of us, for the New World Order. We are kind of a test scheme here. So, you'd have to look at all sorts of things, like how our schools differ from those of other EU countries, to how much drug shit is pushed by intelligence agencies, all sorts of things. But let's not forget, that Crete has a a helluva' lot more sun than we do! It's smaller, less entangled in politics... just more laid back.
I wondered if it had anything to do with population size myself. You can get a few thousand to get on quite well with minimal policing, but obviously with more people you not only have the opportunity for violence to break out more often, chances are you wont know (and so wont care) about who you attack and, because of the size of society, you can actually still get by quite well even if you do upset a few people, unlike smaller communities who can ostracize such an individual.
Britain is disgustingly packed.
There's out-and-out Mad Max anarchy, and the there's devolution. Downsizing, tribalization.
Quote from: Cain on March 16, 2007, 05:41:10 AM
QuoteAs apposed to... the rule of Bush's/Obama's military tribunals?
There's no difference. Ever heard of what they did to "criminals" (meaning people who disagreed with the warlords) in Somalia? Its not pretty reading. You think waterboarding is bad, wait until you're forced to kill members of your own family because of the "shame" they may have bought on you for fraternizing with another warlord's people. Welcome to anarchy.
By the way, if anyone wants to site Iraq and Afghanistan, don't, because there not valid examples. Ever heard of P2OG? False flagging? The Basra prison break?
I've gotta' decide whether I'm posting in bold or not, LOL.
I'd say go for it - it makes you come across as really cool and important
Apparently fortune favours those who write in bold. Or something like that.
Quote from: SillyCybin on March 16, 2007, 09:14:01 PM
I'd say go for it - it makes you come across as really cool and important
Fuckin' right it does.
My humble 2 cents:
Cain hit it on the head when he mentioned population size as a predominant factor :mittens:
Let me elaborate a bit.
From the little that I know on the subject, humans are naturally social animals.
Furthermore, social interaction seems to occur on a pendulum scale, with cooperation on one side and competition on the other.
That being said, our brains are only structured to live in a tribe of about 150 people. In other words, as a neurological limitation, you can only really hold emotional relationships with a maximum of 150 people. You cannot have much meaningful interaction with anyone else, lest you push someone else out of your 150.
It is said that when humans originally lived in tribes of such sizes of 150, they were very communistic. Sure, there was some competition to be at the top, but it was never so much that the tribe would fall apart. The tribe was too worried about survival. To go back to the pendulum metaphor, the swings of the pendulum were never that extreme and so equilibrium could be recaptured much more easily.
Fast forward to contemporary times.
Enter the concept of The Stranger,Ñ¢ (No, not something written by Camus)
As soon as civilization started to develop, we thrust ourselves out of the simple tribal life, and introduced ourselves to the stranger. That is, someone who we have no emotional connection with, and essentially is not completely human in our minds.
We now live in super-tribes of millions and millions of people. You could theortically go through an entire day meeting only strangers, and never have to encounter anyone you actually know personally.
And it is a lot easier to do awful things to a stranger, than it is to do things to someone you know.
Back to the pendulum.
With small swings in the pendulum (a result of small social group sizes), nothing ever got too out of hand. You might have some in-fighting here or there, but it could be managed on the whole and the tribe could go on living.
With EXTREMELY large swings in the pendulum (a result of astronomical social group sizes), anything and everything has the potential to get out of hand right quick. This can be both good and bad.
What can an extreme swing to cooperation do? Just look at the world wars. Entire countries forget any and all internal strife and band together to fight the outside threat.
What can an extreme swing to copetition do? Look at America's current income distribution. An extremely small minority controls the most wealth. And a large percentage of people are relegated to irreparable poverty and destitution.
Certainly a far cry from the naturally communistic lifestyle of our pre-historic ancestors.
:mittens:
Most straightforward expanation I've heard of this "too many rats in a cage" dynamic.
Is the 150 figure you quoted based on science or just a rough guestimate?
Quote from: SillyCybin on March 17, 2007, 10:18:00 PM
:mittens:
Most straightforward expanation I've heard of this "too many rats in a cage" dynamic.
Is the 150 figure you quoted based on science or just a rough guestimate?
It's called something like Dunbar's Number, so you could probably look it up under that name for more info ... I think they use it heavily in anthropology and sociology.
I've heard 200 or so....but it was pretty much the same premise. It was linked in MGD's sig ages ago...nearly a year in fact, but it made a lot of sense.
Great post SP, very very interesting.
Quote from: Sir Perineal on March 17, 2007, 09:59:32 PM
My humble 2 cents:
Cain hit it on the head when he mentioned population size as a predominant factor :mittens:
Let me elaborate a bit.
From the little that I know on the subject, humans are naturally social animals.
Furthermore, social interaction seems to occur on a pendulum scale, with cooperation on one side and competition on the other.
That being said, our brains are only structured to live in a tribe of about 150 people. In other words, as a neurological limitation, you can only really hold emotional relationships with a maximum of 150 people. You cannot have much meaningful interaction with anyone else, lest you push someone else out of your 150.
It is said that when humans originally lived in tribes of such sizes of 150, they were very communistic. Sure, there was some competition to be at the top, but it was never so much that the tribe would fall apart. The tribe was too worried about survival. To go back to the pendulum metaphor, the swings of the pendulum were never that extreme and so equilibrium could be recaptured much more easily.
Fast forward to contemporary times.
Enter the concept of The Stranger,Ñ¢ (No, not something written by Camus)
As soon as civilization started to develop, we thrust ourselves out of the simple tribal life, and introduced ourselves to the stranger. That is, someone who we have no emotional connection with, and essentially is not completely human in our minds.
We now live in super-tribes of millions and millions of people. You could theortically go through an entire day meeting only strangers, and never have to encounter anyone you actually know personally.
And it is a lot easier to do awful things to a stranger, than it is to do things to someone you know.
Back to the pendulum.
With small swings in the pendulum (a result of small social group sizes), nothing ever got too out of hand. You might have some in-fighting here or there, but it could be managed on the whole and the tribe could go on living.
With EXTREMELY large swings in the pendulum (a result of astronomical social group sizes), anything and everything has the potential to get out of hand right quick. This can be both good and bad.
What can an extreme swing to cooperation do? Just look at the world wars. Entire countries forget any and all internal strife and band together to fight the outside threat.
What can an extreme swing to copetition do? Look at America's current income distribution. An extremely small minority controls the most wealth. And a large percentage of people are relegated to irreparable poverty and destitution.
Certainly a far cry from the naturally communistic lifestyle of our pre-historic ancestors.
Isn't that, then, a sort of admonishment for anarchy? Anarchy, as in, a world without nation states as we understand them now?
Yeah I guess. "sort of" in the "no it fucking isn't you idiot"- sense
Quote from: SillyCybin on March 18, 2007, 07:45:43 PM
Yeah I guess. "sort of" in the "no it fucking isn't you idiot"- sense
I don't know why to some here anarchy HAS TO mean absolute destructive chaos. You could call what the peacefull, succesfull native American tribes did for all those years anarchy. To me, it just means a world without standing armies, central banks, corporations, all the nasty shit of civilisation. If you want to say that humans will never or could never attain such freedoms, fine, but don't confuse the issue by claiming "anarchy=raping and pillaging". The reality is much more complex then that.
Indeed, it need not always be like that. But the societies that have practiced it well seem to be either be quite primitive hunter-gatherers or under extreme situations of social collapse and high tension (the Commune and Spanish Civil War). If you're ideologically committed to anarchism, you can likely make it work, but others wont, leading me to believe it will likely never be anything more than a temporary system, inevitably falling to outside powers who do what they do best (move in troops and "restore order").
The only time I can think of Anarchists managing to make a successful stand against professional militaries is in Spain, and even there they had to make important amendments to their ideals in order to gain the cooperation of the Communists.
Being the utopian Idealist that I am I can envisage a world where human psychology has evolved enough to operate under a system which, to our primitive eyes, could only be described as anarchy.
Maybe in a couple of thousand years or so. Who knows? Maybe sooner. Right now, however, if all forms of governments suddenly vanished in the poof of smoke we'd all like to see some vanish in, I'm pretty sure planet earth would very closely resemble an abattoir within a matter of hours.
Quote from: SillyCybin on March 18, 2007, 11:02:21 PM
Being the utopian Idealist that I am I can envisage a world where human psychology has evolved enough to operate under a system which, to our primitive eyes, could only be described as anarchy.
Maybe in a couple of thousand years or so. Who knows? Maybe sooner. Right now, however, if all forms of governments suddenly vanished in the poof of smoke we'd all like to see some vanish in, I'm pretty sure planet earth would very closely resemble an abattoir within a matter of hours.
Shit man, the way things are going, we may not have a choice! :lulz:
Hell yeah! If the bullets don't kill ya the lulz sure as fuck will :lulz:
i got the 150 number as well from this article about something called "Monkeysphere" (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html).
i think it makes a whole lot of sense for explaining a lot of things about why groups of large people are so stupid
not that individuals can't be terribly stupid as well, though. but i think that this might be caused to large groups being unable of giving the right example?
I am thoroughly jealous of hunter/gatherer societies. I read somewhere that the average hunter/gatherer does less than ten hours of work a week! Srsly, industrial revolution FTL.
If only there was some way to spend my day killing deer and weaving baskets and still get indoor plumbing, heat, and internets.
We need a new lifestyle for the 21st century - Hunter/gatherer/webmaster
I'll be the Hunter...
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on March 19, 2007, 02:48:48 PM
I am thoroughly jealous of hunter/gatherer societies. I read somewhere that the average hunter/gatherer does less than ten hours of work a week! Srsly, industrial revolution FTL.
If only there was some way to spend my day killing deer and weaving baskets and still get indoor plumbing, heat, and internets.
Actually, I'd be willing to bet that was 10 hours of work a day. Hunting is not easy, even for experts. Oh, and you die by the time you're 35.
As it is, I work 4 hours a week.
bastard!
Yeah, but I'd be working 6 months a year if I wanted to live at this level and not be in debt. Not bad, but not quite as good.
Anyway, yeah, hunting. Its seriously hard work. Odd times, hours of waiting followed by brief periods of very strenuous activity, often little pay off in terms of protein gain, often some form of danger involved. Oh and whatever you eat may just be infected with god knows how many diseases.
Yeah I don't think it would be easy.
But the commute would be much better.
Sounds difficult... but super fun. I mean
"How was your day at work honey?"
"It was okay"
vs
"How was your day at work honey?"
"I PUT A FUCKING SPEAR THROUGH A RHINO'S GODDAMN EYE AND WAS CELEBRATED AS A HERO."
"Great! Now let's get back to singing songs and weaving rugs. You know, culture!"
Well, there's also
"How was your day at work, sweetie?"
"Meh, could've been worse."
versus
"That two-timing scum, why isn't he home yet?!"
"Sorry, ma'am, your husband tried to put a spear through a rhinoceros's eye but got trampled to death in the process."
And:
"How was work?"
"I didn't catch anything. We're all going to starve to death."
And "I caught this deer, it was lagging behind a bit"
Two days later "I think I know why that deer was behind"
A week later "___________", on account of the dead not being talkative.
Or:
"How was work?"
"It was ok, but check out the size of my tapeworms!"
Or:
"How was work?"
"What happened to your arm?"
"Oh, it's okay. I submitted a claim to God, I'm sure I'll get hunter/gatherers comp."
That would depend. If there was contributory negligence on the part of the hunter then bod might be in it's rights to reduce the claim!
Perhaps, instead of divinely regrowing the hunter's severed appendage, the plaintiff would only receive a stump in compensation!
Mankind does instinctively co-operate; an individual generally does try and co-operate with the community at large. That's why state funded peer-preasuer and manufacture of consent are so succesfull.
Government and state simply take advantage of our co-operative instincts.
The idea that Government evens out the odds against the bullies doesn't sit right with me. It does but only for it's own citizens. The current style of Governemnt still maintains it's power through violence, it's only transfered outside of the official borders. While the wealthy decadence insures a fuzzy warm 'peace' on the inside, the state still relies heavily on violence outside to maintain the 'state'. That just aint right.
Anarchy is such a missused and throw away term these days. I don't see it so much as a political ideology as a necessary part of your soul. We may retreat into conformity and placid agreement more often than not but the spirit of anarchy is still a usefull and productive thing to feel. Trying to formalise like some an all inclusive self-sustaining political ideoligy was always a bad idea I think, and mainly misses the point.
Inconclusive I know, just a thought.
I think its somewhat naive to think a government will not engage in some form of reformist activity except within its own borders. However, the reasons for it will almost always be to pacify a politically motivated population, instead of actual morality. Its for the same reasons that governments initiate minimum wage laws and certain labour laws, without ever looking from the outside and wondering if the problem is systemic. Or realizing and not caring, in certain cases.
The Scandinavian and central European countries are particularly guilty of the above, but since its about the worst of their crimes, it can be ignored, for the moment. Bigger fish to fry and all that.
That wasn't my point, but yes you're right.