There are many genetic different species of foxes that exist all throughout the world however the universal underlying theme of their social behavior is the same everywhere that constitutes their nature. They can all be said in a rudimentary fashion to live and act identically to each other despite adapting to different environments.
to say so is a sort of reductionism which is only acceptable (i guess) to the mediocre majority
Elaborate.
Sil wrote
I’m not sure what to make of this statement. Known resources on earth are finite, okay. Knowledge here is finite which logically makes sense, limited until discovered verifiably, so new resources may be discovered but they too will be finite. Knowledge everywhere would be finite by the same token, the lack of originality or newness and all that (the proverbial well of content, ideas, has long since run dry). Could you say then that formal logic/reasoning makes knowledge finite? In other words, there are a limited number of thoughts in existence ever. Have we as sentient beings reached the apex of thought already? I believe so. Sure we can keep advancing technologically, but those are revisions of already formulated theories/premises simply elevated to new levels not new in and of themselves. Even if the supernatural and paranormal become normalized, there would be nothing new there other than a realization that it always existed although undetectably, ahead of the revealing gaze of science’s technology.
The true scarcity is of novel ideas.
Nor am I, reading back. Fortunately it doesn’t affect my point, which was more to do with finite resources (the earth is spatially finite and has a finite number of atoms - indisputable) and you seem to be ok with that. Finite knowledge? I guess the current amount of knowledge each person has is finite, the amount of knowledge in a finite number of receptacles of knowledge is also finite: knowledge is currently finite. Is it potentially infinite? I would say yes, given that knowledge is just an interpretation of our experiences, and you can interpret things in a potentially infinite number of ways - although practically speaking, as you say, this requires novel thinking, which isn’t a common occurrence. I might also say no, given that no knowledge is certain. Knowledge can be better or worse making it a sliding scale, along which presumably there is a threshold of whether it is sufficient to be deemed knowledge, meaning that knowledge doesn’t need to be certain to be regarded as knowledge - so I don’t think I might say no in this way…
Anyway, tangent.
How does this work, though? A state is just a bunch of humans going to work. How do you persuade them to do this? A lot of manpower is necessary to effectively oppress an entire population, so even if the current army were ok with just following orders, it probably wouldn’t be nearly enough people for what you have in mind. Perhaps you are relying on the same kind of consent to do terrible things as we saw in Nazi Germany, given that you probably think it’s just human nature to act in such a way - maybe the incentive is to join the state military just so you can do the oppression rather than be oppressed. The required discipline to be in the military is oppression in itself, though perhaps less so compared to what you might have in mind. Who oppresses the oppressors? I guess they just need to oppress themselves into dishing out oppression… I can tell you though, that the reported mental toll of people “just following orders” and doing terrible things was significant - I’m unconvinced that the majority of the population would be able to oppress in the long term. Psychopaths sure, but they’re only about 1% of the population.
In short, I don’t think “get the state to force people into check” is a notion that you can just throw around.
It really does sound like Stalinism, what you’re suggesting. Or at least a kind of North Korea. Not a model society in practice at the very least. And who said anything about Communism? Perhaps you didn’t read the various things I’ve been saying about what Communism was originally designed to be (as opposed to the bastardised use of the term that we hear the uneducated masses using today). It’s a decentralised working class run economic model, not a centralised authoritarian oppression of social freedoms like Stalinism - that’s literally the exact opposite.
So basically you’re waiting on a world leader to emerge, convince enough people to forcefully enlighten civilians (a dark enlightenment? Was that an intentional contradiction? Perhaps an endarkenment 
), like I’m waiting on technological advances to replace at the very least unskilled jobs. How long do you expect to wait? You think the state of our democracy is on the verge of total collapse, starvation and civil war. Given how things are in the worst places in the world right now, never mind even worse places historically, there’s a longer way to fall for things to get really really bad than I think you’re appreciating. Honestly I don’t think primitive humanity can be transcended - the way that the brain is structured, it’s basically moderated and imperfectly channeled into socially acceptable behaviour, and I believe it’s based on necessary tendencies for humanity to endure. I think if you transcended it, you’d end up weakening and killing off humanity… I’m not saying I support what you mean by your reductionism of human natures, I just accept that it could be no other way. Technology though? It can be built to be foundationally different to the human brain, which cannot so easily be fundamentally rebuilt. Computers, the internet, mobile phones, GPS, technologies tend to be passed down to the masses and not just kept by elites. This is at least one good thing about Capitalism that you can rely on, there’s simply more money to be made if you make technologies available to the plebs. Self-driving cars is basically a dead-cert, it’s happening and it will be soon that huge numbers of people will be made redundant - forcing a response that will shake the core of capitalist workings and its fundamental assumptions and tenets. This is far from transhumanism and technological enslavement and it’s already threatening the status quo significantly - I’m not talking that far into the future.
How does any kind of state persuade people? It’s the same for any kind of government.
There’s always manpower in every kind of nation or government to keep people in order and check. Dark enlightenment for those that are uninitiated to understanding the greater implications at work here or the understanding of the realization of what human nature is.
Human nature is very dark but under the right kind of existential discipline that can be changed for the better under the directed leadership of an enlightened state. Human nature cannot be changed or altered but it can be controlled and restrained. With it under direct control it can be molded into something better than itself left to its own vices.
The enlightenment I speak of is about rooting out human nature helping it transcend itself so that all people have the opportunity to have a much better quality of life. For me the end justifies the means in that when specific goals are met there is a net benefit for all individuals.
This of course requires the enforcement of a different kind of social order but once again overtime will be worth it.
I have no intention creating needless oppression but I will not tolerate an out of control minority that seeks to impose themselves on everybody living at the expense of a majority of people. Those people are my real targets concerning social order enforcement. Those people deserve no quarter or mercy, those people will either fall in line or be thoroughly destroyed.
Your belief that artificial intelligence, fully automated society, or technology will save us all is naive. It is utter foolishness. You seem to have an inability of understanding the dehumanization that you suggest or how advanced technology can be used to oppress people.
The government I suggest is for people by people not machines.
Technology will free us all? So naive. No, only we can save ourselves.
The world will change once a massive enlightenment sweeps the world which I view more realistic than your technological wave taking over things.
Who said technology will free us all?
Of course that’s naive. I just say the next round of technological progress will cause a major disruption to the fundamental tenets of Capitalism.
Disruptions such as these have happened many times in the past, but I believe the magnitude and frequency of them, along with the lack of remaining options for humans is getting to a point where simply being required to find new innovative niches where human work is still relevant is no longer viable.
Does this mean that technology can’t be used to oppress people? Of course not.
Talking of naive, how about the idea that people can be forced into being enlightened? Have you no idea how human psychology works? You need to fool people into thinking that they were free to choose to be enlightened. Politicians and moreso businesses are already advancing this line of coercion by abusing loopholes in human psychology to make them think they freely chose to obey and/or consume in line with what the the politicians/businesses just so happen to want. It’s the height of all evil, but it’s in line with the methods you seem to advocate - except it works. Forcing people at gunpoint never worked.
It sounds to be like what you want to happen is already happening, just in a way that far outsmarts what you’re thinking of, and is ironically what is motivating you to react against it by using the same philosophy but dumbed down to the conspicuous.
You really ought to watch who you’re calling naive.
What would happen if everyone had everything they ever wanted?
What would these things amount to?
What is the world that everyone, as a collective, all contradictions inclusive, wants?
I believe that scarcity exists only because of this demonic formula. To keep us in check, as we are mad.
I dont think any of the noble sirs here present will deny that fact.
So scarcity helps the self preservation of the species.
A species that selects among its ranks the most lucky and vigorous, always occupied, always ready to destroy the threats in its environment and prevail.
If we would be nice to each other we would all be doomed.
Women always want to compensate for this fact. But when the fact is hidden they become the embodiment of it.
this dark feminine aspect is prevalent in a consumer society of uninspired politesse. But this society is dying. I am optimistic about where humans are going at this point.
Scarcity causes the ignorant to strive like hell, to overcome their situation of need.
They take it out on nature – as the GDP grows 10% each year*, the fools chop down 10% more trees each year, hunt available species to extinction, produce 10% more power plants and a hell of lot more plastic each year.
* Because of the economic constraint that $110 must come in where $100 was given (thanks to the unnatural law of usury)
Meanwhile, when it comes to those who receive (via rent, usury etc.) – they use the “money for nothing” cornucopia in useless ways e.g. how cryptocurrency consumes power just for the sake of consumption of power without any productive result.
(theguardian.com/technology/ … tocurrency)
When it comes to those who receive (via rent, usury etc.) – by them, Land is cornered and caused to go barren due to their incompetence – denied to man, plant, or animal. This causes the onset of deserts.
Egotistic Ignorance degenerates freshwater-based life (PH = 7), breaking it down into acidic and basic, salty death.
And such idiocy is not by any means a prerogative of man! It is a more ancient zombiform disorder*, i cite the wildebeest as the modern creature closest to the original herbivorous desertifiers:
youtube.com/watch?v=LBa0mGZ7Hoo
I believe that we are mad particularly because of scarcity (how it supercharges the zombiform nature), rather than scarcity being brought to check our madness. Man was/could have been elf, much more than he’s reduced to.
Actually the social mammals that take care of each other tend to dominate, at least the other larger animals. Insects do well not giving a shit about each other or their weak, I suppose.
But taking care of each other doesn’t mean to be constantly nice to each other.
To begin with, most social species have at least sexual competition, which means putting each other at a disadvantage.
Id say humanity was at its most vigorous, in recent times, in New York in the 80’s.
It was dank, dirty and dangerous, and attained true cultural and financial world domination.
Now, New York has been turned into a petting zoo and no one wants to go there anymore. Its gotten to be known as supremely boring, bland, because it has become so scared to offend.
Angry rant.
No.
Most humans, generally start out nice, but become corrupted by the world.
That is the theme of the Joker, a man who started out nice, but became corrupt and angry at the world.
Of course there are also super-rich, inbred assholes who are just born mentally fucked up.
But corruption (evil) occurs for 3 main reasons.
Resource scarcity: No food, so people become criminals/savages, or no love, so people become mean-spirited and bitter criminals. Ie. someone is born physically strange (genetic inheritance), noone loves them, and they turn bitter.
Random tragedy: Someone accidentally runs someone over, they are bitter about it, and start a stupid feud over it.
Stupidity: People lack the emotional or logical clarity to make the best decisions, and the world suffers their idiocy. Or they believe in stupid nihilistic delusions, like religion, and so everyone has to suffer because of their idiocy.
No.
Of course not, but if you look at Zero-sum’s description of our animal nature, quote in the post above, it leaves out things like empathy, urges to cooperate and be in close contact with others.
Sure.
Well, I was in NYC at times in the 80s. And it seemed rather colder, less social in any sense and less interesting.
I don’t know what the balance point is, and I hate the disneyfication of New York. I certainly don’t think that deep down we are all fluffy cuddlers.
But we are more complex than reptilian brain creatures that only know competition. I do think competition and part of our nature. I also think cooperation is. Probably why I have tended to love most team sports, though I do like individual sports also.
And not all I do in relation to another person is to get an edge over them. Enlightened self-interest would be enlightening only a part of me. Now the number of people I want to collaborate with is small. But it is a strong urge also. Whether in arts/music or any facet of life.
It’s sometimes like humans get presented as, deep down, they are all Rasputin. that’s not what I find.
First I am not sure how many have a deep down. Then that deep down in those who have it, sure Rasputin is there, but so are other things.
Zero sum is a victim. We should leave him alone.
I wish he could just go to a farm with baby sheep and sleep there with warm milk by his side. Poor guy. Humanity is so harsh on a guy like that.
Really?? hat surprises me. I must admit I was there for the first time in '93, when it certainly was a hell of of a lot more alive than in 2008, with is the last time I visited. I had alway figured the 80s to be like the early 90s but rawer. I really loved it in '93.
Worse, I think the cuddler-wannabes or those that want everyone to be cuddlers are frequently bordering on sociopathy.
It is a logical result of being deliberately ignorant of human nature, and thus of ones own nature, and thus of ones actions, influences.
New York certainly does not appear more friendly now. Just more hypocritical, boring, expensive and emotionally flattened. It felt back in 2008 like everyone was on lithium.
For me a team is essential to a lot of things, certainly friendship is one of the highest ranking values in my universe. I do think that, in order to establish a team or a friendship, all the members must have tested each other. You can’t form a meaningful bond just out of pure goodly cozy friendliness. You have to know each other, know how you respond to pain, insult and adversity, among other things. Otherwise you can’t know if you’re really a team.
I think Rasputin is like a baby sheep compared to modern liberal politicians. But of course, yes. We are much like animal predators, full of empathic depths for our own, willingness to sacrifice ourselves for them, we have “infinite goodness” if you will but only those of us that have fierce dispositions. Sheep wont fight for their offspring, prey-animals don’t generally display traits of nobility, but predators often do.
Of course in the meek and the ideologues of meekness, this causes severe cognitive dissonance. But its rather inevitable, as as to be truly good, a lot of passion is required, and passion never goes well for an animal that needs to be edgy and calculating all the time for fear of being eaten. Passion, thus nobility, generosity, goodness - all that is reserved for those that live on the offensive.
Well, it was my impression as a native new yorker of the changes. Of course I changed too. I liked ny better in the 90s, but I did not live there, just visited.
OK
OK
I don’t know why but that struck me as funny. I mean, I can’t say it’s not what I would also do, but it makes it sound like boot camp testing by the seargents. I would guess for me I would first say things like: is creative and intelligent, has passions and strong interests, is willing to talk deep - if we are to be close friends rather than just collaboraters which still also requires quite a bit - has a good sense of humor (I fucking need that((they don’t have to be comedians, but they better recognize my humor or it ain’t gonna work))) - probably has an interest, lay or otherwise, in psychology. They can read people, they notice dynamics and they don’t mind discussing that stuff.
Rams will sure as shit fight. I don’t know about sheep mothers in relation to children. Other prey animals will fight - all the cattle ancestors, those that are still around, horses, even deer will sometime go head to head and their bodies are not well made for it except for bigger males. But, then, their bodies are made for defense not offense for the most part.
Humans are both predators and prey, bigger than some and more powerful, weaker than others. Our brain/culture made us apex. I guess I see us as slightly more predators, which is why we often don’t get horse culture. I mean a horse can beat even large predators and will fight and be noble, etc. But I don’t think we quite get horses the way we do dogs/wolves.
Sounds active vs. passive. I am not sure I want to live on the offensive, but I do want to make life as I want it. Laughing as I realize. I loved defense in sports. But of course defense can be really offensive. I loved defense in both american and rest of the world footballs both. Of course in the latter I didn’t have the ball skills to be a scorer, but man I loved shutting them down.
I guess it must have been best in the 90s.
Though I did enjoy my stay in 2007 and 08, I did find it remarkably meeked out but still plenty to do. I took a summer workshop at the NYFA, very nice.
I was a bit negative.
Yeah I may have been militarized a bit over the years in my approach to life.
Ive encountered such depravity in people I had thought to have had a good relationship with that Ive actually changed.
It was very interesting psychologically, and still is.
Points granted, and interesting observation about horses. It seems that their nobility is recognized throughout different cultures. It must have something to do with the combination of vulnerability and power.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sgm4EW6rg0[/youtube]
Damn I talked a lot of crap this morning. Or Im not longer used to people patiently reading.
Ok so the point where I came into this thread, what was that again? Did I clarify anything at all?
Im in the position of not caring for discovery in the intellect anymore, only in controlling the psyche with the use of what Ive discovered seven years ago.
I feel Ive said everything Ill have to say about general concepts a thousand times and said it well most of the time.
But a few years ago I have basically lost interest in communicating myself other than to my friends with whom I develop this theory into unfathomable depths every day since 7 years -
Ha, this has been a ride.
But Ive definitely slackened somewhat in regular conversation. Also, Trumps win completely threw me off, I had no idea such awesome things were already possible. But it fits precisely within my own narrative of self-valuing standard setting.
This led up to the elections with my friend starting out as a fervent anti-Trumpian and my other friend and me finally changing his mind.
beforethelight.forumotion.com/t7 … as-all-law
the thread reached its maximum pages so the matrix started another one;
beforethelight.forumotion.com/t9 … as-all-law
In terms of psychology and amusing oneself with it.
Since the dawn of agriculture tribal people have insisted that scarcity is not the problem, that the issue is civilized people tend to organize like a flock of chickens. When stressed out, chickens will literally eat each other alive not simply because they are stupid to begin with, but because thinking is not anyone’s strong point when they are seriously stressed out. Hence, anarchists have compared both Stalin and Reagan to roosters, with chickens organizing according to whichever have the better memories and most reliably peck the chickens lower in the pecking order.
As a result, anarchists have insisted you simply have to be smarter than a damned chicken if politics are to remain meaningful. Forty years of studies concluded the republican party is organized along the lines of a flock of chickens, and even neurologists reluctantly concluded that the neurons in our brains organize like chickens. Enlightenment, is becoming smarter than a damned chicken! Embrace your inner chicken for its stupidity and political slapstick starts to make more sense. For over twenty years now, Americans have been voting for whoever advertises the most and, then, voting the bums out of office with a twenty year study by Princeton concluding that no matter who was in office, only the top 10% of the wealthiest ever got anything they wanted. Notably Trump was elected against the wishes of his own party and ran on a platform of being an outsider. Scarcity is simply not a problem if you are a brainless chicken, and one in five Americans insists the sun revolves around the earth, while academics are now proposing the government censor the internet for their own protection.
The issue with capitalism is the same issue with democracy, its impossible to have either one if nobody is actually listening.