How do you know that? Iâll put it to you another way: tell me which resource you think the earth is running out of, as opposed to being intentionally scarce.
Thereâs a whole bloody trail to the bank painted with people who have invented alternatives to oil. They donât get implemented because the oil industries cannot make nearly the same type of profit from it. So this brings me back to the Jungian thing, the point of which I think you missed, so I will go back to it later. What Iâm saying, though, is that this isnât a problem of there not being enough resources. I have found no compelling evidence that is the case outside of the MSM. Iâm not saying there are no ecological issues at all, but I donât think itâs something which we cannot fix and keep the population we have. It is my stance that the desire to kill people is psychopathic paranoia at being unhinged from power dressed up as the green issue. There is a guy, Alan Watt, who is essentially a âitâs all the masonsâ type figure, but he breaks down the green lie very, very well.
The animus refers to the male archetypal figure from the female pov, but Iâm just using it sort of for both. There are different iterations of the animus, but one of them is the authority figure. Before you can move from authority to⌠guide, I think it is, one must sort of overcome or subsume authority. So going back to the drunk father example, what is going on is the media is saying âyouâre fucking awful. Look what you did. You made daddy drink. He hates you, and needs to blackbag anyone who dissents because you drove him to this, you pathetic little peonâŚdaddy only gives you a police state because he loves youâ when really, this isnât our fault - Daddy really is a satanic occult drunk ritual sex party half-possessed psycho - and we need to overcome the fear of not having some archetypal psychological backdrop. The guide is waiting.
I somewhat disagree, yes. I do agree that the third world has to live in shit for us to live so well, given our current methods, but I think we can change the way we look at energy, and how technology can aid, instead of imprison, society. Benjamin Fulford is kind of a nutcase, but he proposed a global âcontestâ to build up Africa and other nations, the winner of which gets something they would want - I forget what it was. The Venus project seems a little fishy, but again, itâs another way in which we can not just use a slaughter as a blanket answer.
Not necessarily. Take this example: planes spray the sky with chemicals, daily, worldwide, and itâs likely to cause the global warming in the fashion they said they would in that book I described. In The Next Global Revolution the Club of Rome says, literally, âYeah weâll heat up the earth with scientific techniques and then blame it on humanityâs irresponsibilityâ (they even talk about how the original plan was âglobal coolingâ but they realized that heating would be easier to do with the aerosol approach.) Using a lie to spread justified fear is maybe justified. Spreading fear over a manufactured thread is less so.
The point that seems to keep quickly wearing off on you is the following: greed, lust, and uncontrollable consumption patterns are attributes pushed on the world by this plan. Itâs sort of like you said, while man wasnât the epitome of reasonable by any stretch, he was more or less at a balance with nature until England got into the mix. Thatâs why you might want to check out that book. They go through all of this. How theyâre going to engineer man to hate himself because of the very social conditioning they enacted. The dialectic. We went through this.*
Now, Iâm not saying âOh letâs hope it will work outâ I take an active role. I do hope, but I am doing something about it as well. Youâre not hoping for anything - fine, thatâs kind of whatever - but you donât seem to care, really, what, if anything happens. Is any outcome the next paradigm of evolution⌠I guess, yeah, but I would prefer certain ones over others. What Iâm getting from you is âthis is nature, so anything that happens is natural.â Correct me if Iâm wrong, but that is how it reads if we boil it down. That is, by simply waiting and watching what will happen (because there is no point in trying to change something so massive)* youâre serving some natural function. Youâre serving the same function as the most unaware zombie. Youâre just standing there, watching. So I see your stance as far less involved. My confidence in this comes from the fact that, despite your views on drugs, and facing things authentically, and intellectually, youâre still (seemingly) slightly clueless as to what is going on, and why. Iâm kind of letting some stuff go. The irrationality at the heart of the human has been supplanted there, and your advocating we just step aside and wait for the people responsible for it to kill us and take away that irrationality.
I donât see this as any more positive than you, but man was never meant to be some disorganized tribal person forever. Weâre analytical: we order.
I can concede that, after youâre already engineered him to be that way, yes, suggesting he doesnât want to be that way would be heading in the right direction. This is, quite to the T, the Hegelian technique I was talking about, though.
*I can see a bit better now what you meant by âthe impossibility of stopping them being inherent to the ideaâ when I say stuff like the above starred selections. All I can say is nothing is impossible. This time right now is quite precarious. They havenât been able to shut the net off yet. Once they do I may be a lot more like you. Anyways, just because they have successfully implemented a fairly comprehensive multi-generational plan doesnât mean itâs all sealed and delivered. As is the case with most basketball games, the last quarter is all that matters. Anyone who is of the mindset that the game is over, is on the bench. Yes, I will continue using bad sports analogies.
Ok, first off let me say that was very well written. I do not disagree entirely with what youâre saying. Iâve always had a strange fascination with Plato. There is validity to this Platonic approach in that some of us think broadly, some just walk on the broadways. All great feats of human ingenuity have involved some sort of power hierarchy. The Philedelphia Projects - well, really, any black ops science project - is a good example of compartmentalized ignorance that allows for the scientific soul to flourish. Most of these types are good people, learning/existing at their capacity, contributing to the collective knowledge pool.
I do see a lot of faith, though. I have a âtough loveâ mentality. For example, purely hypothetically, drugging someone with a drug that would incapacitate their body for the purposes of raping them is, to me, sick, and malicious, and people like that should be locked up because society doesnât benefit from that behavior; on the other hand, though, drugging someone for the purposes of them discovering some sort of potential within themselves, again, while not something I would do, or have done, is kind of funny and I would be OK with those people being out there. If you push someone over the proverbial edge most people are going to be alright.
The point is there is validity to this Platonic approach. I think we can agree on that. Each group inspires the other, in secret, I think, I just donât understand why the general public has to serve as the springboard for a bunch of psychopaths. Theyâre a natural product of man, but they do not really represent humanity. They represent like 1%. Weâre supposed to use them as the springboard: learn about our souls from the people who donât have them.
This gets at what I just wrote above. I see a species, seemingly so soulful (I realize that is a poor philosophical term, but I think you get what I mean) as valuing things other than sending Patrick Bateman to the stars. It doesnât have to be âlifeâ in general, or even human life, but I see it as being something vaguely related to âhumanness.â
⌠Weâll get to this.
Yes, thanks, Tips. That point was not that literal, it was describing a psychological function that exists somewhere between conscious and unconscious. No one (or very, very few) people actually think, consciously, âeverything is a lieâ but unconsciously, when faced with that general realization (wow, another sector of my life is a giant lie? Where does it end?) the conscious moves in accordance with emotion. This brings me to my next point, which is that you seem to be like an emotional jedi. I mean I think you realize at some level that paranoia, fear - any of these emotions - are not conscious decisions: no one really decides to exist in this âinauthenticâ (I have yet to conceptualize how you can know one from the other) manner any more than they decide to suffer from heartache. So⌠tell me your secrets?
Fair enough. I can see what you mean here. I can accept that definition.
Everything is drugs. Those ways youâre talking about are just mimicking the function of drugs; drugs mimic the function of certain⌠ways. My point is that itâs all the same. Like I said, I canât really see how something in life can be any less authentic, fundamentally, then anything else. I had a pretty real dream last night.
They donât, though. Who has told you that you can use drugs to get an immediate achievement? I do a lot of drugs and Iâve never heard that. That sounds like media nonsense. Ask any artist, ever, throughout history (cause a hi-- a large percentage of them were high) and theyâll tell you the same thing: anything worth having, or creating, requires work.
Fair enough. Something about this - all of this - just doesnât sit right with me, though. When you take a psychoactive/hallucinogen (which is strictly what Iâve been talking about) you know implicitly it will be different than sobriety. You have to know that; itâs categorical. So fretting over whether something is authentic, or genuine â none of that makes any sense to me. I donât really want to argue about drugs with you either, but I am interested to know how you feel you can step into this area of objectivity youâve been describing in the past couple of posts, regardless of the drug part of it.
I feel like Iâm in emotion, irrevocably, that we all feel it, but itâs knowing the techniques in which people use emotion which allows me to consciously analyze it. Likewise, just to use a topical example, if i know the ways in a drug influences the brain, I can, afterward, consciously analyze the way in which I use it. Anyways I feel like weâre probably talking about the same thing, but I am interested to hear how you put it into words. Also, maybe we are not talking about the same thing, in which case that would be even more interesting.
Of course everyone loves you really, even if they are all jealous.
Bush et al fucked up your reputation and now people are laughing behind your back.
I think its going to take a long time and a few less wars before you to repair your reputation tbh. Unfairly or not people just donât trust or like the US atm. Some people never did but then you do insist on fighting wars you canât win, and toppling democracies to institute autocracies and generally dubious behaviour. Then you have the gall to turn round and act offended when said countries tell you to fuck off. I loved it when the Venezaulan president said âI can smell sulphurâ after meeting with Bush, made me laugh. Might even be what idiocy smells like.
America never had an Empire, but it does seem to act like a belligerent colonialist piece of shit anyway something we all know only too well.
America wasted its golden age post WWII and is still recovering from its pointless political and military posturing now. China will soon of course replace it as the worlds foremost economy, and most powerful state. The decline of the US is the fault of its government, you voted for these assholes though. I can sympathise we have laboured for the last 40 years under some of the worst and most incompetent pieces of crap ever to grace politics too.
Again jealous of what, you have got nothing? More sort of contemptuous and mocking of the worlds elitocratic clowns. Itâs hard to be jealous of something you would rather die than be anything remotely even closely like really. I doubt even Zimbabwe is jealous of the US. Why would anyone be?
Things about the US no one wants to ape:
Nationalism - generally indicated by over agrandizing your own worth and being contemptuous and underplaying everyone elses
Massive ego
over compensating
One of the poorest social mobilities in the developed world
government is basically run by big business
Media is far worse than Pravda ever was, particularly Fox.
Elitocracy - or should that be idiocracy.
5% of the population own most of the wealth
endemic racism, although getting better
tendancy to be a colossal political hypocrite - condemns Iran for having a nuclear program (which it badly needs and is perfectly entitled to have anyway), despite the US supplying it with its reactors in the first place. Being as the US also implemented a monarchist figurehead that replaced the democratic prime minister in a coup, which was itself implemented by the US to garner favourable Western oil concessions, when Mossedeg decided to try and lift the yoke of Western control over their oil fields. This seems a little rich. Europe supplied the centrifuge enrichment technology too btw.
likes to sell arms to everyone and drugs if helps fund a war or two and then bitch at people who point there own guns atm (no need to mention it sells guns to future enemies such as Iran). Has penchant for covertly replacing Dictators with drug dealers and or scum and then condemning said countries.
Doesnât like to apologise to anyone for anything, particularly its war crimes, because its too good for that.
Warmonger, tends to start wars at the drop of a hat and bs repeatedly about the reasons.
Believes international law and the UN is an inconvenience, probably still believes Iraq was a legal war, despite the fact that it has veto powers so no one could say it pointedly. Signed a treaty on torture and then broke it, because it doesnât seem to give a shit about its promises.
Economically backward, labouring under uber capitalism
Legally backward, holds more prisoners in its jails than any other country combined on earth, but still has high murder per capita and crime rates. Still institutes the death penalty, despite it having no value or function and costing way more than the alternatives. Has silly laws based on a game of basebal!? Which is supposed to deter crime but doesnât work
Still has some of the laws of the West, some Americans appear to think they are cowboys still.
Claims to be the most culturally significant country in the world all the time, despite it being too young a country to have developed any discernible culture of its own, with the exception of maybe TV.
Comedy sucks badly, and is all pretty much the same thing but with 4 slightly different people.
Thinks everyone is jealous of their backwater hell hole
I can go on, but I think you get the point. Yes people are contemptuous of your country, and no seeing as they are doing much better than you they are not jealous.
Yeah youâve been everywhere, Iâm pretty sure people arenât going to joke about you to your face, youâd probably end up at war with them or at least try to sell them drugs or guns.
shut up. You actually really believe anyone is jealous of your tin pot shit heap.
No one likes you because you and your presidents have behaved like colonialist assholes and ruined your reputation for the next 50 years. Itâs quite straight forward, you are the worlds bitch.
I wouldnât youâll spend far longer trying to reach the top in the US than anywhere else in the developed world.
Itâs kind of like being jealous of a polished turd.
Do you really think that anyone is jealous of the US or is this just another manifestation of your seedy nationalist, racist dogma? Someone can only not like us because they are jealous it couldnât be because the world is now a far mroe dangerous place than ever it was before your clown shoed presidents fucked it up, could it. Or the fact you delight in screwing over other countries with pointless posturing and silly costly wars. No couldnât be that could it?
Witness the demonstrations held recently all over he world, as anger over the unfunny americans erupted spontaneously in cities large and small. âDeath to Ellenâ was the chant in Tibet. âSeinfeld is the Devilâ in Rio. In Zurich, they tried to hang Leno in effigy, but they couldnât get the rope over the dummyâs chin. They do such precise work in Switzerland.
Itâs true. The US has been caught looking in the mirror several times. And sometimes it wonât talk to people. Especially people whose verbal skills are so weak that they have to personify a nation in order to discuss it. I happen to know that it doesnât respond to its mail if that mail uses emoticons, as well. Seems the US assumes that it must be talking to a minor, in that case. The US is a bitch that way.
Correct. Marshals and sheriffs have to wear white hats and bad guys are required by law to shave no more than once a week. Remember that in the airport - it could save your life.
Correct. You donât even know he half of it. In addition to three strike laws, thereâs the foul ball law - if your balls cross the line between being hidden and being seen in public, they are considered foul balls and you are committing a crime. Then thereâs the Minor League Home Run law - if you hit a home run in league with a minor - youâre going to jail, podner. And of course thereâs the Infield Fly Rule - if youâre going to unzip your fly in public, youâd better be out in a field, taking a pee.
Absolutely. Itâs no wonder that Americans are sheep. Theyâre confused. Every possible point of view is represented in american media. How are you to know which propaganda to believe? Maybe you can start up an online news service, Calrid. You know, finally an unbiased approach.
Hey, by the way, if you need any guns or drugs, call me.
My point here is that scarcity is a basic fact of material existence. All life reaches the point where its environment cannot sustain its growing population, and that population wanes as a result. Man temporarily skews this process by manâs use of technology to alter the conditions of his environment directly, allowing for more population than would otherwise be supportable. This is fine, except for 1) technology is inherently harmful just as it is inherently helpful, and the harm and potential for harm grows along with the benefits, 2) even technology cannot do away with scarcity as a basic fact, which is the same thing as saying that human global population cannot continue to grow forever. We are making the situation the worse for us the more dependent we become on our technologies. Likewise, even this dependency does not save us from the conditions of material existence. You point out that there is artificially induced scarcity of certain resources; I do not dispute that. But that is a secondary issue. Even if this were not the case, man would still face a limit to his population size and growth. Why does this matter? Because, artificial scarcity or not, man faces the specter of pushing beyond his environmentâs ability to sustain him. What percentage of the worldâs population is poor and starving? A significant percentage. Much of mankind has existed in poverty, misery and starvation with or without the help of âglobal elitesâ and human systems that manipulate resource availability, quantity and pricing. It is as if you think that were we to remove these draconian manipulating systems and groups from power, mankind would suddenly be swimming in excess of food, water, energy and resources, plenty and then some for everyone on earth. That is not the case.
So I circumvent the issue of artificial scarcity to look at the deeper, underlying problem of human population as such. I know you are more concerned with the former problem, and I am not belittling that problem here, only it is not my chief focus. Perhaps we just have different motives and intellectual investments here, which do not coincide enough for us to come to some sort of agreement in terms of how we construct our views and ideas on things.
Okay, we get back to the essential issue here, at least for me: the âgreen lieâ is not a âlieâ, man must become more responsible for the wellbeing of himself, his fellow life on this planet, and the planet itself. Man is a veritable God of the earth, over it and all life, and man must live up to this tremendous responsibility â so far, he is not living up to it, he is acting utterly irresponsibly, short-sightedly and greedily. You are trying to pin all of (okay, not all, but certainly most, or the most salient at least) humanityâs faults on manâs being manipulated and socially engineered by vast global conspiracies - in this way you are shirking mankindâs responsibility for itself. On an individual as well as group level. No, I am not saying such social engineering is not true. I accept it is true, in fact it is pretty much a logical given, even without reading any of the material out there, that such things can and do happen. But this does not absolve man for his personal responsibility over himself.
Now, I would be the last person to think that man as he is, now, is capable of such responsibility, as a whole, and so it makes little sense to âblameâ him for not acting responsibly. But the problem persists however we distribute blame: man is pretty much a spoiled, selfish child that abuses his environment without regard for the long-term viability of this behavior, and without love for his fellow man, for other life on this planet, or for ecological concerns in and of themselves. Part of manâs maturing into a somewhat conscientious species would be his taking on concern for and direct responsibility for the state of the earth. Man has this within his power, but most people donât care at all about such things - they just want to consume and feel good. Give your money to Greenpeace and buy a Prius, and they forget all about it. Well, that is not sufficient, of course, and it is only a masking of the real contempt and apathy regarding these issues. And yet, what does the fact that these people desire to give money to Greenpeace and buy Priusâs tell you, considering they do not actually care about these issues of environment at all? It tells you that these values, these ideals are spreading through human societies in a still unseen way. Man reacts to them, it becomes desirable to be seen, by others and by oneself, as caring about these issues, even if these issues are still too new to be fully accepted and realised, even if man is still too immature to understand their importance and accept it on a conscious level.
The point here is that the âgreen lieâ is not a lie, we are facing real environmental problems. Consumption is not without consequences, scarcity is a fact of material existence. And if a certain amount of politicizing of the ecological issues is needed to force mankind to accept and understand these ideas, to learn in a personal and genuine way about what it means to be veritable Gods of the earth, and to take direct responsibility for this planet and for all that happens here, then these âliesâ are entirely necessary and serve positive historical ends.
I see so many people, like yourself it seems, who understand that much of the âgreen issueâ is predicated upon political manipulation and is ingenuine, and so they react against this in a crude and unthoughtful manner, and swing entirely to the other side, with âThere is no green problem!! Itâs all a lie!!â Well, that is of course equally false and an equally childish position. We need to get away from this sort of black and white reactionary thinking. The fact that issues are politicized does not render those issues without merit or truth. But the fact of politicization certainly does give otherwise motivated people a nice excuse to evade and ignore these issues, by clinging to the political side of it at the expense of the truthful side.
This may all be true. And yet, man is still for many reasons contemptible in his nature. Man is ignorant and immature. Why or how this is does not matter much to me. What I do care about is how we react to this situation - we ought not react with self-loathing or hate, as âtheyâ would like us to do. Rather, we need to see man as a child, no more than an infant in terms of evolution of his consciousness, of self-awareness. We do not blame infants for their irrational and stupid behavior, we do not loathe them for their ignorance. And yes, children are certainly very easily manipulated.
If media is trying to get man to âhate and blame himselfâ, then of course I do not condone that. But that is not the real issue here, to me; again our interests do not necessarily coincide. I am concerned not with how man got to this situation or with who is trying to take advantage of it and why â I am concerned with how man is as he is, now, what this means in terms of the implications for man, his evolution and his survivability, and how man can reach the next stage of his evolution of consciousness. Do I really care that âtheyâ are trying to cultivate manâs self-hatred by creating artificial environmental problems? No. Because there are real environmental problems that need addressing, and because man must, one way or another, come around into full consciousness of his responsibility for himself and for his planet.
I do not subscribe to Utopian notions. There is no âworld Venus projectâ that will create some paradise on earth, and man is not going to come into a perfect land of plenty for everyone just by throwing off the yoke of oppressive political systems. But again, I am not using âslaughterâ as a âblanket answerâ. What I am saying is that if we want to come around into a position where the destruction of not just man and his cultures but also of the earthâs ecosystems themselves is not an inevitability, population needs to be brought under control. I think this will happen naturally, it always does with every species. One way or another man will be reigned in by nature, into a more manageable balance with his environment.
Yes, but again, I do not shift all the blame onto these entities. Man is responsible for his position on earth, for what happens here. Man needs to evolve. Now, are you saying that ALL of the environmental problems and socioeconomic problems on earth are caused by these âelitesâ? If so, then I can see why you focus so on them. In your mind, it must seem as if, if we could only get out from under their yoke, mankind would be ushered into paradise, peace and plenty for all (I am simplifying, of course). My point is that I do not share this paradigm of yours; I accept and understand much manipulation goes on, man is âblamedâ for things that are not entirely his fault or even in his control. But this does not make the problem go away. With or without âtheirâ plans and plots, man is still faced with the growing pressures of scarcity and overgrowth of populations, man is still faced with the burden of coming around into full consciousness of his responsibility for this world.
Okay, we identify the heart of our disagreements here: you place blame ENTIRELY on âthemâ. I do not. I see âthemâ as a part of the problem, a big part even, but not the problem as such. They are a manifestation of manâs deeper need for evolution in consciousness, and they are a mechanism toward this realization.
I think your shifting all the blame on âthemâ is a way for you to avoid placing blame on man himself, and a way for you to avoid facing the still present facts that man is in a precarious position regardless of âtheirâ influences. I think you need to see âthemâ as THE bad guy in order sustain your paradigm here. Which is fine. But that is not what I am concerned with here, my concern is the state of things as such, as they are now, and where we are going and ought to go from here. I see âthemâ as part of the problem, but the are certainly not THE problem - they are a manifestation of âthe problemâ, which is man as he is, manâs nature and state of being in terms of his intellect, consciousness, conscientiousness, relative to where man ought to be given the state of his relationship to his environment.
I will check out that book; I have read many such books over the years. None of them convince me to absolve mankind of his personal responsibility and need for evolution in consciousness. They paint good pictures of what is âreally going onâ, yes, but that is supplementary material for me, it does not occupy the center of my sphere of concern here.
I can see that you still do not seem to grasp my position very well at all. That is regrettable.
Yes, but the problem with using this fact as a shield against the mechanization of human nature at the hands of technology is that it is not enough. The fact that man is analytical, that being a cog in a machine is not ânaturalâ for man does not mean it still is not the case, or will not happen in a very real way. Human nature is always changing, up in the air, evolving over time as new ideas and passions and meanings are introduced, wax and wane in the soul. My point here regarding technology is really only that we cannot bank on technology to âsave usâ, in fact quite the opposite. I see the specter of technology as as a graver threat on the horizon than âthemâ, in so far as they are only a manifestation of the essence of what technology is, what it means for mankind. They will make use of technology, yes, but that technological spirit, that essential reality pervades and pushes into man, deep into his nature, changing him, remaking him. This is still very new, and we do not yet know what course this will take, but we can certainly form guesses. Science fiction has done much of that work for us, and we know how true science fiction tends to becomes with time.
Essentially, man needs to âwake upâ collectively speaking and assert his Ego, his sense of âIâ, Self, responsibility for his own being and for the beings that are entrusted to his care by virtue of his dominant position on this world. Man needs to find again that essential core to himself, that ground of Being which is his spirit and desire for life, love for life and for a better existence. All that has been built up around us by technology and by âthemâ could come crashing down to a halt where this to occur, were man to truly wake up. And yet, this does not happen, it cannot happen as of yet. That point is still off in the future somewhere, as a distinct possibility; likely, perhaps, but certainly not inevitable. But certainly ultimately outside of our individual ability to direct, control or influence in any real way. We can choose to be a part in this or that flow toward or away from such an âeventualâ reality, that is our position of responsibility, of freedom of choice, that is how we participate and work toward these goals. But this is also why we need to conceptualize these goals and this work in more concrete, immediate real-world ways, because we intuitively know that we can only make such small differences in the moment, here and now, and that ultimately that final reality, that point at which mankind either enters or fails to enter into a new dimension of self-responsible consciousness, is outside of our hands. This anxiety of the unknown and the uncontrollable is what terrifies us, unconsciously. This unconscious anxiety is then fuel for our more real-world projects, for our motives to âfight the good fightâ and thus feel as if we are âmaking a differenceâ.
Again, I do not shirk responsibility for man as he is, I do not avoid placing it where it stands now. I believe that your desire to see âthemâ as THE problem is your will to denial of the essential problem at the core of manâs existence here and now, in light of this manâs nature and its relationship to its environment and to the future. But I could be wrong â maybe it really IS all âtheirâ fault?
Maybe I am just not paranoid enough to accept that? But I believe I have more than adequately laid out my reasons as to why this is not the case, why âtheyâ do not constitute the sum of mankindâs essential dilemma.
I quite agree.
It always is. Each generation, each moment in history has its eternal struggle.
Your analogy is an adequate one. The game is not âsetâ, certainly, although the score going into the 4th quarter still makes a big difference. If the score is 15 to 120 at the beginning of the 4th quarter, well, sure it is still âpossibleâ for the first team to win, but⌠you get my meaning.
That isnât really what I was getting at with willed ignorance and self-deception being at the heart of the human â but I can for the most part agree with all that.
Yes, there is something valuable within humanity, its âhumannessâ as you put it. I describe this generally as the experiential subjectivity of consciousness, self-awareness (the consciousness of consciousness)⌠depth of Being.
I am not an emotional Jedi, at least not that I am aware of. But I do have deep insight into my feelings and emotional states. I sort of âseeâ the multi-layered nature of these states, objectively when I contemplate them and directly when I experience them. This is how I know that paranoia is not the root unconscious source of the otherwise ânegativeâ reactions that occur when one moves from within the herd to outside of it.
It just depends on what that experience imparts to you, how this being-imparted lines up and coincides with your deeper essential nature - is the experience incorporated comprehensively into the sphere of our consciousness? Does it inform that sphere in ways that are productive of it, or destructive? Does it expand this sphere or contract it? Do these experiences on drugs impart knowledge that is consistent with your deeper self that core nature, thus edifying this nature, or do these experiences run counter to this, overcoding it, forcing this primal natural energy to flow into artificial and insufficiently conceived boxes where it becomes trapped and gives rise to prejudices, habits, unconscious mental blocks, a fundamentally un-openness to oneself?
If I work hard to achieve a philosophical insight, by reading, writing, thinking hard for a long time, if this clarity of insight and accompanying emotional euphoria arise from this part of myself, then I will be author of this experience, I will own it, my psyche will integrate it fully because it has already traced the inner nature of this experience from the beginning, it knows where and how it fits into by overall being. Whereas, if I just pop some acid, those philosophical insights are of a different quality. This is not to say nothing good can come of them, and it is not even to say that anything detrimental will come of them â it is only saying that the quality, the character of the experience and how it relates to me, to my âessential beingâ, are different. You draw the line where you want in terms of this relationship to self, and I will draw it where I want.
Experiences are always such potential tools, they are always utility to the subject. If you find great utility in drug-induced experiences, then wonderful. I can say that based on my own experiences with drugs, while pleasurable, they did not inform my philosophical insight or clarity of mind, they were never a substitute for introspection, deep thinking, reading and writing.
Seinfeld and Ellen are indeed painfully unfunny, and almost make me depressed watching them. Then I flip over and find friends, well friends with 2 slightly different people and 2 more slightly different friends and I come to the conclusion that there is merely an autobot2000 writing all American comedy.
WTF happened, you used to write decent comedy now its all just the same old shit repackaged as the same old shit. Sometimes I just think the real writers died 30 years ago and studio execs have been fevourishly fishing through their bins looking for material ever since. Which means all they find is the stuff they rejected and then get fucking Doogie Howser to play friend 2.
What kind of conversation were you expecting? You throw out half-assed generalities lambasting my country and you expectâŚwhat, exactly? I noted that my observations based on my experience were nothing like what youâve described and thatâs all I wanted to say (along with proposing a theory as to whatâs really behind the lambasting).
Youâre very wrong, in my estimation, and thereâs really nothing more to say than that. Now go run off and call somebody else a twat.
No I think Iâm done calling people twats for today, you asked why people dislike America and intimated that the whole world is just jealous of how fucking wonderful your egotistical nationalistic country is, you didnât like the answer because secretly youâd love to believe anyone could be jealous of you, but the problem is everyone thinks your country is kind of the Joke country of the developed world who got rolled over by China and has been royally screwed by a series of incompetent idiot presidents. Not my problem though. Go back to believing the whole world is just US wannabes if you want, if its comforting to believe obvious falsehoods, knock yourself out.
The real reason you are so widely disliked, by so many countries is all of the above though, undoubtedly.
Arrogance, delusions of grandeur, and false pride though is seldom all that flattering, trust me.
