Recently got into a discussion that tried to jolt idealism into the realm of reality regarding how people would ideally live together.
'Co-exist peacefully'
Suprisingly (or not) the technology that has developed on the internet seems to be the ideal method for communicating in this type of 'real/ideal' situation.
(Depending on whether or not you see the bulletin board technique as 'new', or just a new version of something old)
Here were the general principles (series of agreements):
Agree to:
- to never come over without being invited
- never to set in motion a process that results in any unnecessary disturbance in your vicinity (sirens, alarms, explosions, etc)
- unless otherwise requested, all communications will be placed at a 3rd party location, and will be placed there with the understanding that they may never be retreived or responded to
- never ask for a favor
- make available anything that i have an abundance of for you to use or not use as you see fit
the knee-jerk feedback has been 'there is no way to enforce those rules' which is true - it would require some notion of a different kind of justice doled out by something else in some form
the other knee-jerk reaction was 'rules arent good' - which is true
but it seems that disrespect for others is worse than having to agree on some basic rules
- also: i dont really see any lack of freedom in this scenario
if anything - it seems like these agreements fit into the whole 'do as thou wilt...' situation which seems to be the correct dirtbike to be riding thru the wilderness
seems to follow suit that if people made those type of (respectful) agreements, nobody would trip over anybody else
it lacks a certain element of romance, but people are creative
so please - take aim and blast some holes in this
is it that outlandish?
is somebody going to bring up the 'humans are animals and cant live like this' argument?
3rd party communication leads to passive aggressive behavior.
Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on December 18, 2006, 04:48:13 AM
3rd party communication leads to passive aggressive behavior.
what type of passive aggessive behavior?
grafitti?
I'd put in my two cents but it's against the rules.
Quote from: Benaclypse on December 18, 2006, 04:54:18 AM
I'd put in my two cents but it's against the rules.
what you just said violates section 884.1a of Teh Rules
youre fired
Quote from: LHX on December 18, 2006, 04:57:04 AM
Quote from: Benaclypse on December 18, 2006, 04:54:18 AM
I'd put in my two cents but it's against the rules.
what you just said violates section 884.1a of Teh Rules
youre fired
I'd ask to use you as a reference but it's against the rules.
Quote from: Benaclypse on December 18, 2006, 05:08:59 AM
Quote from: LHX on December 18, 2006, 04:57:04 AM
Quote from: Benaclypse on December 18, 2006, 04:54:18 AM
I'd put in my two cents but it's against the rules.
what you just said violates section 884.1a of Teh Rules
youre fired
I'd ask to use you as a reference but it's against the rules.
Thats going in your record.
Don't even think of thinking of asking for a reference.
Or else we will hire you back in order to fire you again.
All disputes should be settled by fighting it out with 30 pound codfish as weapons.
Nothing about these suggestions jolts idealism into reality. These are basic 'live and let live' guidelines that ought to be common sense (and are, for anyone with any common sense). If you're dealing with individuals, these rules are great. But societies do not function on a strictly individual level. People associate, form alliances, hold grudges, and seek power. That is the nature of human civilization. These rules do not account for the fact that people will never stop the bullshit and drop the weapons and just live peacefully. That is never going to happen.
Furthermore, these rules do lack any form of enforcement. The only way you would get enough people to enforce these rules on themselves to even come anywhere near making this viable, would be making a religion out of it. And we've seen what happens when we try that.
These rules, and any variation of them, are always doomed to being empty and powerless to effect any real change in the world, because they operate from the patently false assumption that people are good to each other by default. People are, by default, complete assholes.
Quote from: vexaph0d on December 18, 2006, 05:26:37 AM
Nothing about these suggestions jolts idealism into reality. 
I'll have you know that a 30 pound codfish to the face is quite a jolt.
Well there is enforcement but it's only social contract and it only works so long as both people are happy about the situation. First time the toilet overflows... :lol:
Quote from: LHX on December 18, 2006, 04:39:38 AM
is somebody going to bring up the 'humans are humans and probably wont live like this' argument?
fixed to my perspective.
My reasoning:
I say that humans have the potential and can live like that. However, the track record isn't good. And I think there are too many of us. Back in the days of nomads and when groups of people were separated by vast stretches of unpopulated land all was, relatively, peaceful. But when tribes, groups cross paths, watch out.
I think History is one of the biggest Gorillas you have to wrestle with here. If you could somehow wipe out the memories, cultures, etc. of the current human population you would have an excellent chance of making these rules work.
There is too much suspicion and envy that has been built into the human society.
For example,
If you were somehow able to actually bring about some peace between the Israel and Palestine I think it would be a finite truce, not infinte. Because, even though no shots are being fired. Even though no one is blowing themselves up at a bistro, there will always be that suspicion. "Hmm, I wonder what
they are thinking about?"
I think, eventually, the suspicion and uncertainty would boil over for some pathetic reason like somone coughed without covering their mouth. "Infidel, you try to poison me with you cold germs!" And then it all starts again.
So, that is the problem I see. Too much history of conflict. I wonder, could the human race actually function/exist without conflict?
From what i understand of your proposal LHX, you can at most only be talking about half of the population.
If you could isolate that half and bugger off somewhere, you would have a reasonable chance of making the society function. However you would have to make sure the people you have are all of the right type cause if there are any imposters or any of the chaos lot can get to you, you gain absolutely nothing.
In fact i'm not sure even the psyche of the good is all rule following and no mischief so perhaps your rule set could go:
Agree to:
- to never come over without being invited
- never to set in motion a process that results in any unnecessary disturbance in your vicinity (sirens, alarms, explosions, etc)
- unless otherwise requested, all communications will be placed at a 3rd party location, and will be placed there with the understanding that they may never be retreived or responded to
- never ask for a favor
- make available anything that i have an abundance of for you to use or not use as you see fit
- every now and then throw a swerve ball, avoid all the rules, muck about and act stupid, lie, cheat, and get it out of your system.
the only ones that will follow rules religiously are the machines we create to do our bidding, anything organic is gonna screw up the system.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2006, 02:57:44 PM
Quote from: LHX on December 18, 2006, 04:39:38 AM
is somebody going to bring up the 'humans are humans and probably wont live like this' argument?
fixed to my perspective.
My reasoning:
I say that humans have the potential and can live like that. However, the track record isn't good. And I think there are too many of us. Back in the days of nomads and when groups of people were separated by vast stretches of unpopulated land all was, relatively, peaceful. But when tribes, groups cross paths, watch out.
I think History is one of the biggest Gorillas you have to wrestle with here. If you could somehow wipe out the memories, cultures, etc. of the current human population you would have an excellent chance of making these rules work.
There is too much suspicion and envy that has been built into the human society.
For example,
If you were somehow able to actually bring about some peace between the Israel and Palestine I think it would be a finite truce, not infinte. Because, even though no shots are being fired. Even though no one is blowing themselves up at a bistro, there will always be that suspicion. "Hmm, I wonder what they are thinking about?"
I think, eventually, the suspicion and uncertainty would boil over for some pathetic reason like somone coughed without covering their mouth. "Infidel, you try to poison me with you cold germs!" And then it all starts again.
So, that is the problem I see. Too much history of conflict. I wonder, could the human race actually function/exist without conflict?
yeah - this is definitely not something that would fly right now wiff the current population
the context of the discussion was more along the lines of 'after
somethinga 'rebuild right' type of scenario
i would also venture to say tho that 'suspicion' is a tendency that stems from a strange (and perhaps perverse) fear of the unknown
if
you can function without conflict, then we can function without conflict (just a hunch)
Quote from: Laz on December 18, 2006, 04:04:48 PM
From what i understand of your proposal LHX, you can at most only be talking about half of the population.
If you could isolate that half and bugger off somewhere, you would have a reasonable chance of making the society function. However you would have to make sure the people you have are all of the right type cause if there are any imposters or any of the chaos lot can get to you, you gain absolutely nothing.
i see what youre saying - but like i said to RWHN - the only way to transition from this (what we are in now) to that would be nothing short of a complete re-building scenario
whatever that entails
Quote from: Laz on December 18, 2006, 04:04:48 PM
In fact i'm not sure even the psyche of the good is all rule following and no mischief so perhaps your rule set could go:
like i said - i know people are allergic to rules
im more trying to define what it means to be free, while still having respect for people who share the same place you do
Quote from: Laz on December 18, 2006, 04:04:48 PM
- every now and then throw a swerve ball, avoid all the rules, muck about and act stupid, lie, cheat, and get it out of your system.
i dont see the problem with that
lie cheat and steal all you want as long as it doesnt affect other people
people can fornicate with trees, sleep all day, stay drunk, unhygenic, etc etc
but what im sayin, or trying to say in polite terms,
is that when you act a fool in somebody elses vicinity - unnecessarily and purposely - you are inviting them to cut you down
it really has less to do with rules and more to do with determining what respect is
and what responsibility a person really has toward another person
Quote from: Laz on December 18, 2006, 04:04:48 PM
the only ones that will follow rules religiously are the machines we create to do our bidding, anything organic is gonna screw up the system.
not everything organic is self-destructive
Some interesting points LHX...
Quotebut what im sayin, or trying to say in polite terms,is that when you act a fool in somebody elses vicinity - unnecessarily and purposely - you are inviting them to cut you down
That is the definition of a fool though, we don't care if we are cut down!
Quoteit really has less to do with rules and more to do with determining what respect is and what responsibility a person really has toward another person
And that is all to do with knowing who we are as a species, and knowing who you are inside. Have you come to terms with who you are yet? :0)
Quote from: LHX on December 18, 2006, 04:49:16 PM
not everything organic is self-destructive
Indeed there are organisms that have persisted much longer than we ever have, and maybe, ever will.
And from a human perspective, in relatively simple terms.
I think these damn grids blur our visions. If we could strip them away and rebuild as LHX suggests, perhaps we could make it work.
Quote from: Laz on December 18, 2006, 06:05:58 PM
That is the definition of a fool though, we don't care if we are cut down!
its true - thats the ultimate stage on the inner journey
but after you emerge out of that hole - it seems like the next adventure is to figure out how to make something that endures...
Quote from: Laz on December 18, 2006, 06:05:58 PM
And that is all to do with knowing who we are as a species, and knowing who you are inside. Have you come to terms with who you are yet? :0)
thats the question right there
if somebody did come to terms with who they are, then how would they act?
what does a water-walker look like in the desert?
Quote from: LHX on December 18, 2006, 07:24:10 PM
if somebody did come to terms with who they are, then how would they act?
what does a water-walker look like in the desert?
1. shrivel up into a ball
2. shrivel up into a ball
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2006, 06:33:28 PM
Quote from: LHX on December 18, 2006, 04:49:16 PM
not everything organic is self-destructive
Indeed there are organisms that have persisted much longer than we ever have, and maybe, ever will.
And from a human perspective, in relatively simple terms.
I think these damn grids blur our visions. If we could strip them away and rebuild as LHX suggests, perhaps we could make it work.
it would at least be nice to be in a situation to test it out
move to greatness thru trial and error
everything points to us getting our grids stripped away eventually whether we like it or not
the things we have to do for a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T
who wouldve thought it would be so elusive
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2006, 07:28:17 PM
Quote from: LHX on December 18, 2006, 07:24:10 PM
if somebody did come to terms with who they are, then how would they act?
what does a water-walker look like in the desert?
1. shrivel up into a ball
2. shrivel up into a ball
lmfao
running around looking for a exit sign or eject button
> never to set in motion a process that results in
> any unnecessary disturbance in your vicinity
> (sirens, alarms, explosions, etc)
this might result for some people in a severe lack of fun. but it's fun at the expense of others, and if you wanna coexist peacefully it has to come from both ways .. but it's still no fun!
there goes my poetic-terrorist plan of distributing those red gas-horns on the tables of the university library :-(
but seriously, like it was said, you NEED to break the rules now and then. without out-of-the-box thinking (and acting!) you'll hold up beautiful creative progress.
> > the only ones that will follow rules religiously
> > are the machines we create to do our bidding,
> > anything organic is gonna screw up the system.
>
> not everything organic is self-destructive
>
not everything that doesn't follow rules and/or "screws up the system" is self-destructive.
i'm not sure, but if we get a "second chance" (what this scenario is good for right?), i might even be willing to risk another Machine if that's what it takes in order to be able to break the rules. i'd rather have a Machine which i can hack and break the rules than a Prison where i can't.
Quote from: triple zero on December 18, 2006, 07:34:24 PM
but it's still no fun!
serious?
Quote from: triple zero on December 18, 2006, 07:34:24 PM
but seriously, like it was said, you NEED to break the rules now and then. without out-of-the-box thinking (and acting!) you'll hold up beautiful creative progress.
serious?
Quote from: triple zero on December 18, 2006, 07:34:24 PM
not everything that doesn't follow rules and/or "screws up the system" is self-destructive.
man - i knew people would start going on about rules
basically - this is all a elaboration of: ill stay out of your path if you stay out of mine
Quote from: triple zero on December 18, 2006, 07:34:24 PM
i'm not sure, but if we get a "second chance" (what this scenario is good for right?), i might even be willing to risk another Machine if that's what it takes in order to be able to break the rules. i'd rather have a Machine which i can hack and break the rules than a Prison where i can't.
lmfao
make rules in order to break rules?
you like breaking rules that much?
why not build a sand castle and then pour water on it?
as far as i can see, if you wreck somebody elses shit for no reason, you are asking them to wreck you
Quote from: LHX on December 18, 2006, 08:01:36 PMQuote from: triple zero on December 18, 2006, 07:34:24 PMbut it's still no fun!
serious?
probably. kind of. and even if i weren't there's a grain of truth in it.
QuoteQuote from: triple zero on December 18, 2006, 07:34:24 PMbut seriously, like it was said, you NEED to break the rules now and then. without out-of-the-box thinking (and acting!) you'll hold up beautiful creative progress.
serious?
definitely.
without out-of-the-box thinking you'll stifle* creativity. (*that was the word i was looking for)
and out-of-the-box-thinking requires being able to break the rules now and then. it's just another box to think outside of.
QuoteQuote from: triple zero on December 18, 2006, 07:34:24 PMnot everything that doesn't follow rules and/or "screws up the system" is self-destructive.
man - i knew people would start going on about rules
basically - this is all a elaboration of: ill stay out of your path if you stay out of mine
yes, i understand the principle, and maybe it would even work.
but it will hamper creativity.
and i'm glad that fortunately you won't be able to pull it off ;-)
Quotemake rules in order to break rules?
you like breaking rules that much?
it's not that i
like breaking them (well, maybe i do, but i might be willing to put that aside), it's just that i think it's important that they can be broken from time to time.
Quotewhy not build a sand castle and then pour water on it?
i'm not saying to break the rules for great just breaking the rules even if you know beforehand it's gonna do no good.
Quoteas far as i can see, if you wreck somebody elses shit for no reason, you are asking them to wreck you
well i think sometimes it's important to risk that.
also, breaking the rules is not automatically "for no reason". but even breaking the rules "for no reason", say by random chance, can lead to something beautiful, something that was outside of the box before.
they're definitely good
guidelines though.
As long as we're all trapped in our single view of the world meat sack, There's going to be selfishness and trickery and no harmony.
I think what is needed is for science to develop some kind of telepathy device so that our signle conciousness can be shared and made visible to all, only then will we be likely to be honest and truthfull.
Quote from: triple zero on December 18, 2006, 08:38:45 PM
well i think sometimes it's important to risk that.
also, breaking the rules is not automatically "for no reason". but even breaking the rules "for no reason", say by random chance, can lead to something beautiful, something that was outside of the box before.
they're definitely good guidelines though.
i hear what youre sayin now
and the term 'guidelines' sounds better than 'rules'
but do these guidelines suggest anything that would put a damper on 'outside the box'thinking?
Quote from: Laz on December 18, 2006, 09:04:09 PM
As long as we're all trapped in our single view of the world meat sack, There's going to be selfishness and trickery and no harmony.
as long as we have bodies, there will be no harmony?
Quote from: LHX on December 18, 2006, 07:32:34 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2006, 07:28:17 PM
Quote from: LHX on December 18, 2006, 07:24:10 PM
if somebody did come to terms with who they are, then how would they act?
what does a water-walker look like in the desert?
1. shrivel up into a ball
2. shrivel up into a ball
lmfao
running around looking for a exit sign or eject button
And sometimes they think they've found it. drugs, alcohol, "checking out"...in all manner of ways. Even suiciding.
Quote from: LHX on December 18, 2006, 09:26:59 PMbut do these guidelines suggest anything that would put a damper on 'outside the box'thinking?
well, as long as they're guidelines, meaning you can also
not follow them from time to time, it might be okay.
if these guidelines are supposed to be followed
always (i would call them "rules" then), they will form the box (prison).
what box you may ask?
> never to set in motion a process that results in any unnecessary
> disturbance in your vicinity (sirens, alarms, explosions, etc)
what's unnecessary?
can you be sure?
if you'd rather be better safe than sorry you will be trapped inside the box.
> - unless otherwise requested, all communications will be placed at a 3rd party
> location, and will be placed there with the understanding that they may never be
> retreived or responded to
actually i don't quite understand this one, what's it for, and why?
who's the 3rd party? anyone?
> - never ask for a favor
in the broadest sense? that's gonna require some big adaptation. i'm not sure if i would call such a society "human" anymore.. have you ever considered how much a part of your communication consists of direct or indirect requests to another person? (favours?)
together with the last one, i think we're gonna need to evolve physically or plug ourselves continously into VR, because also, i can't even look at anyone without communicating.
> make available anything that i have an abundance of for you to use or not use
> as you see fit
sounds like a good plan, but is it even theoretically possible? what if the making-available costs some resources that deplete your abundance? (or even more convoluted situations)
rules are not just supposed to be broken, they will eventually break themselves.
either the rules are too loose to be useful
or they are too strict to be fruitful
or they will break or be broken continously and over and over again, like we do trying to break out of the B.I.P.
at least i think this is the case.
i don't think this problem can be solved by applying (more) rules. remember the aneristic strife?
you make rules, i will poke holes in them.
and not only will i break them, i will use the rules to break the rules.
either they will be too strict, and things will go completely rigid (solid)
or they will be too loose and they will accomplish nothing (gaseous)
or they will be "just right" OR SO YOU THINK and they will contradict themselves (liquid)
at least, this is what i think i believe.
but there is probably (i think) some fundamental math/logic backing me up here. (which is also powerful enough to contradict itself, but that doesn't make it useless, au contraire, it makes it the right way to go)
Quote from: triple zero on December 18, 2006, 10:04:33 PM
Quote from: LHX on December 18, 2006, 09:26:59 PMbut do these guidelines suggest anything that would put a damper on 'outside the box'thinking?
well, as long as they're guidelines, meaning you can also not follow them from time to time, it might be okay.
if these guidelines are supposed to be followed always (i would call them "rules" then), they will form the box (prison).
what box you may ask?
Quote from: triple zero on December 18, 2006, 10:04:33 PM
> never to set in motion a process that results in any unnecessary
> disturbance in your vicinity (sirens, alarms, explosions, etc)
what's unnecessary?
can you be sure?
if you'd rather be better safe than sorry you will be trapped inside the box.
maybe it all goes back to the "do unto others" business
Quote from: triple zero on December 18, 2006, 10:04:33 PM
> - unless otherwise requested, all communications will be placed at a 3rd party
> location, and will be placed there with the understanding that they may never be
> retreived or responded to
actually i don't quite understand this one, what's it for, and why?
who's the 3rd party? anyone?
a internet forum is a 3rd party
this way - you have control over how and when you receive communications
i cant come up to you and holler in your ear
(but neither would the voluptuous women wiff dazzling story-telling ability)
Quote from: triple zero on December 18, 2006, 10:04:33 PM
> - never ask for a favor
in the broadest sense? that's gonna require some big adaptation. i'm not sure if i would call such a society "human" anymore.. have you ever considered how much a part of your communication consists of direct or indirect requests to another person? (favours?)
thats why i suggested refining communication
its a favor that salespeople dont get spit at or telemarketers get hung up on
nobody should be asking those types of favors - whether directly or indirectly
Quote from: triple zero on December 18, 2006, 10:04:33 PM
together with the last one, i think we're gonna need to evolve physically or plug ourselves continously into VR, because also, i can't even look at anyone without communicating.
we already discussed that something like this isnt viable with the current population
Quote from: triple zero on December 18, 2006, 10:04:33 PM
> make available anything that i have an abundance of for you to use or not use
> as you see fit
sounds like a good plan, but is it even theoretically possible? what if the making-available costs some resources that deplete your abundance? (or even more convoluted situations)
lol
call me a simpleton but i got my mind on gardens and orchards
Quote from: triple zero on December 18, 2006, 10:04:33 PM
rules are not just supposed to be broken, they will eventually break themselves.
either the rules are too loose to be useful
or they are too strict to be fruitful
or they will break or be broken continously and over and over again, like we do trying to break out of the B.I.P.
at least i think this is the case.
i don't think this problem can be solved by applying (more) rules. remember the aneristic strife?
you make rules, i will poke holes in them.
and not only will i break them, i will use the rules to break the rules.
so lets forget about rules then
the law that prohibits killing is a law thats exploited anyway
if there was no law against killing, people prolly wouldnt pull half the shit considered 'trivial' that they pull now
Quote from: triple zero on December 18, 2006, 10:04:33 PM
either they will be too strict, and things will go completely rigid (solid)
or they will be too loose and they will accomplish nothing (gaseous)
or they will be "just right" OR SO YOU THINK and they will contradict themselves (liquid)
at least, this is what i think i believe.
but there is probably (i think) some fundamental math/logic backing me up here. (which is also powerful enough to contradict itself, but that doesn't make it useless, au contraire, it makes it the right way to go)
what you say here makes me think that maybe the list i originally provided are nothing more than examples of the rule as it has been described in different forms
"Do unto others..."
"Do as thou wilt..."
are both basically the same thing
we live in disrespectful times now because there are mechanisms in place where institutions can interrupt you and you can not (legally) react to it
you can be sleep in bed, and somebody can interrupt that
likewise, people are willing to violate or invade others in what is considered 'minor' ways because the penalty for doing so is minor AND the person that got violated cant react for fear of punishment from somebody who isnt even involved in the situation
if we abandoned the rules that were set up to establish 'rights', then it seems possible that there would be a lot more respect in general
Quote
Think i'm coming round to the idea of this being a possibility. If everyone had the right to judge and sentence their neighbour and not devolve responsibility to some higher power (who often takes too long, and gets it wrong), there could be a workable peace without rules. Although power groups/unions would have to be controlled somehow.
2 things:
1. The premise of these guidelines seems to be that people are basically misanthropic. Which is only partially true. Most people would consider humans to be social animals, and would naturally object to 3rd party communications vs face-to-face, and would tend to want to associate with their community, not leave them alone. Granted, most of the people on this board aren't like that; I know I'm not.
2. Regarding the comment that there should be a period of time where the suggestions are disregarded: Bacchanal. Just saying.
Quote from: LMNO on December 19, 2006, 01:23:32 PM
2 things:
1. The premise of these guidelines seems to be that people are basically misanthropic. Which is only partially true. Most people would consider humans to be social animals, and would naturally object to 3rd party communications vs face-to-face, and would tend to want to associate with their community, not leave them alone. Granted, most of the people on this board aren't like that; I know I'm not.
would you say that there is a tendency for people to become misanthropic over time?
a tendency for people to develop misanthropic tendencies as they have more experiences? rather than the alternative of people becoming more social?
Nope. I'm guessing that over time, the misanthropics and the socials tend to drift towards each other, thus confirming their worldveiws.
This board as exibit A.
Quote from: LMNO on December 19, 2006, 01:40:05 PM
Nope. I'm guessing that over time, the misanthropics and the socials tend to drift towards each other, thus confirming their worldveiws.
This board as exibit A.
but neither one drifts toward one or the other?
i dunno
maybe youre right
a lot of old people are cranky and want to be left alone
but a lot of them go play bingo too
makes a lot of sense
i guess ultimately it does come down to that question of respect
in the right circumstances, respectful tendencies would develop by trial and error
but the circumstances we live in now wouldnt ever see that develop - or so it seems
I'm having trouble reconciling these views with my experience of human nature.
Those cranky types will quite happily go out and play bingo with their friends once a week!
People are far from black and white and subject to mood swings of varying intensity and duration.
Quote from: Laz on December 19, 2006, 02:17:36 PM
I'm having trouble reconciling these views with my experience of human nature.
Those cranky types will quite happily go out and play bingo with their friends once a week!
People are far from black and white and subject to mood swings of varying intensity and duration.
is this society a example of 'human nature'?
i know a few thousand years seems like a long time, but isnt it still possible that this is the exception rather than the rule?
are people cranky? or has this way of life become something that makes people cranky?
Quoteare people cranky? or has this way of life become something that makes people cranky?
I see where you're going, however this is a non argument, because there has never been an external influence on people/society/life.
So People make people cranky, they always have and always will, starting again will not resolve anything.
Quoteis this society a example of 'human nature'?
of course ;0)
Quote from: Laz on December 19, 2006, 02:28:31 PM
I see where you're going, however this is a non argument, because there has never been an external influence on people/society/life.
its okay to say words like 'maybe'
ie:
'there doesnt
seem to have been any external influence on people/society/life
that we can define and agree upon'
the question at that point becomes:
how do you develop a society with a tendency to say one thing but do the other?
which theory of development results in something so contradictory?
Quote from: Laz on December 19, 2006, 02:28:31 PM
So People make people cranky, they always have and always will, starting again will not resolve anything.
i dunno if that math checks out
you might be missing a few variables in your equations
Quote from: Laz on December 19, 2006, 02:28:31 PM
Quoteis this society a example of 'human nature'?
of course ;0)
are you sure?
Where are you off to now LHX?
You seem to be contradicting yourself there. proof indeed that people are not able to stick to a straight line!
Quoteyou might be missing a few variables in your equations
Equations, maths? models of nature only.
Help illuminate me anerisian one?
Quote from: Laz on December 19, 2006, 02:47:59 PM
You seem to be contradicting yourself there.
that better not be a surprise yo
the crookedest straight line ever seen
Quote from: Laz on December 19, 2006, 02:47:59 PM
Quoteyou might be missing a few variables in your equations
Equations, maths? models of nature only.
Help illuminate me anerisian one?
you illuminate yourself and then tell us about it - all i have is pieces that you might find useful
A Brief History in Pictures (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=11092.0)
And here is your ridiculously absurd possibility of the day:
why Yacub did what he did (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=8486.0)
(http://i16.tinypic.com/4g6nz88.gif)
if they dont mean jack to you - so be it - its all fairy tales
but there is enough reason to believe that this way of life didnt develop on some 'gee shucks' type of progression
i dont know what caused it
but we didnt wake up one day suddenly afraid of things that dont exist
enjoy
Love the thread title btw. Next: A realistic way to travel backwards in time, using fridge magnets.
Quote from: SillyCybin on December 19, 2006, 03:13:01 PM
Love the thread title btw. Next: A realistic way to travel backwards in time, using fridge magnets.
you need special rocks
and a wire
srsly
it will activate the time-travel chakra
Okay i'll follow your lead LHX :0)
meantime i'd just like to recap...
The thread started with a proposal for a new form of society, based here on this planet, with the people we have now and their long and perverse history. The proposal that was being fought for (and still is?) is that a few guidelines or rules at a push could be used to control this lot and make society run like clockwork.
Right?
I wouldn't say clockwork, as it implies order, while these suggestions imply personal independence with a minimum of infringement upon others.
Quote from: Laz on December 19, 2006, 03:24:15 PM
Okay i'll follow your lead LHX :0)
meantime i'd just like to recap...
The thread started with a proposal for a new form of society, based here on this planet, with the people we have now and their long and perverse history. The proposal that was being fought for (and still is?) is that a few guidelines or rules at a push could be used to control this lot and make society run like clockwork.
Right?
Quote from: Original Post
Recently got into a discussion that tried to jolt idealism into the realm of reality regarding how people would ideally live together.
'Co-exist peacefully'
Suprisingly (or not) the technology that has developed on the internet seems to be the ideal method for communicating in this type of 'real/ideal' situation.
(Depending on whether or not you see the bulletin board technique as 'new', or just a new version of something old)
Here were the general principles (series of agreements):
no where does it say control
no where does it say rules
i got into a discussion about how respect manifests itself and how respect gets violated in this current society
i started this topic recapping the results of that discussion
check your recap and see if it corresponds with the words included in that first post, or whether you are reading more into it than what was put there
Quotebut there is enough reason to believe that this way of life didnt develop on some 'gee shucks' type of progression
Mental masturbation.
Quotei dont know what caused it
but we didnt wake up one day suddenly afraid of things that dont exist
Who's afraid? not the little weak white man that is writing this! besides, fear grows a little at a time.
Never underestimate your adversary.
Do you want to resume the discussion on a new society or was it just a honey trap?
QuoteI wouldn't say clockwork, as it implies order, while these suggestions imply personal independence with a minimum of infringement upon others.
Yep, agree with you LNMO but it did seem to be the position tendered :0)
Quote from: LMNO on December 19, 2006, 03:36:21 PM
I wouldn't say clockwork, as it implies order, while these suggestions imply personal independence with a minimum of infringement upon others.
thats what im talkin about
i may be dumb
but im not dumb enuf to start talking about making rules on a discordian board
yet
Quote from: LazYep, agree with you LNMO but it did seem to be the position tendered :0)
No, it didn't.  You seem to be assuming things that aren't in the Original Post.
Quote from: Laz on December 19, 2006, 03:41:35 PM
Quotebut there is enough reason to believe that this way of life didnt develop on some 'gee shucks' type of progression
Mental masturbation.
your way of stroking is right tho - right?
Quote from: Laz on December 19, 2006, 03:41:35 PM
Quotei dont know what caused it
but we didnt wake up one day suddenly afraid of things that dont exist
Who's afraid? not the little weak white man that is writing this! besides, fear grows a little at a time.
write a book on it
let us know how it is
maybe youll develop a following
Quote from: Laz on December 19, 2006, 03:41:35 PM
Never underestimate your adversary.
i wont overestimate it either
Quote from: Laz on December 19, 2006, 03:41:35 PM
Do you want to resume the discussion on a new society or was it just a honey trap?
looks like its trapping you into exposing yourself right here
dam yo - you were off to a good start too
shame
Quote from: Laz on December 19, 2006, 03:41:35 PM
QuoteI wouldn't say clockwork, as it implies order, while these suggestions imply personal independence with a minimum of infringement upon others.
Yep, agree with you LNMO but it did seem to be the position tendered :0)
finally we get the word 'seem' to show up in one of these posts
a little progress
congratulations
Lets face it the only realistic way for people to live together is what we see right now - wars, bitching, whining, stealing and all the rest. If you don't look at it through idealistic rose tints then it's ticking away quite nicely when it comes right down to it. The complex chunks of protoplasm are still vetoing the higher intellect in most cases so that, although in theory it's better to cooperate, the governing dynamic is "Skullfuck thy neighbor and take his molecular possessions".
It's fun, it's vibrant and it exciting. Of course if you're too attached to intellect it becomes depressing - that's the downside of evolving ahead of the pack. It's going to take your average bald ape another couple of hundred years at least before they get to where you are. So my advice is - drop the idealistic moral crap, if you see one coming toward you shoot first and ask questions later - you live amongst a pack of highly aggressive primates.
Quote from: SillyCybin on December 19, 2006, 03:55:14 PM
Lets face it the only realistic way for people to live together is what we see right now - wars, bitching, whining, stealing and all the rest. If you don't look at it through idealistic rose tints then it's ticking away quite nicely when it comes right down to it. The complex chunks of protoplasm are still vetoing the higher intellect in most cases so that, although in theory it's better to cooperate, the governing dynamic is "Skullfuck thy neighbor and take his molecular possessions".
It's fun, it's vibrant and it exciting. Of course if you're too attached to intellect it becomes depressing - that's the downside of evolving ahead of the pack. It's going to take your average bald ape another couple of hundred years at least before they get to where you are. So my advice is - drop the idealistic moral crap, if you see one coming toward you shoot first and ask questions later - you live amongst a pack of highly aggressive primates.
agreed
it has nothing to do with morals
but how to 2 people live together in a way that doesnt result in conflict?
are you personally able to live without conflict?
And so the groups gang up on the individual to enforce their single points in strength and basic psychology takes over to destroy the thing they claimed to be representing.
You guys, i'm flatterred :0)
The fool is always a fool and claims to be nothing more.
So what more have you got for me? you've taken on the role of teachers, so i am your student...
Quote from: Laz on December 19, 2006, 04:00:45 PM
And so the groups gang up on the individual to enforce their single points in strength and basic psychology takes over to destroy the thing they claimed to be representing.
You guys, i'm flatterred :0)
The fool is always a fool and claims to be nothing more.
So what more have you got for me? you've taken on the role of teachers, so i am your student...
just because you can speak with words that are humble doesnt mean that anybody buys into your humility
there are other forums around where people enjoy hearing somebody cry victim
re-read this thread and see where you made assumptions, and see where you came across as a authority
dont run away because you got a lil spanking
we all catch it sometimes
Quote from: Laz on December 19, 2006, 04:00:45 PM
And so the groups gang up on the individual to enforce their single points in strength and basic psychology takes over to destroy the thing they claimed to be representing.
You guys, i'm flatterred :0)
The fool is always a fool and claims to be nothing more.
So what more have you got for me? you've taken on the role of teachers, so i am your student...
Are you implying that if 3 people disagree with one person, then 2 of them shouldn't say anything?
Should we draw lots, or elect a leader, or something? I mean, this
is the internets. We all have something to say.
Please advise how you can make a situation like this not sound like "ganging up".
Or do you just like playing the victim?
Assumptions are dangerous, it's true. Questions should always be asked, such as
QuoteThe thread started with a proposal for a new form of society, based here on this planet, with the people we have now and their long and perverse history. The proposal that was being fought for (and still is?) is that a few guidelines or rules at a push could be used to control this lot and make society run like clockwork.
Right?
The medium of writing doesn't always lend itself to correct interpretation.
So in your best english LHX, LMNO, what is the point you are trying to make with this thread?
The point is, as far as I can tell from LHX's original post:
"What is the best way for humans to co-exist peacefully? Here are a few ideas I thought might work..."
No "control", no "clockwork", no "rules".
So, there you go. As far as I see it, of course.
So what is the problem with society as it stands?
Quote from: Laz on December 19, 2006, 04:20:29 PM
So in your best english LHX, LMNO, what is the point you are trying to make with this thread?
how about:
no points are trying to be
made in this thread
it is a investigation to determine how people can live together with respect
points may or may not develop
thats one of the beauties of discussion between people who have no fixed stance on the topic at hand
RWHN, 000 and LMNO all crushed the original post already in their own way
and they didnt come across like a authority on the topic
Quote from: Laz on December 19, 2006, 04:25:22 PM
So what is the problem with society as it stands?
lol
some people say there are too many to count
some people say there are none
im suspicious of your motives for asking
You mean other than
Iraq
East Timor
Indonesia
the Balkans
China
North Korea
the Middle East
The United States
The UK
Darfur
Somalia
...
Oh, fuck it.  How about, other than every continent on the planet except Antartica (and we're gunning for you, too, you bitch!), then nothing.  Right.
Quote from: LMNO on December 19, 2006, 04:29:17 PM
You mean other than
Iraq
East Timor
Indonesia
the Balkans
China
North Korea
the Middle East
The United States
The UK
Darfur
Somalia
...
Oh, fuck it. How about, other than every continent on the planet except Antartica (and we're gunning for you, too, you bitch!), then nothing. Right.
but LMNO, it is all
Natural,Ñ¢ for that to be happening
just sit back and watch
Now now, don't go putting words into Laz's mouth.
alarm clocks and vague looming threats via telephone calls and letters in the mail and all other forms of media are the world's way of saying it loves you
i'm only in authority of what i have witnessed, i claim nothing more than that.
I thought this thread was naturally at an end, but something new occurs...
QuoteOh, fuck it.  How about, other than every continent on the planet except Antartica (and we're gunning for you, too, you bitch!), then nothing.  Right.
Given that we are here at the end of 2006 years of "civilisation" something must be right with society/human nature for us to be here. what if this is all in balance, what if we are doing the right thing? certainly a peacful existence would be an extreme one like a warring one.
So, are you saying you like the world the way it is? You don't see a single thing wrong with it?
George W, is that YUO?
everything is right with a car before it hits a wall right?
i mean - it is moving the way its supposed to be
and then you crash into the outside wall of the prison...
Quoteeverything is right with a car before it hits a wall right?
i mean - it is moving the way its supposed to be
I like that :0)
Quoteand then you crash into the outside wall of the prison...
Not much keen on that though.
QuoteSo, are you saying you like the world the way it is? You don't see a single thing wrong with it?
Not so far! just exploring the idea of a system in balance that has been running for a while, and maybe without changing.
I would say that there are only a few of us out here that would hold the opinion that the world is going to hell, and i am one of them. However i get bored every now and again and ask around for other ideas. One of them i have heard from a friend is that there have always been people like me who think like this and because change is ever present, what i knew as a kid aint the truth any more, so i hanker after what was once real.
For generations a small percentage of the population of the planet have been doing this and getting all worried about the future. Who knows perhaps we form some sort of control mechanism that governs our wilder/shallower peers? Fact is though, we are still here, and wars have always been fought, but we have not ever wiped ourselves out.
Oh, so you're playing devil's advocate. Ok.
Let's go along with that, then. Let's say that global warfare and suffering are essential for the "balance" of the planet. How do the suggestions in the OP affect that?
QuoteGeorge W, is that YUO?
And if dubbya were here, there's a few things i'd like to tell that motherfucker!
QuoteOh, so you're playing devil's advocate. Ok.
I'm not playing a game, i'm just giving my opinion.
Whats the OP?
OP = Original Post.
also,
QuoteI would say that there are only a few of us out here that would hold the opinion that the world is going to hell, and i am one of them. However i get bored every now and again and ask around for other ideas.
This is essentially a Devil's Advocate position.
Also also, it's all a fucking game. Always.
Original Post, ah! :0)
QuoteAlso also, it's all a fucking game. Always.
true, okay then, the game i'm playing is not that of the devils advocate.
How does it fit with the OP?
well it fits with 'do as thou wilt...' but not much else. What are you trying to get from the OP?
Devil's advocate = taking a position contrary to one's own to spark new ideas.
Quote from: lazI would say that there are only a few of us out here that would hold the opinion that the world is going to hell, and i am one of them. However i get bored every now and again and ask around for other ideas.
and, you seem to be confusing the separate points in this thread.
Quote from: LMNO[in regards to your positin that perhaps the world is in balance as it is] Let's say that global warfare and suffering are essential for the "balance" of the planet. How do the suggestions in the OP affect that?
And I'm not trying to "get" anything from the OP. They were suggestions on how humans might peaceably co-exist. you might want to address such things to LHX.
QuoteDevil's advocate = taking a position contrary to one's own to spark new ideas.
My position is that of having an open mind to things and to explore the posibilities surrounding my feelings/propositions.
Quoteand, you seem to be confusing the separate points in this thread.
how have i done that?
QuoteThey were suggestions on how humans might peaceably co-exist.
...and therefore don't apply to a world that is not peaceful. I address that to you LMNO.
:: Dropping the whole Devil's Advocate issue ::
On the contrary, I feel that these suggestion would work, even in a world in conflict, because they are merely suggestions, and because a group that follows these suggestions can clearly band together and kick the shit out of another group.
Let's not forget the pull towards tribalism that domesticated primates seem to show.
By the way, let's not forget that my original comment to this was actually not in favor of these rules, as they seemed to be based upon the presumption that humans were misanthropic.
Here's the one that convinces me these are unfeasible:
Quoteunless otherwise requested, all communications will be placed at a 3rd party location, and will be placed there with the understanding that they may never be retreived or responded to
Unless that pandemic flu virus gets around to evolving pretty quickly and
decimates CENTIMATES the human population, it's going to be unrealistic to expect that six billion of us could go about our daily lives without needing to interact directly with each other, and that's exactly what you're trying to offer as an option - the chance to go throughout your entire life without ever interacting directly with another human being if you don't want to.
My mother- and grandmother-in-law were in town for Thanksgiving, and they were appalled to see how close together some of the trailers were in a local park - anything on less than an acre is just too close to its neighbor in their opinion. My housemate's stepdad moved two hours away because he looked out his back door one morning, saw they were building an apartment complex across the street, and wanted nothing to do with that many neighbors. At least here in the U.S. there seems to be a deep-seated need for lots of personal space, but if population continues to grow at the rate it's been going, that is NOT going to be an option if we give a damn about making sure the globe can sustain us all for more than a generation. It is only a matter of time before we end up like Japan, stacked up all on top of each other and needing to figure out how to survive in crowded conditions while still continuing our accustomed ways of life.
I don't know about the other guidelines, but #3 doesn't come across as a way of learning how to live together. It seems to advocate living apart.
I agree with Ducky... hence my "misanthropy" comment.
after posting the OP on this forum, i posted it at a different forum under the title:
'Define Respect'here was the post:
Quote
What responsibilities does a person have toward other people?
These are what I could come up with:
- dont bother people unnecessarily
- dont go places or communicate at people unless you are invited
- never ask for favors
- make any surplus materials available to others to use or not use as they see fit
beyond those - it seems that people should be free to do whatever the hell they want
Also:
The best form of communication is a bulletin board or a internet forum.
does this seem more resonable?
The best form of communication is between equals.
LMNO
-sometimes, Hagbard is right.
Quote from: LMNO on December 19, 2006, 06:48:42 PM
The best form of communication is between equals.
LMNO
-sometimes, Hagbard is right.
people moving in the same direction are equals
people moving in a different direction than you wont understand what you are saying (or more importantly -
why you are saying it
now you got me making a whole new set of connections
maybe thats why people are so quick to accuse us of all sorts of bad shit - fits in wiff RWHN's thread about family (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=11058.0")
interesting interesting
But family, who are the closest thing TO us, when all is said and done, are sometimes those who feel the LEAST on equal footing with us than anyone.
Quote from: LHX on December 18, 2006, 07:32:34 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2006, 07:28:17 PM
Quote from: LHX on December 18, 2006, 07:24:10 PM
if somebody did come to terms with who they are, then how would they act?
what does a water-walker look like in the desert?
1. shrivel up into a ball
2. shrivel up into a ball
lmfao
running around looking for a exit sign or eject button
Or find that they have so much power within that they are able to change everything.
What? Im feeling optimistic today. Been listening to York.....
Quote from: Jenne on December 19, 2006, 07:51:38 PM
But family, who are the closest thing TO us, when all is said and done, are sometimes those who feel the LEAST on equal footing with us than anyone.
thats kind of what i meant Jenne
RWHN's thread was about exactly that
people close to you who may be moving in a different direction
Quote from: LHX on December 19, 2006, 03:59:34 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on December 19, 2006, 03:55:14 PM
Lets face it the only realistic way for people to live together is what we see right now - wars, bitching, whining, stealing and all the rest. If you don't look at it through idealistic rose tints then it's ticking away quite nicely when it comes right down to it. The complex chunks of protoplasm are still vetoing the higher intellect in most cases so that, although in theory it's better to cooperate, the governing dynamic is "Skullfuck thy neighbor and take his molecular possessions".
It's fun, it's vibrant and it exciting. Of course if you're too attached to intellect it becomes depressing - that's the downside of evolving ahead of the pack. It's going to take your average bald ape another couple of hundred years at least before they get to where you are. So my advice is - drop the idealistic moral crap, if you see one coming toward you shoot first and ask questions later - you live amongst a pack of highly aggressive primates.
agreed
it has nothing to do with morals
but how to 2 people live together in a way that doesnt result in conflict?
are you personally able to live without conflict?
To paraphrase Don Juan - "If my enemy shot at me I would avoid the bullet by not being there." I haven't been caught up in a conflict for a good many years now, since I'm very good at avoiding it. I keep my body pretty well tuned up just in case but it's better to not have a gun and not need it in my experience.
Quote from: SillyCybin on December 19, 2006, 09:09:46 PM
To paraphrase Don Juan - "If my enemy shot at me I would avoid the bullet by not being there." I haven't been caught up in a conflict for a good many years now, since I'm very good at avoiding it. I keep my body pretty well tuned up just in case but it's better to not have a gun and not need it in my experience.
so if you yourself can avoid it and not chase other people, then what leads you to believe that other people cant have the same attributes when it comes to conflict?
is there circumstances where, unprovoked, you would go rush somebodys house?
Quote from: LHX on December 19, 2006, 09:04:12 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 19, 2006, 07:51:38 PM
But family, who are the closest thing TO us, when all is said and done, are sometimes those who feel the LEAST on equal footing with us than anyone.
thats kind of what i meant Jenne
RWHN's thread was about exactly that
people close to you who may be moving in a different direction
Oh, duh on me then.
Yeah, that would make conflict almost necessary, then.
Quote from: LHX on December 19, 2006, 09:33:25 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on December 19, 2006, 09:09:46 PM
To paraphrase Don Juan - "If my enemy shot at me I would avoid the bullet by not being there." I haven't been caught up in a conflict for a good many years now, since I'm very good at avoiding it. I keep my body pretty well tuned up just in case but it's better to not have a gun and not need it in my experience.
so if you yourself can avoid it and not chase other people, then what leads you to believe that other people cant have the same attributes when it comes to conflict?
is there circumstances where, unprovoked, you would go rush somebodys house?
Highly unlikely in my case. A hell of a lot of the monkeys don't feel that way tho. I'm not saying they can't have the same attributes. What I'm saying is they don't. Lot of them have bought into materialism and territorialism in a big way. The only logical conclusion of that path is to rush someones house/state/country unprovoked since it's impossible to own everything, in a situation where other primates are also trying to own it all, without going to war. It's the "Highlander complex" - in the end there can only be one. Some of us realise that notions like property and even ego are illusiory and therefore hardly worth pursuing. Most don't. If you could make them realise this then maybe but lets face it - who the fuck are you trying to kid?
Quote from: SillyCybin on December 19, 2006, 10:09:07 PM
Quote from: LHX on December 19, 2006, 09:33:25 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on December 19, 2006, 09:09:46 PM
To paraphrase Don Juan - "If my enemy shot at me I would avoid the bullet by not being there." I haven't been caught up in a conflict for a good many years now, since I'm very good at avoiding it. I keep my body pretty well tuned up just in case but it's better to not have a gun and not need it in my experience.
so if you yourself can avoid it and not chase other people, then what leads you to believe that other people cant have the same attributes when it comes to conflict?
is there circumstances where, unprovoked, you would go rush somebodys house?
Highly unlikely in my case. A hell of a lot of the monkeys don't feel that way tho. I'm not saying they can't have the same attributes. What I'm saying is they don't. Lot of them have bought into materialism and territorialism in a big way. The only logical conclusion of that path is to rush someones house/state/country unprovoked since it's impossible to own everything, in a situation where other primates are also trying to own it all, without going to war. It's the "Highlander complex" - in the end there can only be one. Some of us realise that notions like property and even ego are illusiory and therefore hardly worth pursuing. Most don't. If you could make them realise this then maybe but lets face it - who the fuck are you trying to kid?
i have no illusions of the current population of earth becoming peaceful and conflict free
tho i could see it happening on this planet at some point
there would have to be some renovations
LOL - careful with that train of thought. Road to hell and all that. I agree with you tho and I'm sure I've said it before - I live in hope, ever the optimist. Whatever I can do to help this process, short of firing up the ovens and loading the trains, I will. Humanty will change, one at a time. I hope I've helped a couple with my efforts. Prolly not but that aint any reason to stop trying. Stay positive people - we got a lot of work ahead of us.
Quote"If my enemy shot at me I would avoid the bullet by not being there."
Hooray for Castanedas teachings :0)
QuoteBy the way, let's not forget that my original comment to this was actually not in favor of these rules, as they seemed to be based upon the presumption that humans were misanthropic.
Oh, i thought you just meant me ;0)
Quote from: SillyCybin on December 19, 2006, 10:15:45 PM
LOL - careful with that train of thought. Road to hell and all that. I agree with you tho and I'm sure I've said it before - I live in hope, ever the optimist. Whatever I can do to help this process, short of firing up the ovens and loading the trains, I will. Humanty will change, one at a time. I hope I've helped a couple with my efforts. Prolly not but that aint any reason to stop trying. Stay positive people - we got a lot of work ahead of us.
lol dam man
i aint the one doing the renovations
i already went thru my messiah phase
january, 2003, las vegas
im just making observations here
what happened in january, 2003, at las vegas?
i went thru my messiah phase
and snapped out of it
then went home
care to ellaborate?
not really
delusion and humiliation in a las vegas setting
fairy snuff :0)
Quote from: LHX on December 19, 2006, 11:16:13 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on December 19, 2006, 10:15:45 PM
LOL - careful with that train of thought. Road to hell and all that. I agree with you tho and I'm sure I've said it before - I live in hope, ever the optimist. Whatever I can do to help this process, short of firing up the ovens and loading the trains, I will. Humanty will change, one at a time. I hope I've helped a couple with my efforts. Prolly not but that aint any reason to stop trying. Stay positive people - we got a lot of work ahead of us.
lol dam man
i aint the one doing the renovations
i already went thru my messiah phase
january, 2003, las vegas
im just making observations here
I heard that. We all go through our messiah phase. Meanwhile back in the real world - life grinds on. At least you didn't get stuck there like every fucking religion that was ever shat into existence. That makes you a beautiful and unique snowflake :)
Quote from: LHX on December 19, 2006, 11:41:14 PM
not really
delusion and humiliation in a las vegas setting
Come on dude - you gotta share that one. It'll be cathartic.
Quote from: SillyCybin on December 19, 2006, 11:48:21 PM
I heard that. We all go through our messiah phase. Meanwhile back in the real world - life grinds on. At least you didn't get stuck there like every fucking religion that was ever shat into existence. That makes you a beautiful and unique snowflake :)
family unity ITT
Quote from: Laz on December 19, 2006, 10:19:52 PM
Quote"If my enemy shot at me I would avoid the bullet by not being there."
Hooray for Castanedas teachings :0)
1. Castaneda was a fraud.
2. That's ripped off from Morihei Ueshiba.
Well i'm glad he ripped him off well enough that the truth remains
Quote from: LMNO on December 20, 2006, 01:04:41 PM
Quote from: Laz on December 19, 2006, 10:19:52 PM
Quote"If my enemy shot at me I would avoid the bullet by not being there."
Hooray for Castanedas teachings :0)
1.  Castaneda was a fraud.
2.  That's ripped off from Morihei Ueshiba.
5 more posts...
Quote from: LMNO on December 20, 2006, 01:04:41 PM
Quote from: Laz on December 19, 2006, 10:19:52 PM
Quote"If my enemy shot at me I would avoid the bullet by not being there."
Hooray for Castanedas teachings :0)
1.  Castaneda was a fraud.
2.  That's ripped off from Morihei Ueshiba.
Lemme guess you can copyright wisdom these days?
Heh. Well, the way I see it, if a hack authour constructs a fictional wise man as part of an ongoing fraud, he needs to rip off some wise statements from inscrutable masters, cuz he sure as hell can't come up with it himself.
And considering that Morihei Ueshiba made that statement in the early 1900s, the conclusion should be obvious.
Quote from: LMNO on December 20, 2006, 04:16:00 PM
Heh.  Well, the way I see it, if a hack authour constructs a fictional wise man as part of an ongoing fraud, he needs to rip off some wise statements from inscrutable masters, cuz he sure as hell can't come up with it himself. 
And considering that Morihei Ueshiba made that statement in the early 1900s, the conclusion should be obvious.
Fact is I learned it by reading the hack and never heard of MU. So he did me a great service. Course if it came from MU then it was teamwork. I'd like to thank them both, plus the guy who suggested I read the book in the first place.
There already exists a model for a realistic way for people to live together. Humans have been around as Homo Sapiens for the last two hundred thousand years. It is only in the last ten thousand that we have managed to fuck the planet beyond hope. How were people living before our current model of power hungry greed? They were living just like Aborigines and the Indian population before Whitey raped the New World. Small bands of people hunting and gathering and leading meaningful lives where interpersonal relationships meant something, where every individual could see their place in the whole, their own significance.
Tribes that compete with each other, and have well defined borders = diversity
diversity = success because if one tribe fails, others will succeed.
America/the west = forced conversion / inviolable conformity = inevitable failure
but whereas one tribe failing would not have large impact the failure of modern ways of life is trashing the entire planet = Game Over your species Lost.
But what about my Internets?
Aboriginals don't have Internets!
its true
all this shit was necessary to establish teh intranets
now that we got it - the legacy of production/oppression/exhaustion can take a nap
Quote from: LMNO on December 20, 2006, 04:36:51 PM
But what about my Internets?
Aboriginals don't have Internets!
That's because they don't drive trucks.
TUBES, MOTHERFUCKER!
those pirates drive some mean trucks
And even so, hollowed out tree-trunks would probably make awful tubes.
As I see it, the only tangible benefit from the Cancer of Progress is the ease of Idea exchange. Better communication results in better ideas, but people are still just as stoopid.
How about this... due to population explosion, the proportion of stupid people to smart is the same, but there are more total smart people around today than before.
agreed, but I don't think that's a good thing in the grand scheme.
Well, how do you change that proportion, then?
you can't. it's a hardware setting.
Perhaps Human 10.0 will offer an upgrade.
yall aint hear about the new plug-ins?
its not the proportion I want to change, its the total number of humans
Those organisms that are at the top of the food chain are widely spread out, and represent a small percentage of the total beings for any sustainable ecosystem. There are too many people already to be sustainable. The only answer is the death of massive amounts of the current human population, which is unacceptable to most people because they think they have a right to exist.
Quote from: LMNO on December 20, 2006, 04:57:03 PM
Well, how do you change that proportion, then?
Gas chambers and breeding licenses.
breeding licenses FTW
who lives and who dies?
who gets to breed and who doesn't?
We all die, but breeding would be allowed by the smart half, and only one child, in order to drastically reduce the total world population, while still increasing its potential. But as I am against all forms of control of others, I really don't agree with myself, I'm just pointing out the liabilities inherent in the current situation. Giving anyone power is inherently bad, but we can't achieve sustainable numbers without some massive reduction in the population. Maybe a nice disease?
Bhode, have you heard of the Church of Euthenasia?
They have 4 pillars of faith:
Suicide
Sodomy
Cannabalism
Abortion
Google them, if you want.
Quote from: Bhode_Sativa on December 20, 2006, 05:35:46 PM
We all die, but breeding would be allowed by the smart half, and only one child, in order to drastically reduce the total world population, while still increasing its potential. But as I am against all forms of control of others, I really don't agree with myself, I'm just pointing out the liabilities inherent in the current situation. Giving anyone power is inherently bad, but we can't achieve sustainable numbers without some massive reduction in the population. Maybe a nice disease?
Don't worry too much about overpopulation nature will take care of that one way or another. Of course there might be a slight underpopulation or zeropopulation issue once it's finished.
Quote from: Bhode_Sativa on December 20, 2006, 05:35:46 PM
We all die, but breeding would be allowed by the smart half, and only one child, in order to drastically reduce the total world population, while still increasing its potential.  But as I am against all forms of control of others, I really don't agree with myself, I'm just pointing out the liabilities inherent in the current situation.  Giving anyone power is inherently bad, but we can't achieve sustainable numbers without some massive reduction in the population.  Maybe a nice disease?
how do you define "smart"?
and also limiting to one child will be okay for awhile, but generally speaking, a birth rate less than 2 is bad for maintaining a population.
What if 2 smart people breed a stupid kid?
LMNO
-terrified at the thought of having a dumb-ass jock for a kid.
Quote from: LMNO on December 20, 2006, 05:37:07 PM
Bhode, have you heard of the Church of Euthenasia?
They have 4 pillars of faith:
Suicide
Sodomy
Cannabalism
Abortion
Google them, if you want.
they also make some kickass electro music. i saw rev Korda perform live once.
you should really check out his "i like to watch" video :) :)
I've only just begun to poke around the Church of Euthanasia, but so far I like what I see.
I don't define smart, the culture does, I just use their definitions that are reflected in standardized testing, and Yes, I know that standardized testing has more holes than a block of swiss cheese, but tell me you've never interacted with someone at work, a bar, the grocery store and thought to yourself "God, that person is Dumb!" Even without a perfect definition of Smart, we all know what it means to be stupid.
The whole point would be to drastically Reduce the population, not maintain it.
If two smart people breed a stupid kid then that kid doesn't get to procreate. Natural Selection would have to become Intelligent Selection.
Quote from: Bhode_Sativa on December 20, 2006, 05:53:41 PM
I've only just begun to poke around the Church of Euthanasia, but so far I like what I see. 
I don't define smart, the culture does, I just use their definitions that are reflected in standardized testing, and Yes, I know that standardized testing has more holes than a block of swiss cheese, but tell me you've never interacted with someone at work, a bar, the grocery store and thought to yourself "God, that person is Dumb!"  Even without a perfect definition of Smart, we all know what it means to be stupid.
The whole point would be to drastically Reduce the population, not maintain it. 
Yes, but at some point you do have to maintain it. Unless you are looking at the total extinction of the human species. At some point, I'm assuming, you would want it to level off at a population that is considered "acceptable" At that point you would have to allow the birth-rate to be at least 2.0 or the population could not be maintained.
Agreed
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 20, 2006, 06:04:53 PMYes, but at some point you do have to maintain it. Unless you are looking at the total extinction of the human species. At some point, I'm assuming, you would want it to level off at a population that is considered "acceptable" At that point you would have to allow the birth-rate to be at least 2.0 or the population could not be maintained.
VHEMT would disagree with you on the requirement of 2 kids/family, because the parents don't die upon having two children, so it takes a significant length of time before you can say the kids' birth balanced out anyone's death. In the meantime, the population has increased. And given that people are living to see their grandchildren and great-grandchildren nowadays, it's even more significant.
But then, you have a net aging of the population, which from an economic standpoint, isn't the best scenario.
The breeding license I had in mind was a profficiency thing, like a driving license or shortwave radio ops license. Of course this leads to the age old - are stupid people born or made - debate. Assuming stupidity is largely due to upbringing then a license would rule out stupid fucks who can't take care of children from producing them and then subsequently fucking them up in the first place. It aint the be all and end all solution but I'm guessing it would prolly do more good than harm.
It also produces an economic breeding chasm-- the elitist ivy-league fucks "prove" they're smart, while those who never got a college education are wiped out.
Considering what the current economic gap looks like, you're heading straight into eugenics-land.
Quote from: LMNO on December 20, 2006, 07:02:08 PM
It also produces an economic breeding chasm-- the elitist ivy-league fucks "prove" they're smart, while those who never got a college education are wiped out.
Considering what the current economic gap looks like, you're heading straight into eugenics-land.
Hence my suggestion - "gas chambers and breeding licenses"
I got it all worked out - and it's all a bad idea.
Just saying
You do realize what you are suggesting is disturbingly similar to certain events in the not too distant past right?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 20, 2006, 07:08:11 PM
You do realize what you are suggesting is disturbingly similar to certain events in the not too distant past right?
Erm.. that's what I was saying from the off. Sometimes I'm just too subtle for my own good.
does disease and earthquakes work?
One could argue more efficient while being more indiscriminate.
I've heard some stuff about AIDS being engineered.
No matter how many people die, I think there will still be those who look to The Machine for the answer. You can't Un-Know something. But I've seen how well it works trying to convince people to live in a tribe without Grocery Stores and Cable TV and machines that wash your dishes for you. The destruction must come, and it must be huge.
Quote from: Bhode_Sativa on December 20, 2006, 08:48:32 PM
I've heard some stuff about AIDS being engineered.
No matter how many people die, I think there will still be those who look to The Machine for the answer. You can't Un-Know something. But I've seen how well it works trying to convince people to live in a tribe without Grocery Stores and Cable TV and machines that wash your dishes for you. The destruction must come, and it must be huge.
You underestimate the awesome power of the mediocrity leviathan
Quote from: Bhode_Sativa on December 20, 2006, 08:48:32 PM
I've heard some stuff about AIDS being engineered.
ive heard a lot about that too
Magic Johnson still seems to be kickin it just fine - is that because he has a lot of $$ behind him?
Loot = advantage
There are people who have survived with the disease for a long time tho, as long as they have access to drugs.
Sam Harris brings up the point that in many villages in Africa the only education they have about condoms is what they're told by the Roman Catholic Priests. Religion helping spread God's Work for the Lose.
That would be the same Roaming Catholick Crutch that thinks AIDS is a punishment from god?
They don't do that, actually.
But they don't help fight it in the best way either.
Quote from: LHX on December 20, 2006, 08:58:38 PMQuote from: Bhode_Sativa on December 20, 2006, 08:48:32 PMI've heard some stuff about AIDS being engineered. 
ive heard a lot about that too
something about aids spreading in the 50s from multiple infection points in africa, at places where christian missionaries were handing out vaccinations for something or other (those missionairies didn't know what exactly was in the needles of course)
it sounds very conspiracyish to me, i wonder who comes up with that stuff
AIDS didn't really start spreading until the 60s, and didn't really get identified until the late 70s. Furthermore they didn't even realize it was related to blood until 1982, and didn't isolate the virus itself til a couple years later. Saying people put it in vaccines is fucking ridiculous especially since it spreads itself just damn fine on its own.
Conspiracies are breeding ground for stupid, and vice versa.
Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on December 21, 2006, 08:49:06 AMConspiracies are breeding ground for stupid, and vice versa.
breeding ground for stupid are a conspiracy?
ZOMG who are behind it?
i'll just go get my coffee now
Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on December 21, 2006, 08:49:06 AM
AIDS didn't really start spreading until the 60s, and didn't really get identified until the late 70s.  Furthermore they didn't even realize it was related to blood until 1982, and didn't isolate the virus itself til a couple years later.  Saying people put it in vaccines is fucking ridiculous especially since it spreads itself just damn fine on its own.
Conspiracies are breeding ground for stupid, and vice versa.
It didn't have to be on purpose.
The polio vaccines used in the 50s in Africa were derived using monkeys, IIRC.
Oh I know, also dirty needles were (are) one of the main ways AIDS got spread around Africa.  Saying that it was on purpose in the 50s just shouts ignorance and that's what I was attempting to correct. 
Edit: though it's not certain the general consensus is that the first case of AIDS was contracted in 1959, so.
i was just retelling something i may have picked up on some weird website years ago
for the record, i didnt believe it. but this is the bit i remembered
never mind i probably shouldn't talk about shady conspiracy ideas that i have no idea where i got them from eh :)
Quote from: triple zero on December 21, 2006, 08:10:07 AM
it sounds very conspiracyish to me, i wonder who comes up with that stuff
erm.. that would be people like me. Sorry but it's too easy and way too much fun to resist. BTW - I'm not claiming authorship of any good ones. My role is mainly to help them spread. It would be a fairly elite version of me that came up with the aids one. Obviously I can't name him directly but he does a lot of work for the government ;)
http://killtown.911review.org/aids.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_conspiracy_theories
These are some of the claims/evidence of the AIDS conspiracy theorists.
A 9/11 conspiracy site, and wikipedia?
i can see it from both sides
its definitely suspicious
anything to do with science and medicine is suspisious at this point
vaccines and shit
its wild
You're sounding surprisingly techno/neo-phobic.
Quote from: LMNO on December 21, 2006, 04:42:56 PM
You're sounding surprisingly techno/neo-phobic.
no
im serious
both sides make sense
i read enuf about the aids stuff to have reason to believe that something strange is going on
the whole modern approach to medicine seems like a gigantic swing-an-a-miss from where im looking
Now you're sounding like a Scientologist.
AIDS isn't on the national (American) radar anymore, not like it was. When you have a huge chunk of media/news time and resources dealing with the war from a dozen different angles, the AIDS stuff doesn't make it on the agenda anymore. Only when Bono and Clinton start hanging out does it even make the news.
Plus, you have people like Magic Johnson who continue to live with the disease. I think there is a perception that it isn't the problem like it was in the 80's. That, of course, is bullshit. But, obviously, the plight of Africa is of little consequence to the Western World.
Quote from: LMNO on December 21, 2006, 04:58:02 PM
Now you're sounding like a Scientologist.
its a dance i do
its the neo-phobe-scientologist shuffle
but seriously - autoimmune and immune deficiency disorders seem to be relatively recent innovations
do keep in mind that a great deal of medicine these days takes a 'anti-biotic' approach to things
the words say it themself
Antibiotics are one of the most dangerous things humans have created. I'd much rather feel like shit for a week or two than rely on a crutch like that at the expense of my immune system atrophying. Fair enough, as a last resort but it aint the magic bullet modern medical practice prescribes or, if it is, there's a serious backfire issue.
anti
biotic
people have really become insensitive to words
it doesnt get much more direct than anti-biotic
I've only taken them once in my life, when I had strep-throat. They did jack. Halls coughdrops made a much bigger impact.
its common man
they tear babies out of the womb via c-section and have them on anti-biotics before they even taste their mommas nipple
its no joke man
there is some ugly shit that goes on in 2006
if i create my own reality, then im gonna be busy un-creating a lot of shit
It's funny how "progress" is measured by different societies. For example, prolonged life. Living to 90 and beyond is a norm now. Of course, there is much more cancer now than when people were lucky to see 70. It seems, maybe, that our technical evolution is outpacing the evolution of cell biology.
I dunno, I think I'd much rather die at 70 while having all of my faculties about me rather than being bed-ridden and significantly inmobile at 95.
Same with the anti-biotics. I'm sure it has averted tradgedy for some folks and their families. But, when it's used for relative trivial maladies are we sewing the seeds of our own destruction?
It seems somewhere along the way, we stopped trusting nature.
Or, we just started flipping her the bird.
Nothing can be tolerated that inhibits productivity. We get anti-biotics to get us back to work faster. They coat our foods with pesticides because they'd rather give us cancer than have less than full shelves. Humans are replaceable, Money is Forever.
I love that RATM video where the title comes up "no money was harmed during the making of this film"
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 21, 2006, 05:38:27 PM
It's funny how "progress" is measured by different societies. For example, prolonged life. Living to 90 and beyond is a norm now. Of course, there is much more cancer now than when people were lucky to see 70. It seems, maybe, that our technical evolution is outpacing the evolution of cell biology.
I dunno, I think I'd much rather die at 70 while having all of my faculties about me rather than being bed-ridden and significantly inmobile at 95.
Same with the anti-biotics. I'm sure it has averted tradgedy for some folks and their families. But, when it's used for relative trivial maladies are we sewing the seeds of our own destruction?
It seems somewhere along the way, we stopped trusting nature.
Or, we just started flipping her the bird.
Quote from: Bhode_Sativa on December 21, 2006, 06:16:24 PM
Nothing can be tolerated that inhibits productivity. We get anti-biotics to get us back to work faster. They coat our foods with pesticides because they'd rather give us cancer than have less than full shelves. Humans are replaceable, Money is Forever.
that just about sums it up
they dont want you dead - they want you productive
i dont know what i mean by 'they'
i could prolly just as well be saying 'it'
or 'he'
depending who you talk to, maybe even 'she'
Quote from: LHX on December 21, 2006, 06:53:57 PM
that just about sums it up
they dont want you dead - they want you productive
i dont know what i mean by 'they'
i could prolly just as well be saying 'it'
or 'he'
depending who you talk to, maybe even 'she'
I'd say it's pretty much all of the above my friend.