Homicidal, suicidal

#30

Postby JasonNobody » Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:09 pm

The truth is, one cannot believe in “authority” and be free, because accepting the myth of “government” is accepting one’s own obligation to obey a master, which means accepting one’s own enslavement. Sadly, many people believe that begging the master, via “political action,” is all they can do, So they forever engage in rituals which only legitimize the slave-master relationship, instead of simply disobeying the tyrants. The idea of disobeying “authority,” “breaking the law,” and being “criminals” is more disturbing to them than the idea of being a slave
JasonNobody
 


#31

Postby Leo Volont » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:12 am

JasonNobody wrote:The truth is, one cannot believe in “authority” and be free, because accepting the myth of “government” is accepting one’s own obligation to obey a master, which means accepting one’s own enslavement. Sadly, many people believe that begging the master, via “political action,” is all they can do, So they forever engage in rituals which only legitimize the slave-master relationship, instead of simply disobeying the tyrants. The idea of disobeying “authority,” “breaking the law,” and being “criminals” is more disturbing to them than the idea of being a slave


Hi Jason,

Well, it is okay for the Lion or the Elephant to prance proudly and declare that their Size and Strength, Cunning and Prowess, will keep them safe. but we are not all at the top of the Food Chain. So, what does one do if one is middle on the Food Chain? Well, that is where the Herd Instinct pops in. Societies can band together in order to arrive at Strength in Numbers. One needs only to look at the Loss vs Benefit Analysis. What a Socialist Society provides is not just FREE STUFF but also protection from Capitalist Oppression: low wages, periodic unemployment, long hours, dangerous working conditions, and all the humiliations and the violations of our human dignity. But what you seem to advocate is I guess a kind of political anarchy, which I must not understand well enough because I can't figure out why it has such appeal for so many people (though it has a Romantic Bad Boy quality and I suppose the guys get a lot more sex). but anarchy is the Law of the Jungle, isn't it? It's the Renunciation of Civilization. Have you read Thomas Hobbes? the Uncivilized Condition: " No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." .... But most people remember the SOLITARY POOR NASTY BRUTISH AND SHORT part. Barbara Tuchman wrote a great history book about the 100 Years War back in the 14th Century, "A Distant Mirror", in which we saw the breakdown of Government and what happens when everybody is at the mercy of the Forces of Private Arms and Private Wealth. so, yes, we NEED the Herd Instinct. Think of Human Beings as Bison, and everyone who stays with the Herd is safe, and the only ones who are in danger are those who straggle. I would NOT want to be a straggler. Voting for the Herd is our only Hope. But, yes, it IS inexplicable how many People vote against their best interests. they are virtual Cattle and they Vote for the Meat Packers and Butchers.

But, yes, it's great to share ideas with you.
User avatar
Leo Volont
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:26 am
Likes Received: 138

#32

Postby JasonNobody » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:07 pm

Hi Jason,


Hi Leo.

Well, it is okay for the Lion or the Elephant to prance proudly and declare that their Size and Strength, Cunning and Prowess, will keep them safe. but we are not all at the top of the Food Chain.


That's life. Might is right on this planet. Dog eat dog world. That is the current reality on this planet. Nothing moves unless you have power and in most cases - money.

So, what does one do if one is middle on the Food Chain? Well, that is where the Herd Instinct pops in. Societies can band together in order to arrive at Strength in Numbers.


Numbers = Power.

But what you seem to advocate is I guess a kind of political anarchy,


Nothing political. I want other people to join me and opt-out of the current political landscape. It is anarchy in the same way (in my "sanctuary" world view lets call it that for now) that you are seen as a Kingship, a sovereign being, independent and free, and with your own moral compass and logic.

but anarchy is the Law of the Jungle, isn't it?


Correct. and this is what I have been getting at for a long time. If, and only if, the human being is "good" through which they come to their own conclusion of what good is and that goodness that they define extends to other people even if those other people define differently what goodness is. It gets complicated but I can prove it. My underlying claim is that people are not good and can never be good and that human race can't be saved because they desperately seek authority or assume that someone has to be in charge. They cry out for a leader to lead them. This is not how I see it. I lead first with "trust other people" knowing that they are selfish and capable of making mistakes. If people can not do this they will remain passive to life and IMO might as well go commit suicide.

It's the Renunciation of Civilization. Have you read Thomas Hobbes? the Uncivilized Condition: " No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." ....


No I haven't read any of that but I will put it on the list.

But, yes, it's great to share ideas with you.


you to. Take care.
JasonNobody
 

#33

Postby Leo Volont » Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:37 pm

JasonNobody wrote:

My underlying claim is that people are not good and can never be good and that human race can't be saved because they desperately seek authority or assume that someone has to be in charge. .


Hi Jason,

Oh! You think everyone is looking for a leader or somebody in Authority. Well, that may be what it looks like to you, but, you must realize that you are if not anti-social, well, you are not a Social Being. You are a 'loner', right? So when you look at Societies, what you SEE is their Authority Figure, or their Hierarchy System, and you think that that is the Focus and Purpose. But the Head of the Snake is just the Head of the Snake. but the Snake is the Whole Nine Yards. The People who are Social Beings, who form up these Societies can see their leaders simply as Functionaries. Think of it like the Local PTA (Parents Teachers Association). The PTA always needs to have a President. Most people don't want the job. There is a lot of tedious stuff to do. Everyone is glad when Mrs. Dobora agrees to do it. Now, somebody outside looking in would think that she was the Leader that everybody was looking for. Mrs. Dobora is just a Functionary. Look at America right now at that young Phenom Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Outside looking in, she is the effective Leader of the Progressive Party and all the Progressives want to follow her. But, on the inside, within the Society of Progressives, she is seen to measure up as the best Functionary for filling the highest possible Political Slots, and that is because she expresses the Personal Value of the greatest number of people within her Society. So, Jason, you see Society as Leader-Centric. It's NOT. We have a "what came first? the Chicken or the Egg" thing happening here. Leaders are for the sake of their Societies, NOT Societies are for the sake of their Leaders.

Oh, and you see no good in Humanity. Well, yes, Humanity is not entirely Good. Probably about the year 1000 BC Zarathustra in Persia began the Moral Revolution. Before him, while there was a concept of Law, sort of like Rules to Play the Game by, there was no solid concept that there could be some Inner Compass and Personal Orientation that would be Benevolent for Family and Society, as opposed to a Personal Tendency towards the Predatory and Destructive. Well, Zarathustra (Zoroaster) conceptualized this and then made it his Mission to raise awareness of this Good Evil dichotomy and then to advance a program for Supporting Good and Suppressing Evil. The Moral Revolution took off quickly and had about 10 good Centuries, enough so that today we know what Good and Evil is, but Zoroastrianism was centered in the World of the Persian Empire, and with the Fall of Persia, first to the Greeks, and then the Remnant of the Persian Empire again being trounced by the Arab Conquest, well, the Moral Revolution was hobbled. Medieval Europe, that was almost entirely built up the Societal Structures set in place by the Catholic Monasteries (that held themselves aloof from the Bishops who were then-now-and-always will be corrupt), well, they were a Moral Society, that is they had a sense for Social Morality. but being continually overrun by wave after wave of New Barbarians (those believing in the Pre-Moral Ideals of Heroic Virtues -- Manliness, Bravery, Cunning, Strength, and anything that would make for a great Warrior and Bandit, but they were innately predatory and they would conquer and live like parasites on the Societies they latched on to) and Catholic Europe, while successfully able to Assimilate these Barbarians, still, it takes 2 or 3 generations each time, and Europe could barely keep up. The Reformation and then the Industrial Revolution with its Capitalism was basically a full retreat away from the Moral Revolution and we went back to Barbarism. The Socialist Movements are an attempt to swing back to the Social-Moral Revolution, though they are way too Materialistic and go over-board in trying to be entirely Rational about everything. They need to realize that Morality is primarily an Aesthetic. Goodness and Beauty are much the same thing, and as difficult to rationally define. People don't want to be Rationally Happy. They want to be Beautifully Happy.

So, Jason, while you see the Badness of People in seeking out Leaders (what I think is a visual misinterpretation), I see the Badness in People as being prone to Predatory Competition and Cannibalism. They say that Human Beings are Social Animals, but apparently not social enough.

But, yes, with you, Jason, I don't think this is a Philosophical Debate. I think that you simply don't have the usual Social Instincts. You're not comfortable with people. You look at Groups of People and really have no idea what's going on with them. Well, that is enough for the moment.... I got Real Work to do. Talk to you later Jason.
User avatar
Leo Volont
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:26 am
Likes Received: 138


Previous

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to Anger Management