I Am Free

[The Johnny]

We do not speak of that which lurks in Discordia en Espanol. hirley0 keeps it at bay.

I vaguely remember translating some of it for the rest of you lot... MUCH REGRET.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Were you not preaching moral right-wrong here?

No.  I was discussing the definition of the word "power", and then foolishly added a comment thinking it wouldn't complicate things beyond discussion, because I am a fucking slow learner and I hadn't yet realized - despite all the other shit in this thread - that you are incapable of having a simple discussion.

Fucking flake.

[Pæs]

Were you not preaching moral right-wrong here?

No.  I was discussing the definition of the word "power", and then foolishly added a comment thinking it wouldn't complicate things beyond discussion, because I am a fucking slow learner and I hadn't yet realized - despite all the other shit in this thread - that you are incapable of having a simple discussion.

Fucking flake.

NOT. MY. REAL. DAD.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Were you not preaching moral right-wrong here?

No.  I was discussing the definition of the word "power", and then foolishly added a comment thinking it wouldn't complicate things beyond discussion, because I am a fucking slow learner and I hadn't yet realized - despite all the other shit in this thread - that you are incapable of having a simple discussion.

Fucking flake.

NOT. MY. REAL. DAD.

[The Johnny]

Were you not preaching moral right-wrong here?

No.  I was discussing the definition of the word "power", and then foolishly added a comment thinking it wouldn't complicate things beyond discussion, because I am a fucking slow learner and I hadn't yet realized - despite all the other shit in this thread - that you are incapable of having a simple discussion.

Fucking flake.

NOT. MY. REAL. DAD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5Za8HggalY

Yes, no, maybe -
I don't know.
Can you repeat the question?

You're not the boss of me now!
You're not the boss of me now!
You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big!

You're not the boss of me now!
You're not the boss of me now!
You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big!

Life is unfair, so I just stare - at the stain on the wall where ...
The TV'd been, but ever since we've moved in it's been empty

Why I, why I'm in this room -
There is no point explaining!

You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big!
You're not the boss of me now!
You're not the boss of me now!
You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big!

Life is a test, but I confess:
I like this mess I've made so far.
Grade on a curve, and you'll observe -
I'm right below the horizon.

Yes, no, maybe, I don't know.
Can you repeat the question?

You're not the boss of me now!
You're not the boss of me now!
You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big!

You're not the boss of me now!
You're not the boss of me now!
You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big!

(Guitar Solo)

You're not the boss of me now!
You're not the boss of me now!
You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big!

You're not the boss of me now!
You're not the boss of me now!
You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big!

You're not the boss of me now!
You're not the boss of me now!
You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big!

Life is unfair!

[POFP]

No.  I was discussing the definition of the word "power", and then foolishly added a comment thinking it wouldn't complicate things beyond discussion, because I am a fucking slow learner and I hadn't yet realized - despite all the other shit in this thread - that you are incapable of having a simple discussion.

Fucking flake.

There's not much that I know of that's simple.

If you felt what I said was unrelated, you should've ignored it. I wasn't expecting a response on that part of my post anyways.

NOT. MY. REAL. DAD.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So you don't have much by way of empathy, you want to amass power, and you came to a forum to tell people so.

Have you, by any chance, been reading M.E. Thomas?

[Cain]

Power isn't a goal, it's a method and means.  People who don't understand that are invariably unfit to wield power, and usually don't have the right characteristics to acquire it in the first place.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Power isn't a goal, it's a method and means.  People who don't understand that are invariably unfit to wield power, and usually don't have the right characteristics to acquire it in the first place.

DING.

Once again, Cain lays it down.

[The Johnny]

*mumbles something about Foucault, then thinks to himself "Nevermind."*

[Cain]

Once again, Cain lays it down.

*mumbles something about Foucault, then thinks to himself "Nevermind."*

Foucault was a boss.  But yeah, that may be a bit, uh, complex for a discussion that has mostly revolved around that perverted heroin addict attached to an ego, aka Crowley.

However, I was going to make two more points.

1. What is the purpose of seeking power, if not to have an effect on the world in the way one desires?  As much as I hate to reduce people to psychology, I would have to conclude that they are probably seeking the sense of security, importance and relevance that wielding power lends.  In which case, like Paes said, " becoming a solipsist and declaring total control over your own reality is probably the easiest way to get there."

2.  Power is socially constructed.  And that's socially constructed in the sense that it's constructed by society, not in the sense that it's not real, as so many kids chose to believe socially constructed means nowadays.  Power derives from networks that exist in society, and as a result bind one more closely to that society.  Sure, there may be specific relaxations and exemptions - society is not a monolithic bloc, after all - but by and large, one gains power in the modern world through a significant amount of social interaction.  It's not a path for someone who wants to be free of social mores and restrictions, and indeed trying to combine the two is an exercise in futility.

[The Johnny]

Once again, Cain lays it down.

*mumbles something about Foucault, then thinks to himself "Nevermind."*

...

2.  Power is socially constructed.  And that's socially constructed in the sense that it's constructed by society, not in the sense that it's not real, as so many kids chose to believe socially constructed means nowadays.  Power derives from networks that exist in society, and as a result bind one more closely to that society.  Sure, there may be specific relaxations and exemptions - society is not a monolithic bloc, after all - but by and large, one gains power in the modern world through a significant amount of social interaction.  It's not a path for someone who wants to be free of social mores and restrictions, and indeed trying to combine the two is an exercise in futility.

Yeah, its not about ignoring cultural rules and regulations... its about playing them in your favour.

That translates into a lot of manipulation, happy shit grins, strategizing to escalate the power ladder, being born into an already priviledged slot... etc etc etc.

Contrast that with a hermit, or a schizophrenic... one is "free" due to no responsability other than surviving out in the wild... the latter cant even control its unconscious which overrides him - now compare that to Obama, Putin or any world leader, or say anyone from Rothschild dynasty. Yeah.

[POFP]

So you don't have much by way of empathy, you want to amass power, and you came to a forum to tell people so.

Have you, by any chance, been reading M.E. Thomas?

That's a strange summary. I didn't come on here to tell you those things in particular. Those pieces of information were a result of the flow of the conversation, and in turn, the flow of my thoughts. As one thing led to another in this discussion, I was reminded of related tid-bits, and decided to reflect on them openly. Keep in mind, the simplicity of the original topic that I ranted on.

I just looked her up, and I'm quite interested. I may, in fact, read her on my free-time. Let's hope there aren't too many similarities though, if you know what I mean.

Power isn't a goal, it's a method and means.

Now THAT, is an interesting way to look at power. This will dominate my thoughts for tomorrow, I'm sure of it.

Foucault was a boss.  But yeah, that may be a bit, uh, complex for a discussion that has mostly revolved around that perverted heroin addict attached to an ego, aka Crowley.

However, I was going to make two more points.

1. What is the purpose of seeking power, if not to have an effect on the world in the way one desires?  As much as I hate to reduce people to psychology, I would have to conclude that they are probably seeking the sense of security, importance and relevance that wielding power lends.  In which case, like Paes said, " becoming a solipsist and declaring total control over your own reality is probably the easiest way to get there."

2.  Power is socially constructed.  And that's socially constructed in the sense that it's constructed by society, not in the sense that it's not real, as so many kids chose to believe socially constructed means nowadays.  Power derives from networks that exist in society, and as a result bind one more closely to that society.  Sure, there may be specific relaxations and exemptions - society is not a monolithic bloc, after all - but by and large, one gains power in the modern world through a significant amount of social interaction.  It's not a path for someone who wants to be free of social mores and restrictions, and indeed trying to combine the two is an exercise in futility.

1. I was only talking about the acquisition of power because "the affect on the world in the way on desires" is variable. What I want to affect now may not be what I want to affect later. And YES  We've established that Paes's description was spot-fucking-on.

2. I do agree that power is a construct. But I see it as one that is constructed in many ways, in many places, and to many extents depending on the perspective I'm looking from. I don't think that society is the only place it shows up.

I'm sorry to say I don't know much about/by Foucault.

I also must point out that you seem to state things with the same preachy and righteous tone that I use(d). So, it seems, the format is similar, just the information/view is different.

[Pæs]

I also must point out that you seem to state things with the same preachy and righteous tone that I use(d). So, it seems, the format is similar, just the information/view is different.

Read bolded as "you are right and I am wrong."

[POFP]

I also must point out that you seem to state things with the same preachy and righteous tone that I use(d). So, it seems, the format is similar, just the information/view is different.

Read bolded as "you are right and I am wrong."

Not what I meant at all. I don't think he's wrong. Nor do I think I'm right.