on a roll....
yikes
what is 'We'?
Who is "What"?
"Us" = closing ranks when the shit starts to fly.
"Us" is not wanting to be alone when not being "them"
This is getting retarded.
When is "who"?
When did we start channeling Abbot and Costello?
"us" is just a word that a group uses to make themselves look unique and not part of the rest of society
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 21, 2006, 07:20:22 PM
When did we start channeling Abbot and Costello?
About 2 threads ago.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 21, 2006, 07:20:22 PM
When did we start channeling Abbot and Costello?
i dont know (second base)
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on December 21, 2006, 07:22:23 PM
"us" is just a word that a group uses to make themselves look unique and not part of the rest of society
so there is no us?
you and me arent doing anything?
Thanks guys - this is the best thread ever.
::Feels as if chrstmas has come early::
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 21, 2006, 07:16:43 PM
"Us" = closing ranks when the shit starts to fly.
"Us" is not wanting to be alone when not being "them"
upon re-reading of this farce, this post is actually pretty sharp
I dunno, I'm beginning to think my mind is already starting to check out for Xmas vacation.
let it go
let it go
let it go
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 21, 2006, 07:28:19 PM
I dunno, I'm beginning to think my mind is already starting to check out for Xmas vacation. 
I am so there...
i have to go to work today and tommorrow, I hope they dont actually expect me to do anything...
Did I mention I was on holiday RIGHT THIS MINUTE!!!!?
So, pardon me asking, but wtf are you doing here?
he is a part of us
Quote from: LHX on December 21, 2006, 07:23:16 PM
so there is no us?
you and me arent doing anything?
you know "us" and "them" are strange termology
ive talked to some anarchists, discordists, ect. who talk about themselves as if they arent actually part of society. They're "we" not "them". If you live in "it" your part of "it" wether you like it or not
then i had a good friend who went through a racist phase, who talked about "us" and "them", cause it was ok to hate "them", cause they're not "us"
I don't think eather applies to this thread, but i was just saying anyways...
If I remember to check back in tonight from home, I will post one of my favorite passages from Very Far Away from Anywhere Else by Ursula K. LeGuin, dealing with how adolescents pack themselves into groups for their own perceived safety.
Quote from: LHX on December 21, 2006, 07:41:16 PM
he is a part of us
No way - "He" is a figment of "Me"
'us' and 'we' are words that are used to force the issue of solidarity among a bunch of asshats who, if there really were any solidarity, wouldn't need to say so.
also, 'we' and 'us' is a thinly disguised way of talking about 'them' without sounding as paranoid as you actually are.
:mittens:
well said
Quote from: vexaph0d on December 21, 2006, 10:19:23 PM
'us' and 'we' are words that are used to force the issue of solidarity among a bunch of asshats who, if there really were any solidarity, wouldn't need to say so.
also, 'we' and 'us' is a thinly disguised way of talking about 'them' without sounding as paranoid as you actually are.
lol solidarity
like rushing water
like a revolving door on a spaceship thats about to crash
but if you go out the revolving door, youre still on the spaceship but you end up in a part of it that sucks
and instead of crashing it bounces
but still most people dint know what to do and got thrown off
the spaceship is not a spaceship
the metaphor is not a metaphor
i love this thursday night nfl football
PICK:
Packers over Vikings (tho i could see the vikes winning)
I think the word itself is rather benign unless the given context is otherwise.
In other words, it's ok to use "us" as long as it includes "you, too."
i go for vikings because raiders are called twix nowadays
Quote from: triple zero on December 22, 2006, 09:51:49 AM
i go for vikings because raiders are called twix nowadays
You lost.
Quote from: LHX on December 22, 2006, 12:00:09 AM
Quote from: vexaph0d on December 21, 2006, 10:19:23 PM
'us' and 'we' are words that are used to force the issue of solidarity among a bunch of asshats who, if there really were any solidarity, wouldn't need to say so.
also, 'we' and 'us' is a thinly disguised way of talking about 'them' without sounding as paranoid as you actually are.
lol solidarity
like rushing water
like a revolving door on a spaceship thats about to crash
but if you go out the revolving door, youre still on the spaceship but you end up in a part of it that sucks
and instead of crashing it bounces
but still most people dint know what to do and got thrown off
the spaceship is not a spaceship
the metaphor is not a metaphor
i love this thursday night nfl football
PICK:
Packers over Vikings (tho i could see the vikes winning)
Who cares about the packers? They're out of the running. Me, for once I am interested in watching football, cause the bears look damn good this year. Last time they were in the superbowl was january of '86, 3 months after I was born, Refrigerator Perry scoring the winning touchdown.
The Bears cannot sustain.
We'll see.
Ravens FTW
Actually, they really kinda snuck up in the league this year, huh?
I gotta stay loyal though, and say that if the Patriots stay healthy, they can take it all.
if i stayed loyal, i would be trying to convince you that the Cardinals were gonna make the playoffs by using chaos mahdjgickque to flip their record around from 4-10 to 10-4
as it stands now:
Ravens
but actually ill take anybody but the Chargers
You're from Arizona?
Why did I not know this?
I thought you were from some cold, northern part of the world.
Like the Bering Straits.
Quote from: LMNO on December 22, 2006, 07:38:30 PM
You're from Arizona?
Why did I not know this?
I thought you were from some cold, northern part of the world.
Like the Bering Straits.
i had fam there for a while
but youre right
the cold northern part of the world (where it is unseasonably mild)
this was supposed to be a big year for the Cards
I am you, as you are me, are you are we, and we are all together.
Quote from: faust on December 23, 2006, 12:39:57 AM
I am you, as you are me, are you are we, and we are all together.
Careful with that shit - LMNO will start accusing you of solipsism (trust me it hurts)
solipsism is interesting as long as you keep in mind it does not really matter at all.
fun to think about as abstract thought, but can be prone to navel gazing shit.
Chargers = SuperBowl Champs
Cards = shit , despite their offense is so stacked.
I would really be pissed as a Cards fan. So much talent, so few wins.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on December 23, 2006, 03:31:05 AM
Chargers = SuperBowl Champs
Cards = shit , despite their offense is so stacked.
I would really be pissed as a Cards fan. So much talent, so few wins.
no shit
but
Chargers are winning nothing as long as Shottenheimer is the coach
Quote from: SillyCybin on December 23, 2006, 02:42:43 AM
Quote from: faust on December 23, 2006, 12:39:57 AM
I am you, as you are me, are you are we, and we are all together.
Careful with that shit - LMNO will start accusing you of solipsism (trust me it hurts)
Or as Chapman's next target...
Quote from: LHX on December 23, 2006, 03:57:06 AM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on December 23, 2006, 03:31:05 AM
Chargers = SuperBowl Champs
Cards = shit , despite their offense is so stacked.
I would really be pissed as a Cards fan. So much talent, so few wins.
no shit
but
Chargers are winning nothing as long as Shottenheimer is the coach
Which works great for me, as a Pats fan.
Quote from: LMNO on December 22, 2006, 05:47:14 PM
The Bears cannot sustain.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
Y'know, I can never tell if that's an agreement, a dismissal, or just chronic constipation.
LMNO
-dummy.
Quote from: LMNO on December 26, 2006, 07:42:31 PM
Y'know, I can never tell if that's an agreement, a dismissal, or just chronic constipation.
LMNO
-dummy.
Yes.
Gotcha.
LMNO
-knew you were confirming the "dummy" part.
Quote from: LMNO on December 26, 2006, 07:47:50 PM
Gotcha.
LMNO
-knew you were confirming the "dummy" part.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
You guys just made my perfect cup of joe that much better.
So thank you.
Quote from: Jenne on December 26, 2006, 08:07:48 PM
You guys just made my perfect cup of joe that much better.
So thank you.
PD.com. We don't make coffee. We make coffee
better.
THAT should be written down somewhere...
(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i312/P3nT4gR4m/coffeecaine.jpg)
:lol: Viva la Bolivia.
Isn't it Taoism that says that god/goddess/supremebeingofunpronounceablename, in order to better understand itself, became everything, every person, every plant, every rock, et cetera. It's an interesting concept, kinda makes you wonder if there is a difference between "us" and "them" if in fact we are all just parts on one being...
at the same time, "Us" and "Them" are just another part of mass 'groupthink'
...
my thoughts...flame em if you must.
Quote from: Mourning Star on January 05, 2007, 07:35:52 AM
Isn't it Taoism that says that god/goddess/supremebeingofunpronounceablename, in order to better understand itself, became everything, every person, every plant, every rock, et cetera. It's an interesting concept, kinda makes you wonder if there is a difference between "us" and "them" if in fact we are all just parts on one being...
at the same time, "Us" and "Them" are just another part of mass 'groupthink'
...
my thoughts...flame em if you must.
you are right
the point of view becomes evident, but what do you do when you realize that you are everything/body else?
at what point does separation occur?
why is that observation such a conversation-ender?
why does this seem to be one of the 'truths' that people dont generally like to hear or find comfort in?
or
as LMNO says,
"
now what?"
Let's not forget, that this predicates on the assumption that Taoism is right.
But anyway, I think it's such a conversation ender is because it's such a non-starter to begin with. It could be a revelation, sure, but you have nowhere to go from there, except perhaps becoming vegan and talking to rocks.
Quote from: LMNO on January 05, 2007, 12:51:56 PM
Let's not forget, that this predicates on the assumption that Taoism is right.
But anyway, I think it's such a conversation ender is because it's such a non-starter to begin with. It could be a revelation, sure, but you have nowhere to go from there, except perhaps becoming vegan and talking to rocks.
There is somewhere to go: Back to the localised subset of everything that is you. Expand, contract, explore as before but now with a whole new perspective available.
Expand on this, please.
it definitely throws a different light on things
a need to re-assess the implications of your actions
ie - what does it mean when you get angry at somebody/something
I dunno-- it seems to break down, becomes unststainable. Much like the quantum vs macro worlds.
Eventually, the barstool hits us all.
i agree
after time it hardly seems worth mentioning anymore
thats actually one of the beefs i developed wiff bill hicks - he went on hollering that shit until he was blue in the face and dead
you would think that after a few years he would have understood that either
a) people arent gonna get it
b) its not that big a deal
c) yelling isnt a effective tactic
Quote from: LHX on January 05, 2007, 01:30:54 PM
i agree
after time it hardly seems worth mentioning anymore
thats actually one of the beefs i developed wiff bill hicks - he went on hollering that shit until he was blue in the face and dead
you would think that after a few years he would have understood that either
a) people arent gonna get it
b) its not that big a deal
c) yelling isnt a effective tactic
Bill Hicks realised the much more important d) it's funny as hell
I threw cigarettes at Hicks a couple of months before he died of cancer - True story
Quote from: LMNO on January 05, 2007, 01:19:14 PM
Expand on this, please.
Expand - "the world is my oyster"
Contract - "I am the infinitesimal point"
Explore - Hadit explores Nuit, unsheckled by the illusion of the boundaries of self
Perspective - infinite possibilities
Quote from: LHX on January 05, 2007, 01:22:45 PM
ie - what does it mean when you get angry at somebody/something
that you want 'them' to stop being a part of 'us' for a little while, or longer depending on how pissed you are.
or maybe not.
Well really what I was more getting at, and maybe it's just me, since I probably took the dystopian literature that my angsty teen brain craved so viciously in the mid-90's a little bit too seriously, but the Taoist view, as well as "Us" "They" "They" "We", collectivist thought and religion seem to drive towards a goal of eliminating the individual... What this boils down to is that even if you're part of the "Counterculture" you're still a part of a group, and taking one more step at a time towards the elimination of self. Sure, you think you're fighting the good fight against the "man" and exercising your right to do the opposite of what you're told is acceptable, but you're still defining yourself and your actions by someone else's standards...
To say, "We're not like them" makes no sense, the fact that one validates their purpose with the support of others makes "We" no different from "them" except in appearance...
And I wrote a whole bit about laws and how they affect the ideas of groupthink, but I don't think it's as relevant as I thought as I was writing it... Suffice it to say, that whether you choose the big group or the small group that stands against that larger group, you're still joining a group and you're still helping to eliminate yourself... in my opinion...
But WE aren't like that... SRSLY
Ah, the "sticking apart" question...
First, I think you might have a tainted view of Taoism, but that's neither here nor there.
As far as group think goes, it is a tricky line: If five of us agree on a thought, are we thinking for ourselves, or going along with each other's thoughts?
If we five disagree with a group of five others, are we thinking for ourselves and stating our position, or are we simply rejecting what the "other" thinks?
Although none of us planned it, when we started writing the BIP et al, we came at a central idea from different angles, so each piece that you read is slightly (or vastly) different from the others. In this way, it ensured that our ideas, while common, were still our own.
Or at least, I hope so.
And that's the quandry, because no matter how far flung your ideas may be, there will always be a few people out there that share them, should we isolate ourselves from those people in a ditch effort to retain individuality? Probably not...
I'm sure that no two people, even in this "community" of PD would have 100% identical views on any one subject, nor any one way to approach a problem. But still to say "We are" something, implies a group mentality, and yeah...it's tricky, and it's headache inducing.
as far as Taoism goes, my experience with it is very limited, my analysis and statements are based on what little bit was shared with me by some Taoist friends back when I was living in Pittsburgh..
also, I'm pretty sure that I'm not trying to make any kind of point here, I'm just kinda letting my thoughts flow...
I've been peeking through the BIP stuff, it's definitely caught my interest.
to be honest, it's been a bit of a shock seeing discordians do something in a forum OTHER than babble incoherently and try to be funny, so I'm still reeling a bit from the shock of adjustment...
Hopefully you'll all forgive me if I still feel the need from time to time to write love poems to the lint I find between my toes. some habits die hard.
We, for the most part, have found this ability that we call "not to click".
It is a highly trained skill that we learned from too many pranks that linked us to Tubgirl.
And please don't think we don't have our sillier moments. We just don't do it here, much. Well, some. Eh, fuck it. We babble just as much as the next people. Srsly.
Quote from: LMNO on January 05, 2007, 04:42:13 PM
Ah, the "sticking apart" question...
First, I think you might have a tainted view of Taoism, but that's neither here nor there.
As far as group think goes, it is a tricky line:  If five of us agree on a thought, are we thinking for ourselves, or going along with each other's thoughts?
If we five disagree with a group of five others, are we thinking for ourselves and stating our position, or are we simply rejecting what the "other" thinks?
Although none of us planned it, when we started writing the BIP et al, we came at a central idea from different angles, so each piece that you read is slightly (or vastly) different from the others.  In this way, it ensured that our ideas, while common, were still our own.
Or at least, I hope so.
[smartass]
I disagree
[/smartass]
Just kidding.  But seriously.  Using the BIP collective as an example, sure, we are a group.  We are a we.  But I think it's been demonstrated by the different writings and viewpoints that we have been able to maintain our individuality while commenting on a common central theme(s), as LMNO stated.  
Everyone remember the anonymous mod experiment awhile back.  I think if you were to do that with the BIP regulars it would be fairly easy to identify who is who.  I think everyone has been able to maintain their individual philosophies and "selves" while working on common ideas.  
Quote from: Mourning Star on January 05, 2007, 05:00:50 PM
to be honest, it's been a bit of a shock seeing discordians do something in a forum OTHER than babble incoherently and try to be funny, so I'm still reeling a bit from the shock of adjustment...
we kind of do both really...
as long as you don't say something riped from thornley and hill that might have been funny back in the 50's your usually alright
Also, never to be suggesting ever that Steve Jackson in any shape or form is one of "us"
Quote from: Mourning Star on January 05, 2007, 04:37:18 PM
Well really what I was more getting at, and maybe it's just me, since I probably took the dystopian literature that my angsty teen brain craved so viciously in the mid-90's a little bit too seriously, but the Taoist view, as well as "Us" "They" "They" "We", collectivist thought and religion seem to drive towards a goal of eliminating the individual... What this boils down to is that even if you're part of the "Counterculture" you're still a part of a group, and taking one more step at a time towards the elimination of self.
The emphasis many schools of thought place on the death of self is often misconstrued as a fearful or 'best avoided' facet by those whose attachment to their own ego leads them to believe it's something more than a bunch of side effects to the things meat does to stay alive and reproduce. What destruction of self does, in this context is provides choices that weren't there before. When you realise that what you'd hithertoo believed was the only way you could be a whole new realm of possibilities are unleashed.
Another thing to note is that, in accordance with 'ship of theseus' paradigm, you are probably a subtly different person from the one you were before you read this. Give it a couple of months and you could become completely unrecognisable or else you could stay exactly the same, without learning anything new or changing any deep-rooted beliefs. Death of self makes this process a bit more obvious to you.
Quote from: LMNO on January 05, 2007, 04:42:13 PM
As far as group think goes, it is a tricky line: If five of us agree on a thought, are we thinking for ourselves, or going along with each other's thoughts?
Well, if the five of us all had the same thought before we met each other, then it's pretty clear we were thinking for ourselves. And odds are at least one of us will be vaguely creeped out by the notion that somebody else was able to arrive at the same thought independently. :D
If the five of us have the sketchy beginnings of a thought, and we come together and discuss them, and the end result is a shared thought/opinion, then I would consider that "going along with each other's thoughts", but that's also different than going along with each other's thoughts because you don't want to put the effort into fleshing out your own thoughts. I'd like to think I've been doing the former rather than the latter as far as the Black Iron Prison stuff goes; I've not written much there, and have only started one conversation, mostly because I have a lot of sketchy thought-beginnings and not a whole lot completed right now. But I am reading that sub-forum a lot and I am examining my own thoughts in light of the other perspectives offered, and I hope relatively soon I'll have something I feel is complete enough to give back so other people can do the same.
Good point, DJ. There's a distinction between 5 concurrent independent thoughts, and 5 people working off a kernel of thought together.
What if someone has a thought, which you yourself didn't have perviously, but you totally agree with that thought?
I think it has to do with how much effort you put into agreeing, which usually in my world means examining how likely it is that you *don't* agree.
It might even have been you who mentioned the idea of getting somebody to agree with three things you say, and they're more likely to agree with the next thing you say even if they normally wouldn't. That's the dangerous kind of "going along". That's where you've fallen into a habit instead of actually thinking. "Everything else this guy has said makes sense, so it's reasonable to expect the next thing he says will make sense too."
EDIT: By the way, I am assuming for purposes of this discussion that we're talking about "important" stuff here. If I honestly don't care about the conversation taking place, I'll "go along" with what the person says because then I can take the effort I would put into a real conversation and instead use it to craft an excuse to end this meaningless one. :)
That wasn't me, but I wish it was.
Quote from: LMNO on January 05, 2007, 07:52:30 PM
Good point, DJ. There's a distinction between 5 concurrent independent thoughts, and 5 people working off a kernel of thought together.
What if someone has a thought, which you yourself didn't have perviously, but you totally agree with that thought?
(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i312/P3nT4gR4m/caution1.jpg)
A Legend:
In the year 20XX, a certain individual was on a voyage to M____. The journey was long and frought with adversity which prevented easy passage. On one of his stops, the individual came across another traveller.
They had a brief exchange:
Man --- Where are you headed?
Traveller --- Im headed to H_____.
Man --- Hmm... never heard of it.
Traveller --- Where are you headed?
Man --- Im headed to M____.
Traveller --- Ive never heard of that either.
Man --- What direction is H______ in?
The traveller pointed toward the same direction that the man had been navigating toward.
Unaware of how long they would have a common path, the two agreed to join forces for as long as they would be heading in the same direction.
It is said that when they parted ways, it was done respectfully and as sporadically as the alliance had formed.
Other accounts have suggested that H_____ and M____ turned out to be the same place.
Quote from: LHX on January 05, 2007, 09:11:43 PM
In the year 20XX
so you're saying this happened some time in the last 6 and a bit years?
or in the next 93 years
depends on the perspective
Holy shit, stories from the future! I like the sound of this. So do I get any clues to the place names? If I'm not mistaken I stand to win a bit of money here if I play my cards right.
if you figure it out, let me know
Quote from: LHX on January 05, 2007, 10:47:24 PM
if you figure it out, let me know
Was gonna post in the attempt to flog this one to death but TBH I think I'm done now. As you were people.
everything a person says can be unfloggable when you learn how to jump ships
no need to stifle creativity or allegory tho
there is billions of ways to tell the same story
you pick the faces names places and dates
Quote from: LHX on January 06, 2007, 06:28:19 AM
everything a person says can be unfloggable when you learn how to jump ships
no need to stifle creativity or allegory tho
there is billions of ways to tell the same story
you pick the faces names places and dates
Hmmm,
BIP: The Musical lmfao
Anyone cozy with a financer?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 06, 2007, 05:28:24 PM
Quote from: LHX on January 06, 2007, 06:28:19 AM
everything a person says can be unfloggable when you learn how to jump ships
no need to stifle creativity or allegory tho
there is billions of ways to tell the same story
you pick the faces names places and dates
Hmmm,
BIP: The Musical lmfao
Anyone cozy with a financer?
lmmfao
11/10
X sings a soprano that makes construction workers get teary-eyed
And wait until i break it down with some fresh dance steps.
Barstool Boogie anyone?
"I wanna be a Producer!"
Oh, shit. Threadjack.
"Us"? Dunno.
"We", on the other hand...that's the nebulous human collective you invoke when you're afraid to admit the possibility that you're the only one who feels/thinks/is like you.
Example: "We're better than the animals, right?"
Selective Flocking.
You certainly don't want to be a part of "Them" because "They" are emo/goths/republicans/liberals/pagans/madjicksians/whatever
But, you don't want to be alone in your "Not Them-ism"
It seems like you can never, ever really be apart from wanting to flock with someone.
So, really, we're all sheep to some degree. Some like to hang out in the grass fields. Others like to be "edgy" and hang out by the cliff overlooking the chasm. But, if we are ever alone, we're more susceptible to the wolves.
Also it's a numbers game. There are enough in the "We" to substantiate the idea that it is possible to be "Not Them" and not be totally whacked.
Ok, on the "groupthink" thing. It's a phenomenon in sociology that means when a group comes together over an idea, the consensus shifts on the basis of what each member of the group wants to be thought of AS. Not the actual idea itself. So people are apt to change their minds or go along with an idea they don't agree on just to be part of the group.
It usually has a negative outcome.
So, there is always potential for groupthink, especially in a highly-motivated, very intelligent and somewhat cohesive (which is what I consider this particular substratum of PD to be) set of people such as this. What needs to be watched for is the aspects you have all already pointed out. The agreeing to agree, disagreeing only when it's expected, etc.
If all individual ideas are still respected and thought out (as long as they make some sort of sense and fit into the issue at-hand), then groupthink is not likely to occur. It usually happens when some overt prestige factor is presiding over the group, delineating which group member(s) everyone should be following, rather than their own mindset.
That's not to say that no one should internalize and learn from others, either. Of course. Etc.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 08, 2007, 03:32:38 PMSo, really, we're all sheep to some degree.  Some like to hang out in the grass fields.  Others like to be "edgy" and hang out by the cliff overlooking the chasm.  But, if we are ever alone, we're more susceptible to the wolves.
wolves? who are the wolves, if not more sheep?
if there are actual wolves, they are just made out of several sheep.
like a sheep mecha robot wolf.
i know, it's pretty fucking ridiculous, but the poor sheep can't help it!
that is why it is up to us to pull out the bottom sheep, become the bottom sheep, step out of line, and the whole thing comes clattering down in a woolly flurry of lulz.
SHEEP JENGA!
Quote from: LMNO on January 09, 2007, 12:44:10 PM
SHEEP JENGA!
(http://www.omegazone.plus.com/activity/images/sheep_tower.gif)
sometimes i wonder what is
not on the internets.
i dont know
is a cluster of stars the same as a group of sheep?
they shine on their own, but they are in the same general vicinity
sheep seems to have a connotation of stagnation + easy to be moved or rounded up
Well to go into total astronomy geek mode if you take gravitational forces into consideration you could probably stretch the sheep metaphor to stars or other celestial bodies.
As far as the wolves, why do the wolves have to be people? I would think of wolves more as environmental forces then non-sheep humans.
so some sheep are good sheep now
dam
we dismantle every metaphor
ninja sheep wiff the kung fu grip
Wolves are biological organisms that look, think and act a different way from sheep. They also feed on the sheep and sometimes fight with other wolves. How they came to be is another question. Maybe sheep can learn to be wolves. Maybe wolves are just born that way. One thing is for shure - I've never met a wolf wanted to be a sheep.
Quote from: LHX on January 09, 2007, 01:32:08 PM
so some sheep are good sheep now
dam
we dismantle every metaphor
ninja sheep wiff the kung fu grip
to be honest, I'm working on 3 hours of sleep at best and the coffee hasn't kicked in yet.
The probability of me being full of shit this morning is approximately 95%.
Best time for fre-flowing creativity, imo.
Quote from: LHX on January 09, 2007, 01:32:08 PM
so some sheep are good sheep now
dam
we dismantle every metaphor
ninja sheep wiff the kung fu grip
I don't know that there are "good" and "bad" sheep. I'm sure there are "flocks" we all would rather avoid. The flock of christianity, the flock of Republicans, the flock of MCR fans. I guess it depends on why we don't want to be part of the flock as to whether or not they are "good" or "bad". Even then, subjectivity is the order of the day.
i'm a bit too giddy on coffee and sugar to contribute much useful besides some puns as well, so i was waiting a bit what you guys came up with.
but i'll give it a shot.
LHX: i don't get wtf you are talking about with that cluster of stars business?
RWHN: i think the most fearsome wolves for our sheep are clearly made up of flocks of other sheep (basically this is just machine metaphore, wrapped in wool).
environmental forces? like tornados?
Silly > I've never met a wolf wanted to be a sheep.
but they do cross-dress in sheep's clothing.
so you get this sheep-wolf-mecha wrapped in wool. kind of like that constitution/flag business, and just as confusing.
translation: this is when big companies (wolves/flocks of sheep) are getting the same value-treatment as individuals, while the reverse is not true.
a lot of the worse RIAA/DMCA copyright bullshit is like this (even people that think copyrights are a good idea have to admit the RIAA/DMCA/Mickey Mouse acts are going rather over the top, and are using arguments that pretend what's fair/unfair to individuals is also fair/unfair to large conglomerations of companies)
how's that for free-flowing?
Quote from: triple zero on January 09, 2007, 01:55:54 PM
RWHN: i think the most fearsome wolves for our sheep are clearly made up of flocks of other sheep (basically this is just machine metaphore, wrapped in wool).
environmental forces? like tornados?
Nah, I was thinking more along the lines of social environment as an influence on development. The premise I'm working off is that everyone is a sheep because someone is always part of some flock, even if it is the flock of not being a flock. So if everyone is a sheep what are the wolves? Maybe there aren't wolves, maybe the sheep are cannabalistic. But, I would think that if there are wolves they wouldn't be people so what's left. So, maybe peer pressure is a wolf. Maybe alcoholism is a wolf. Maybe, fear of the unknown is a wolf. I don't know. I still stand by my prior disclaimer that I'm most likely just talking out of my ass right now.
ok then we're on the same line.
because social environment is caused by the group.
so if a wolf is (bad/dangerous) social environmental factors, it's pretty much made up of sheep.
at least that was what i was getting at with the mecha robot wolf.
Of course, if we really want to get carried away with the sheep metaphor we can talk about shepherds. Those elements of the social environment that are "good/safe" maybe?
any shepherd must stand helpless when the sheep flock together and form their own wolves :)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 09, 2007, 02:31:12 PM
Of course, if we really want to get carried away with the sheep metaphor we can talk about shepherds. Those elements of the social environment that are "good/safe" maybe?
ITYM "those elements of the social environment that have convinced us they are good/safe", usually by hyperactively reminding us about the wolves who weren't them. I mean, just look at how frighteningly easy it was to propagate the thought that if we didn't do exactly as Dubya and the DHS said, then every tiny podunk town in the middle of friggin' nowhere was at risk for terrorist attack. I mean, shit, even McVeigh decided to go with a LARGE CITY in the midwest.
That sounds more like wolves in shepards clothing.
Quote from: triple zero on January 09, 2007, 01:55:54 PM
LHX: i don't get wtf you are talking about with that cluster of stars business?
flocking
darn those flocking stars
Quote from: LMNO on January 09, 2007, 03:24:08 PM
That sounds more like wolves in shepards clothing.
That's what I would say. I think there are elements in the social environment, that at least, a majority could identify as a positive reason to flock. A really basic, or simple one, would be art. People flocking together to appreciate a band, a performance, a painter, etc., etc. Another example, this forum and sub forum. It's flocked us all together to be discussing this.
Of course, these elements can be used for ill, as well. To use the forum example again, the flocking together of personalities to flame or intiimdate another. I know, then you get into the realm of subjectivity again, but I maintain that there can be constructive elements of flocking, they may well be outnumbered by the wolves, or wolves in shepards clothing, but I believe they are there.
Are the wolves just another incarnation of the "us" vs. "them" argument, though?
Is a shepherd just a wolf-gone-good, and vice-versa?
And what's the difference between "head-sheep" and shepherd?
I don't see shepherds and wolves being humans. The wolves and the shepherds are elements of the social environment that cause the sheep (humans) to flock together. Except, that the wolves and shepherds, as you point out, aren't cut and dry. A shepherd can become a wolf. Something that causes people to come together, and flock, for positive thought exchange could easily become something that causes strife and turmoil. Democracy for example.
That seems a bit difficult to gauge. I'm not saying that anthropomorphizing the deal is necessary, but how can an innate concept be a wolf?
Isn't it the usage of that concept that preys upon the sheep? (and don't they deserve it? for what are sheep but prey? even the shepherd must eat...)
So who implements the concept such that it preys upon the flock? I submit there has to be an instigator. Someone in control. I don't see how apartheid, low voter turnout and bankruptcy are wolves. (sorry!)
Have I mentioned how much I love these forums?
These conversations are awesome. No troll.
*blushes*
Well this stuff is brain candy to me. You'll have to forgive my indulgences here, but the BIP is like a playground.
I'm sick, I know.
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2007, 03:25:29 PM
*blushes*
Well this stuff is brain candy to me.  You'll have to forgive my indulgences here, but the BIP is like a playground.
I'm sick, I know.
The BIP is only a prison til you realise it is. Then the bars are just something else to climb on :-D
^^^ You just made me brainfart - thanx for that
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 10, 2007, 03:28:54 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2007, 03:25:29 PM
*blushes*
Well this stuff is brain candy to me. You'll have to forgive my indulgences here, but the BIP is like a playground.
I'm sick, I know.
The BIP is only a prison til you realise it is. Then the bars are just something else to climb on :-D
^^^ You just made me brainfart - thanx for that
Heh. You're welcome...I think. :D
I meant the BIP section of PD, but you flipped that one on me, didncha? :lol:
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2007, 03:16:38 PM
That seems a bit difficult to gauge.  I'm not saying that anthropomorphizing the deal is necessary, but how can an innate concept be a wolf?
Because it is something that causes the sheep to flock.  Safety in numbers.  
Honestly it's probably an imperfect metaphor, but I do think it is true that it is virtually impossible, short of being stranded on a deserted island, to not be a part of some type of flock.  
QuoteIsn't it the usage of that concept that preys upon the sheep?  (and don't they deserve it?  for what are sheep but prey?  even the shepherd must eat...)
I suppose I didn't take into account that the shepherd eventually will eat the sheep.  Again, another example of why this metaphor is possibly not the best.  Although, maybe that can take into account something in society that is seemingly good and safe but that will eventually turn on the sheep.  I don't know, I think I need to ponder this more.  
QuoteSo who implements the concept such that it preys upon the flock?  I submit there has to be an instigator.  Someone in control.  I don't see how apartheid, low voter turnout and bankruptcy are wolves.  (sorry!)
The Machine?  The Con?  The System?  
again, probably needs further reflection on my part.  
Quote from: LMNO on January 10, 2007, 03:20:40 PM
Have I mentioned how much I love these forums?
These conversations are awesome.  No troll.
That's what happens when someone employs you for 40 hours a week but only gives you 22 hours worth of work to do. :-D
I know exactly what you mean.
Although, for the last few days I have been engaged in a lively debate over Christianity starting here: http://introspectives.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1853&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=540 and going forward.
looking like youre having some fun over at that introspectives forum
has it turned out to be worthwhile? or is it just exercise for you?
I thought I could bring some people over, but for now it's just exercise, and an opportunity to sharpen my Xtian poking stick against someone who doesn't froth at the mouth about Xtianity.
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2007, 03:16:38 PM
That seems a bit difficult to gauge. I'm not saying that anthropomorphizing the deal is necessary, but how can an innate concept be a wolf?
Isn't it the usage of that concept that preys upon the sheep? (and don't they deserve it? for what are sheep but prey? even the shepherd must eat...)
So who implements the concept such that it preys upon the flock? I submit there has to be an instigator. Someone in control. I don't see how apartheid, low voter turnout and bankruptcy are wolves. (sorry!)
i guess the wolf is whatever it is that makes things move
things that are moving and find themself in the same place are sheep
i guess wolves travelling in packs are sheeps
fuck this
i think we are developing a trend / approach that is able to dismantle any metaphor and render it unusable
the envelope keeps getting pushed (o snap another metaphor)
Sometimes I worry we're becoming Deconstructionists.
Quote from: LMNO on January 10, 2007, 04:01:03 PM
Sometimes I worry we're becoming Deconstructionists.
either that or we are absorbing deconstructionism and turning it into something else
Quote from: LMNO on January 10, 2007, 03:46:12 PM
I know exactly what you mean.
Although, for the last few days I have been engaged in a lively debate over Christianity starting here: http://introspectives.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1853&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=540 and going forward.
Why does big will delete all his posts? I'm finding some of it hard to follow and it's all his fault!
Beats me. Register, and ask him yourself.
I have enough on my plate following this place without joining any more forums thanks.
Also I gave up arguing with x-ists years ago. There's no way to gain a foothold with someone who is so devoid of rationality and logic that they believe shit like that. You'd have more success trying to talk a housebrick into sucking your cock.
Blasphemy, mockery and ridicule is the only response to christianity that I gain anything from.
I dunno, I've been racking up a few points:
1. God is not omnipotent
2. God made a mistake w/ Garden of Eden.
3. Adam & Eve were innocent when God punished them.
4. Isaiah 14 was not about Satan, but about the King of Babylon.
There's more, but I keep scoring points, so I'll keep going. As soon as I get "Because God says so, that's why" is when I'll claim ultimate victory and stop.
Quote from: LMNO on January 10, 2007, 04:27:33 PM
I dunno, I've been racking up a few points:
1.  God is not omnipotent
2.  God made a mistake w/ Garden of Eden.
3.  Adam & Eve were innocent when God punished them.
4.  Isaiah 14 was not about Satan, but about the King of Babylon.
There's more, but I keep scoring points, so I'll keep going.  As soon as I get "Because God says so, that's why" is when I'll claim ultimate victory and stop.
Gotchya. It's the Galaxians challenge then - you can't win but you can beat your old highscore. Circular logic annoys me way too much to deal with faithfools on that kinda level "The bible must be true, it says in the bible...." Maybe this is my challenge - to see how far I can get into the discussion before I absolutely have to go outside and shoot a puppy.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 10, 2007, 03:41:15 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2007, 03:16:38 PM
That seems a bit difficult to gauge.  I'm not saying that anthropomorphizing the deal is necessary, but how can an innate concept be a wolf?
Because it is something that causes the sheep to flock.  Safety in numbers. 
Honestly it's probably an imperfect metaphor, but I do think it is true that it is virtually impossible, short of being stranded on a deserted island, to not be a part of some type of flock. 
QuoteIsn't it the usage of that concept that preys upon the sheep?  (and don't they deserve it?  for what are sheep but prey?  even the shepherd must eat...)
I suppose I didn't take into account that the shepherd eventually will eat the sheep.  Again, another example of why this metaphor is possibly not the best.  Although, maybe that can take into account something in society that is seemingly good and safe but that will eventually turn on the sheep.  I don't know, I think I need to ponder this more. 
QuoteSo who implements the concept such that it preys upon the flock?  I submit there has to be an instigator.  Someone in control.  I don't see how apartheid, low voter turnout and bankruptcy are wolves.  (sorry!)
The Machine?  The Con?  The System? 
again, probably needs further reflection on my part. 
Sorry to give you brain hurt.  First Silly's brain fart, now this.
What I meant (and again, apologies to perhaps excess for LHX in deconstructionism) to do is to point out that even when you are codifying what it is that is negative or positive about bringing the "flock" together, you have to consider that it's from a particular perspective, and not necessarily one you are aware of using.
So, when pointing out or judging who is the shepherd, who is the wolf, who are sheep in wolves' clothing, vice versa...where are you coming from?  Which flock do you belong to that made this determination?
As for the roles of wolves and shepherds...the sheep belong to the shepherd, nay?  So, he cares for them because they are his, not his pets, but his to eat, shear and use.  He births them, puts them to death.  So, his role is greater and maybe not as interchangeable as that of the wolf.
What is the wolf there to do?  To take for himself, damn the consequences.  He's alone, he has a belly that needs feeding.  He is born to do this.  The sheep are his prey, so he does what he does naturally.  And we all know how brutal  nature is.
So, I guess I'm not just trying to define things but also see how far this meme will go in application, esp when considering the true role of the players.  Not their iconic actions...
i dont think there is excess in deconstructing
the more you dismantle, the better you understand the components
the better you understand the components, the better you can build
As long as we keep the original intent in sight, and don't lose ourselves amognst the pieces.
My take puts the sheep and the shepherd in pretty uch the same basket as you Jenne but with regards the wolf I basically see him as a sheep that has evolved beyond the flock. The wolf is the free spirit who chooses to prey on the sheep because he has it in his power to do so and, therefore, who the hell is in a poisition to tell him not to?
There are varying degrees of preying and the smart wolf realises that it's not a good idea to overharvest but essentially I see myself, using them entirely as lulz-fodder, as being no different from someone who grinds them down as fertiliser. I have the compassion thing which makes me see them as kinda cute and lovable but I find it hard to condemn those who don't on any other grounds than practicality - a serial killer or mass murderer might serially kill or murder my mass.
Quote from: LHX on January 10, 2007, 05:15:29 PM
i dont think there is excess in deconstructing
the more you dismantle, the better you understand the components
the better you understand the components, the better you can build
That's the premise I usually go on, anyway.
Ok, good.
Quote from: LMNO on January 10, 2007, 05:16:19 PM
As long as we keep the original intent in sight, and don't lose ourselves amognst the pieces.
it seems to be worth the gamble
because the alternative doesnt seem to serve too well
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 10, 2007, 05:18:38 PM
My take puts the sheep and the shepherd in pretty uch the same basket as you Jenne but with regards the wolf I basically see him as a sheep that has evolved beyond the flock. The wolf is the free spirit who chooses to prey on the sheep because he has it in his power to do so and, therefore, who the hell is in a poisition to tell him not to?
There are varying degrees of preying and the smart wolf realises that it's not a good idea to overharvest but essentially I see myself, using them entirely as lulz-fodder, as being no different from someone who grinds them down as fertiliser. I have the compassion thing which makes me see them as kinda cute and lovable but I find it hard to condemn those who don't on any other grounds than practicality - a serial killer or mass murderer might serially kill or murder my mass.
Ok, so a wolf is a sheep who cannibalized?
And somehow I KNEW you were on the side of the wolf.
Now, the wolf is no hero of the story...he's the antihero, really.
Quote from: LHX on January 10, 2007, 05:20:37 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 10, 2007, 05:16:19 PM
As long as we keep the original intent in sight, and don't lose ourselves amognst the pieces.
it seems to be worth the gamble
because the alternative doesnt seem to serve too well
Srsly, don't see a problem with this group of people.
Too fucking focused for their own good.
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2007, 05:22:07 PM
Too fucking focused for their own good.
lol
can the act of focussing be too extreme?
pan in pan out
macro and micro
toggling perspectives and variety FTW
who am i who is us who are they ---> we somehow cover all angles
Quote from: LHX on January 10, 2007, 05:24:17 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2007, 05:22:07 PM
Too fucking focused for their own good.
lol
can the act of focussing be too extreme?
pan in pan out
macro and micro
toggling perspectives and variety FTW
who am i who is us who are they ---> we somehow cover all angles
Of course it can!  *points to Felix's thread in this subforum*  :D
Well, over in the "Architecture" thread I pointed out that it's hard to do both micro and macro at the same time - if a scientist gets too fascinated with the stuff under his microscope, he may not notice that the far corner of the lab has caught fire.
I think you need a lab partner to help keep you sane. Or at least man the extinguishers.
Yeah, I think in all this disscussion, its good to have someone that will help keep you grounded.
Quote from: DJRubberducky on January 10, 2007, 05:26:08 PM
Well, over in the "Architecture" thread I pointed out that it's hard to do both micro and macro at the same time - if a scientist gets too fascinated with the stuff under his microscope, he may not notice that the far corner of the lab has caught fire.
I think you need a lab partner to help keep you sane. Or at least man the extinguishers.
I agree.  Especially if you are that rather pedantic, focused person who doesn't notice shit around you while you work.
On the other hand, having too LITTLE focus can be a problem too.  I'd posit that's most peoples' problem in life, in general.  Or a lack of focus on what matters vs. piddly shit.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on January 10, 2007, 05:28:14 PM
Yeah, I think in all this disscussion, its good to have someone that will help keep you grounded.
Everyone needs the barstool, sooner or later.
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2007, 05:21:35 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 10, 2007, 05:18:38 PM
My take puts the sheep and the shepherd in pretty uch the same basket as you Jenne but with regards the wolf I basically see him as a sheep that has evolved beyond the flock. The wolf is the free spirit who chooses to prey on the sheep because he has it in his power to do so and, therefore, who the hell is in a poisition to tell him not to?
There are varying degrees of preying and the smart wolf realises that it's not a good idea to overharvest but essentially I see myself, using them entirely as lulz-fodder, as being no different from someone who grinds them down as fertiliser. I have the compassion thing which makes me see them as kinda cute and lovable but I find it hard to condemn those who don't on any other grounds than practicality - a serial killer or mass murderer might serially kill or murder my mass.
Ok, so a wolf is a sheep who cannibalized?
And somehow I KNEW you were on the side of the wolf.
Now, the wolf is no hero of the story...he's the antihero, really.
There are less of the wolf than the sheep therefore I find the wolf more interesting. The wolf has a view of the sheep that the sheep do not have. He also remembers what it was like to be a sheep, so he has that perspective too. Being able to see twice the number of perspectives will always get my vote. My whole life is essentially approached from a perspective gaining point of view. Each new perspective makes me chuckle so I keep doing it.
Quote from: LMNO on January 10, 2007, 05:30:49 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on January 10, 2007, 05:28:14 PM
Yeah, I think in all this disscussion, its good to have someone that will help keep you grounded.
Everyone needs the barstool, sooner or later.
Now THAT should be a t-shirt.
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 10, 2007, 05:35:52 PM
There are less of the wolf than the sheep therefore I find the wolf more interesting. The wolf has a view of the sheep that the sheep do not have. He also remembers what it was like to be a sheep, so he has that perspective too. Being able to see twice the number of perspectives will always get my vote. My whole life is essentially approached from a perspective gaining point of view. Each new perspective makes me chuckle so I keep doing it.
This makes me wonder:
Are we all our own wolves?
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2007, 05:37:27 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 10, 2007, 05:35:52 PM
There are less of the wolf than the sheep therefore I find the wolf more interesting. The wolf has a view of the sheep that the sheep do not have. He also remembers what it was like to be a sheep, so he has that perspective too. Being able to see twice the number of perspectives will always get my vote. My whole life is essentially approached from a perspective gaining point of view. Each new perspective makes me chuckle so I keep doing it.
This makes me wonder:
Are we all our own wolves?
I was going to say something but LMNO would just call me the S-word.
(feels kinda small when he does that)
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 10, 2007, 05:39:57 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2007, 05:37:27 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 10, 2007, 05:35:52 PM
There are less of the wolf than the sheep therefore I find the wolf more interesting. The wolf has a view of the sheep that the sheep do not have. He also remembers what it was like to be a sheep, so he has that perspective too. Being able to see twice the number of perspectives will always get my vote. My whole life is essentially approached from a perspective gaining point of view. Each new perspective makes me chuckle so I keep doing it.
This makes me wonder:
Are we all our own wolves?
I was going to say something but LMNO would just call me the S-word.
(feels kinda small when he does that)
Aw, just say it. Esp since I don't know the s-word you're referring to...
Syllopsis? Is that it?
Look, there's an ourobouros certainty to all human nature. It was pointed out in the threads above somewhere when someone was talking about the evolution of forums/groups of people.
So I'm just applying that theme to this analogy is all.
Okay here's a metaphysical model I've been playing about with. Please to be noting that I construct, collect and explore these for personal amusement, not because I believe any of them. Just in case any one decides they want to argue about their validity - you'll get no argument from me.
1) The universe does not manifest over time. It's a multidimentional hologram in which all possible conditions and events occur, simultaneously.
2) The universe is experienced or observed by an infinitely small (no dimensional) point of ovservance which explores possibilites, along threads which follow the geometric axis we refer to as time. (if you dont get what I mean here and you give a shit just ask and I'll try to expand - I'm really not sure if that bit makes enough sense)
3) It follows from no. 2 that the point of observance will 'be' every human life that ever exists and also all other life. It gets kind of paradoxical right about here because the point of observance will appear to be in multiple consciousnesses at the same time, even interacting with itself. For example - one guy talks another guy into giving him a lift home but it only seems paradoxical because of human inability to properly comprehend more dimesions than 3.
Essentially what I'm saying is that there is only one point of observance - that is you/me/us so yes we're all the wolf and the sheep and the lice that live on the sheeps back.
well...yes...ok...
But aren't you removing the point of argument then, by saying it's moot?
This seems like an elaborate version of:
"We are all one."
"So, now what?"
*nodding* Yup.
Quote from: LMNO on January 10, 2007, 06:32:15 PM
This seems like an elaborate version of:
"We are all one."
"So, now what?"
Enjoy!
Quote from: triple zero on January 09, 2007, 09:59:26 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 08, 2007, 03:32:38 PMSo, really, we're all sheep to some degree. Some like to hang out in the grass fields. Others like to be "edgy" and hang out by the cliff overlooking the chasm. But, if we are ever alone, we're more susceptible to the wolves.
wolves? who are the wolves, if not more sheep?
if there are actual wolves, they are just made out of several sheep.
like a sheep mecha robot wolf.
i know, it's pretty fucking ridiculous, but the poor sheep can't help it!
that is why it is up to us to pull out the bottom sheep, become the bottom sheep, step out of line, and the whole thing comes clattering down in a woolly flurry of lulz.
City kids. Sheep can be pretty fucking mean when they get spooked. They'll trample anything to get out alive including each other, there is no mutual consensus. And the rest of the time they sit around eating grass and doing nothing unless threatened by several sheepdogs.
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2007, 06:28:34 PM
well...yes...ok...
But aren't you removing the point of argument then, by saying it's moot?
Not really I'm just saying don't expect me to argue the toss.
Quote from: LHX on January 10, 2007, 05:15:29 PM
i dont think there is excess in deconstructing
the more you dismantle, the better you understand the components
the better you understand the components, the better you can build
I disagree. The more you dismantle, the more people go into the "tragically hip nihilism" where they start spouting complete and utter bullshit about textual narratives and end up finding no reasons to bother to rebuild. Or anything else you may value. It becomes another reason to do nothing, taken to its logical conclusion.
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2007, 06:45:58 PM
Quote from: LHX on January 10, 2007, 05:15:29 PM
i dont think there is excess in deconstructing
the more you dismantle, the better you understand the components
the better you understand the components, the better you can build
I disagree. The more you dismantle, the more people go into the "tragically hip nihilism" where they start spouting complete and utter bullshit about textual narratives and end up finding no reasons to bother to rebuild. Or anything else you may value. It becomes another reason to do nothing, taken to its logical conclusion.
Not sure if that's a gneral rule or just an observation of a significan fraction.
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 10, 2007, 06:43:32 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2007, 06:28:34 PM
well...yes...ok...
But aren't you removing the point of argument then, by saying it's moot?
Not really I'm just saying don't expect me to argue the toss.
Ah, fair enough.
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 10, 2007, 06:54:44 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2007, 06:45:58 PM
Quote from: LHX on January 10, 2007, 05:15:29 PM
i dont think there is excess in deconstructing
the more you dismantle, the better you understand the components
the better you understand the components, the better you can build
I disagree. The more you dismantle, the more people go into the "tragically hip nihilism" where they start spouting complete and utter bullshit about textual narratives and end up finding no reasons to bother to rebuild. Or anything else you may value. It becomes another reason to do nothing, taken to its logical conclusion.
Not sure if that's a gneral rule or just an observation of a significan fraction.
Thats true. I'm probably jaded from my brief time as a philosophy student. But there are a lot of them. Thats why I tend to Abdurdism/Existentialism of the Camus or early Satre sort, as it acknowledges the lack of meaning without going on what seems to end up in a self-destructive and pointless exercise.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on January 10, 2007, 06:57:32 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2007, 05:44:28 PM
Syllopsis? Is that it?
Sophilism.
Remove the 'h'. You may have got it mixed in with Sophists, who were just trolling IRL.
Sorry. Spelling is not my strong point.
NP. I had to use Google to check, and even then I only know about Sophism because I used to belong to a site based on it. Indirectly led me here too. They linked to occultforums and I went over for shits and giggles, then found the link to this place.
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2007, 07:12:43 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 10, 2007, 06:54:44 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2007, 06:45:58 PM
Quote from: LHX on January 10, 2007, 05:15:29 PM
i dont think there is excess in deconstructing
the more you dismantle, the better you understand the components
the better you understand the components, the better you can build
I disagree. The more you dismantle, the more people go into the "tragically hip nihilism" where they start spouting complete and utter bullshit about textual narratives and end up finding no reasons to bother to rebuild. Or anything else you may value. It becomes another reason to do nothing, taken to its logical conclusion.
Not sure if that's a gneral rule or just an observation of a significan fraction.
Thats true. I'm probably jaded from my brief time as a philosophy student. But there are a lot of them. Thats why I tend to Abdurdism/Existentialism of the Camus or early Satre sort, as it acknowledges the lack of meaning without going on what seems to end up in a self-destructive and pointless exercise.
LOL - I know what you mean. Most nihillists give nihillism a bad name.
*edit* just had another brainfart - Many of the sheep understand some pretty radical philosophy whilst managing to remain sheep.
Unfortunately I got pulled away from this to, *gasp* *shock* do work. While I was supposed to be doing something else I started to sort of sketch out the sheep/flocking idea and soon realised that I couldn't. I guess my original premise came from that oft used phrase "stick apart". And, it just seems that no one can ever truly "stick apart" all by themselves. You are always part of a flock, which is what "us" sometimes is used for. The "us" flock vs. the "them" flock. That's when I realize the sheep metaphor is probably quite inappropriate because sheep (domesticated ones anyway) generally are more willing to stick together as a single collective than humans are. We harbor grudges, we are offended by odors, we are offended by the shapes of eyes, we seem to be way more judgemental than sheep.
QuoteWe harbor grudges, we are offended by odors, we are offended by the shapes of eyes, we seem to be way more judgemental than sheep.
Where's BMW to debunk that little nugget?
For, I have a feeling we are more like sheep than we aren't in judgments in everyday life. For, sheep probably know their fellow sheep by smell, shape of butt, and make judgments on where to graze everyday...
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 10, 2007, 07:20:05 PM
*edit* just had another brainfart - Many of the sheep understand some pretty radical philosophy whilst managing to remain sheep.
Yeah. I mean, look at the Modernists at the start of the previous century. There was a wide ranged intellectual revolt which spawned the Surrealists, Absurdists, Dada and a whole host of other things in psychology and philosophy. But it was ultimately betrayed. Sartre turned to Marxism, Heidegger Fascism. Psychoanalysis became a tool to set a standard by which others could be made outcasts. Postmodernism moved from a genuinely useful tool of undermining tyrannical systems to a tool of them, for example with Foucault's pandering to Khomeini.
Thats one of the reasons I've decided to read The Rebel currently. Not only was Camus one of the few who never betrayed his principals and beliefs (hated Communists, fought Nazis, despised dictators) but he also understood the implicit irony of the revolutionary turned oppressor. Thats why he wrote the Rebel, in part, so I'm seeking insight on that ground.
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2007, 07:51:02 PM
QuoteWe harbor grudges, we are offended by odors, we are offended by the shapes of eyes, we seem to be way more judgemental than sheep.
Where's BMW to debunk that little nugget?
For, I have a feeling we are more like sheep than we aren't in judgments in everyday life. For, sheep probably know their fellow sheep by smell, shape of butt, and make judgments on where to graze everyday...
You only have to analyse crowd behaviour to see it in action.
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2007, 07:51:02 PM
QuoteWe harbor grudges, we are offended by odors, we are offended by the shapes of eyes, we seem to be way more judgemental than sheep.
Where's BMW to debunk that little nugget?
For, I have a feeling we are more like sheep than we aren't in judgments in everyday life. For, sheep probably know their fellow sheep by smell, shape of butt, and make judgments on where to graze everyday...
All mammals make preference, when it comes to feeding, when it comes to mating, those that live together have highly social behaviors, which include outcasting individuals. Humans just have more psychology behind it.
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2007, 06:45:58 PM
Quote from: LHX on January 10, 2007, 05:15:29 PM
i dont think there is excess in deconstructing
the more you dismantle, the better you understand the components
the better you understand the components, the better you can build
I disagree. The more you dismantle, the more people go into the "tragically hip nihilism" where they start spouting complete and utter bullshit about textual narratives and end up finding no reasons to bother to rebuild. Or anything else you may value. It becomes another reason to do nothing, taken to its logical conclusion.
i counter-disagree
these discussions are a testament to the fact that deconstruction can continue and stay grounded
Yeah, we can. But most merehumes will start wailing about the void in their soul, wearing black and become Marxist capitalists.
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2007, 10:27:30 PM
Yeah, we can.  But most merehumes will start wailing about the void in their soul, wearing black and become Marxist capitalists.
Cain you actually think most of those people actually know anything about Marxism, other then its makes them sound rebellious?
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2007, 10:27:30 PM
Yeah, we can. But most merehumes will start wailing about the void in their soul, wearing black and become Marxist capitalists.
It's a stage many go through and, maybe, even less ever get over. I'd still say they were closer to the goal for recognising the cage. Jailbreak aint a one-step process.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on January 10, 2007, 10:42:48 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2007, 10:27:30 PM
Yeah, we can. But most merehumes will start wailing about the void in their soul, wearing black and become Marxist capitalists.
Cain you actually think most of those people actually know anything about Marxism, other then its makes them sound rebellious?
Yes.
Hmm...
The works of Ayn Rand, both her fiction and non-fiction I think have had a significant impact on my views, egoism/objectivism, her whole philosophy of the individual being the greatest of all beings, selfishness as a virtue... Not the selfishness for material goods or money, but to truly do the things you do, only for yourself, completely without care for the opinions and views of others.
The ideas behind Marxism seem noble at first glance, but when you get right down to it, all it will ultimately create is stagnation. A totalitarian system, while notorious for their elimination of civil liberties, are generally stable financially, but also lead towards stagnation of ideas and innovation... Democracy (true democracy, not necessarily a 'democratic republic') is probably the worst of all, because it implies that all opinions and all persons are essentially equal, this type of groupthink accomplishes nothing, individuals accomplish things, committees just talk incessantly about getting things accomplished, but don't actually do it.
I have to agree with the ideas thrown out by RAW in Illuminatus! true Laissez Faire capitalism paired with a governmental structure bordering on anarchy, provide a basic law set of "Don't rape, rob, or kill" and otherwise stay the fuck out of the people's way, don't meddle in business, and generally allow people to make their own decisions about their lives...
Yeah, this definitely is a neo-utopian idealist view, and is impractical, and sadly wouldn't work, because we don't live in a society of sane, rationally thinking people... But it seems the most conducive to evolution of the human species...
in my most humble of opinions...
Free market capitalism and the state are incompatible. The only free trading that is going on anywhere now is in Somalia. I personally prefer the protection of the state to the myriad problems of anarchy, even given the state is often my enemy the world has moved on and we now have some very deadly substate actors who can fuck you up.
Basically, so long as there is a state some companies will be favoured over others because they are critical to the safety and economy of the country in question. When someone says free market capitalism, what they usually mean is allowing their favoured monopoolies (which they are funded by) being allowed to effectively operate outside of the law for mucho profits - all of which go into the hands of very few people, such as "Neutron" Jack.
Its a scam, one of the largest in history. Its like the plot to bankrupt the American treasury by the Bush administration - its so big virtually no-one can see it, but its there. Anyone who has checked the IMF's own data can see quite easily the best time, economically and in quality of life in the last 100 years was between 1950 and 1975 - an era dominated by unions, mixed economies and some protectionism.
Mourn, are you equating Marxism and Totalitarianism?
As far as i know, they aren't equivalent.
Also, Ayn Rand is a cold-hearted bitch.
Also also, Cain is wikkid smaht.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 12:47:07 PM
Mourn, are you equating Marxism and Totalitarianism?
As far as i know, they aren't equivalent.
Also, Ayn Rand is a cold-hearted bitch.
Also also, Cain is wikkid smaht.
no no I was speaking of Marxism, totalitarianism, and anarchy all separately...
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 12:47:07 PM
Mourn, are you equating Marxism and Totalitarianism?
As far as i know, they aren't equivalent.
In theory, no. In practice, yes. Marxism is a continuation of every other totalitarian ideology, it seeks to create "heaven on earth", by forcible "purification" if necessary. Just like free market advocates, Christians, Muslims and 99% of people who think facts are subordinate to ideology.
Quote from: Cain on January 11, 2007, 05:45:30 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 12:47:07 PM
Mourn, are you equating Marxism and Totalitarianism?
As far as i know, they aren't equivalent.
In theory, no. In practice, yes. Marxism is a continuation of every other totalitarian ideology, it seeks to create "heaven on earth", by forcible "purification" if necessary. Just like free market advocates, Christians, Muslims and 99% of people who think facts are subordinate to ideology.
Whoa! You got a way with words dude! :potd:
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 05:56:44 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 12:47:07 PM
Also also, Cain is wikkid smaht.
Yah but he's a stoodent! WTF does he know about life in the real world I ask ya?
(bet he's never sweated down 'pit)
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 11, 2007, 06:00:53 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 05:56:44 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 12:47:07 PM
Also also, Cain is wikkid smaht.
Yah but he's a stoodent! WTF does he know about life in the real world I ask ya?
(bet he's never sweated down 'pit)
:sits down for this one:
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 11, 2007, 06:00:53 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 05:56:44 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2007, 12:47:07 PM
Also also, Cain is wikkid smaht.
Yah but he's a stoodent! WTF does he know about life in the real world I ask ya?
(bet he's never sweated down 'pit)
*blink*
You might want to be careful with the way you throw your words around. Just saying.
Cain,
worked a door all last summer. It was not fun. It was shitty and the few advantages that job has I could not take, already being in a relationship.
Quote from: Cain on January 11, 2007, 06:08:18 PM
Cain,
worked a door all last summer. It was not fun. It was shitty and the few advantages that job has I could not take, already being in a relationship.
Goddamn you guys are touchy tonite. You gonna make me apologise for cracking a joke? Then I'm gonna have to apologise to felix for joke apology. Chain reaction. Spend the rest of the night grovelling
Lighten up people you know me better than that.
No, its me. I'm tired. Like said earlier, I literally fell asleep in an exam. On terrorism, no less. And I really did not like that job. Bad memories.
Bump. Because there was some really good stuff in this thread. Particularly the inner pages.
Yeah, I had almost forgotten about this stuff.
I dont think you guys ever answered who is us.
Neither who is what.
But it is clear that free market and state are conflicting, and that...
What is "this"¿¿ :aaa:
I think it's clear that It is Us.
We're the good guys, out to wreck the world.
Vagina Boob
US IS TEH DEMONZ 1!11!1!!! :omg:
"Us" is always contingent
What's this "we" shit, Kimosabe?
nOoooo, not "we" i said "us"!!!