Dude,

 

What this is saying is there will be a power struggle between a man and his wife in their relationship as a result of the Apple incident

 

I live in the mountains, off the land, 20 plus years of vegetarianism, from whence i virtue signal about how to act in a society i barely take part in. I am lucky enough to be part of a strong and diverse local community that has built itself on the edges of capitalism and for many years was under threat from it, but people here held on through the powers that be flexing their muscle.There was and still is a lot of opposition in our country to letting people live on and farm land ecologically even if they own it. It's pretty much a functioning anarchy out here, so i do feel that i can criticise an unequal society when i live in one where no one needs to try to rise to the top as there is not a lot of money to be made here without moving to a city. I love music technology and run it from solar power. And i was burned by behringer a few times and wouldn't go there again. But i am not ok with other beings suffering pointlessly on my behalf, even if it is inevitable so almost everything i own is second hand, which lessens the social and environmental impact. I build and repair houses and sheds out of local, natural or responsibly sourced materials. Communism doesn't really come into when people share or help each other because they don't have much. SeAnd i am aware of the privelege of my birth in a rich country that has given me these opportunities where my meagre income puts me in the top 20% in global income, more than 6 times the global average. So any talk of equality must critique and try to improve the system we are all stuck with, rather than pretend we can't improve upon it, that there can be no better system.

 

Geez Bill, can you lay off the moonshine?.. I'm bringin the ol'lady n kids over...

 

Moonshine is just not worth drinking as it's poisonous and bad for the brain. Could probably sort you out some kale smoothies tho. or a beer or fruit wine or even an evil [but delicious] coca-cola if you insist.....i promise to keep the kool aid to myself...Don't forget your boots, trainers [sneakers] are useless here....

 

i fear youre soda drink is more poison then well made moonshine....moonshine is burned everywhere on planet..different names...i dunno the temps but if you have a temp and clue ,its allright...
yea drugs are bad...but forbiddances are only help drug lobby

and alcohol and tobaco are drugs but many arent able to admit that
..especialy them who got problem with it

moonshine you dont drink everday like soda drink...do the math..

ok maybe you have heavy white trash story's parat but its just the drug not the circumstances

cicarettes are far more dangerous for humanity then moonshine....moonshine just got big time attention cause tax and independence off ppl

 

Last edited: Jan 20, 2019

who did transcript the bible as whole...how much editors it had ..translators...
i only kno i kno nothing
christian are missleaded . jesus is not god , like they prey to him...he is son of god

 

Your comment is nothing but projections, assumptions and creating a character of my user name in your imagination. All kinds of bizzare emotions projected all kinds of psychological anger projected .
Am I to think that you have no interest in speaking about a real situation? The facts of reality,?
What do you make of the fact that say with the earthworm example the only way to create equality in one specific hierarchal structure, is to excersise totalitarian control,,? Are you denying this? Is it true that equality in this context can be had by done other means?

 

First, stop this. It's embarrassing.

There comes a time in most peoples lives, usually when they are kids or teenagers, when they realize that for example true democracy means people can simply vote to end democracy itself. Or that for people to be truly free they must be free to take away the freedom of others at will. Or that to be tolerant you must tolerate extreme intolerance. Or that true absolute extreme all encompassing uniformity, equality, between all members of society is a dystopian nightmare no sane person would ever want to be a part of. Congratulations.

However the kid hasn't stumbled on some forbidden dangerous knowledge. People have thought about these things for thousands of years. The kid isn't special. The kid isn't bringing up difficult topics other people are too afraid and brainwashed to even talk about.

I am simply pointing that I see a lot of people using these same talking points about equality on the internet these days. Stupid people. What I don't see is actual real serious people arguing for this kind of absolute equality; a world where every single individual human being does just as well or just as bad as everyone else at all times - emotionally or materially. It is such a ludicrous, unrealistic world that it cannot even be achieved however sick, totalitarian and inhumane means people would theoretically be ready to use. Outside of purely philosophical discussions these talking points are childish, useless red herrings.

So don't come here pretending to be an ex 'marxist' who used to hold an 'ideology of equality' but who has now seen the light and thought deeply about these issues and came to realize the 'leftist position' is totalitarian. It's nonsense. It's embarrassing.

 

Last edited: Jan 23, 2019

Your subjective good is better than mine? Sure, why wouldn't it be?

I agree by the way......I am not keen to trust fools to risk everything either.

Well, no it hasn't. The civilisation you care so much about above owes a great deal to it, today and in the past.

It isn't part of my beliefs to expect people to "do good". I get very tired of all that guff. My view is that folk should (as in, it would be wise of them to) desire socialism for their own interests, not so as to "do good". I want a socialism which protects my interests - if it achieves that then it protects most everyone else's interests too. Not doing evil would suffice, never mind "doing good".

Before universal suffrage the argument ran that the masses would vote everything for themselves. Somehow they have been persuaded not to.

For Marx, Communism was only a postulated society which would/could develop after maybe thousands of years of socialism. Nobody serious has ever suggested "tomorrow".

A concrete example -- Elon Musk and such like enchant folk with ideas of going to Mars. Yet we are better off simply looking after the home we have, and, say, making sure everyone has clean drinking water. At least do that first? Irrigate Africa before doing it to Mars? It's a lot simpler, cheaper and has more relevance and positive effect. Else it could be your drinking water that disappears next, couldn't it? Worse, it could be mine.

 

wow, this is bizarre, but in these bizarre times unfortunately this makes perfect sense.

i am altogether too reluctant to wade into this lest i devolve into one of the timeless, lifeless, thoughtless, philosophical pawns that the writer describes there. i have often enjoyed the posts of this user but i fail to see the purpose or meaning of this unless... ***i go through the looking glass***


of course if one were to try to engage, in the spirit of some good faith critical analysis (maybe meta-analysis would be more accurate), it may or may not address your allusions to an "ideology" the writer has, after a period of time, the writer has gained something, perhaps directly or indirectly (as we will soon see) related to this seemingly highly valued quality of EQUALITY (perhaps way over valued as some may already see).

the plot would thicken though, as we are told that through the course of ones examined life we can arbitrarily reexamine such a collections of abstract information, if one was to do such a thing it would be desirable to do so 'deeply', at least we have some direction to this now. 'deep'. it is to be assumed that the writer can now make a value judgement on this most valuable of non-existent qualities. lets go. right or wrong. it is not explained why in high hell the writer would have even thought they had a chance of being right given what is written. anyway. the reader is assured that given such things as:

-research in 'more areas'(???).
-more deepness (a theme? but, of course).
-critiques of systems which more efficiently allow the exchange of goods and systems which allow people to more efficiently band together and pool their organizational skills and resources (why not, who among us hasn't).
-questioning things that have rarely been seriously proposed by hardly anyone ever. (i really do not know. maybe some kind of weird 'thought experiment' non sequitur)
-throw in some seemingly totally ignorant, to the point of cognitive death, countervailing forces $$$(footnote). such as, writings of a man is now who are more than a century dead, and some seemingly equally brain dead philosophical canon fodder that are arbitrarily placed somewhere east of predefined point on a long outmoded and now almost thoroughly useless dialectic. (sure, why not? seems to be the convention in this type of rhetoric/propaganda)

we can now pass judgement.

[the stage mostly set, and as i appreciate brevity as well (though you would never know it from this reply)]

we arrive. locked and loaded.

wait, what?

"The problem of inequality exists in our biological evolution all the way back to the beginning." direct quote.

halt. pause. stop! the need to state the bleeding obvious seems so prevalent these days, i am not referring to the writer here but, but more annoying is that it is so often lauded as profound insight. most people would just say "dur" and move on, i would not say such a thing (cue a standard rant on educational standards)

i would quickly move on, now armed with that bleeding obvious pearl of wisdom, the immutable truth laid bare, more valuable than rarest of, umm... rare things. great! now i can realize, actualize, if i but only consume some of material material needs, stoke my little fire, make enough steam to apply enough pressure to my little brain. (life tip: any excess can be blown out of the ears and nose). like in a reality and stuff. maybe we can give a 'thought vector' to your 'descriptive scalars' (hint hint). maybe if you start with ill defined nothing, you end up with ill defined nothing, who knows. so strange to realize, one must think BEFORE they act. is that all i am...

anyway, this would seem to be slipping into a 'deep' morass. it is unclear why the writer or anyone they have cared to mention (thrown under the bus) here places any value on this 'EQUALITY non-thing' or why it is such a priority in life given that a) as clearly stated never existed to any know beginning of anything b) most probably never will exist on anything but the most subtle planes of existence.

all the things that you have described here, and probably a whole lot more, are privy to this most basic of information. even the dead guy the writer attempts to scapegoat would have known this profoundly.

uggh... hopefully someone would get the picture. methinks.

maybe then, i guess, i might ask the obvious and rhetorical question, that most who have got this far would have already divined and hopefully answered.

"what the hell were you thinking?"

it is a probably a long lost mystery. some readers may be able to construct some somewhat useful 'thought vectors' as to what is happening here. who knows?


if i was then asked to define my terms i would think, "it would take me 500 pages do that" in an imagined, subtly bewildered yet commanding tone, as dictated by my obviously carefully curated media training.

my years of training to spout endless streams of drivel would have come in handy to...

<--20 pages later-->

...by now, all to obvious pop-cultural, social science, new (dark?) age 'guru heroes' that are without doubt the inspiration of all this tale of woe...

...somewhat useless stream of mind stuff...

...sweeping aside my per-cogniant biases and astrially projected anima, with aristotelian karate chops of logic and reason...

...good god(s?)%%%(footnote) newly re-purposed propaganda of cultural bolshevism (cultural <insert appropriately maligned freudian/jungian archetype>, scary stuff, are we scared yet?)...

...holy cultural monetization of redundant old data batman!...

...is it any wonder that such 'deep' inquiry, thrust upon an unsuspecting populace, would give rise to such (ironic?) accusations of 'commie scum' and countervailing (ironic?) self-effacing 'capitalist scum'. one would, because i would postulate money is the great god of the age...

<--20 more pages later-->

...exit stage right from the current biological battle ground with respect to history and evolution. take a right turn in the metaphorical deserts of you mental landscape cross the ill defined boarders of chaotic sanity -- with your animaic projections duct tapped and bound as semi-lifeless yet purposely fleshy and 'deep'ly meaningful cargo in the trunk of your modest 'ride' that you afforded through dostoevskyian existential physical and metaphysical economic transactions...

...arising from the current info-tech lump sum of raw data (swamp?), this species musings and records on all sorts of aspects aspects of the known and unknown properties of this object we call...

...this artifice, home grown mix of scripted 'reality tv' epistemology and kayfabe ontology, of (genetically modified) mice and ultra-violent violent porn site trawling men...

<-- a further 20 pages later-->

then, and only then could i fly free into 'fairy grimm' like stanzas

"all the wells poisoned. all the waters muddied...
blah... blah... blah..."

etc.

the excitement slowly grows...

stanza after meaningless stanza, until time grows old and demented, all is lost, consumed in the primordial soup of chaos at the balmy temperature of zero degrees kelvin. (the freezing point primordial soup is -38K -- little known fact). maybe just to be reborn...



it is a pity my time (that devil) is too limited to comment. alas, my stupid thoughts.



so for now, and probably better for all to not get involved, i will hold my tongue.



(footnotes)

$$$ potential projections of ones personal psyche that have be sufficiently hysterically demonized to monetize.

%%% or all the gods of all the heavens, depending on your current proclivities and vanities.

 

You don't have the impression of projecting anything right now ? Do you feel the words you are using represent the truth of the matter ?
If you do believe that you are using words as a vehicle for truth rather than a certain of manipulation than thank you for sharing fine sir.

 

Someone who gets it,.......

 

Part II

Bridging the Gap between the ideal , and reality.



Equality.

It means so many things to us, in many contexts.
Let's try to clarify it in terms of the lives of human beings on a personal scale and on a societal scale.

When we use the term equality we are refferring to hierarchical structures .
This means that in a particular context with more than one person involved just by being different actual beings we measure up differently .
However we have certain ideals which we want to stack up the same .
Is it possible to look at these situations in a critical non biased way such that we can think clearly?
Let's take an example we can all agree on the ideal about.
A hierarchy of all human beings compared to each other in terms of value intrinsic worth, we want the results to be equal or a straight line this ,is what we care about in the ideal when we think about equality.
Part of this comes from being a social species with a sense if fairness , part of it is just common sense of how a society needs to function to not self destruct although to past civilizations it was not do ovious.

I don't want to make each section of this too long so that it can be more of a public discussion .

I'll end this section on a question.
So we have the reality of the situation that equality of any type is not naturally occurring, in other words it does not come easy or naturally it takes work it takes thought it takes effort ( in the area we care about it)

Here the question .

Is it possible that the actions we take in attempts at creating equality in our society can inadvertantly lead to the opposite in reality?
Can we carelessly leave out critical details in hopes that just focusing on the ideal of equally in abstract sense coupled with positive intent is going to lead to things turning out right on their own?
Are we even looking at the consequences of what we change and the outcomes we are creating in this endeavor? ,.......

 

It's late for a more involved answer, but one big semantic bugbear on left is the confusion of EQUITY for EQUALITY, and it happens in practically every discussion. It weakens our rhetoric considerably. Equity basically just means fairness, what we are aiming for. Whereas equality is being or becoming the same, which tends to be neither possible nor desirable.

There is this easy drift from saying "we need equal rights" (equity) to "we need people to be equal" (equality). And critics are justified in calling us out on that. Yet it hardly ever gets reflected upon on "our side."

 

bejeebus!... curious-er and curious-er, but then again we are way through the *looking glass* here.

some points on the wisdom of a 'part II', just yet:

may i say, if you are even going to try to maintain even the pretense of a discussion, i really think you should address some of the critiques before moving on. they are pretty compelling.

if your concept of 'truth' is anything as equivocal and self-serving, as the figure who's (badly appropriated) ideas you are so badly paraphrasing here, i fear for the integrity of this discussion. perhaps clarification would be in order.

"projecting" and "vehicle" suggest movement, going somewhere, what you are writing is just a descriptive morass. you are essentially just describing stuff with a bit of a story and scapegoating some lifeless pawns, it would be helpful if you made a point that we could move towards. what do you want us to know -- other than the bleeding obvious?

furthermore, and apologies for being blunt here (in the name of brevity), but at this point, i do not think you get the concept of what an ideal is, its use in a discourse and its function as merely a mental tool, aaannd, i am seriously doubting your grip on reality. maybe we should not rush in, yet, where 'angels fear to tread'; let us not built 'partie deux's' house on a plain of sand.



and my question (if the rules permit):

what sayeth a cheshire cat among the pigeons?

 

ahhh... a brief, succinct, somewhat rational comment from somewhere definitely outside the *looking glass*, even if necessitated by physical tiredness and such --- something us 'insiders' care nought for. a breath of fresh air that will not be felt 'inside', for we breath not.

never the less, i think i have seen a preponderance of evidence over the last few years that certain people expressly do not want to be fair in any strata of analysis, discourse or otherwise. no, these are tactics: layers of distraction, misdirection --- just barefaced lies; machiavellian tools of deception fashioned into blunt cudgels with which to beat down any opposition. cycles upon cycles of rhetoric justified by further layers of almost nonsensical large and small scaled revisionism touted as 'truth'.

[even aside from the plentiful material rewards of the lucrative business of repackaging the will of the powerful into discrete persuasive packages -- whether by skill or pure circumstance]

meanwhile, a (thoroughly disengaged) populace is engaged in weak, divisive cultural discourse (such as this current tread) in order to 'run the clock down' on the hard numbers and unequivocal power needed in the realm of policy.

from a distance it can be anything from: entertaining; to disturbing; to sickening to watch. i am sure this has been experienced many times in the past by people; helplessly watching as the powerful marshal the forces of chaos to paint their own venal narrative on the arrow of history.

i appreciate sentiment and optimism of your comment and stand in solidarity, but i have yet to define any sides of this amorphous emergent paradigm [mess]. for now i will take solace in your optimism and hope for the best [we are screwed] ;)

peace and love from the 'inside'.

 

I am all for the provocative use of ambiguity such as you are using but you are going to have to speak directly and plainly if you would like me to honestly some of your questions, because whether you relize it or not your questions are nested inside of particular assumptions you are making as part of a larger thought narrative you are creating which does not automatically follow from my presented comments .
Maybe some of the fault is my own for using a more stripped down way of talking about these things here. But to move forward please speak plainly and lay out youryour partic assumption , then formulate the question such that I can see the way your coming from and know the direction from which you are asking. Thank you.

 

In which ways do you believe this comment to be factual about the actual person which exists in reality that I am?( As oppossed to a fictional character storytelling you are creating of my username for example)
Please present the answer in a bullet form response such that we may delve into the deeper level of what you felt was so important to communicate.

 

Last edited: Feb 1, 2019