Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 144 Posts

·
Social Pyromaniac
Joined
·
477 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
If anyone is familiar with them at all, most people probably consider the band MGMT a one-hit-wonder with their 2008 song Electric Feel (and that’s okay, because it’s a really fucking good song).

They also have lots of other good fucking songs and have a cult following among stoners, 21st century hippies, hipsters, and people with a good taste in music. But what I think many people miss is that the duo’s songs often contain a critique of their generation (also my generation and that of the bulk of PerC’s users) concealed in a cloak of trippy psychedelic imagery.

In one of their songs they modified Timothy Leary’s 60’s counterculture phrase “Turn on, tune in, and drop out” to fit the American mainstream youth of today with “Turn it on, tune it in, and stay inert.”

Their inclusion of the “it” is really an interesting and understatedly clever bit of writing. There’s very little doubt in my mind this refers to my generation’s obsession with technology. And by Leary’s own prediction, technology is the LSD of the 2000s We are electronic Lotus-Eaters, numbed out and insulated from reality and the state of the world.

Americans have essentially become lazy. As a whole we fear being inconvenienced. We like our TV. We like our smarthphone. We like our infrastructure. We like all the meaningless bullshit we use to bury our heads in the sand (aka turn it on, tune it in, and stay inert.)

Laziness breeds complacency, and complacency makes one vulnerable to the slow, silent, dagger of creeping normalcy. For the past few days I’ve been talking to my friend about the direction that the US is moving in, the creation of an Orwellian state ruled by martial law, and conspiracy theories related to UN Agenda 21. This future is descending upon us largely via creeping normalcy, and few but the most perceptive are privy to it due to complacency being the norm.

The question becomes “What are the American people going to do about it?” Well, the answer is not much. Not for awhile anyway. The solutions to problems arising from a broken/corrupt government are protest and revolution. Americans haven’t very big on either of those lately.

Remember Americans have become lazy, and don’t want to become inconvenienced. This is reflected in their attitudes towards protest and revolution.

The latest rounds of American protest have centered around the concept of “creating awareness.” “Creating awareness” can be better described as an excuse for half-assed activism. These movements, like Occupy Wallstreet, consist of loosely affiliated cells, under a very loose (essentially non-existent) mission statement/list of demands, with no solid leadership. This way, their opposition will find it difficult to disband them (it also makes it difficult for the protest movement to actually do anything) Basically, the effect they’re trying to create is an IRL version of Anonymous. But, Anonymous manages to get shit done because it still has teeth. They fuck shit up (although Anonymous’ effectiveness is certainly debatable as well).

Occupy and movements like it, have no teeth. This is because a protest movement’s teeth are its leadership, mission statement, and organization. Occupy was 0 for 3. And they avoided them because those things are difficult, boring, and require someone with a vision. They wanted to jump right into the glamourous and sexy aspects of it, like showdowns with riot squads and being on tv. Although, they will claim, as they always have, their goal was to “create awareness” *air jerk motion*.

Contrast this with the American Civil Rights Movement. It was an effective protest movement. It brought forth the change it set out to. It had a list of demands. It had an internal bureaucracy. It made organized use of people and resources through careful logistical planning. And perhaps most importantly, it had a definitive leader with a strong sense of vision. And we all know what happened to him. But he knew the risk and rose to occasion anyway. Presently, we don’t have this sort of person (people) in America to lead a movement like that. Remember, Americans have become lazy, they don’t want to be inconvenienced, and becoming a target is as inconvenient as it gets.

To backtrack a little, I mentioned that revolution was the other, equally unpopular, solution. This is the sort of scenario in which an IRL-Anonymous-like organization could possibly prove effective. Loosely affiliated cells only have teeth when they’re paramilitary/violent in nature. Basically, Occupy’s organizational structure is better suited for a sort of rebel insurgency than a protest movement.

But why won’t Americans go for something like this in order to prevent or rise against a Police State? It’s inconvenient. An armed revolution would constitute a major disruption in infrastructure and quality of life. You can’t watch The Big Bang Theory and microwave a hotpocket if you have no power, are huddled in a burnt-out building, clutching an AK-47 waiting to ambush a National Guard patrol.

This does not mean that Americans don’t want see the direction of their nation change. Many do. However, most of them still naively hold onto the idea that they can alter that direction through their voting habits. But it’s becoming more apparent all the time that we cannot.

The way we elect leaders is like picking apples from one big barrel. We keep getting a bad one each time, but we never consider that the whole barrel is rotten and we should take a chance and pick one from the tree. Picking one from the tree is a dangerous, scary, difficult task, and we’re lazy, so that’s a no-go on that one.

The “barrel” is the highly insular world of American politics. And shockingly, this world produces politicians, not leaders. This insular world has a very specific set of parameters for who “makes it” within itself. As a result, the people that “make it” or all pretty much the fucking same. Regardless of the party, they all push one side or the other of these false dichotomies that mostly serve to distract from deeper issues while they cater to the special interests that support them.

“Going to the tree” would mean voting for someone far outside the aforementioned system. This is scary. This person is unfamiliar. They say weird shit. They don’t have a “proven track record’, the standard for which we’ve accepted from that flawed mainstream system. So we don’t vote for them. And even if we do come close to “going to the tree” the media will be damn sure to force-feed us two of the bad apples from that ancient barrel.

Early in this rant I said that Americans won’t do anything, not for awhile anyway to stave off an Orwellian fate. Because they will eventually. I know they will. They cannot not. This is going to get into my own, warped, self-contradictory view on humanity.

I hate people (the collective) I despise them with a passion. I hate looking at them. I hate smelling them. I hate being around them. They’re loud. They’re moronic. They make -no sense- nonesofuckingever. They’re hideous in every single conceivable way and if I never dealt with them again, that would be just peachy fucking keen.

But at the same time I love persons (the singular/individuals). Individuals one-on-one are different entities than that monster People. But I know, much to my own frustration, that they’re two sides of the same thing. Individuals and People have a push-pull effect on one another. Individuals spur on the development of People, and People provide solidarity for the Individual.

These specific individuals are the generators of ideas. Most people aren’t these people, most make-up what I call “the tide of humanity” a big mass that just sloshes from one prevailing notion to the other.

These rare people are world’s artists, scientists, philosophers, poets, authors, and musicians. Ideas are powerful and therefore so too are those who craft them. They have the ability to alter that malleable, Matrix-like, complex system known as culture. Those in the seat of power have always known this. This is why throughout history they have either recruited the generators of ideas to their cause, or eliminated them.

But the other special part about the Individual-People relationship, is that the Individual will not allow People to be oppressed forever. Basically, someone always comes along who has the clarity of vision and the tenacity to push on the status quo. Someone who’s going to turn it off, tune it out, and get their shit in gear. These individuals have yet to step forth from the tide of humanity on these issues, but I am confident that they’re out there.
 

·
ѕησωум¢ѕησωƒα¢є
Joined
·
4,292 Posts
The difficulty is getting enough people together to agree on those list of demands etc. Traditionally that was achieved through ideology and a charismatic leader, but ideology is becoming increasingly polarised. Remember that the civil rights movements were several hundred years in the making and still has a long way to go.

My question is, what do you think it would take for people to get up and take notice? Take notice that their own actions aren't leading to the world they imagine. Take notice that their own actions are harming the things they care about? Take notice that they need to re-imagine their life if they want to be true to their heart and values.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
645 Posts
If anyone is familiar with them at all, most people probably consider the band MGMT a one-hit-wonder with their 2008 song Electric Feel (and that’s okay, because it’s a really fucking good song).
To me "Electric Feel" actually seems very ugly/cacophonic in comparison to "Time To Pretend" and "Kids". "Electric Feel" is the type of music I only listen once and never want to hear it again.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
288 Posts
The solution exists in your perceived contradiction. That of perceiving to hate people, while simultaneously loving individuals.

I think the solution to your individual problem, is the same solution for the collective problem.

The solution for you is to see how people are, when they're spread out in rural areas, acting for a common-unity, erm, as a community, rather than as property of the state, under the spells of social engineering.

The solution for the collective is to realize this common-unity, by decentralizing ,and in doing so realizing the futility of the state. Central governance no longer makes sense, in a world that can have information transmitted globally in a fraction of a second.

If we spread out, we'll calm down, and many of the current problems the species creates, will be realized as mere problem of perception, and lack of implementation of already floating around ideas. All the worlds solutions have already been thought up, are floating around the net, stored in countless harddrives, originated in the minds of mostly ordinary human beings, and are merely waiting to be given the energies and resources to be done.

We won't get their by staying "strong" and centralized, we'll get there by going against the flow, for that flow is heading in the wrong direction, and I think most feel this to be true deep down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
If anyone is familiar with them at all, most people probably consider the band MGMT a one-hit-wonder with their 2008 song Electric Feel (and that’s okay, because it’s a really fucking good song).

They also have lots of other good fucking songs and have a cult following among stoners, 21st century hippies, hipsters, and people with a good taste in music. But what I think many people miss is that the duo’s songs often contain a critique of their generation (also my generation and that of the bulk of PerC’s users) concealed in a cloak of trippy psychedelic imagery.

In one of their songs they modified Timothy Leary’s 60’s counterculture phrase “Turn on, tune in, and drop out” to fit the American mainstream youth of today with “Turn it on, tune it in, and stay inert.”

Their inclusion of the “it” is really an interesting and understatedly clever bit of writing. There’s very little doubt in my mind this refers to my generation’s obsession with technology. And by Leary’s own prediction, technology is the LSD of the 2000s We are electronic Lotus-Eaters, numbed out and insulated from reality and the state of the world.

Americans have essentially become lazy. As a whole we fear being inconvenienced. We like our TV. We like our smarthphone. We like our infrastructure. We like all the meaningless bullshit we use to bury our heads in the sand (aka turn it on, tune it in, and stay inert.)

Laziness breeds complacency, and complacency makes one vulnerable to the slow, silent, dagger of creeping normalcy. For the past few days I’ve been talking to my friend about the direction that the US is moving in, the creation of an Orwellian state ruled by martial law, and conspiracy theories related to UN Agenda 21. This future is descending upon us largely via creeping normalcy, and few but the most perceptive are privy to it due to complacency being the norm.

The question becomes “What are the American people going to do about it?” Well, the answer is not much. Not for awhile anyway. The solutions to problems arising from a broken/corrupt government are protest and revolution. Americans haven’t very big on either of those lately.

Remember Americans have become lazy, and don’t want to become inconvenienced. This is reflected in their attitudes towards protest and revolution.

The latest rounds of American protest have centered around the concept of “creating awareness.” “Creating awareness” can be better described as an excuse for half-assed activism. These movements, like Occupy Wallstreet, consist of loosely affiliated cells, under a very loose (essentially non-existent) mission statement/list of demands, with no solid leadership. This way, their opposition will find it difficult to disband them (it also makes it difficult for the protest movement to actually do anything) Basically, the effect they’re trying to create is an IRL version of Anonymous. But, Anonymous manages to get shit done because it still has teeth. They fuck shit up (although Anonymous’ effectiveness is certainly debatable as well).

Occupy and movements like it, have no teeth. This is because a protest movement’s teeth are its leadership, mission statement, and organization. Occupy was 0 for 3. And they avoided them because those things are difficult, boring, and require someone with a vision. They wanted to jump right into the glamourous and sexy aspects of it, like showdowns with riot squads and being on tv. Although, they will claim, as they always have, their goal was to “create awareness” *air jerk motion*.

Contrast this with the American Civil Rights Movement. It was an effective protest movement. It brought forth the change it set out to. It had a list of demands. It had an internal bureaucracy. It made organized use of people and resources through careful logistical planning. And perhaps most importantly, it had a definitive leader with a strong sense of vision. And we all know what happened to him. But he knew the risk and rose to occasion anyway. Presently, we don’t have this sort of person (people) in America to lead a movement like that. Remember, Americans have become lazy, they don’t want to be inconvenienced, and becoming a target is as inconvenient as it gets.

To backtrack a little, I mentioned that revolution was the other, equally unpopular, solution. This is the sort of scenario in which an IRL-Anonymous-like organization could possibly prove effective. Loosely affiliated cells only have teeth when they’re paramilitary/violent in nature. Basically, Occupy’s organizational structure is better suited for a sort of rebel insurgency than a protest movement.

But why won’t Americans go for something like this in order to prevent or rise against a Police State? It’s inconvenient. An armed revolution would constitute a major disruption in infrastructure and quality of life. You can’t watch The Big Bang Theory and microwave a hotpocket if you have no power, are huddled in a burnt-out building, clutching an AK-47 waiting to ambush a National Guard patrol.

This does not mean that Americans don’t want see the direction of their nation change. Many do. However, most of them still naively hold onto the idea that they can alter that direction through their voting habits. But it’s becoming more apparent all the time that we cannot.

The way we elect leaders is like picking apples from one big barrel. We keep getting a bad one each time, but we never consider that the whole barrel is rotten and we should take a chance and pick one from the tree. Picking one from the tree is a dangerous, scary, difficult task, and we’re lazy, so that’s a no-go on that one.

The “barrel” is the highly insular world of American politics. And shockingly, this world produces politicians, not leaders. This insular world has a very specific set of parameters for who “makes it” within itself. As a result, the people that “make it” or all pretty much the fucking same. Regardless of the party, they all push one side or the other of these false dichotomies that mostly serve to distract from deeper issues while they cater to the special interests that support them.

“Going to the tree” would mean voting for someone far outside the aforementioned system. This is scary. This person is unfamiliar. They say weird shit. They don’t have a “proven track record’, the standard for which we’ve accepted from that flawed mainstream system. So we don’t vote for them. And even if we do come close to “going to the tree” the media will be damn sure to force-feed us two of the bad apples from that ancient barrel.

Early in this rant I said that Americans won’t do anything, not for awhile anyway to stave off an Orwellian fate. Because they will eventually. I know they will. They cannot not. This is going to get into my own, warped, self-contradictory view on humanity.

I hate people (the collective) I despise them with a passion. I hate looking at them. I hate smelling them. I hate being around them. They’re loud. They’re moronic. They make -no sense- nonesofuckingever. They’re hideous in every single conceivable way and if I never dealt with them again, that would be just peachy fucking keen.

But at the same time I love persons (the singular/individuals). Individuals one-on-one are different entities than that monster People. But I know, much to my own frustration, that they’re two sides of the same thing. Individuals and People have a push-pull effect on one another. Individuals spur on the development of People, and People provide solidarity for the Individual.

These specific individuals are the generators of ideas. Most people aren’t these people, most make-up what I call “the tide of humanity” a big mass that just sloshes from one prevailing notion to the other.

These rare people are world’s artists, scientists, philosophers, poets, authors, and musicians. Ideas are powerful and therefore so too are those who craft them. They have the ability to alter that malleable, Matrix-like, complex system known as culture. Those in the seat of power have always known this. This is why throughout history they have either recruited the generators of ideas to their cause, or eliminated them.

But the other special part about the Individual-People relationship, is that the Individual will not allow People to be oppressed forever. Basically, someone always comes along who has the clarity of vision and the tenacity to push on the status quo. Someone who’s going to turn it off, tune it out, and get their shit in gear. These individuals have yet to step forth from the tide of humanity on these issues, but I am confident that they’re out there.
Funny I was just brooding over how much I hate mobs and I come across this post as the first thread that shows up on the perc homepage. I especially am sickened by nationalism and patriotism... the whole pride that goes with it. I've never really felt comfortable in a group of more than 3-4 people... because groups like that usually unite over something stupid... like race, country left/right wing ideology etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
I couldn't agree more with the point you're making! We, as Americans, have become far too complacent when it comes to our society. As you said, we're lazy, and we would much rather have someone else take care of that whole being a responsible citizen thing--it's much easier to go out and vote for that guy who already had the job, because the person on tv told you the other one wasn't really born in this country. It really is infuriating.

I will, however, be THAT guy, and point out that the civil rights movement wasn't quite as centralized and teeth-baring as you think. There were a lot of different groups working during the civil rights movement, who utilized a wide variety of tactics for achieving their goal. I think that that the Occupy Wall Street movement attempted to use the same tried and true methods of civil disobedience employed by some of the more well-known civil rights groups, and that you're, perhaps, being just a tad too critical of it. Did the Occupy movement achieve much? No. But I do believe that it was a step in the right direction, and that just as much blame can be placed on the general populace for its complacency as can the Occupy movement for its lack of direction. I suppose that I'm just of the opinion that we should encourage those who are willing to step up and take action (even if it's not the action we would like), in hopes that it may, if only to a small degree, do something to influence the "tide of humanity".

Seriously, though, great thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
I think we live in an age of Rennaissance. Submitting art and working on science has never been so accessible to the public. We don't get out and march up and down as often, but what is the point of that? What is the great peril we are in? If our freedom and/or comfort was more under question this same people would not be so complaisant. I don't know why denigrating the suppossed proletariats remains fashionable. There are amazing things happening all over the world and the whole can benefit from it by the density of our connectivity. I think as a species we are on the right track. Still lazy and fearful, as we have always been, but steadily going towards complexity inspite of these weaknesses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,124 Posts
complacency = only so many hours in the day to get things done as it is.

History shows then when people are truly unhappy with a system, they will toss it aside. US in 1776, Russia in 1917, and again 1991. Egypt in the last couple years.. Right now Americans aren't unhappy enough with the system.

But revolutions never live up to their promise. The same breeds of leaders still manipulate the same types of people who follow them like sheep. They just use different language to convince us they aren't like the old guard. And there will still be activists convinced that this sucks, we need to change it, why can't people see that?? etc.. Governments change, but human nature doesn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
I sympathize the worry that is portrayed in your claims, and they are true; seldom many individuals get this far in this pondering and actually passionately express the worry, rather then be distracted by the things in such a complex society based on your predisposed animalistic algorithms. Animal behaviour mixed with logical reasoning, that is a fundamental divide that is a culprit in all these things, the "logical" way of doing things and "moral" way of doing things are only ever the same by extreme coincidence, those "morals" only being a logical interpretation of high we are on with all of our neurochemicals, e.g. serotonin, etc, which originally happened to come to be based on the behaviours that they conjured with respect to increasing the chances of survival and reproduction in the natural environment, when we were animals; we're no longer part of the savanna, but we are curse with the intentions of feral creatures, and even "logical" things are only a means to an animalistic ends.

Think about it, when has humanity created something because it was purely logical? There is no such thing! You may reach an ends to increase your chances of survival, reproduction, or feeling good (which is a thing that only came about when we got logic - when we could reason our emotions are try to feel certain ones), everything we do is trying to fit more people on earth or veer from natures sustainable systems, etc. You realize the horror in our livelihood, that we are completely selfish, so selfish we will keep destroying the system we are built with correspondence to until it can longer longer sustain us fundamentally, e.g. ozone degradation, phytoplankton massacre, etc, and we can only act in the last minute, humans will never plan far, except for a group of homogeneously genius individuals, but that will never happen because we have a democracy, we allow even the people who have no idea what they are doing, and making political choices based on nothing, have an even say as those brilliant individuals who know precisely needs to be done. Though, they may have found a way...

We can't act looking far because we base most of our most important decisions off of how we feel, and not what makes sense, e.g. the US economy will never recover, they will keep going into more debt for the people that need it now rather than consider the livelihood of the tens of millions of people that will never be able to pay it off in taxes, e.g. the students with a mortgage of a loan with an anthropology degree - if they can't pay it back fully before interest rates increase, they will be slaves forever. You see, our society intends completely that tens of millions of people will exist, and yet they do not consider the morality of the situation - there is no such thing as temporal morality because we cannot feel it, and yet it is morality, and based off the same emotions which derive impulsive morality. From this, we can conclude the hopeless nature of our behaviour that will always lead to the same moral ends of completely loss of morals.

Now, morals are not "fixed" parameters - they are adapted to the environment around you, if you are exposed long enough to something that is dis proportionality "positive" then you will get used to it - it will set the standard of what is "correct" for you. This has effectively done nothing, the amount of seratonin that will shoot on average will actually be lower now, you won't ever be as easily content - you raised your standard, you have increased the distance in value between your most "negative" possible experience and your most "positive" possible experiences, content being the mid-way point. This is simply entitlement being the upper bar and tolerance being the lower bar. Now, if you dump free money on people, or introduce them to free health care at birth, that lowest potential of satisfaction is not as low as if you didn't give them free money, and did not give them free health care. Those are moral things to do but don't make sense because your making it hard for the animals to be satisfied, you see we will perpetually send ourselves into a situation of infinite unhappiness and lack of morals.

The things you advocate against - going into an Orwellian society, is one of these morally based ideas, you think it is completely morally wrong, when in fact the world in 1984 was a complete Utopia, and the supposed lack of morals are only relatively worse than ours, when in fact the people in that world may be very much more satisfied, and the environment could be sustained as well, simply by engineering the sense of morality. Of course, doing this to a population that has already irresponsibly set their standards to be morally and environmentally unsustainable is not the same, they will feel the relative difference because they already know better. The conclusion is if you cannot effectivelychange the knowledge of everyone, then they need to be wiped out, which is not entirely hard because there are so many justifications for such a thing beyond the idea of engineering knowledge, e.g. running out of oil will drop our agricultural capacity massively anyways, or wars that are apparently because of religious or political tensions.

Anyways, I could go on all day about this stuff, but most of it is irrelevant in the long term, evolution creates things that are flukes, the way things are built are subtractive from random changes in physiology due to mutations, they come to be with no intent, they just happen to be able not to die and of course would not exist if they could not reproduce. The individual thing in nature is irrelevant - only because man can interpret his emotions with logic does he consider himself and not the machine - all of ecology is a single machine, from the nanomachines inside cells to the shape of trees, it is a design with a mechanic, and it runs off of energy from the sun, it is spectacular to be a part of but it is an absolute fluke, and we do not understand it because we are too busy trying to get stoned off the drugs in our head that were never intended for anything, but happen to manifest as "feelings" that we do try to achieve, and nothing else, even long term planning is for an animalistic ends, increasing chance of survival, i.e. predictability and security, reproduction, and feeling things.

The machine will die with us being logical. I wonder, if any extraterrestrial could manage to reach a stage of advancement, where their past emotions that used to dictate their behaviour could be suppressed. But then, what is the point of anything? Well, for an INTP, you can just think and discover and that is satisfactory, but the other types may be more restless..

..kidding, everyone would be perturbed, and prone to giving in to their impulsive, animalistic nature, and taint the machine to death inevitably. That is the Tide of Humanity. Good thing we can appreciate satire as a positive high!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,085 Posts
That is interesting because I feel as though I'm living in the Dark Ages. It's difficult for me to find a job even though I just received my associate degree...it doesn't seem to be enough for most company employers to even hire me as a secretary...I'm mooching off my mother's breast (practically), and relying on the consideration of selling my body's ovaries to give to rich infertile older women on top of dancing for money. I can't afford my college debt. Renaissance? Maybe for the folk who were able to make it in the early millenium. As far as I know this generation that has spent its early years tied to the threat of terrorism and xenophobia does not buy designer clothing as a whole to feel as though this is the Renaissance at all. So I disagree entirely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
To me structure is structure.. we built pyramids through labour, so if we use any kind of technology to achieve the same results; it is now lazy??

Perhaps it is not a true comparison, but in what ways is survival so different from commercialism? How does one know how to survive?
So we are taught a different skill set and so whhhhaaaaaaaaat?


I will not even pretend to understand what your are hopefully trying to convey here. <--ands that one Owellian (cause my spelling slash grammer is the leas tt of my problems eh??) [email protected]


Instead of trying to trash the current way of quote things are done and here is why unquote; why not spell out your current ideal system??


Unless you are a voice of positivity, you will never be a voice of accord in yer so called lazy; unmotivated; American peers; lives. BUT Seriously shame? Or are you going for some other play?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
complacency = Think about it, when has humanity created something because it was purely logical?.
umm Trigonometry? We are speaking of a pure, closed, logical system right??

I would include mathematics, but it may not be entirely closed .. I mean good enough for Einstein bbut whateva bug
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
complacency = only so many hours in the day to get things done as it is.

This is simply entitlement being the upper bar and tolerance being the lower bar. Now, if you dump free money on people, or introduce them to free health care at birth, that lowest potential of satisfaction is not as low as if you didn't give them free money, and did not give them free health care. Those are moral things to do but don't make sense because your making it hard for the animals to be satisfied, you see we will perpetually send ourselves into a situation of infinite unhappiness and lack of morals.
OK, so can you tell me the true price of love? I'm saying do you need to be raped as a child to fully appreciate and pay for the meaning of love as an adult? Cause if love were free ( do you even have any kind of cost structure?? and do so show) it would be meaningless?? Because, if there was a price attached wow everyone would what exactly??

..I mean if you think you can satisfy an animal..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
You're trying to pull some extra meaning out of a process that is designed purely to have you reproduce and be able to take care of the offspring; the reason you feel love is because humans (and many mammals, animals) require to be cared for by a parent subsequent to birth, and thus the parents must have an incentive to do so. Now remember, these animals have no conscious logic to their actions and thus are required to act based purely on emotional/instinctive incentive and thus love is absolutely fundamental to the survival of the species and has nothing to do with the individual, that is where your logical interpretation of the feeling becomes inconsistent with the reality, that is, that love is designed for the child, and not as vital for your partner/spouse after the kid(s) grow, that is why you never stop loving your child but may eventually loose affection for a partner. The average marriage length before divorce happens to be between 7-9 years, and if you consider that nature only designs systems to be adequate and not perfect (i.e. natural selection), then we can see the correlation with what is adequate to perpetuate the species via reproduction, that is, the parents are no longer needed once the children are almost preteens; takes longer for children to mature nowadays - their mandate to life is much different, and required more than feral food gathering and pack-play.

So there is structure but it is vague; simply speaking - in order for the race to continue to live, and due to the fact we can't hunt our first day out of the womb, a force is needed within the parents of the offspring to care for the offspring until it can hunt/help, with that force, the species would not go on due to lack of reproduction. Thus the force exists, whether it has implications on other parts of the animals behavior is unclear, though will exist so as long as those adverse effects are negligible in determining whether it is adequate to reproduce.

In any case, this is evolution jabber - we picked up logic, and that was a fluke, so anything you do with love/emotion is yours to play and interpret with - flukes don't have mandates. In any case, knowing your biology may help you understand your behavior, but that's not really what your concerned with, you just want to feel stuff, just make sure decisions are not based so much off feelings so much as to loose our logical approach at sustaining the species, as we lost this impulsive sustainability long ago, and can never go back with logic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
The constitutional set-up in the US is a sea-anchor to reform.
Without massive popular support (a de facto revolution), nothing can be changed.

Checks and balances, a grip on power is very hard to dislodge.

The answer, that everyone seems to have realised: go around the law. Either physically outside of jurisdiction (globalisation) or verbally around it (legalism).

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
 
1 - 20 of 144 Posts
Top