As the feminists tell us.
The reversion is noble, instead of our current emphasis on the herd and collective action, this axiom stresses individual action and initiative. A good feminist, according to dicta, does not simply argue the politics of "women's issues" but makes a point to live recalcitrant to levelling social mores.

The strategy is effective (the decline of the feminist movement is hardly the fault of this) and ought to be examined.

Social power operates using what I call "spheres of influence".
Culture, for example, is a large sphere.
A couple or a family is a smaller sphere, the individual is the smallest and most concentrated sphere of all.
Her control of herself and acceptence or rejection of social mores is paramount.
The smaller the sphere, the more visible is the control excercized therein. The smaller the area, the greater the pressure.
The family was the essential unit once. Acceptance of and deviation from social expectations was reinforced by the family.
As the control the family has over the individual declines, the unit increasingly becomes the individual. This fragmentation does, paradoxically, increase the hold society has on the individual.
With no set of ancestral traditions, the individual becomes increasingly defined by popular culture, which is inherently trend-based. Few standards are left by which a person can define themselves, thus they cling stridently to those which are left - money, possessions and fame. Ideology, a collective force, quickly becomes a form of self-definition. By making the personal political in our current cultural climate, one ends up with a culture of vacant shells fighting for vacant ideals.
In the end, only the noble and truely self-rooted can thrive in such a regimen. Being a movement that aims for the many, the strategy could not concievably work for the feminists but has promise for those who seek to net the few.

While I like to think that I understood what I read and I am hoping I did could you clarify this for me

Ideology, a collective force, quickly becomes a form of self-definition.

Is this your own work?

As the control the family has over the individual declines, the unit increasingly becomes the individual.

Do you relate this observation with every culture or just Western?

sargentlard:
Is this your own work?

Uh, yes.


Do you relate this observation with every culture or just Western?

Dislike the thing about "eastern" and "western" culture, but I think it applies across the board. Look at China.

spookz:
What in the hell are you talking about? Damn, I need drugs to sound that moronic and out of touch with reality.
By no means am I proposing a road to the "ubermensch" through feminist axioms, get your head out of your ass (it's distended enough as is).
Rather, I'm playing with ideas of social vs. individual action. Jesus, you moron.

Abusing your mod duties huh? Deleting all the posts that challenged your crap?

I saved the first:
I am going to enjoy showing the illogics, predominantly non sequiturs, that plague this thread.

As the feminists tell us.
The reversion is noble, instead of our current emphasis on the herd and collective action, this axiom stresses individual action and initiative.
Where is the reference for what these feminists "tell us"? There is a reversion from an emphasis on the collective or herd you say, by the feminists?

A good feminist, according to dicta, does not simply argue the politics of "women's issues" but makes a point to live recalcitrant to levelling social mores.
Whatever. This does not equate to an abandonment of the collective.

The strategy is effective (the decline of the feminist movement is hardly the fault of this) and ought to be examined.
What are you talking about? How is the "strategy" effective? Where is the decline of the feminist movement?

Social power operates using what I call "spheres of influence".
Fine.

Culture, for example, is a large sphere.
Fine.

A couple or a family is a smaller sphere, the individual is the smallest and most concentrated sphere of all.
Fine.

Her control of herself and acceptence or rejection of social mores is paramount.
Paramount to what?

The smaller the sphere, the more visible is the control excercized therein.
Fine.

This fragmentation does, paradoxically, increase the hold society has on the individual.
With no set of ancestral traditions, the individual becomes increasingly defined by popular culture, which is inherently trend-based.
This is utter nonsense. How does the family unit acquire its traditions? On what are the social traditions based? Your argument is circular as it that the family unit is a group, and the society a group; inflencial people affect the family, and the society.

Few standards are left by which a person can define themselves, thus they cling stridently to those which are left - money, possessions and fame.
What standards were there originally? Every definition of the self/individual is based on the individual, which is based on the family, which is based on the society.

Every question in the form of "how do you reach this conclusion means said conclusion cannot be reached from the premise or by the argument.

Ideology, a collective force, quickly becomes a form of self-definition.
How do you reach this conclusion? Also, where does ideology come in place when one discusses money, fame and possesion?

By making the personal political in our current cultural climate, one ends up with a culture of vacant shells fighting for vacant ideals.
What ideal? Ideals as decided by whom? Why are they vacant? When was the personal not the political climate?

In the end, only the noble and truely self-rooted can thrive in such a regimen.
Nonsense. The self rooted have always thrived. What regimen? An imganined new epoch of the personal?

Being a movement that aims for the many, the strategy could not concievably work for the feminists but has promise for those who seek to net the few.
How do you reach this conclusion? The feminist ideal is the self preservation, freedom, and self realization of the female. In the success of the "few", the many benefit. In the environment of the democratic, the one cannot realize this success without the many achieving the same. One female does not demand a right to vote, equal pay, and the like. There is no feminism in nation states where the ideal has not been realized. You spew nonsense, and your post is not fully realized.

heh
i too saved but deleted when it remained for a while.
i will post my take again

and this thread will move to site feedback if she persists

3 posts deleted. she had also responded to them
what a pathetic loser

Social power operates using what I call "spheres of influence".
Culture, for example, is a large sphere.
A couple or a family is a smaller sphere, the individual is the smallest and most concentrated sphere of all.

what is a 'her'?


Her control of herself and acceptence or rejection of social mores is paramount.
The smaller the sphere, the more visible is the control excercized therein.

only to the members of the sphere. Control is sometimes more obvious in huge spheres. See dictatorships, or Moderators of forums.



The smaller the area, the greater the pressure.



Nonsense. I totally depends on the culture within the sphere. Sphere size has nothing to do with it.


The family was the essential unit once.
still is.



Acceptance of and deviation from social expectations was reinforced by the family.

still are


As the control the family has over the individual declines, the unit increasingly becomes the individual. There is always a sphere according to your own 'theory'.

This fragmentation does, paradoxically, increase the hold society has on the individual.

not paradoxically, since the spheres were always there (bad writing! tsk tsk)

With no set of ancestral traditions, the individual becomes increasingly defined by popular culture, which is inherently trend-based. Few standards are left by which a person can define themselves, thus they cling stridently to those which are left - money, possessions and fame. Ideology, a collective force, quickly becomes a form of self-definition. By making the personal political in our current cultural climate, one ends up with a culture of vacant shells fighting for vacant ideals.
In the end, only the noble and truely self-rooted can thrive in such a regimen. Being a movement that aims for the many, the strategy could not concievably work for the feminists but has promise for those who seek to net the few.

There seems to be a big hole between 'noble' and truely self-rooted' and the previous assumption. And both are extremely empty terms.


congrats.

Almost acceptable for high school.

Congratulations, you've completely missed the point.
It isn't an argument (see deleted attempts to make it one). The idea is quite simple, and the WANDERER grasped it quickly.
Why can't you boys be as smart as him?

what is a 'her'?

What?

only to the members of the sphere. Control is sometimes more obvious in huge spheres.

Now this is a good point. A large group (as Le Bon noted) is easier to control than an individual, the herd-mentality comes to play. Ever been to a baseball game and seen "the wave"?

Nonsense. I totally depends on the culture within the sphere. Sphere size has nothing to do with it.

The culture is a sphere, not "within"

still is.

Not really, at least in western culture. Parents go off to work, they leave their kids' ideas to be formed by t.v and school and mass-media. Family rarely picks your spouse, and one is much less dependant on the validation of the patriarch. For instance, my dad wants me to be pursuing my Masters l rather than...doing what I'm doing now. I don't want that. I'm not doing it.
This would have been the cause of a serious rift 100 years ago. Now it's not.
Then again, I couldn't be pursuing a masters back then anyway.

Another thing. Women are finding increasing social recognition as human beings in their own right. The power of - ahem - patriarchial society is declining, but it is being replaced. By? Mass media.

not paradoxically, since the spheres were always there (bad writing! tsk tsk)

I'm sorry? Do you have any idea what I'm saying, or are you just trying to look smart by criticizing it?

I like criticism, but unintelligent criticism wastes my time.

And again, you delete a post of mine. A power trip? An ego trip? I know you are insecure, but this is quite frankly pathetic. You are abusing your authority, and I do not know why Porfiry allows you to retain your position.

Were our objections moronic, you would not have responded to them. Also, in their stupidity, they could have stood as a representation of our ineptness, no? You deleted the posts because they showed your original to be moronic. You are abusing your authority and such, you should resign.

I'm sorry? Do you have any idea what I'm saying, or are you just trying to look smart by criticizing it?

I like criticism, but unintelligent criticism wastes my time.

This comment was referring also to the previous comment. An influence that suddenly appears but always has been there by removing another influence is hardly a 'paradox'.

Do you get it now?

This comment was referring also to the previous comment. An influence that suddenly appears but always has been there by removing another influence is hardly a 'paradox'.

Do you get it now?

I wrote of course an extremely bad sentence. But i don't care.

edit: na ja, delete or ignore all this crap. I am not interested in this amateur philosophy.

I wrote of course an extremely bad sentence. But i don't care.

edit: na ja, delete or ignore all this crap. I am not interested in this amateur philosophy.
This is more sociology.
But philosophy includes all disciplines. :o

"This is more sociology. "
lol. The most laconic post I've ever seen from you, and one of the more truthful-- with one modification. The comment should've been: this is more like bad sociology.

Xev,

It's been a while since I've existed intellectually - hence functioned - within the context of academic freedom proper. I now exist intellectually - hence function - in the context of reality proper. Quite the dichotomous struggle to reconcile...... Anyhow....

I think I get what it is you're saying. The "feminist" struggle for "equal" recognition, within the context of "societal norms", is doomed at the outset because of the context. Am I anywhere near your train of thought??? If not, disregard the following.

I think your proposition minimizes the effectiveness, and power, of individuality by emphasizing the influence of external factors on the individual via method that intellectually challenges the worth of those external factors. It appears to me you are discrediting the very basis of your argument by disproving its logical worth.

Is it possible for you to illustrate the above with an example?

There have always been strong, assertive, determined women who seemed to defy social and cultural mores in the interest of their own self-development and actualization. They didn't need feminist ideology because they harboured the necessary qualities to use or gain power, even if is just power over their individual life). They are few for sure, but aren't such personalities always in the minority? I see modern feminism as becoming increasingly irrelevent. What need is there for feminism when women have the choice to marry or not, bear children or not, explore their sexuality and achieve their own ambitions? Feminism was a goal of practical rights to opportunity and privilege, once these have been gained the ideology itself has no more use except to hold on to those rights. Once those rights are available to all it is only the individual who can take advantage of them. I hear women complaining about the failure of feminism to revolutionize men ie: Many work all day and have to come home and care for children, house and husband (more work). There are those who would love to stay home and care for children but cannot afford to because the economy demands a family have two incomes to live comfortably. I know of some who complain that men still leave them with the responsibility of children because its they are their problem. In short many have decided that they cannot do it all and feminism made them believe all was possible ie: get an education, climb the ladder of success. Gain success. Discover at thirty that they want a husband, make the mad dash to secure long-term mate. Now biological clock kicks in and they begin to notice how cute babies are, makes appointment at fertility clinic due to pre-menopause.

Being free means increased responsibility. It means making choices and there are so many choices for women, especially as you pointed out that family expectations plays an increasingly smaller role in shaping decisions. How can a woman be an individual if the media spoon-feeds her her needs (as it does to everyone)? She has to be strong enough to withstand the demands placed on her by society but a woman who knows who she is (self-defined) and what she is after in life is never daunted by the massess. One can see the same dynamic with minorities who after having earned their civil rights realize that only through individual discipline and determination can any goal be reached. They too had members who reached levels of distinction when overwhelming obstacles were in their way. The revolution of the mind, principles adhered to, fortitude of character isn't something that can happen within an ideological box it can only happen within the individual.

Is it possible for you to illustrate the above with an example?

To whom is this question directed at?

The thread starter.

I'm not a feminist, I hate women, they make more humans and I hate humans. Men suck too but they at least design weapons best efficiant at killing humans, plus they look and smell nice so I semi-tolerate them. Actually, kill them all too.

fireguy:
I think I get what it is you're saying. The "feminist" struggle for "equal" recognition, within the context of "societal norms", is doomed at the outset because of the context. Am I anywhere near your train of thought??? If not, disregard the following.

I've completely forgotten my train of thought. But that sounds like a good statement - the feminist movement (or any other social movement) just suceeds in modifying social norms.
I'm not even arguing, really.

Lucysnow:
I hear women complaining about the failure of feminism to revolutionize men ie: Many work all day and have to come home and care for children, house and husband (more work).

Why would you want to revolutionize men? Unless in the sense of a return to things as they were in say, pagan Scythia or Scandinavia.

They too had members who reached levels of distinction when overwhelming obstacles were in their way. The revolution of the mind, principles adhered to, fortitude of character isn't something that can happen within an ideological box it can only happen within the individual.

Precisely.

I think feminists are fucking lesbian trolls or those meek little ivory tower cretins. Women have it pretty hard in the third world, what with having their clits butchered and everything, but its not really that great for the men anyway, so lets just say that the third world is a shithole and it has nothing to do with gender. In the west if you have nothing better to lament than the 10% pay disparity between the genders youre really a fucking tool of the most profound kind. The "domestication" of women was bunk from bored bitches to begin with. Apparently they felt a little oppressed by the "expectations" that women confine themselves to the domestic sphere...wow gee..that I makes a whole lot of sense now doesn't it because man have NEVER had ANY expectations levelled at them. I suppose having to work 40 hour weeks and go to war and get your balls blown off is just one of those benefits the poor house wives having to sit at home and clean the house in between daytime soap operas were never privy too. Feminists Rullzzz rock.

Quote: Why would you want to revolutionize men? Unless in the sense of a return to things as they were in say, pagan Scythia or Scandinavia.

Well I did not say I wanted to revolutionize men I wrote something to the effect of "I hear women saying that feminisim failed to revolutionize men". Revolutionizing men is only relevent if a woman feels burdened with the expansion of her role. If a woman does not have a mate who takes on half of the responsibilities of managing home and children, or if she feels besotted by sexual innuendo at work, double standards and the rest of it, it's because feminism was a single gender revolution to the exclusion of men, some feminists even attempt to 'de-masculanize' the male (like andrea fat-fuck dworkin). Not that feminism didn't change culture or society or roles, but that men do not see women's issues as necessarily being there own.

Boombox:
Don't worry, keep your balls wherever you keep your intelligence and none shall harm them.

Boombox:
Don't worry, keep your balls wherever you keep your intelligence and none shall harm them.

What? Little too cryptic for me...

Xev:
In the end, only the noble and truely self-rooted can thrive in such a regimen. Being a movement that aims for the many, the strategy could not concievably work for the feminists but has promise for those who seek to net the few
And the price one pays for 'nobility' is social suicide. For some it takes years to realize this.

Rebellion for rebellion's sake is only a tug on the chain, and the louder you show that you're pulling it only looks like you're playing with a necklace. I myself had to learn this. In later years when the show is over and no one is watching you fall in that paradox you spoke of (I believe it was you- not sure. No matter) of rebelling against rebellion. Protesting that canned defiance so common to innocence.

This grasping for character in a fragmented world devoid of That Comfort - this grasping is what happens when shackles are exchanged for another. Borel is one of those French bohemian dandies you'd like to rip apart for being so fake but he wrote about being conscious both of his power and of his chains at the same time when he 'woke up'. Those chains are valuable, wouldn't you say? They keep you from proving that you really have the power you'd think you have without them but secretly question the veracity of your own gospel and fear taking them off.

All social ties are shackles.

And know what eats me? That as women we are the worst demographic when we shoot for nobility. Let her wiff freedom and she'll waste it on the pilgrimage she'll make to some other social net that will never be cast wide enough to protect her, some mirror to find herself in since she's lost without shiny things to look in. You, me, them, mankind will never be noble so long as you insist on having domestics to ensnare you.


The cost is social suicide. Wouldn't you agree?

Fountainboy:
You spew nonsense, and your post is not fully realized
You've got Freud's signature written all over you.

(Andalusion dog #3)

Boombox:
What? Little too cryptic for me...
I'm thinking everything is bloody cryptic for you.

gendanken:
And the price one pays for 'nobility' is social suicide. For some it takes years to realize this.

Of course. And that's the problem - the more free you become the harder it is to function.
The more (mentally) powerful you become, the less possible it is to be (socially) powerful. How do you conceal yourself? How can you conceal yourself?

This grasping for character in a fragmented world devoid of That Comfort - this grasping is what happens when shackles are exchanged for another. Borel is one of those French bohemian dandies you'd like to rip apart for being so fake but he wrote about being conscious both of his power and of his chains at the same time when he 'woke up'. Those chains are valuable, wouldn't you say? They keep you from proving that you really have the power you'd think you have without them but secretly question the veracity of your own gospel and fear taking them off.

Exactly. Yes, one does question one's gospel yet fears removing them.

And know what eats me? That as women we are the worst demographic when we shoot for nobility. Let her wiff freedom and she'll waste it on the pilgrimage she'll make to some other social net that will never be cast wide enough to protect her, some mirror to find herself in since she's lost without shiny things to look in. You, me, them, mankind will never be noble so long as you insist on having domestics to ensnare you.

Are we? I've always figured that the choice would be clear - nobility requires ultimate solitude, otherwise the people you associate with will hold you back.
But perhaps it's just a matter of finding the right associates and not becoming dependant.

The cost is social suicide. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes.

The power of - ahem - patriarchial society is declining, but it is being replaced. By? Mass media.

I don't know if "replaced" is really the word, seems more like someone changing hats to me. Genius boys like boom are just finally getting around to seeing that their end of the stick may be just as short as the girls' end.

Soon enough they'll pretend that there's another "in crowd", like being fashionably homosexual. Does that mean that the people in charge are now "metrosexual"? Nah. Just means they changed tacks.

BigBlueHead:
Soon enough they'll pretend that there's another "in crowd", like being fashionably homosexual. Does that mean that the people in charge are now "metrosexual"? Nah. Just means they changed tacks.

Clarify please?
You're arguing that those who run society are - well that there are people who actually run society? And that they've changed strategies?

Xev:
Of course. And that's the problem - the more free you become the harder it is to function.

It is but I think you missed why I think so and its here:

Exactly. Yes, one does question one's gospel yet fears removing them.


The fear is not removing that gospel- by “gospel” I mean that bold voice inside that amplifies this sense of dignity in the midst of swine all around one. The fear is in removing the chains. Somewhere in there, don’t know if this is the case for you, but somewhere in there you realize both power and shackles (as in social ones, no matter with whom and how) ...you realize both those things simultaneously and in one breath you detect the unthinkable- you’ll actually have to exercise this power once you tear those chains from the wall and are you sure you have it? You've just questioned what you thought was unquestionable.

In bondage you don’t have to prove anything.

Its almost like the angry man screaming behind bars- he’ll bellow and torment his captors with the vengeance he’d rain on their heads as soon as he gets out or he'll ~nobly~ romanticize his future success to their face once given the freedom but what will come of him as soon as they let him free? Give him a chink to slip through at night and prove himself- his brief pause soon after betrays the value he placed on those fucking cell bars without knowing it.

You ask how one can conceal her and himself and the easisest answer is ugly. The true one is impossible. Maybe. We'll see.

I asked:
"The cost is social suicide. Wouldn't you agree?"

to which you replied

"Yes."

I'm not talking pretty stabwounds or fashionable gashes in neat places. I'm talking totallity.Social suicide. Out there is a yawning chasm of middle classed throngs SO easily disposed of. That's nothing. Those lost souls with the puppy eyes that follow you around because they're still young or dumb and don't know better- just as easily disposable. I'm talking leave this place and all those people you keep around as anchors (you know what I'm speaking of, yes?)- all of this to complete it. There's no "...perhaps it's just a matter of finding the right associates and not becoming dependant". Suicide cuts everything off while the blood's still warm. T-o-t-a-l-i-t-y.

Impossible? Or does it only require more dedication?

Bigblue:
Genius boys like boom are just finally getting around to seeing that their end of the stick may be just as short as the girls' end.


Wrong, blueboy. The girly's end is always shorter.

K, I'll try to explain - apologies if this gets long-winded.

In general, in society, there is a large group of people who wish to have membership in a group. The benefits of having membership in a group are often advocated both directly and indirectly, but even without this sort of advertisement there are often people who want to be given a sort of direction for their lives... to be told what to do, if you like.

These groups often have a leader or implied leader of some sort that effectively hands down the orders, although the orders will be handed down by way of several proxies in most cases, and may change quite drastically. The Catholic church, for instance, may discover that some of its ministers preach tolerance of homosexuals where official doctrine does not. All the same, all of the people in the group still believe themselves to be the same kind of people, even if their beliefs are opposed (as in, antagonistic) in some cases. Usually, sufficient excuses are made by each subgroup to consider the others "still brothers/sisters/whatevers". The actual breakup of a group usually only comes after much conflict.

Now, these groups are not discrete and can overlap, as I believe you mentioned. A common problem of most groups is the splintering thereof; a good thing to remember is that, in every group you are a member of, there will be a smaller group that you are not a member of. (Unless it's your group.) The "feminist" movement, such as it was, suffered this kind of splintering between various subgroups of its members when they came to understand that their banding together as "women" couldn't reconcile their non-gender-based differences of opinion (relating to their age, racial background &c.)

BUT each group generally has either a real or illusionary leader that gives the original orders, however much they may be reinterpreted by proxy leaders. (The simpler the orders, the more easily they are disseminated, for obvious reasons.) Often the initial orders are wildly reinterpreted by the proxies, of course - a good lot of people decided to accept Richard Dawkins as their visionary in terms of genetics, which they took to imply behaviour, and ended up saying what seemed to be nearly the opposite of what Dawkins was originally trying to say.

So... often there will be a very vague group of people, like "American men", who as a group have almost nothing in common other than the nationality and gender implied by the name of the group. These people, though they might not agree on much else normally, still somehow agree on their membership in the group.

Now comes the large proportion of these people (as there will be in many groups) who feel that they benefit much more from external guidance than from their own consideration of how they wish things to be. I agree that the mass media now exerts a strong hold on these people, because it constantly tells them how to dress, behave, what to want, and so on. It comes down not as orders from a single leader, but in the form "Everybody X", where X is a phrase that denotes some behaviour, mode of dress or whatever.

Does everybody really X? Probably not. But if enough respected political figures, such as Jerry or George or Kramer, say everybody X, then the guidance seekers will believe that - since no counterargument is offered - enough people X that they should X too. Along with Xing, they will claim that "everybody X", possibly in the form of a joke used on their favourite TV show. This becomes a form of social pressure for the other guidance seekers, who may be slower on the uptake, but still want to feel that they are doing the right thing according to accepted social rules.

So it comes to pass that a group of people will follow some arbitrary rules placed upon them by their own mutual assent.

NOW

Not all of these orders are created for a reason. The "five-second rule" of edibility in dropped food is not much of a social doctrine, and doesn't really support or detract from the position of any higher-up group of people.

Not all of these orders have their particular structure for a reason. The "little boys play with toy cars" rule helps to bolster the sale of toy cars, but if the toy car companies had instead made concrete kachina dolls, they could have said "little boys play with concrete kachina dolls" instead and had much the same effect.

BUT

Some of the groups are receiving their "everybody X" orders from an actual organization with an actual agenda. The orders will be tailored to that agenda.

The organization may disappear, but if it does, it leaves a headless monster which runs around begging for another head... consequently, the change of leadership usually isn't noticeable from the ground level, because it doesn't necessarily coincide with the change of ideas, since an organization that wants to control a group will usually come armed with the ideas that the group are already supposed to believe in.'

So it's circumstantial, but usually there is an organization controlling any large group of people that all claim co-membership. It may change, but large and widely-spread groups of this kind generally do not lead themselves and are vulnerable to this kind of control.

Bigblue:
The organization may disappear, but if it does, it leaves a headless monster which runs around begging for another head... consequently, the change of leadership usually isn't noticeable from the ground level, because it doesn't necessarily coincide with the change of ideas, since an organization that wants to control a group will usually come armed with the ideas that the group are already supposed to believe in.'

Smooth. I can sit here and read that till my eyes bleed.

Humans have this nasty habit of feeling life only through membership, and so long as there is a collective to run with he won't have to think about why it is that he finds himself with those people, he'll never define his beliefs in any other words but his neighbor's or the fact that they look, think, or act alike and it doesn't matter a lick that his monster changed heads so long as there are others in its tummy with him taking up the cause they know nothing about as righteously as he is. And just as long as the monster moves at least one of its limbs could you make them feel like they're going anywhere- even though they're all trapped in its tummy choking on bile.


And for these feminists- they'd like to think "sisterhood" once rescued is the most powerful thing in this world but let a man kiss her hand and watch all that fiery patriotism crumble like pie crust. Fucking women.

Which feminists? There's a bloody lot of different kinds, that group has splintered so badly that only the Popular feminists think that they're still part of anything... and they're the ones who read fashion magazines and fantasize about Colin Farrell chain-smoking in their beds...

gendanken:
The fear is not removing that gospel- by “gospel” I mean that bold voice inside that amplifies this sense of dignity in the midst of swine all around one. The fear is in removing the chains. Somewhere in there, don’t know if this is the case for you, but somewhere in there you realize both power and shackles (as in social ones, no matter with whom and how) ...you realize both those things simultaneously and in one breath you detect the unthinkable- you’ll actually have to exercise this power once you tear those chains from the wall and are you sure you have it? You've just questioned what you thought was unquestionable.

No, I understand - one appreciates the chains because they keep you from having to prove that power, from doing the things that you may well not want to do. Deep down, are you ruthless enough? Smart enough? Strong enough? But the chains keep you from having to risk it all.

There - do you even know what the fuck you're doing? The chains at least keep you knowing, instead of throwing you into absolute confusion where you'll have to find yourself. Again. And again. And again.

You ask how one can conceal her and himself and the easisest answer is ugly. The true one is impossible. Maybe. We'll see.

Gendanken, I know how to conceal myself. What I did made me vile - I smiled a lot and tried to be likable. When I snapped out of that I released my aggression like a fury, like I was trying to prove something to myself. Now that's spent, and I'm wondering if I even care about concealment.

Oh yes, I do.

Impossible? Or does it only require more dedication?

I don't know. I've come close enough to cut everyone off, but I kept returning to humans.
The point where you have liquid nitrogen instead of blood? Know it. But still here I am. I've come so close to the bottom - and I keep bouncing back. And every person is a chain. You know what that means: camraderie is just another way they control you, sex is just another way they control you, understanding is just another way and love is just another way they control you. Rarely do they even know what they're doing. And the alternative is being fucking alone. I don't mean the noble "I have no masters" type of alone, I mean utterly alone. Where's weakness, where's strength? And your destiny or nature or whatever the fuck it is keeps tugging at you.

BigBlueHead:
Which feminists?

The real ones.
Yeah, the movement has split but the core ideals remain the same.
Just because a dumb whore like, say, Suzy Bright or Christina Sommers claims to represent feminism doesn't mean they do.

So it's circumstantial, but usually there is an organization controlling any large group of people that all claim co-membership. It may change, but large and widely-spread groups of this kind generally do not lead themselves and are vulnerable to this kind of control.

Information theory, I like it. You have one or two primary meme bearers, and then you have their ideas spreading out throughout the group in diminishing strength (like the law for universal gravitation) and being modified and enforced by the bulk of the group. An individual is nothing, but their role is essential and yet replacable at the same time.

Depending on the organization and tradition of the group, the meme bearers are either strictly controlled (like in traditional Jewish societies) or pretty much left up to their own devices (American consumer society) and the group forms its shape based on that.

Quote:And for these feminists- they'd like to think "sisterhood" once rescued is the most powerful thing in this world but let a man kiss her hand and watch all that fiery patriotism crumble like pie crust.

Too true. As Simone De Beauvoirs admits in The Second Sex a woman's allegiance to her man outweighs any solidarity towards other women.


Quote:camraderie is just another way they control you, sex is just another way they control you, understanding is just another way and love is just another way they control you. Rarely do they even know what they're doing. And the alternative is being fucking alone. I don't mean the noble "I have no masters" type of alone, I mean utterly alone.

Xev why do you see this as their way of controlling and not an opportunity to open up? An expansion?

Xev why do you see this as their way of controlling and not an opportunity to open up? An expansion?
I've been trying to convince her of this myself.
The dream of the 'overman' has condemned many to an endless reaching for something they can never reach.
This ideal is reserved for a species other than ours, for a species that is inhuman.

Solitude is a prerequisite of nobility but the experience of being human is not always a noble endeavour. Death, our own mortality, our limitations, our unavoidable weaknesses forces undignified action and thought upon us.

As social beings we must accept our need our dependence on a supporting group, our limitations and our weaknesses cannot be denied only minimized.
What distinguishes one from another is not some absolute state of separateness but a difference in degree and the quality and spirit of the becoming.
It is not that we can become noble in some idealistically absolute way, but only that we can become nobler than the other or in comparison to what we were.
Superiority inferiority is just a matter of gradation in a universe of no absolutes and no perfections.
So if we are to be imperfect let it be with those that share our degree of imperfection.
If we are to be dependant, let it be on those that deserve it and that will appreciate it and reciprocate.

Many in their youth get caught up in the ego, one of the lower levels of lucidity, and so perceive the ‘I’ as the beginning and end of what they are.
In fact man is both individuality and multiplicity man is both a singularity and a part of a whole. Dionysian/Apollonian, Ying/Yang, Mind/Body, Intellect/Instinct.
The acceptance of both sides of human nature or what is called the human condition and the contradicting ways they often relate to one another is the acceptance of the totality of the human experience.
If we are to be servants let it only be servants to our own nature.

Gendanken/Lucysnow:

That (Simone de Beauvoirs &c.) is why the Lesbian Seperatist feminists came about... pursuit of a stronger form of membership with one another by cutting out the men. Often they make the claim that having men around clouds their real identities...

Identity is often the battle cry in situations where people are trying to claim membership in a group. (I always thought this was strange, because I don't really think of "identity" as being the same as "having a place to belong". But, the comments on chains in the last few posts may argue against that division of mine.) Some people even address their identity as being the sum of their relations with other people - "I am Rosemary's granddaughter, the spitting image of my father blah blah blah" as that one song went. I am still unsure how to feel about people who judge the quality of their character by their social proximity to/popularity with other people, since this seems to carry the implict premise that "any large enough group of people is correct".

Xev:

You have one or two primary meme bearers, and then you have their ideas spreading out throughout the group in diminishing strength (like the law for universal gravitation) and being modified and enforced by the bulk of the group.

Aside: I'm not sure if I like the idea of memes exactly, because I think the evolutionary model of information propagation ignores the importance of agendas - that is, natural selection on organisms has no agenda and is basically random, where social selection on information is more like a kind of "information breeding", whether it's intentional or not. End aside.

Now, you mentioned the media before, which I think is an extremely important development... by having a media presence, the leading organization can reduce its number of proxies (which used to be necessarily large, because it's a kind of pyramid scheme) to a very small and recognizable group. The ostensible leader can speak to you directly as a member of the group. (You can't answer, but that doesn't matter, because information doesn't need to go up the mountain, just down.)

Now what does this mean?

First! The media teaches division between people; they start by teaching you about membership in a group, and then teach you that you'll be unable to communicate with the people outside it... and then the people inside it. The goal is to bring you to a position where you don't feel that you can communicate sideways... only up the ladder. (Of course, information doesn't go up the ladder, just down.) This way, they develop a situation where the only judgement you are told you can trust is theirs, and where you aren't capable of sending out information, only absorbing it.

Then they sell you stuff. Ordinarily, this is the goal. By getting people in the position where they believe that the only thing that makes sense is their media (which we often like to feel is uniquely ours) the media can convince them that their personal value is connected to those material things that they buy.

Lucysnow:
Too true. As Simone De Beauvoirs admits in The Second Sex a woman's allegiance to her man outweighs any solidarity towards other women.

True, economic marginalization fucks people the hell up. On the other hand..."gender" is a poor thing to owe allegience to.

Xev why do you see this as their way of controlling and not an opportunity to open up? An expansion?

I don't say that they do this deliberately. However, personal ties become just that - ties. You're afraid to risk yourself not simply for self-preservation but out of concern for others.
The question ultimately becomes more than whether you can bear pain but whether you can give it.

Blue:
Point taken on memes, but that's off topic.

Now, you mentioned the media before, which I think is an extremely important development... by having a media presence, the leading organization can reduce its number of proxies (which used to be necessarily large, because it's a kind of pyramid scheme) to a very small and recognizable group. The ostensible leader can speak to you directly as a member of the group. (You can't answer, but that doesn't matter, because information doesn't need to go up the mountain, just down.)

Oprah.
Yes, the proxies can be fewer but more public.

Then they sell you stuff. Ordinarily, this is the goal. By getting people in the position where they believe that the only thing that makes sense is their media (which we often like to feel is uniquely ours) the media can convince them that their personal value is connected to those material things that they buy.

One question - you speak of goals and intents. Do you believe this is done deliberately or as a natural process?

I'll respond in depth later, I have class.

One question - you speak of goals and intents. Do you believe this is done deliberately or as a natural process?

Unhhh... hard question.

I believe that it can easily be done without intention, but may be done deliberately by a skilled organization. I'll try to explain, although I know this isn't clear (that is, it's a matter of degree to some extent).

Least degree: When you communicate with another person in any way you have to adopt a context with them, so in a very simplistic way you demand their membership in your linguistic context. This is a hideous oversimplification of behaviour as product, however, so I'll say that it's possible to communicate with another person without "selling" them anything.

Greater degree: When you try to adopt someone into your group in an attempt to increase your group's numbers - i.e. recruiting - the techniques you use may be relatively intuitive/unconscious. When someone says, "Don't you want to have a group of people who will love you and take care of you?" this may not be a deliberate attempt at sales exactly, but only an appeal to the emotion that they are feeling. This may be just as manipulative as any other technique but is not necessarily deliberate.

Still greater degree: Some of those who sell products/ideologies may use a technique without understanding the nature or degree of its effects. This is the case with a lot of advertising, where it will be implicitly claimed that failure to buy a product will result in your life continuing to be as shabby and unfulfilling as you fear it might be in relation to others. "Lifestyle advertising" (as an example) is an appeal to the fear of the individual that they may be disrespected by others for being of lesser quality or achievement, but at the same time its effects are largely obvious and avoidable to a person who is educated in its nature. That is, when someone points out that the only time a commercial will refer to a dog as "she" is when it's a fat dog on a doggie weight loss commercial, you may thereafter notice that there's a prevalence of media which implies that all females are fat. These are the sorts of effort that a single person can easily spot without help by observing.

Greatest degree I have yet to find words to describe: As a support to the previous kind of manipulation, a new technique has begun to be used deliberately, although I'm sure it existed before. A commercial will cast two people, a wife and husband for instance, as opposing sides in a neverending war of natures that cannot be won by either side. By attempting to drive a wedge between people who would normally communicate freely, the advertiser can restrict the viewers to the kind of self-education listed above. That is, they hope that the wife will not listen her husband when he says "These commercials make people psychotic about dirt in their homes. A sparkling clean home is not a healthy home, because of the chemicals. Do less housework; we will both be happier and you'll have time to do better things." The husband will not believe his wife when she says "Diamonds are kind of nice but I like my security better. Pay off the mortgage first and worry about frills later, and we will both be happier."

Normally when an advertisement shows you something that you're not sure about, you would feel better with the opinion of someone whose intelligence you trust.

You: "I dunno Pat, d'you think that Raid Yard Gard will really kill all mosquitos in a two-mile radius, and then continue to kill them for up to six hours?"
Pat: "Sounds like a lie to me."

But if the Raid people can get you to distrust Pat by convincing you that Pat has different priorities:

"Studies have shown that people named Pat have no concern about West Nile virus, and die in droves for their stupidity. People like You, on the other hand know about the terrible dangers of West Nile virus, and that it could potentially kill millions of people every year. So, who are you gonna trust, Raid? Or some loser named Pat who wants to see you dead?"

Then they have removed Pat from authority in this context, and you only have the Raid people left. Do you believe Raid now? Maybe not. But even if you don't buy their Yard Gard, by not asking Pat his/her opinion you've may already have accepted the division.

By striving to create these divisions all the time, the advertiser is trying to ensure that whenever they present you with information, there is no one that you can go to for help with analyzing it. The advertiser doesn't have to worry about other advertisers blocking out their information, because information is only blocked from going across, not down.

One of the reasons that this technique is successful is that your competitors actually make more business for you; If you are Pepsi, Coke may be trying to get your market share away from you, but at the same time they are making more for you by advertising. The number of cola drinkers will increase regardless, which is good for both of you. By following this "disciple" model of the customer, you can ensure a greater degree of consumer loyalty by promoting a lesser degree of education.

The corollary effects of the lesser degree of education may hurt us all in the long run... but if we're too stupid to care, then no one will know...

BlueHead:
I believe that it can easily be done without intention, but may be done deliberately by a skilled organization. I'll try to explain, although I know this isn't clear (that is, it's a matter of degree to some extent).

Can be done deliberately...and can you point to an example of this being done deliberately?
It amuses me that even the most adept at manipulating humans don't seem to know exactly what they are doing. As if it was something done without thinking. Even a genius like Goebbels doesn't give much indication that he used a method. He applied his observations - but more than that, it came naturally.

Greatest degree I have yet to find words to describe: As a support to the previous kind of manipulation, a new technique has begun to be used deliberately, although I'm sure it existed before. A commercial will cast two people, a wife and husband for instance, as opposing sides in a neverending war of natures that cannot be won by either side. By attempting to drive a wedge between people who would normally communicate freely, the advertiser can restrict the viewers to the kind of self-education listed above. That is, they hope that the wife will not listen her husband when he says "These commercials make people psychotic about dirt in their homes. A sparkling clean home is not a healthy home, because of the chemicals. Do less housework; we will both be happier and you'll have time to do better things." The husband will not believe his wife when she says "Diamonds are kind of nice but I like my security better. Pay off the mortgage first and worry about frills later, and we will both be happier."

If people were smart enough to have those sorts of conversations.
It's an interesting observation. Advertising fosters competition - or taps into the competitive side of human nature. You buy the product, you best the other, whether it be the neighbors who are in awe of your car, your buddies who are in awe of the models you attract by drinking Budweiser (eww) or your husband who is just stunned by the clean house.
It taps into, but does it foster? I'd say yes, television seems to be a profound medium for influencing peoples ideas of reality.

On the other hand, the ties of kinship are lessened in television reality, but the ties between people otherwise opponents are strengthened. Racism doesn't exist, sexism doesn't exist, class is irrelevent and only shows that some people have more - but the have-nots do great and are just about to move up into the ranks of the haves!

Interestingly, as intimate ties between individuals lessen, distinctions of race and class are no longer as relevent (distinctions of gender must be relevent, they sell too well) as they were. A couple might split over monetary issues but two strangers are no longer concerned about the other's race.

The corollary effects of the lesser degree of education may hurt us all in the long run... but if we're too stupid to care, then no one will know...

Well frankly I'm just waiting for the return of the great Hobbesean "war of all against all" so that the world can be remade.

I'll concede that the method is never exact - but...
and can you point to an example of this being done deliberately?

I'll try... it's gonna be circumstantial, of course, but here goes.

Disney tries to create an ideological division between parents and their children. It is too prevalent and obvious to be unintentional. It shows up both in their movies and advertising.
Examples:

Monsters Inc. - All children are terrorized by monsters coming out of their closets, which are real in the context of the movie. At some point, the monsters stop coming out of their closets, presumably when they get too old. Eventually, they grow up and get married and have children of their own. When their children are terrorized by the same monsters, the parents call them liars.
Message: Your parents will never believe you about some things, even if they implicitly know that you are right, because they have successfully deluded themselves about the real nature of the world.

The Little Mermaid: Ariel is a 15 year old mermaid who collects human artifacts. Her father believes that humans are dangerous, and in one spectacularly violent scene he uses his magic powers to smash and destroy her entire collection.
Message: Don't piss daddy off because he may murder the whole family and then burn down the house.

Treasure Planet: The main character's father abandoned him and his mother when he was young. His life becomes a series of desperate, criminal cries for attention, until he goes on a trip and finds a new father figure in Long John Silver, a murderous cybernetic pirate who nearly kills all of his friends at various times.
Message: If your father left you, your life's purpose is to find someone or something to replace him.

Bambi/Finding Nemo: Don't look away, because when you look back, your mother could be dead. Trust is meaningless in a violent world where no one can guarantee their own survival, much less yours.

The Great Familial Disappointment Moment: Nearly every recent Disney movie has one of these, the overwrought emotive scene where the young, impressionable one screams "You lied to me! I hate you!" and runs away to sob desperately in the corner. (The most distressing such moment was in 101 Dalmatians 2, where the big "you lied to me" moment came when little whatsisname found out that his big role model on TV was not a real person, but only a character played by an actor. Cruel reality...)
Message: Though there are quite a few examples, the overriding message is that your family is destined to fail you at a crucial moment.

These movie messages form a sort of continuum of distrust of your family, which might have been excusable as an unintentional/emotional attempt to gain support or display the feelings of those in charge. However, there are two things that argue against this (at least, in my opinion).

The first: There is a product sold at the Disney store which looks like a bag with a Bambi (or other famous character) head sewn onto it. However, the bag doesn't open, so it's a little difficult to figure out what it is.
As you handle the thing, you slowly come to the horrible realization of what it's for. It's a security blanket. Disney has taken one of the great universal psychological traumas - seperation anxiety - and used it as a way to advertise. Does mommy abandon you every night? Are you alone in the terrible, shifting darkness? Well, severed Bambi head blanket is always there for you!

The second reason was a commercial that contained as much of a mission statement as I've ever seen for the Disney campaign. It talked about children growing up, and enjoying their childhood while it lasts, and showed many pictures of a man playing with his son at Disneyworld - the happy springtime of their family life. The turning point in the commercial is the Question, which I believe was:
"When you're not there anymore, who's going to hold their hand?"
A human hand is shown reaching across the screen, implicitly that of the son, and it is gripped by the immense gloved pseudopod of a giant sponge Mickey Mouse. The human hand is revealed to be that of the son, now all grown up. (The father is not depicted, so we're not sure if he actually died or is just forgotten by history. They don't visit his grave or anything.)

They don't run this commercial anymore, I don't think, but it was as much as saying that Disney's purpose was to replace the parents in every family as the "entity to look up to for love and guidance". This could not have been unintentional, it was like a bald statement of their desire to own everything. When viewed in this light, the other "coincidental" messages of the movies start to seem a lot like a coordinated campaign to drive parents and children apart so that Disney can install themselves as replacement parents.

So far this is the best example I have found.

On the other hand, the ties of kinship are lessened in television reality, but the ties between people otherwise opponents are strengthened. Racism doesn't exist, sexism doesn't exist, class is irrelevent and only shows that some people have more - but the have-nots do great and are just about to move up into the ranks of the haves!

Interestingly, as intimate ties between individuals lessen, distinctions of race and class are no longer as relevent (distinctions of gender must be relevent, they sell too well) as they were. A couple might split over monetary issues but two strangers are no longer concerned about the other's race.

I entirely agree. Once communication between individuals has been sabotaged, the value of the individual can be played up immensely - presumably this helps promote higher spending.

1) "Be yourself" advertising that shows "you" drinking Coke or using some other such product - promoting an image of individual power that nonetheless states that everyone buys the product.
2) "You deserve better" commercials that, no matter what their actual sales pitch, always seem to involve fat, old, balding loser men who are married to twenty-three year old retired models and have two or three kids that look exactly like their father.
Recently there's one for women as well, which is less common - that McDonalds commercial with the ballet practice, where all the women are hiding behind the one-way mirror watching their kids.

Aside: First of all, the idea of using a one-way mirror in a dance studio makes my skin crawl to begin with. Imagine if, at the age of sixteen, you found out that the locket your parents gave you when you were seven had a hidden camera in it...
Second, the "mommies" all begin to leer at some ballet guy behind another one-way mirror, the guy that the soundtrack describes as being "on the menu". The only way that commercial would seem right to me is if the guy woke up screaming at the end of it. Eeeenyway.

3) The "come together" commercials. I believe there was actually a Telus commercial which used the (Beatles?) song "Come together"... promoting one-ness in the purchase of a product. Kind of the same as #1, kind of different.

Haven't read any Hobbes, not even Leviathan, so I can't say much of the Great Remaking you describe. Usually, we get Marxist Dialectic Collision or whatever it's called, like when they finally decided banner ads didn't work and a million sites went off the net; big change small context.

BlueHead:
Does mommy abandon you every night? Are you alone in the terrible, shifting darkness? Well, severed Bambi head blanket is always there for you!

*Smiles*
If only Soren Kierkegaard had a severed Bambi head blanket.

Excellent examples. I've focused on analzying things aimed at the needs and fears of adults, but children are most vulnerable to that sort of thing - being most needy, fearful and gullible.
Disney has become a representation of childhood by manipulating those fears and needs - quite consciously.

I entirely agree. Once communication between individuals has been sabotaged, the value of the individual can be played up immensely - presumably this helps promote higher spending.

Precisely.
Now, I have nothing against egotism - but consumer individualism is not individualism at all.
Not only does that communication foster a focus on individual spending, it allows for greater fears to be played into. Take gender -

The "war of the sexes" is a often used cultural cliche. You mentioned the married couple, of course such communication issues would be solved by the couple's reaching for some book on 'how to communicate'. The notion is that the Other's gender is so inherently different from yours that it takes all manner of artiface to form a relationship with him or her.

The fear of not reproducing is primal and strongest, second perhaps only to death. The anxiety is heightened by the constant message that - well, the other is completely alien. Read women's magazines and you have a plethora of tips on 'how guys think' 'what guys like' 'what does he really mean when he says X' and the same goes for men's magazines - although of course the focus is on sex rather than relationships. One needs a plethora of goods and skills - for women it's cosmetics, clothing and various fitness regimens, as well as learning how to properly act. For men the items are more big ticket - car, house/apartment, whatever high end luxury is fashionable.

Anxiety sells incredibly well.

3) The "come together" commercials. I believe there was actually a Telus commercial which used the (Beatles?) song "Come together"... promoting one-ness in the purchase of a product. Kind of the same as #1, kind of different.

Bingo. The white man and the black man find a common ground over burgers. Television forms ideology now.

Haven't read any Hobbes, not even Leviathan, so I can't say much of the Great Remaking you describe. Usually, we get Marxist Dialectic Collision or whatever it's called, like when they finally decided banner ads didn't work and a million sites went off the net; big change small context.

Ah, the great remaking is nothing he destroyed. Hobbes argues that without a strong government man is condemned to constantly war against himself.
I don't have a good grasp of Marx - just Capital.

Disney is a personal arch-enemy of mine, if our relationship could really be described that way.

(After all, they don't really know I exist, and my "attacks" on them usually only amount to my stinging rhetoric and watching their movies for free on the department store cinema. Standing room only, but you can't beat the price.)

It's actually getting difficult to get baby stuff (crib gear, baby clothes, mobiles) that doesn't have Winnie the guldarned Pooh on it... I looked for a long time, and the only decent mobile I found that wasn't Disney was Noah's Ark instead, the trademark of a different corporation.

Now, if a kid goes through their entire life with Winnie the Pooh glasses on, so that Winnie the Pooh is superimposed on their entire perceptual experience all the time, what kind of person comes out at the end? Do they become a wretchedly shambling consumer zombie? Or do they rise above it and reach a higher state of being? I'm worried, because I used to consider Sesame Street to be an educational counterbalance against stupidity, but it's moved unstoppably over to the stupid side of the balance...

I'm entirely unsure what to do about all this, which is why I keep talking and not doing anything.

EDIT: Marx is more like a graven idol than a philosopher these days... the Marxists like to touch his head for luck every morning, but I don't think they pay too much attention to him anymore. Poor dead Karl (like my History prof said) is probably revolving in his grave listening to me. Anyway, the Dialectical Materialist theory of social development, in short, is where the Thesis (accepted idea) and the Antithesis (new, non-accepted idea) wrestle in the mud until they achieve Synthesis (new, combined idea which accounts for both viewpoints).

BigBlue:
Disney is a personal arch-enemy of mine, if our relationship could really be described that way.

*Chuckles*
Hail and kill, brave warrior.

It's actually getting difficult to get baby stuff (crib gear, baby clothes, mobiles) that doesn't have Winnie the guldarned Pooh on it... I looked for a long time, and the only decent mobile I found that wasn't Disney was Noah's Ark instead, the trademark of a different corporation.

You have kids?
None of my business.
Anyways yeah, I don't see why they would bother merchendising (why parents would buy) expensive clothes for babies or kids. They're going to puke all over them or stain them - and if they don't, they'll outgrow them.

Now, if a kid goes through their entire life with Winnie the Pooh glasses on, so that Winnie the Pooh is superimposed on their entire perceptual experience all the time, what kind of person comes out at the end? Do they become a wretchedly shambling consumer zombie? Or do they rise above it and reach a higher state of being? I'm worried, because I used to consider Sesame Street to be an educational counterbalance against stupidity, but it's moved unstoppably over to the stupid side of the balance...

Believe it or not, I spent the first eight or so years of my life without a television. I have no memories of t.v from that period besides the times my mother would take me along when she cleaned houses and I could watch 'Sesame Street'. As consequence, I taught myself to read early. Which really explains why I'm so weird, so maybe it's not such a good thing. :)
Really, the only reason entertainment is so geared towards children is because parents who work find it such an easy diversion for them. Gives industry an even greater stranglehold on their minds. And of course, rising cost of living forces both parents to work in order to fuel the machine.

I'm entirely unsure what to do about all this, which is why I keep talking and not doing anything.

What is there to do?
When I was younger I used to have all manner of bold solutions, which I realized would fail because people are stupid.
You have to have some faith in your species - otherwise, what else is there for you? But people are stupid and apathetic.
Eventually I found Nietzsche, who really helped me free myself from a lot of that sense of purpose but still - my personality is such that I need action and heroism. I've focused on myself, and in the end that's the best you can do - focus on yourself and let the rest go to hell if it so desires.
You can also communicate with others who are able to understand, if you have kids you can do the most important thing for them - raise them so they're not consumer robots and are healthy egotists.
*Shrugs*
But if you hear on the news that someone has vandalized the Time-Warner headquarters, don't point anyone my way.

EDIT: Marx is more like a graven idol than a philosopher these days... the Marxists like to touch his head for luck every morning, but I don't think they pay too much attention to him anymore.

Having him become sort of an icon for academics rather ruined him for me. He seemed to have many good ideas, but I doubt communism is possible nowadays.

It's not Karl's fault... the public loves any academic who looks like a mad prophet, and he had that beard, he was destined for mainstreaming and the subsequent dissipation of his ideas.

Hairstyle seems to be one of the most valuable factors in being an influental academic, which helps to explain Einstein's many avuncular portraits that wallpapered parts of my school.

As for communism... the economic failure of communism was not a demonstration of a failure of concept, but as far as I'm concerned, the lack of the necessary unified vision was a failure of concept. This was demonstrated more by the prevalence of organized crime in the USSR than its economic troubles. In any case, Marx wanted a form of communism that would somehow come about by mutual assent and then regulate itself, which is wishful thinking at its most raw.

Good one BlueHead, now all the adverts on top of the screen are for Winnie the Pooh.

I don't think the USSR demonstrated the failure of communism as an economic system, but rather the - problems - involved in its implementation.

Xev:
Gendanken, I know how to conceal myself. What I did made me vile - I smiled a lot and tried to be likable. When I snapped out of that I released my aggression like a fury, like I was trying to prove something to myself. Now that's spent, and I'm wondering if I even care about concealment.

I did not think for a second that you didn't know how. Its the simplest thing in the world to know. Didn't I tell you the easiest answer was ugly? Sneer and hide the pathos writhing inside with a flip of the hair and a dirty joke- easy. Look how ugly you were. The real method is impossible.

I'm about 3 days away from a birthday and I'll be spending that time trembling like a little philosopher. Joy. I look back and see one almost like you- hiding a blossoming identity for fear of being labeled out as eccentric, then lashing out with the full blow of the fire inside. I realize the mistake, I come here and work up a Camelotic ideal of a roundtable where only the noble can sit and prattle. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Then here I am wanting to run or cut off my limbic system. I want to single out that mechanism that simply insists on company, ambush it and put it in a noose. This is the impossibiilty- look at me, I'm sitting here writing this to you, there's a confused boy chewing my ear off and Bigblue has just made me laugh.

I don't have to do any of this, yet Thoreau and Emerson look simply absurd tilling the soil for the ~love~ of it. They're supposed to be farmers escaping the world at one point but look fucking pathetic not knowing wheat from barley. Ooh. Ahh.

I'm here, why? Simple human engineering. And I'm not buying this eyewash of it being only a matter of sieving the herd for those that "deserve" our company, like with like, birds and feathers. Those are nice, but its a standard harangue from platform charlies (as in charlatans.)

Why taunt? Why ridicule? Why make a point to lessers that they are? Why anything else other than strict loyalty to that supposed roundtable?

Lucysnow:
Too true. As Simone De Beauvoirs admits in The Second Sex a woman's allegiance to her man outweighs any solidarity towards other women.

Totally. Aren't they bleeding annoying? Something I learned with my own mother recently- I'm a woman first, daughter second as soon as puberty hits.

Bigblue:

I like how you've been beating commercialism so righteously down to pulp and I look up to see Winnie the Pooh being advertised because you've just mentioned it. I'm trying but I swear to you....can't stop laughing.

gendanken:
Its the simplest thing in the world to know. Didn't I tell you the easiest answer was ugly? Sneer and hide the pathos writhing inside with a flip of the hair and a dirty joke- easy. Look how ugly you were. The real method is impossible.

What would be the real method?

I'm about 3 days away from a birthday and I'll be spending that time trembing like a little philosopher. Joy. I look back and see one almost like you- hiding a blossoming identity for fear of being labeled out as eccentric, then lashing out with the full blow of the fire inside. I realize the mistake, I come here and work up a Camelotic ideal of a roundtable where only the noble can sit and prattle. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Would work for five minutes before Guinevere was barraged with requests for "cyber". The only way something like that could happen is if one made a conscious effort to gather the noble into one place. You know in Plato's dialogs where they lounge about discussing whether the thing that is is a representation of an essential thing being revealed as a thing? 'Course Plato had to make his characters out of fiction.
Maybe - one in a hundred - people is astute enough to think like that. How can you organize them?
Which is why the world is so fucked. The one is surrounded by a hundred who dilute and corrupt their thought.

Then here I am wanting to run or cut off my limbic system. I want to single out that mechanism that simply insists on company, ambush it and put it in a noose. This is the impossibiilty- look at me, I'm sitting here writing this to you, there's a confused boy chewing my ear off and Bigblue has just made me laugh.

Human nature.
Not that you can't cut that off - I've done it - but you'll keep feeling it again and again every time someone sticks their head up and looks like a real human. Just a matter of degree.

I don't have to do any of this, yet Thoreau and Emerson look simply absurd tilling the soil for the ~love~ of it. They're supposed to be farmers escaping the world at one point but look fucking pathetic not knowing wheat from barley. Ooh. Ahh.

You know Thoreau had his mom visiting weekly with food that she'd cooked? He didn't do shit, just talked about self-reliance.

I'm here, why? Simple human engineering. And I'm not buying this eyewash of it being only a matter of sieving the herd for those that "deserve" our company, like with like, birds and feathers. Those are nice, but its a standard harangue from platform charlies (as in charlatans.)

I'm talking about finding the one in a hundred for the times you need to fuck, talk or share. And don't tell me you don't feel that need or desire.

Why taunt? Why ridicule? Why make a point to lessers that they are? Why anything else other than strict loyalty to that supposed roundtable?

Because I'm a sadist.
Albeit an incredibly incompetent one.

Welcome to humanity. Confusing, isnt it?
I lack the ability to verbalise the way you lot do, (although i write some SF stories i think are good) but its interesting watching you all go through similar things to myself.
Then ill mention that im icq ing my girlfriend who is also one of my best friends. Lucky me eh?

Good one BlueHead, now all the adverts on top of the screen are for Winnie the Pooh.

I like how you've been beating commercialism so righteously down to pulp and I look up to see Winnie the Pooh being advertised because you've just mentioned it.

Dammit! Now you see why they're my arch enemy... I could dress up in a Mickey Mouse suit and run around killing people with an axe, and it would still be advertising. That's why I don't make any pretense to changing the media - that battle is already lost.

So what do you do when every other person in the world is a Disney zombie? Go to Star Trek conventions? Start a tuba club?

Generally any thing you have "in common" with another person does not encompass enough of their experience to mean that you'll identify with them in any other way.

For instance, a lot of people like Dune, by Frank Herbert. But then, they also like "Frank Herbert's Dune", the TV miniseries, on the basis that it is THE SAME as the book, even though Dune is about political intrigue and prescience, and the TV miniseries is about hats, stick-beating, and some kind of Harkonnen three stooges act.

I find them to be different, others find them to be the same. This, for me, is like saying "I find them to be orange, while others find them to be green." Of course, I don't define my experience in terms of Dune, or Winnie the Pooh for that matter, but when it turns out that another person is not seeing the same world I'm seeing, I usually abandon the finer points of philosophy in our conversation, and work on simpler things, like whether that cloud looks like a piggy or not.

(Is cloud shape recognition a good indicator of similar world-view? Probably not.)

To date, all that I've found is that you can find a slightly better class of people at post-secondary educational institutions... it's no guarantee of quality, but the real hamsters of the world usually can't handle higher education and run off to work at Wendy's. Then you don't have to sift quite as much. Of course, I hear that if you spend too much time at universities you end up radioactive, or get caught in a supernova.

Because I'm a sadist.
Albeit an incredibly incompetent one.

Incompetent... sadist.

"What, you liked that? Ew, now I feel dirty."

Ah, how to connect and still maintain individuality, how much to give up to placate natures need but still keep enough to remain dignified and self-reliant?
A balancing act.
The dilemma for the heightened human condition: Wanting to participate and belong to something other than self but requiring it to be noble enough and worthy enough of our commitment and loyalty; wanting to share and become dependant so that the burden of existence is shared but requiring it to be loyal, understanding, forgiving and special so that by the sheer relation we become so as well and we open up to the multitude of possibilities with little fear and anxiety.
The alternative?
Total isolation and a life lived in solitary confinement with only imaginary realities to keep the intellect occupied.
But what of the body; that demanding hungry beast of need?
Can we decapitate ourselves and survive, would we want to if we could, would we experience the totality of it then?
So many dimensions and so little time and energy. The risk of being spread out too thin an overarching threat because it results in fragility.
But to keep thickness means to be inflexible and impenetrable.
In the end the risk must be taken or life becomes a predictable cage of stagnation.

Ehhhh... maybe, Wanderer, but that's not what I was saying. I was saying:

Communication of complex concepts with others is almost impossible. That's what the "Shape of Language" thread was about; there are walls between people, even those who think of themselves as friends of one another, and picking all the way through them seems to take years even if the effort is constant.

Membership for its own sake is sold by the media because it supports marketing, especially when distrust is fostered between all individuals; although it may cause social problems in the long run, those who sell products to you are most successful when they are the only source of information that you have.

My point isn't really about the interplay of the need for solitude and the need for membership... it's more about who promotes and controls your interactions with other people, and why.

Guthrie:

Then ill mention that im icq ing my girlfriend who is also one of my best friends. Lucky me eh?

Yes, I envy those subproletarian genes in your little body that has you labeling nobodies so freely- "boyfriends, girlfriends and baby's daddies". I can picture you all munching on government cheese.

Never fuck with gendanken on her birthday.


Xev:
I'm talking about finding the one in a hundred for the times you need to fuck, talk or share. And don't tell me you don't feel that need or desire.

I won't dare it.

Some gendanken for you:

" Oh fiery loins that would a mind turn its tap and shower you out with reason"

-yours truly.

What would be the real method?


Squashing the amygdala or picking it out with a chainsaw.

Kidding.

I'm in a foul mood (birthday...meh), but let's see here: that place you've said you've hit before from where you bounced back again - you just gave me another reason to be fouler and ill-mannered today. That, to me, was the real answer: walk away as you would a house on fire, but use it for its warmth without the neigborhood knowing. Yet I hear you've tried it, and if you buckled than I'm sitting here singing a fruity song straight from my anus. Red herring.

But hell- the neighborhood simply insists on knowing how your day was, what you were up to, what you've been reading, why the moodswings and have you seen Janet's boob?Floop floop floop- every encounter sucking the life out of you and leaving you less than the person you were that morning. Its not hiding-which folks are quick to tell you its this that you're doing.
Nor fleeing
Nor denial at best which are those bandaid terms you slap on so casually.

Its protecting some thing inside you've never seen which bloody enrages you, I swear to you, makes my blood boil to see that that these gossipmongering shits insist on taking from you before you even get to know what it looks like.

I'm getting it tattoed on my forehead, lass: WARNING: MIND.YOUR FUCKING. BUSINESS. GET AWAY FROM ME. STOP TALKING TO ME, I'M RADIOACTIVE. SHOO.

Maybe - one in a hundred - people is astute enough to think like that. How can you organize them?
Which is why the world is so fucked. The one is surrounded by a hundred who dilute and corrupt their thought.
We could always entice them with copies of the "Gay Science" and then shoot all the ones that showed up to meet homosexuals. All the rest should be friendly.



Wanderer.
The dilemma for the heightened human condition: Wanting to participate and belong to something other than self but requiring it to be noble enough and worthy enough of our commitment and loyalty; wanting to share and become dependant so that the burden of existence is shared but requiring it to be loyal, understanding, forgiving and special so that by the sheer relation we become so as well and we open up to the multitude of possibilities with little fear and anxiety.

...................
So many dimensions and so little time and energy. The risk of being spread out too thin an overarching threat because it results in fragility.
But to keep thickness means to be inflexible and impenetrable.
In the end the risk must be taken or life becomes a predictable cage of stagnation.


Mierda.

Think about what some soul in here said would you? All social ties are shackles, no matter with whom and how.

You can share, understand, forgive, appreciate and lay out on furry white carpets reading copies of Tolstoy or one of those essays you've hashed up, but whoever you've chosen to dote on has become your cause, not your partner.. Partner is only the manicured way of labeling what one really does- look for one almost like you and its all fun and games until you're both exactly alike and you bore.

Put a superman in a room with one he thinks he can teach something to and watch the passions burn til they're both so entranced with the thickness of being in each either you'd swear it was puppylove.
But put him in a room with one just like him and the prospect of actually being taught something both ways will have him on the edge of his seat dying to get out of there.

There goes your predictable cage of stagnation, Oh my brother.

Think about what some soul in here said would you? All social ties are shackles, no matter with whom and how.
Shackles or life-preservers, depending on how you choose to interpret them.
Being socially dependant is ingrained in your genes, deny that and you deny part of yourself.
But it is true all relationships demand a sacrifice of self.
The one possessing superfluous self has no problem giving of it, the one that has little of it is diminished with every part lost.

You can share, understand, forgive, appreciate and lay out on furry white carpets reading copies of Tolstoy or one of those essays you've hashed up, but whoever you've chosen to dote on has become your cause, not your partner.. Partner is only the manicured way of labeling what one really does- look for one almost like you and its all fun and games until you're both exactly alike and you bore.
Yes and look for nothing and that's what you will find.
So you’ve given up then. Unfortunate.
But how long can you blame the world for your own imperfections?
And if you bore then you look elsewhere or you look deeper.
Being with yourself can lead to boredom as well.
Being with another that is just like you is a good alternative to being alone because then the boredom is shared.

Put a superman in a room with one he thinks he can teach something to and watch the passions burn til they're both so entranced with the thickness of being in each either you'd swear it was puppylove.
But put him in a room with one just like him and the prospect of actually being taught something both ways will have him on the edge of his seat dying to get out of there.
That's why there are only 'supermen' and no 'superwomen'.

Think about what some soul in here said would you? All social ties are shackles, no matter with whom and how.

Excessive individualism produces some rather disturbing ideals these days. Early man lived and died by the outcome of his collective, where the romantic modern man beleives he can live free of everything. Entertaining.

Wanderer:
Shackles or life-preservers, depending on how you choose to interpret them.
Being socially dependant is ingrained in your genes, deny that and you deny part of yourself.

And that will be the last thing you'll find me in, compadre: denial.

Whisper in my ear that I have 3 months to live and then in the other remind me there are naughty pics of me floating around somewhere in danger of being discovered. My impulse: track the shit down and burn it.

What does it matter if gendanken won't be around anymore? But look at the fancy monkey I am, you are, they are running around like a lunatic trying to preserve a reputation even after death. I never said it was only an abstract yarn.


But how long can you blame the world for your own imperfections?
And if you bore then you look elsewhere or you look deeper.
Being with yourself can lead to boredom as well.
Being with another that is just like you is a good alternative to being alone because then the boredom is shared.


Never assume I haven't blamed myself first. Eaten myself alive first.

And its the same with you as it is with me, ami de cour: Indifference is your gallows.

Not boredom.

The one possessing superfluous self has no problem giving of it, the one that has little of it is diminished with every part lost.

And you have all the charm of a toreador in pink tights who's basing all his extravagence on his coquettries with a bull he calls Bob.


Lastly:
That's why there are only 'supermen' and no 'superwomen'.
No.Fucking.Shit.

Put the pastiest little shit in a uniform and watch him grab Germany. Mount a balding pygmy on horse and France rolls over and gives herself to him. But
put her in that same uniform belching the same fucking programme and she's a sexy coquette with brains. Happy muse. Fun and tits.

What makes you think I don't know this?

**EDIT

cour, not cort

gendanken:
Happy fucking birthday.
I spent the my twentieth wanting to slit my wrists and die (after a glorious gun battle with the cops after I'd demolished lots of things).

I'm in a foul mood (birthday...meh), but let's see here: that place you've said you've hit before from where you bounced back again - you just gave me another reason to be fouler and ill-mannered today. That, to me, was the real answer: walk away as you would a house on fire, but use it for its warmth without the neigborhood knowing. Yet I hear you've tried it, and if you buckled than I'm sitting here singing a fruity song straight from my anus. Red herring.

Yeah but you'll still end up bouncing off people, too.
I didn't buckle - lesse, last time I hit it I was about to turn nineteen, I holed up for a couple of days and stopped that need. And then I began realizing that others had their benefits.
You don't stop being human. You maybe can break their domination by learning not to care about them, but there's still that fuzzy feeling when you sit around with friends who maybe aren't of your calibur, but hell they're good for being around.

But hell- the neighborhood simply insists on knowing how your day was, what you were up to, what you've been reading, why the moodswings and have you seen Janet's boob?Floop floop floop- every encounter sucking the life out of you and leaving you less than the person you were that morning. Its not hiding-which folks are quick to tell you its this that you're doing.
Nor fleeing
Nor denial at best which are those bandaid terms you slap on so casually.

Isolate.
Isolate, isolate isolate.
I get the feeling we'd agree if I said this right -
I admit there's the coziness of being with the others. There's the time it gets on your fucking nerves. The best solution I've found is to find a few friends who know when to leave you the fuck alone.
Anyways for me it's the people I'm not intimate with, but strangers and coworkers who drive me up the wall.

Its protecting some thing inside you've never seen which bloody enrages you, I swear to you, makes my blood boil to see that that these gossipmongering shits insist on taking from you before you even get to know what it looks like.

Kill them.
Only way - get the hell away as fast as you can and damn the consequences.
Social suicide indeed.

No.Fucking.Shit.

It is fucking shit.

Put the pastiest little shit in a uniform and watch him grab Germany. Mount a balding pygmy on horse and France rolls over and gives herself to him. But
put her in that same uniform belching the same fucking programme and she's a sexy coquette with brains. Happy muse. Fun and tits.

Who made her the coquette, gendanken?
Her or them?
I can smash moron's heads in until I get carpel tunnel and Odin says I'm overdoing it, but to them I'll never be anything but a bad girl or a dominatrix.
Whose fault is that, mine or theirs?
They trivialize your power because you're female - I know it too - the fault is in not seeing that for what it is, more attempts to bring you down so they don't feel like so much less around you.

That's all it is, another little revenge.

Humans are scum, the only refuge is misanthropy.

Wanderer:
That's why there are only 'supermen' and no 'superwomen'.

You managed to not only get it backwords but to fail to see how it applies to you.

gendanken:
Happy fucking birthday.
Ha!

Keep reminding me and I'll be ripping your hair from the roots.

I spent the my twentieth wanting to slit my wrists and die (after a glorious gun battle with the cops after I'd demolished lots of things).


And I spent it with this fat black woman complaining to me that it just might be gendanken's fault that the place got robbed and not my morbidly obese trailer park boss who can't even take care of his body let alone a fucking business.

Burn those proles.


Yeah but you'll still end up bouncing off people, too.
I didn't buckle - lesse, last time I hit it I was about to turn nineteen, I holed up for a couple of days and stopped that need. And then I began realizing that others had their benefits.
You don't stop being human. You maybe can break their domination by learning not to care about them, but there's still that fuzzy feeling when you sit around with friends who maybe aren't of your calibur, but hell they're good for being around.
Oh, I love and live more passionately than anyone I know. No damn way I'll ever end being human in that sense and what's murderous funny is how they think they're more human than I am.

And as for these friends to 'cozy' up to...don't have any of those yet. Its still down to those you're only seen with Friday nights but I promise you...I'll be kindapping some real ones soon. .


Isolate.
Isolate, isolate isolate.
Hear, hear, and amen...

I get the feeling we'd agree if I said this right -
I admit there's the coziness of being with the others. There's the time it gets on your fucking nerves. The best solution I've found is to find a few friends who know when to leave you the fuck alone.
Anyways for me it's the people I'm not intimate with, but strangers and coworkers who drive me up the wall.
And the cattle around watercoolers....



Who made her the coquette, gendanken?
Her or them?
I can smash moron's heads in until I get carpel tunnel and Odin says I'm overdoing it, but to them I'll never be anything but a bad girl or a dominatrix.
Whose fault is that, mine or theirs?
They trivialize your power because you're female - I know it too - the fault is in not seeing that for what it is, more attempts to bring you down so they don't feel like so much less around you.

That's all it is, another little revenge.

Humans are scum, the only refuge is misanthropy.

Trickle by trickle I'm beginning to thaw but............shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...back to glorious misanthropy.
Kidding.

Of course. Genitals are a misdemeanor- fucking stupid but you get what I'm saying. What better way to feel like the rug on my floor than to see you'll probably get your little games called out on you by that one person, that one teeny tiny person with the lipstick on that's so easy and usual to understimate?

Knowing its a them thing not a me thing is the only thing keeping me sane. Sometimes.

Aaaaaaand...


You managed to not only get it backwords but to fail to see how it applies to you.
To-u-che.

Hastein:

Excessive individualism produces some rather disturbing ideals these days. Early man lived and died by the outcome of his collective, where the romantic modern man beleives he can live free of everything. Entertaining.

Do you a favor and shoo.

Look, it rhymes.....mind the lines where danken shines, fair swine.

gendanken:
Keep reminding me and I'll be ripping your hair from the roots.

I won't send flowers then.

And I spent it with this fat black woman complaining to me that it just might be gendanken's fault that the place got robbed and not my morbidly obese trailer park boss who can't even take care of his body let alone a fucking business.

Ouch. That - sucks.

Burn those proles.

I do market research, I do surveys for certain public health programs - illiterate fucks with three, four kids screaming in the background as welfare mommy tries to answer the questions in her butchered English.

Kill. Them. All.

Oh, I love and live more passionately than anyone I know. No damn way I'll ever end being human in that sense and what's murderous funny is how they think they're more human than I am.

Snap.
That's the hilarious bit.
Mock sentiment for them and they think they're dealing with Lucrezia Borgia. The ones that don't feel howl the most that you're unfeeling.

You turn and you hiss at them, and the funniest fucking thing is when they take that seriously.

Other hand...
I have the misfortune of having a 'sweet' face and a soft voice, so of course they think they can take advantage of that supposed niceness. The funniest fucking thing is to be mean as hell and watch them react.

And as for these friends to 'cozy' up to...don't have any of those yet. Its still down to those you're only seen with Friday nights but I promise you...I'll be kindapping some real ones soon. .

I've only accumulated a few. Make sure you feed them and keep them happy or they aren't as snuggly - they just try to climb their way to freedom.

And the cattle around watercoolers....

Who think they know what the 'meaning' of the piece is...

Trickle by trickle I'm beginning to thaw but............shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...back to glorious misanthropy.
Kidding.

I hate the - thawing - bit. It's a hell of a lot easier to hate them all.

Of course. Genitals are a misdemeanor- fucking stupid but you get what I'm saying. What better way to feel like the rug on my floor than to see you'll probably get your little games called out on you by that one person, that one teeny tiny person with the lipstick on that's so easy and usual to understimate?

So use it when they underestimate you

Ah shit, you know - who gives a fuck about using it anyway?
You want to get good at manipulating their little heads, because then you'll be free and you can snap them occasionally, but there's the point where it's not worth it.

As for the weaker sex - hey, whatever you may lose is more than made up for the wonderful pleasure in mocking the lot of 'em.

Knowing its a them thing not a me thing is the only thing keeping me sane. Sometimes.

Sane?
What's that?

gendanken
Never assume I haven't blamed myself first. Eaten myself alive first.

And its the same with you as it is with me, ami de cort: Indifference is your gallows.

Not boredom.
It’s the indifference that winds up as boredom.
I now feign interest just to keep my mind occupied.
Like watching a Hockey game with those I call my friends.
I could care less who the fuck wins or what so-and-so’s name is but watching them skate around after a little black disc and mostly watching my friends take it so seriously is amusing, so I pretend.
Like watching ants.

And you have all the charm of a toreador in pink tights who's basing all his extravagence on his coquettries with a bull he calls Bob.
'Bob' is my way of rubbing their faces in the shit which they call self; it’s my tool of mockery, it's my mirror...my red cape swirving in the wind. They think they're attacking me when all they hit is air or themselves.
This brand of animal, call it bull, only understands the personal, everything else passes over its tiny horned head, so I keep it as personal as possible. I keep the cape waving to amuse myself.

I prefer blue tights, just to keep my macho persona intact.


Put the pastiest little shit in a uniform and watch him grab Germany. Mount a balding pygmy on horse and France rolls over and gives herself to him. But
put her in that same uniform belching the same fucking programme and she's a sexy coquette with brains. Happy muse. Fun and tits.

What makes you think I don't know this?
Nothing I just love reminding you of it.

And as for these friends to 'cozy' up to...don't have any of those yet. Its still down to those you're only seen with Friday nights but I promise you...I'll be kindapping some real ones soon.
In order to have friends like that you need to be able to swallow your ego for a while and then when it rises up in your throat threatening to choke you, you must be able to run fast into isolation so that you don’t turn those same friends into bitter enemies.

Of course. Genitals are a misdemeanor- fucking stupid but you get what I'm saying. What better way to feel like the rug on my floor than to see you'll probably get your little games called out on you by that one person, that one teeny tiny person with the lipstick on that's so easy and usual to understimate?
I never underestimate beauty or brains, especially when they appear in unison.

To-u-che.
That's supposed to be my line.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY.
What is it now your 300th?

Hastein
Excessive individualism produces some rather disturbing ideals these days. Early man lived and died by the outcome of his collective, where the romantic modern man beleives he can live free of everything. Entertaining.
But where is the balance between excessive individuality and excessive blandness?
I guess the sea of morons is needed to keep the distinct islands isolated from each other.

Xev
Who made her the coquette, gendanken?
Her or them?
I can smash moron's heads in until I get carpel tunnel and Odin says I'm overdoing it, but to them I'll never be anything but a bad girl or a dominatrix.
Whose fault is that, mine or theirs?
Natures?!
Hey I don't make the rules I just describe them and fight them.


You managed to not only get it backwords but to fail to see how it applies to you.
I think my penis got in the way.

I could care less who the fuck wins or what so-and-so’s name is but watching them skate around after a little black disc and mostly watching my friends take it so seriously is amusing, so I pretend.
Like watching ants.

Sometimes honesty does have a value... some of those who act the moron all their lives do so to protect themselves, which makes it difficult to discern what they're really like.

Next time you're in a group of idiots, and one of them tells a "my girlfriend's such a bitch" joke, instead of pretending to find it funny, try calling them on it. Ask them, "Then why don't you ditch her instead of whining?"

Twelve of the idiots will look all offended and pissy. The other two will look at you like they actually understand because somewhere inside they're not actually idiots, but just covered with convincing replicas, like hermit crabs.

Long ago I worked a couple of manual labour jobs, of the type that will soon all be done by robots. There was another student in this one place... he was going back to school at the end of the summer, and everyone bugged him about it, telling him that he would be happier if he continued lifting boxes for a living. Finally, in response to the constant "why do you want to go back to school?" questions, he answered:
"Because I don't want to be trapped here for the rest of my fucking life."
Everyone else just shrugged their shoulders and stopped bugging him, but there was one lady sitting at a nearby table - I'd talked to her and she seemed like an idiot to me - got this look on her face which I can barely describe. She knew she was in hell. It was the only expression I ever saw her wear other than her habitual bovine indifference.

So why is this important? The trouble is twofold.
First, if you act like an idiot for long enough, it seems you can forget what you used to think. Not everything, but the little things, stuff you inherited from your education without realizing that it was important, and then forgot because it never occurred to you again when you spent all your time pretending to be somebody else.
Second, the real idiots serve (as Xev said) to drive you apart from the other people who have a real contribution to make to your life, especially if you pretend to be like the idiots. If you're convincing enough, you might make the other wise ones think you're a real idiot...

You should give your friends more credit, and if they don't deserve more credit you have no business hanging around them.

Next time you're in a group of idiots, and one of them tells a "my girlfriend's such a bitch" joke, instead of pretending to find it funny, try calling them on it. Ask them, "Then why don't you ditch her instead of whining?"

Ha. That's so true, never thought of it that way.

Xev:
Other hand...
I have the misfortune of having a 'sweet' face and a soft voice, so of course they think they can take advantage of that supposed niceness. The funniest fucking thing is to be mean as hell and watch them react.
Tell me about it. I’ll cry you a river- I look nothing like I sound. My mind is a battalion, my words and personality as toxic as risin but folks never see this because in their mind I’m some kind of exotic Tinkerbell. Remember long ago we talked about the looks of others being small murders? That the bourgeois is born from the poor looking at him and the poor born from the same bourgeois looking back? All the other for-itselfs living right next to me turning me back into an object, murdering what I know I am by simply looking at me.

Don’t get me wrong though- I love the recoil as soon as they pick up on the mistake though. Its like a kick in the crotch, yes? Ha. Nothing hurts more than that, I think.


Wanderer:
Nothing I just love reminding you of it.
“Ouch”. Allright, just remember you said this to me once.

Thus Sprach Methuselah:
HAPPY BIRTHDAY.
What is it now your 300th?
Middle aged humor is thrilling.

I’m a healthy, perfectly obnoxious 24 year old now, Wanderer. And you, the dirty old man getting high off the kiddies and the essays he shoves at them, yes?

In case you wonder why I’ve said this to you, “I just love reminding you of it”

I never underestimate beauty or brains, especially when they appear in unison.
Wait until you actually see it. It would make your blood freeze, your loins flare, and your mind so bitter your mouth would betray you.

In order to have friends like that you need to be able to swallow your ego for a while and then when it rises up in your throat threatening to choke you, you must be able to run fast into isolation so that you don’t turn those same friends into bitter enemies.
Don’t think so.

Meeting and keeping them will take spine and lots of it so swallow my ego my ass.
I will agree that eventually I’ll need to put that ego away in order to see theirs and add to this blossoming art between humans, and I’m destined to running away every now and then in order that I should not scare them or myself away. I’m not above this task and the sacrifices involved- in fact I'll welcome every last bit of it but not for those not worth it, and especially not for those that remind me of that ugly part in me I’d like to push out sometimes like old stool.

Its the indifference that winds up as boredom
You misunderstood. Not your indifference- theirs.
And something tells me you took the bullfighting clause as a compliment.

Here, I’ll show you:

'Bob' is my way of rubbing their faces in the shit which they call self; it’s my tool of mockery, it's my mirror...my red cape swirving in the wind. They think they're attacking me when all they hit is air or themselves.
This brand of animal, call it bull, only understands the personal, everything else passes over its tiny horned head, so I keep it as personal as possible. I keep the cape waving to amuse myself.
Bob is also your microphone.

I refuse to believe you don’t also swing your rag around to amuse your audience. Without Bob and the predictable strategies we both know he embraces so well when he’s made uncomfortable, all that’s left is that man all alone down there in that sandy arena that got all dressed up for nothing. He can strut and flex his muscles, play with his rag and scream out his name from his little lungs but his audience grows indifferent- they came to see blood, or at least be reminded of their mortality. A toreador never dresses for himself, never braids his curly ponytail nor picks out the prettiest montera for himself but his audiance, and what an enticing crowd too when there’s women in it.

No bull, no audience. All alone, you don’t exist. And so, indifference is your gallows, remember? That’s the dandy’s lot.


I prefer blue tights, just to keep my macho persona intact.
Blue, pink or pitch black- they’re still those tights we’ve all seen on those macho, macho ballet dancers. That’s got me so hot.

In case you wonder why I’ve said this to you, “I just love reminding you of it”

Natures?!
Hey I don't make the rules I just describe them and fight them.
No, you rub them in. But no sweat, so do I.

Bluehead:
Everyone else just shrugged their shoulders and stopped bugging him, but there was one lady sitting at a nearby table - I'd talked to her and she seemed like an idiot to me - got this look on her face which I can barely describe. She knew she was in hell. It was the only expression I ever saw her wear other than her habitual bovine indifference.


I've seen that same look before also, but my heart melted (meh....*flips hair* whatever). It was on my father's face when I showed him my diploma- he was beaming but inside I knew he was dying because he never finished college. And it's a damn shame- he's almost as bright as I am, despite my chewing him up here and there for even trying to best me, but its fucking sad to think of all he could have been at my age if he did not throw his life away on his kids and his home and his job and all the other modern baggage that robs humanity of meaning. He made his own hell.

Wanderer:
Natures?!
Hey I don't make the rules I just describe them and fight them.

To be sure, you fight the ones that you find limiting. Those that do