In my opinion there are four words that best describe all humans. We fit into one of these catagories. Which one best describes you? Be honest with yourself. There is no use in lieing to yourself about who or what you are.

All definitions are brought to you today by the Merriam-Webster Online homepage. If you don't know..... Look it up. And brought to you by the letter Q, and the number 0.

subjugate - to bring under control or governance. to make submissive.

subvert - to overturn or overthrow from the foundation. to prevert or corrupt by an undermining of morals, allegiance, or faith.

subject - one placed under authority or control. one who lives in the territory of, enjoys the protection of, or owes allegiance to a sovereign power or state.

submissive - to willingly give control to another

Now you have the four catagories. I'm certain you will notice some similarities in each. It is however, the implication of power or control itself, that makes the words seperate in their meaning. See if you can determine which one describes you. Do not be surprised if you are displeased with the answer. I know that I was, at least until I came to terms with it. I will get to me after I hear from a few of you.

subvert

Subvert.
See "undermine". See "negate".

It is however, the implication of power or control itself, that makes the words seperate in their meaning.

Not really. There isn't a huge difference between subjegation and submission. To rule is to obey, and few who obey have no desire to rule.

-Xev, who is bored and thought this was about sex

S (though i hate to say it!!). and by the way jlabrec they were all brought to us by the letter S not Q!! :mad:

Neville:
S(what)?

Are you calling me a swat?? :mad:

Originally posted by Neville
Are you calling me a swat?? :mad:

DAMN RIGHT!!

watchagunnadoabouddit?

subjegate. I like to be in control of my surroundings. in the world
submissive. Im very shy and will not speak unless I got something to say. I prefer to be controled in bed
subvert. I don't like the status quo as it is not helping the overall human condition
subject. I am only that because of my young age. I would join into a place if I felt there was a place that I belonged and could life a good life. There is none so Im considering forming my own.
see they all apply to me.

Submissive. I find it strange though how the submissives or dominants in the world are completely the opposite in their private life. I think it's a channelling of aggression or something.

ya. Im realy gentil beneath the surface and im a very kind person with security issues

Aggression? How's that?

Man, vanillas are just weird. No offense dude, but I totally do not see how you can see aggression in this.

Expression of power is not expression of violence, indeed, violence usually destroys power. Take the Chinese kids in Tiennamen square - growing international and domestic support, biological power (if you believe that power is innate and organic) - but still destroyed when thier government sent in the tanks.

I'm not saying that violence can't be a means to power - if power is the ability to enforce one's Will, then violence is obviously a tool to power - but violence and power should not be thought of as interchangable.

Trite example - take Ghandi. Powerful? Fuck yes, he managed to get the Brits out of his country. But the little dude pretty much sat around eating rice and writing pamphlets.

-Edit-
Of course, if Ghandi had faced down the Nazis instead of the Brits, his followers would have been slaughtered.

I think pretty much everyone on here is a subject of some country or power.

I guess I'm subvert, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as that. When I'm around people who are bigger, older, and more dominant than I am, I tend to be subversive, but if people aren't more dominant or obviously more powerful I'll gladly take control. The fact that I'm not a big, husky guy has a lot to do with it.

Man, vanillas are just weird. No offense dude, but I totally do not see how you can see aggression in this. When did i say i did?! I never even mentioned them.Of course, if Ghandi had faced down the Nazis instead of the Brits, his followers would have been slaughtered. I thought they were. I heard there were seas of Ghandiites walking towards a wall of armed opponents and Ghandi told them to not fight back. It was a massacre but Ghandi refused to use violence. This is just what I heard though.

Well... so someone found my question to be intruiging.

I have found that perhaps the best of the four to describe me, is....subject. I owe my allegiance to the sovereign government of the USA, Heh, thanks to five years in the US Army. I have always felt one should be willing to serve the government that both protects them, as well as houses them. I am not saying that government service is for everyone, I am saying that a person should be willing to support their government in whatever way is most convienient to them. I intend on not making this sound like some sort of recruiter bit so I'll end it there...

subjugate: I have had positions of power. One example, having a 12 man crew working under me, when only age 18. Half of the men who worked for me were over 30. It was a rather precarious situation. The men respected me, simply because I didn't let our higher management push our shop around. It unfortuantely was not a self gratifying position, at least for me. I am certain most would love to have been placed in that type of position. Leadership, or rather direct leadership is not my best forte'. I am far better suited to being one of the grunts, so to speak.

subvert: Never will this word ever apply to me, save for a situation where higher leadership is making dangerous mistakes, such as life threatening. However, my understanding of this word, leaves me to believe that it means the person is attempting a coup, but doing so covertly. If I am to undermine a position of leadership, I have the "balls" to stand face to face with that person or group, and let them know, they are fucking up. I did so when only an E-3(two ranks above the lowest pay grade in the Army), I told a full-bird Colonel he was an idiot for assuming he knew more about the equipment that I was trying to repair. Heh, nearly found myself locked up in Leavenworth for that remark.

submit: I suppose one could argue that I did join the US Army willingly. They would be correct, however I had always felt I owed my allegiance to the US. I felt I was doing what was required, or expected of me. Heh, I suppose the only time in my life where I truly was submissive, was to my wife's request to return to her hometown after I ended my tour with the Army. Heh, I never intended to come back to this small hole in the middle of countless cornfields. Yep... I was indeed submissive. Good Husband... -mutters-

I have often felt it wise for a person to be willing to admit to some of their weaknesses, as well as speaking on their strong points. If to no one other than themselves, it does a person great things to see the truth to what makes them who they are.

Heh... by the way, sorry bout the Q Neville. For some odd reason, its always been a favorite letter. Not due to some word. I think its just either the look of a Q, or the sound when you say Q.

-shrugs a bit-

Heh, it makes no sense to me either. It's kind of like in the middle of a conversation with friends, I'll all of the sudden, out of no where ask them, with a completely serious look on my face: "What about the Q?" Naturally, I am certain you can imagine some of the looks or comments I recieve.

I am not certain I can agree with your opinion Xev. From my understanding of these words, there is a dramatic, and almost tramatic difference between subjugation and submission.

I think that something people, and even myself for that matter, need to understand about submission, is that a person only has the power over you, that you willingly give them. Certainly through subjugation, you can be forced to submit, but there is a point where you must still choose to do so.

In the case of a subject, the difference is that you may have been brought to, or born into a location where some governing body is already in control. Regardless of your agreeing with the body's leadership, you are forced to fall under their rule. Subversion is then used by those who do not agree with the body's form of rule, in the hopes of gaining the control they have lost. In a toltalitarian rulership, subjugation is used to force the subjects into submission.

Your comment of "to rule is to obey" is interresting. My question to you then is, who is the ruler obeying?

Your comment of "to rule is to obey" is interresting. My question to you then is, who is the ruler obeying? This reminds me of something that Faucault said, which was basically that no one can be forced to do something they don't want to do. He said in every situation people have a choice, even if it means killing themselves. However this is not strictly true because people in prison do not have much of a choice.

This relates to the "to rule is to obey" because one can also refuse to agree with the leader. Foucault (http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/foucB3.html#power)
the body becomes a useful force only if it is both a productive body and a subjected body,...

We should admit rather that power produces knowledge that power and knowledge directly imply one another; that there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations. These power-knowledge relations are to be analysed, therefore, not on the basis of a subject of knowledge who is or is not free in relation to the power system, but, on the contrary, the subject who knows, the object to be known and the modalities of knowledge may be regarded as so many effects of these fundamental implications of power-knowledge and their historical transformations, (27-8). This is the kind of thing.

Neville:
When did i say i did?! I never even mentioned them.

Arr, you did:
I think it's a channelling of aggression or something.

Sorry if I misunderstood.

I thought they were. I heard there were seas of Ghandiites walking towards a wall of armed opponents and Ghandi told them to not fight back. It was a massacre but Ghandi refused to use violence. This is just what I heard though.

Oh, well then let me retrench: if Ghandi had faced down the Nazis, he would'a been totally slaughtered. If what you said happened (I'm not great when it comes to Indian history), then the only reason it didn't work is because the Brits weren't always that ruthless.

You read Foucault? I was thinking on starting a thread on him, buuuuut figured nobody was familiar with him.

jlabrec:
I think that something people, and even myself for that matter, need to understand about submission, is that a person only has the power over you, that you willingly give them. Certainly through subjugation, you can be forced to submit, but there is a point where you must still choose to do so.

Good point, I should have been more clear.

I don't see any real difference between dominence and submission, between ruler and ruled.

Frankly, I can't see how one can "voluntarily submit". If it's voluntary, it's not submission - if I choose to abide by the Will of another entity, then my choice is no submission. I still follow my own Will.

Thus, submission is only submission if forced.

Your comment of "to rule is to obey" is interresting. My question to you then is, who is the ruler obeying?

*Giggles* The forces of history, if you believe Hegel.

The ruler still must obey his subjects to some extent. Take Hitler - he still has to manipulate his subjects. To manipulate is, in many ways, to obey - or at least manipulation is no real power. You're basically tricking someone into obeying you.

Now, if one ruled purely by force, then you are in control. But what government rules soley by force? It's just not possible.

Arr, you did: No I meant when did i mention 'vanilla' people. My aggressionesque theory didn't include normal people. :D :DFrankly, I can't see how one can "voluntarily submit". If it's voluntary, it's not submission. Exactly! You can't be submissive to someone and then tell them what you want because it isnt submission.Now, if one ruled purely by force, then you are in control. But what government rules soley by force? It's just not possible. I think this was Ghandi's line of thought. The soldiers would have to slaughter everybody, which would take some doing to a group of unarmed people not fighting back! It would take real guts. A government can't rule by pure force because they would end up killing all of their people and then who would protect the country or produce goods?? You read Foucault? I was thinking on starting a thread on him, buuuuut figured nobody was familiar with him. I haven't read much on Foucault, only little bits. What inspired me the most from what i've read were his thoughts on Society and Madness (ships of fools, workhouses etc) and his work on prisons (the design and invasion of privacy i.e. always being watched). What sticks in my mind the most is how he showed how corporal punishment, which went from public, brutality to a concealment of and control/rehabilitation of offenders thus marking a shift from the belief that the body should be punished for a crime to a belief in a soul and that treatment can be used to make the person a useful member of society.

The Mongols, when ruled by Gengis Kahn were ruled by pure force. If one of his subjects failed to do as he expected.... they were permanently replaced, killed. I am certain after a few replacements, the populous would come to understand his way. I have always admired him for that. Subjugation in its purest form. That sort of unbridled control is absolutely imperitive in today's society. Unfortunately no one is strong enough to have such ability. I must admit however, it appears that Mr. Hussein may be attempting to follow in Kahn's footsteps.

Heh, I wonder what point a person feels it is far enough before they submit to another's authority. Some would perhaps immediately say things to the effect of "I would rather die then have my Freedoms removed" the entertaining thing is, few would dare challenge the authority figure if it was their life in jeapordy. Heh.... those same people are perfectly happy to allow someone else to take their place. This proposes another question, if a person fears complete submission, but allows another to be subjugated in their place, have they therefore also been submissive?

Heh, I'm beginning to see your point Xev, indeed the two are very closely tied to one another.

Neville:
No I meant when did i mention 'vanilla' people. My aggressionesque theory didn't include normal people.

Oh, I was referring to you. I've never seen why va - excuse me, normal people who fuck once a week in the missionary position with the lights out and whose - see sadomasochism as an expression of aggression.

Don't get me wrong, I see your theory. Substitute "aggression" for "power" and I'll see myself in it.

But simular phenomena can have divergent causes. I want to torture my partner, I also want to torture Fred Durst. My desire to hurt my lover stems from my love for him, my desire to hurt Fred Durst stems from my hatred of his shitty music and repulsive personality, as well as for popularizing the vile, whorish genre of Nu-Metal....

That said, what I wish to do to Fred is not anything I'd inflict on an actual human being. My sadism kinda stops at desiring to actually harm someone, while my vengefulness thinks that being broken on the wheel is too good....capische?

Exactly! You can't be submissive to someone and then tell them what you want because it isnt submission.

Aye.

I think this was Ghandi's line of thought. The soldiers would have to slaughter everybody, which would take some doing to a group of unarmed people not fighting back! It would take real guts. A government can't rule by pure force because they would end up killing all of their people and then who would protect the country or produce goods??

Exactly. And even those soldiers have to be controlled by something other than force.

What sticks in my mind the most is how he showed how corporal punishment went from public, brutality to a concealment of and control/rehabilitation of offenders thus marking a shift from the belief that the body should be punished for a crime to a belief in a soul and that treatment can be used to make the person a useful member of society.

Odd, isn't it? In our materialist, allegedly rationalist age we have stopped talking about purging the soul soul and demons and started talking about rehabilitation and the abused childhood.

Have we substituted one explanatory myth about crime for another myth? While I'm all for exploring the roots of violence, why can't we just accept that this is human nature?

Why must we talk about the rapist's domineering mother when rape is a natural phenomena? Why must we talk about the murderer's abused childhood when murder is a normal urge?

*edit*

Jlabrec:
The Mongols, when ruled by Gengis Kahn were ruled by pure force. If one of his subjects failed to do as he expected.... they were permanently replaced, killed. I am certain after a few replacements, the populous would come to understand his way

And his army, which did the killing? Were they also ruled by pure force?
It's not possible for one person to rule by pure force, for the simple reason that if his subjects get pissed off, they can overwhelm him with superior numbers.

That sort of unbridled control is absolutely imperitive in today's society. Unfortunately no one is strong enough to have such ability.

Why do you think that? And aren't you advocating fascism?

This proposes another question, if a person fears complete submission, but allows another to be subjugated in their place, have they therefore also been submissive?

You mean, is the master the slave of the slave? Good question, and I don't think that it's ever been quite addressed.

I believe they have submitted. The body being subjegated may not be theirs, but they have accepted the power of the dominent entity.

Heh, I'm beginning to see your point Xev, indeed the two are very closely tied to one another.

You see? It's as if master and slave, ruler and ruled, God and priesthood, are one organism. Perhaps the ruler is the "brains of the organization", but he's still tied to the organization. He's almost a slave to his own power - an ant queen, who is the leader of her hive, but she is still dependant on the hive.

This is why, incidentally, I place so much value on subversion and negation. The prospect of mastering these structures rankles me as much as the prospect of being enslaved by them. I simply wish to negate, to be free from the structure.

I'm not sure how possible that is.

...murder is a normal urge? is it? This is along the lines of aggression channeling/displacement, i would say.

Sure, all humans feel it, it's common to all cultures, even the other primates (chimps and - I think - orangs) do it.

This is along the lines of aggression channeling/displacement, i would say.

Murder is displaced aggression? Dude?!

Perhaps I am looking to a facsism. One thing is certain, and history has proven it, a fascist form of rule accomplishes much, swiftly. The Nazi regime is one example. In fact, I would say that any nation that fell under the control of a dictatorship, which saught to subjugate all which lay before it, grew to overwhelming proportions. I believe that therein lied its weakness as well. If the leader is not strong enough to maintain control, then the body governed simply overthrew them.

I would very much like to see the entire planet fall under the rule of one person. Heh, I wonder what sort of title this person would carry. If this did occur, I also wonder how long it would last. I am left to assume that were the ruler seen by the world, as power made human, then I am certain this form of oneness in the world would last for eternity.


~the darkness within sings to us all~
Jeff LaBrec aka Emperor Gahnnon Talic

heh, sorry reverted to some of my god-like micromanagement games.

jlabrec:
I would very much like to see the entire planet fall under the rule of one person.

Why on earth would you want such a horrid thing?

Heh, I wonder what sort of title this person would carry. If this did occur, I also wonder how long it would last. I am left to assume that were the ruler seen by the world, as power made human, then I am certain this form of oneness in the world would last for eternity.

Would not man, rather than being God, become an ant?

And how would the hegemony survive the migration to other planets?