"Cohen Marcus May 21 at 9:51pm Report
hey - I have to ask you to please take the ATW MAPS session off of your youtube account & no longer record and/or post them through your personal page.
I'v contacted Reece and have asked him to contact you as well.
Because ATW is about to launch as an actual "company" even tho it's a spiritual vision - we have to maintain intellectual property on the things through software and programs that ATW is providing...
what that means exactly - is that people can't record and re-broadcast/post an unofficial outside recording that isn't directly through ATW - because we're set up in a way that takes people through ATWSource hubpage/classroom/events and tracks who watches what and captures emails to be able to connect with the people enjoying ATW & MAPS events.
Of course we'd love it if you wanted post the link, archive, spread the word to help support reece & maps - or whatever - as long as it is our recording & not an outside source.
this will be the case with all live events/archives - or else - we run into the issue of random people posting paid events and compromising the integrity of the structure we're putting together.
hope you understand!
most legal "companies" have to run this way, or things quickly get out of hand.
please respond to this and let me know that you'll take them down please.
thanks again,
cohen marcus
co-creator of Awakening Truth Worldwide Online Classroom, Social Community and ATW Radio"
Simply put: this does not sit well with me.
Copyright is bullshit, and I'm sad to see
this intermingle with MAPS. The ATW
site ones do not have the ability for
a YouTube-like interaction.
My response:
"SomethingSea Trashed May 21 at 10:27pm
Hello Cohen.
I'm a little taken aback by this turn of events. My goal with posting them on YouTube is that the the Sessions be able to have a YouTube feel -- comments, ratings, the such.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with YouTube. Since you want to have people be centralized at the ATW website, I see a way for us to both get what we want:
1. I can put the videos on unlisted (unsearchable by YouTube; only accessible through knowing the YT url) and embedding them on the ATW website where it is seen fit.
2.
a. You can upload the videos on public on TheATWMovement; however, supposing that this goes against the goal of centralization on the ATW website,
b. You can upload the videos on unlisted on TheATWMovement and embed them where you see fit on the ATW website.
3. I give you each MAPS session and you can upload them on public/unlisted, so that you don't have to do the work of recording the sessions the YouTube style.
I much prefer the style of YouTube over the ATW archives, and I would be saddened to not be able to watch MAPS on YouTube."
His reply back:
"Cohen Marcus May 21 at 10:49pm Report
i know you're just trying to bring awareness and support MAPS - but the HUGE downfall is with being able to SEE who's taking what and for each person who participates/watches the events - they go into the database to be able to communicate with them. I know youtube is a better layout for viewing - we're working on some things to be able to post certain things through youtube...but the true goal is having people come INTO the classroom and social community, not just particpate on the outskirts - so this is something we REALLY need you to take down - because i see a total of 200 + people/views on total maps - that right now - we can't communicate with..
we're branching into several other areas and will be integrating certain aspects of whats going on in ATW through our youtube account.
We appreciate the offer, but would like you to simply remove the ATW MAPS sessions (through instant presenter) on your youtube account and no longer record them.
like i said - theres bigger aspects of whats going on, about to be shown - but at no point can we have people recording sessions and posting them without going through the right avenues.
hope you understand,
cohen"
Then I made the video that proceeds this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYUzTThMliE
and I replied back:
"SomethingSea Trashed May 22 at 12:25am
I have unlisted the MAPS videos. I have also made a video wherein I talk about this and present both YT and ATW links, recommending the ATW links for the reason(s) you have mentioned.
I feel rather uncertain about this, but I'll watch and see how things develop.
Thank you for being understanding and talking about this so I can understand what your intention is. It has greatly helped. I at first thought it was about copyright/intellectual property in the profit DMCA sense; I now see it as being nearly the same as my intent, with just a different twist to it. That I can definitely appreciate."
His reply:
"Cohen Marcus May 22 at 12:27am Report
yeah - i saw u just took them down, very much appreciated!
and we welcome your support in any other ways - thank YOU for understanding!
i see you signed up for the event tomorrow, should be a good one! Take care, love and light
lots of awesome events to come :)"
My reply:
"SomethingSea Trashed May 22 at 12:35am
:) Thank you as well. lol It is indeed understandable why you would also thank me for understanding, as it means fewer lost contacts to give information to. xD
Yes, I've signed up for the Adronis one - it looks good! Will it be archived, as the MAPS sessions are? ;-)
May MAPS and ATW fluorish :-)"
You'll notice I didn't mention my intent to continue to record the sessions. That's for two reasons.
1. I'm not sure he'd agree about it, and... well, I'm sort of a sneaky mofo.
2. Since they'll be both unlisted and only on the video mentioned, the loss of contact information from viewing the YT videos will, I think, be minimal.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Friday, April 22, 2011
But Ain't I An Anarchist?
I recently distanced myself from anarchism.
A 40-second clip from a stefbot video
epitomizes quite well the conception
of anarchists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULJQnaHD1Bw
2:20 - 3:00
"I kind of ran out of arguments for... anything
the State can do.
...
Larry, I'm beginning to realize something.
There's nothing that the State can do well
that the Free Market can't do better. Does
this mean that I'm an anarchist?"
"Yes, it does."
The stereotypical conception of the anarchist,
of course, is the rebellious teenager who wants
to disobey the rules and hasn't grow up to the
"real world" where laws exist and people work
with each other, as opposed to being rebellious
individualists.
This, however, was not the reason for distancing
myself. And, if it was, I ought be ashamed for
"leaving" for such a silly reason. What I left
for was something a bit different, though perhaps
equally childish.
Let's look at the definition of anarchism:
An-arch-ism.
Disregarding, first, the obvious
grammar aspects of the word - first the "an", meaning
not, and then the "ism", standing for philosophy,
ideology, or something like that, we're left with
ARCH.
Arch here stands for Archon, or Archy. Starting with
the word "archon", you can google and find references
such as "ruler", "prince", or "king". Now that sounds
quite like what people who are against authority -
especially illegitimate authority, are about. No rulers,
meaning no kings or princes -- de facto ownership without
the effort.
And now with archy, that's a more familiar root, found in
such things as Hierarchy, Democracy (actually, no...),
Monarchy, Theocracy (well, that c keeps getting in there...),
... other terms don't come to mind, so we'll use
Hierarchy and Monarchy, disregarding the cracy's at the moment.
The important one, actually, is Hierarchy. I'm not against Hierarchy.
The example I most commonly use for this is someone who rocks
at basketball and someone who sucks at it. Are you sure you don't
want to put them into a hierarchy with a scale such that one of
them is obviously better, and one worse?
Actually, now having realized that the root words may be misleading,
and perhaps I am in fact doing some amount of equivocation, I'll
leave this slightly open-ended.
So now to one of the other versions of the word:
An-archy.
Which brings us back to the ruler issue. Does Archon indeed mean
"ruler", "prince", or "king", or does it mean ruling? Or... what?
A common complaint against anarchists is that they don't
believe in rules, law, or regulation. In other words, the stereotype:
Anarchy is lawlessness and chaos.
With some people I've talked to, it's assumed that I left it for
that reason, for that assocation. Not in the least. If that was
what I was up against, I would lead with this rebuttal, and let's watch
the string of responses:
"So you're telling me that you're going to give a group of people
to which you've designated a special name (gov't, police, whatever)
that means they get the resources... guns,
and do you expect them to solve problems? What's their incentive to?
I'm not against laws, I'm not against regulations; I'm against
giving a group of people guns, and then just trusting them with the
guns."
"Who's going to enforce the laws?"
"Let me reflect that back to you: who's going to make sure the special
people are going to be subject to the very laws they apparently enforce?"
"Voting and the legal process."
"So you're telling me that if 51% of people want so and such,
the 49% are ignored? So, are you telling me that if 51% of people want
money from 49% of people, then the special people will, with their
guns, take the money from the 49%?"
"Do you have a better system? Democracy might not be the best, but
it's certainly better than chaos and anarchy."
"You're repeating a point from before that is still in contention.
Repetition works, but only for so long. My not having a system
does not mean defaulting to Statism is a better option, any more than
not having an alternative to Christianity or The Venus Project
means that not having a solution is bunk."
"I'm sure when you get older you'll understand why what you're talking
about is utopian. We can't have a society without laws. And you've told
me that you don't vote. If you don't vote, why are you criticizing the
system? You haven't even participated or done anything. Why don't you
let your voice be heard? Vote! That's the only way to change the system."
"Ageism. Again bringing up an assumption that is still in contention -
I said that I'm not against laws. And by voting you're saying that you,
at least in part, agree with how the system currently is - you've participated.
If the system is shitty, you have no-one to blame but yourself. I, on the
other hand - and I'm quoting Carlin - who did not participate, can not
be blamed for this shitstorm of a mess that we're in. At least, not in '
the arena."
"Ok the, wise guy, what do you propose? What's your solution?"
"I just want to get rid of the cancer that is the State. I just want
to get rid of the belief and support for the monopoly on force that the
supposedly-special group has. And I'm going about to do this in two ways:
1. Conversing about this to convince people otherwise.
2. Refining my conversation, tactics, and other things to be more effective
at dismantling The State."
Of course it's biased.
Now, why did I reject anarchism? It was because of a little quibble
in a comment section, to do with how anarchism is against hierarchy.
To me, this was insane, and so I rejected the label. At this point,
I'm thinking that it was premature to do so. To give some more context,
this was just after I'd been having heated debate on the Anarchism
page on facebook about Capitalism. What I consider Corporatism is
how people were using the word Capitalism. I consider[ed?] Capitalism
as essentially synonymous with "Free Market", and so was confused to
hear about "anti-Capitalism". From what I saw, it is related to
Marxist rhetoric.
For this lack of definitiveness that I saw in anarchism, I rejected it,
after having had this long history of trying to find a label that would
fit the "neo-anarchists" on YouTube, and moved overtly into Anti-Statism.
Anti-statism had a much more concise definition (and a much more
obvious one), and this is what I wanted. Although it has also an ironic
twist to it, which is that it aided conversation away from discussing
labels and into discussing the ideas themselves, since the anti-statism
label is, of course, not associated with chaos. But I hadn't gotten
away from anarchism for that purpose. It was a nice addition, though.
So, accordingly, it appears that I am, indeed, an anarchist.
Are there subgroup labels for anarchism like there are for atheism?
Like, an anti-statist anarchism? anstat-anarchism? Anstachism?
Astatchism? The problem with going near a-statism is that we are not
without the State. Unlike with A-theism, lacking belief in the thing
does not make This thing go away. It's more social than that.
To a certain extent, it's the same with atheism. However, this is only
the case to the extent that a State exists, since the State has a referent,
whereas God does not.
Unlike with Meme, a term for this has not come up yet...
A 40-second clip from a stefbot video
epitomizes quite well the conception
of anarchists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULJQnaHD1Bw
2:20 - 3:00
"I kind of ran out of arguments for... anything
the State can do.
...
Larry, I'm beginning to realize something.
There's nothing that the State can do well
that the Free Market can't do better. Does
this mean that I'm an anarchist?"
"Yes, it does."
The stereotypical conception of the anarchist,
of course, is the rebellious teenager who wants
to disobey the rules and hasn't grow up to the
"real world" where laws exist and people work
with each other, as opposed to being rebellious
individualists.
This, however, was not the reason for distancing
myself. And, if it was, I ought be ashamed for
"leaving" for such a silly reason. What I left
for was something a bit different, though perhaps
equally childish.
Let's look at the definition of anarchism:
An-arch-ism.
Disregarding, first, the obvious
grammar aspects of the word - first the "an", meaning
not, and then the "ism", standing for philosophy,
ideology, or something like that, we're left with
ARCH.
Arch here stands for Archon, or Archy. Starting with
the word "archon", you can google and find references
such as "ruler", "prince", or "king". Now that sounds
quite like what people who are against authority -
especially illegitimate authority, are about. No rulers,
meaning no kings or princes -- de facto ownership without
the effort.
And now with archy, that's a more familiar root, found in
such things as Hierarchy, Democracy (actually, no...),
Monarchy, Theocracy (well, that c keeps getting in there...),
... other terms don't come to mind, so we'll use
Hierarchy and Monarchy, disregarding the cracy's at the moment.
The important one, actually, is Hierarchy. I'm not against Hierarchy.
The example I most commonly use for this is someone who rocks
at basketball and someone who sucks at it. Are you sure you don't
want to put them into a hierarchy with a scale such that one of
them is obviously better, and one worse?
Actually, now having realized that the root words may be misleading,
and perhaps I am in fact doing some amount of equivocation, I'll
leave this slightly open-ended.
So now to one of the other versions of the word:
An-archy.
Which brings us back to the ruler issue. Does Archon indeed mean
"ruler", "prince", or "king", or does it mean ruling? Or... what?
A common complaint against anarchists is that they don't
believe in rules, law, or regulation. In other words, the stereotype:
Anarchy is lawlessness and chaos.
With some people I've talked to, it's assumed that I left it for
that reason, for that assocation. Not in the least. If that was
what I was up against, I would lead with this rebuttal, and let's watch
the string of responses:
"So you're telling me that you're going to give a group of people
to which you've designated a special name (gov't, police, whatever)
that means they get the resources... guns,
and do you expect them to solve problems? What's their incentive to?
I'm not against laws, I'm not against regulations; I'm against
giving a group of people guns, and then just trusting them with the
guns."
"Who's going to enforce the laws?"
"Let me reflect that back to you: who's going to make sure the special
people are going to be subject to the very laws they apparently enforce?"
"Voting and the legal process."
"So you're telling me that if 51% of people want so and such,
the 49% are ignored? So, are you telling me that if 51% of people want
money from 49% of people, then the special people will, with their
guns, take the money from the 49%?"
"Do you have a better system? Democracy might not be the best, but
it's certainly better than chaos and anarchy."
"You're repeating a point from before that is still in contention.
Repetition works, but only for so long. My not having a system
does not mean defaulting to Statism is a better option, any more than
not having an alternative to Christianity or The Venus Project
means that not having a solution is bunk."
"I'm sure when you get older you'll understand why what you're talking
about is utopian. We can't have a society without laws. And you've told
me that you don't vote. If you don't vote, why are you criticizing the
system? You haven't even participated or done anything. Why don't you
let your voice be heard? Vote! That's the only way to change the system."
"Ageism. Again bringing up an assumption that is still in contention -
I said that I'm not against laws. And by voting you're saying that you,
at least in part, agree with how the system currently is - you've participated.
If the system is shitty, you have no-one to blame but yourself. I, on the
other hand - and I'm quoting Carlin - who did not participate, can not
be blamed for this shitstorm of a mess that we're in. At least, not in '
the arena."
"Ok the, wise guy, what do you propose? What's your solution?"
"I just want to get rid of the cancer that is the State. I just want
to get rid of the belief and support for the monopoly on force that the
supposedly-special group has. And I'm going about to do this in two ways:
1. Conversing about this to convince people otherwise.
2. Refining my conversation, tactics, and other things to be more effective
at dismantling The State."
Of course it's biased.
Now, why did I reject anarchism? It was because of a little quibble
in a comment section, to do with how anarchism is against hierarchy.
To me, this was insane, and so I rejected the label. At this point,
I'm thinking that it was premature to do so. To give some more context,
this was just after I'd been having heated debate on the Anarchism
page on facebook about Capitalism. What I consider Corporatism is
how people were using the word Capitalism. I consider[ed?] Capitalism
as essentially synonymous with "Free Market", and so was confused to
hear about "anti-Capitalism". From what I saw, it is related to
Marxist rhetoric.
For this lack of definitiveness that I saw in anarchism, I rejected it,
after having had this long history of trying to find a label that would
fit the "neo-anarchists" on YouTube, and moved overtly into Anti-Statism.
Anti-statism had a much more concise definition (and a much more
obvious one), and this is what I wanted. Although it has also an ironic
twist to it, which is that it aided conversation away from discussing
labels and into discussing the ideas themselves, since the anti-statism
label is, of course, not associated with chaos. But I hadn't gotten
away from anarchism for that purpose. It was a nice addition, though.
So, accordingly, it appears that I am, indeed, an anarchist.
Are there subgroup labels for anarchism like there are for atheism?
Like, an anti-statist anarchism? anstat-anarchism? Anstachism?
Astatchism? The problem with going near a-statism is that we are not
without the State. Unlike with A-theism, lacking belief in the thing
does not make This thing go away. It's more social than that.
To a certain extent, it's the same with atheism. However, this is only
the case to the extent that a State exists, since the State has a referent,
whereas God does not.
Unlike with Meme, a term for this has not come up yet...
Thursday, April 14, 2011
(Preliminary Sketch) The Cursed Bladder
Written 9-7-10.
It was a clever design. He tweaked the other man's space-time vortex such that even though the other man went to the bathroom every day, a leak between his past and present body would always add more urine back to his bladder. Soon the other man was peeing every other hour, and then every half. he called the doctors while sitting at the toilet, an almost constant stream tinkling.
The other man had a lot of money, and so he ordered a special visit from the doctors, but to no avail. Soon his bladder reached full capacity, and exploded. An hour later, doctors found him, collapsed on the floor, in a puddle of urine. Declared dead by nightfall, the doctors operating on him were puzzled by the phenomenon.
The man was dead, and yet more urine came from his bladder. On TV, evangelicals were pronouncing it "The Cursed Bladder", and forewarning of imminent danger, that we should all void our bowels from sin, lest we end up like The Cursed Man.
The hospital became alarmed upon realizing that the bladder would not cease to excrete urine. Urologists were called from many fields, and they were all baffled. According to their knowledge, the bladder ought be inactive. And yet, the zombie bladder bled.
The question was posed to any number of sources - yahoo, google, experts, and all. Soon the focus narrowed to a terrorist attack involving enemies of the state. A private researcher into both the occult and space-time research caught wind of the story, immediately suspecting a trickster.
However, he, nor anyone else, was granted access to The Cursed Bladder. Instead, he was directed to a form. The form allowed one to ask any sort of question regarding the bladder, and, be that it could be explained through a video, would be shot and uploaded to YouTube, having special protection against false flagging.
There was already a video up from the user called TheCursedBladder. It contained an introduction, and then a pan to where it was being held. It was suspended, almost hammock-like, in what looked like a giant water bottle. This was to contain the fluid until people figured out what to do with it.
It was a clever design. He tweaked the other man's space-time vortex such that even though the other man went to the bathroom every day, a leak between his past and present body would always add more urine back to his bladder. Soon the other man was peeing every other hour, and then every half. he called the doctors while sitting at the toilet, an almost constant stream tinkling.
The other man had a lot of money, and so he ordered a special visit from the doctors, but to no avail. Soon his bladder reached full capacity, and exploded. An hour later, doctors found him, collapsed on the floor, in a puddle of urine. Declared dead by nightfall, the doctors operating on him were puzzled by the phenomenon.
The man was dead, and yet more urine came from his bladder. On TV, evangelicals were pronouncing it "The Cursed Bladder", and forewarning of imminent danger, that we should all void our bowels from sin, lest we end up like The Cursed Man.
The hospital became alarmed upon realizing that the bladder would not cease to excrete urine. Urologists were called from many fields, and they were all baffled. According to their knowledge, the bladder ought be inactive. And yet, the zombie bladder bled.
The question was posed to any number of sources - yahoo, google, experts, and all. Soon the focus narrowed to a terrorist attack involving enemies of the state. A private researcher into both the occult and space-time research caught wind of the story, immediately suspecting a trickster.
However, he, nor anyone else, was granted access to The Cursed Bladder. Instead, he was directed to a form. The form allowed one to ask any sort of question regarding the bladder, and, be that it could be explained through a video, would be shot and uploaded to YouTube, having special protection against false flagging.
There was already a video up from the user called TheCursedBladder. It contained an introduction, and then a pan to where it was being held. It was suspended, almost hammock-like, in what looked like a giant water bottle. This was to contain the fluid until people figured out what to do with it.
Wine.
Written 9-7-10.
(Wow, I was able to actually find the drink -
http://cocktailculture.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/kahlua_brand.jpg?w=230&h=288 )
Wine. What an honor. A slow tip to pour the glass, the pour coming to a stop and ceasing. Wine connoisseur.
A look. Dark, like coffee. A smooth clearness to it. The blood of the universe, distilled as wisdom.
Twirling, the alcohol bathing the sides like ocean waves; coming, receding. An overspill. A somewhat hurried lick, almost spoiling the mood.
And then the sensation. Deep. Mild. Strong, but not over-powering. A sniff, and a tea-like meditation burning the lungs. They open like a kite. A sip. The taste reaches out in the mouth, producing star-bursts of taste and calm.
He sits in a meditative state, writing about this. Well, it's not wine. Some sort of coffee brandy.
Listen to it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz6WBWkSjtI
(Wow, I was able to actually find the drink -
http://cocktailculture.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/kahlua_brand.jpg?w=230&h=288 )
Wine. What an honor. A slow tip to pour the glass, the pour coming to a stop and ceasing. Wine connoisseur.
A look. Dark, like coffee. A smooth clearness to it. The blood of the universe, distilled as wisdom.
Twirling, the alcohol bathing the sides like ocean waves; coming, receding. An overspill. A somewhat hurried lick, almost spoiling the mood.
And then the sensation. Deep. Mild. Strong, but not over-powering. A sniff, and a tea-like meditation burning the lungs. They open like a kite. A sip. The taste reaches out in the mouth, producing star-bursts of taste and calm.
He sits in a meditative state, writing about this. Well, it's not wine. Some sort of coffee brandy.
Listen to it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz6WBWkSjtI
Monday, March 28, 2011
Manic At The Lib
Perhaps you thought genius was something special. Too bad it ain't.
The future is anarcha-feminism. That is, the Y that is male dominance is coming to an end.
The beauty of the YouTube movement is that I - you can - become absent. The different
is little - if at all - noticed. Therein lies the beauty of your and my irrelevance.
It is dangerous for me to be in a library. So many good books. So many thoughts to sort
through and enjoy. I might come to make a little habitat and write confetti on the walls
in poetry proclaiming my love of libraries.
I have been reading about feminism, per the topic that I have most recently been debating
on YouTube. Combine with that agorism, and you have a recipe for anarcha-feminism. Perhaps
I will make a video saying that I'm an anarcha-feminist, though it would be clearly unorthodox, as
my reasoning is as follows:
-Men will soon be deemed biologically unnecessary (and really, indeed are already, sort of like meat
being considered and called a luxury)
-Gov'ts are unsustainable
What IS sustainable, however, are small communities. And what is the basis beHind these communities? That's right - WOMEN.
Although, like with gov't and school, feminists quite often to nearly always miss the mark: not every man is to blame for patriarchy. The problem is one of perception and biological aggression, not of every-man-is-a-rapist. The same sort of thinking can be seen within my own mind when I talk about school and gov'-in-general, and the slander (smashing buildings, destroying shit) of the Violent Anarchists could be compared to the Radical Feminists:
We see the destructive, and, in wanting to repair, overestimate and overgeneralize.
And this works both ways. Is not feminism a reaction to patriarchy and male dominance? Accordingly, we are merely looking at a set of reactions that get progressively smaller and more specific.
Here's one set that comes to mind:
-To live
-Bind together
-Not enough to bind together
-Everyone contributes
-Time passes
-Old structure that functioned for survival redundant... but... um...
-Anarchy! Violence!
-Anarchy = Chaos
-Neo-Anarchists despise old associations to label
Another one:
-To live
-Care for young
-Get raped and dominated
-Care for assholes' young
-Fight for ringawongs (in our language, "rights") whose structure is male-oriented (fighting within the system).
-Win ringawongs
-Oppress males
-Male version of feminism
Smaller and smaller we go, where it stops, soon to be known.
Genius cannot be considered without relevancy to the background. All genius can be reduced to background noise that needed one person to go behind. There had to be a reason for it, so we shall label ONE MAN, and not any others, KING. Alan Watts, you naughty boy; thank you for the idea.
Curious, then, is that process of interest. Various types of living, conforming, and the such, all combine into different types of push and pull. I suppose a Physician's diagnosis of the feminist and anarchist movement is out of order?
Curious, our contradictory and hypocritical modes of thought, not central to any Pharisees, but within the human - all humans - as a part of our biology and psychology almost.
Epitomized, is it not, with politics?
Quantum entanglement is said to occur between those of close interpersonal relationships, and this new study and perhaps science of quantum-ness in relation to thought is thought to be quite close to pseudo-science. Possibly, yes... and did you know that Newton tried to turn Lead into Gold? Irrelevant defenses aside, Yeah, and so? Must everything we do be productive? Play, dear scot, on your trombone, for which others derive enjoyment and needless pleasure, and tell me that studying these fun quirks isn't simply a more complicated version thereof!
It is the lack of being able to see for which we probe and do mess. For this reason, the trombone person is not disturbed or called a quack -- anyone can see what is going on quite plainly. But the quantum mechanics thinker, the gov't employee, the card magician, and so forth - these are all quite hard to understand. And what we do not understand, we are suspicious of.
Partly, with good reason. It's hard to understand a speech by a president - it's geniusly designed to sound intelligible and convey nothing of sense. Brilliant babble. And here comes in the science of paranoia and superstition.
You see a face in the forest, and you run. Turns out, you were hallucinating the face. But, were it an actual face, and were it connected to a bear, you wouldn't be alive now.
Slow goes the progress, with much waste, and this is mirrored in the atom. 99% empty space with 1% the proton, nucleus, and so forth. 99% of the galaxy is empty space, with the few planets orbiting around. 99% of human effort is wasted through various means, famously of which is ignorance, emotional defenses, gov't, and conquest, for which all... the spreading of the living.
Reproduction, through whatever means necessary, is the standard of life, to the standard of non-existence. We start with a rough starting point, and that hasn't really changed. We have frequent examples of empires where the protons and nucleus's gather for a moment, but cannot retain their organism for long. America, for instance, is one such organism. After a while, complexity takes shape, and the shedding of our snake's skin takes place, at great cost to those inside and outside the snake, for the dead snake skin is yet living, the pseudo-zombie example that I now do shew.
I had half a mind to change the title of my blog to "Observing Is Denial", but that seems too universal; I don't feel it is necessarily correct.
But observing something changes what is being observed. And from that we get the problem of learning and understanding, for is it not rather impossible to isolate elements, if, by observing, they change? And what if they change differently depending on how we look at them? Eh? And so an outward focus must needs eventually go full loop - and back to introspection, and back to the waves settling down, whether by death, by silence, or what.
What are these babblings but more waves whose time for silence will soon be?
The future is anarcha-feminism. That is, the Y that is male dominance is coming to an end.
The beauty of the YouTube movement is that I - you can - become absent. The different
is little - if at all - noticed. Therein lies the beauty of your and my irrelevance.
It is dangerous for me to be in a library. So many good books. So many thoughts to sort
through and enjoy. I might come to make a little habitat and write confetti on the walls
in poetry proclaiming my love of libraries.
I have been reading about feminism, per the topic that I have most recently been debating
on YouTube. Combine with that agorism, and you have a recipe for anarcha-feminism. Perhaps
I will make a video saying that I'm an anarcha-feminist, though it would be clearly unorthodox, as
my reasoning is as follows:
-Men will soon be deemed biologically unnecessary (and really, indeed are already, sort of like meat
being considered and called a luxury)
-Gov'ts are unsustainable
What IS sustainable, however, are small communities. And what is the basis beHind these communities? That's right - WOMEN.
Although, like with gov't and school, feminists quite often to nearly always miss the mark: not every man is to blame for patriarchy. The problem is one of perception and biological aggression, not of every-man-is-a-rapist. The same sort of thinking can be seen within my own mind when I talk about school and gov'-in-general, and the slander (smashing buildings, destroying shit) of the Violent Anarchists could be compared to the Radical Feminists:
We see the destructive, and, in wanting to repair, overestimate and overgeneralize.
And this works both ways. Is not feminism a reaction to patriarchy and male dominance? Accordingly, we are merely looking at a set of reactions that get progressively smaller and more specific.
Here's one set that comes to mind:
-To live
-Bind together
-Not enough to bind together
-Everyone contributes
-Time passes
-Old structure that functioned for survival redundant... but... um...
-Anarchy! Violence!
-Anarchy = Chaos
-Neo-Anarchists despise old associations to label
Another one:
-To live
-Care for young
-Get raped and dominated
-Care for assholes' young
-Fight for ringawongs (in our language, "rights") whose structure is male-oriented (fighting within the system).
-Win ringawongs
-Oppress males
-Male version of feminism
Smaller and smaller we go, where it stops, soon to be known.
Genius cannot be considered without relevancy to the background. All genius can be reduced to background noise that needed one person to go behind. There had to be a reason for it, so we shall label ONE MAN, and not any others, KING. Alan Watts, you naughty boy; thank you for the idea.
Curious, then, is that process of interest. Various types of living, conforming, and the such, all combine into different types of push and pull. I suppose a Physician's diagnosis of the feminist and anarchist movement is out of order?
Curious, our contradictory and hypocritical modes of thought, not central to any Pharisees, but within the human - all humans - as a part of our biology and psychology almost.
Epitomized, is it not, with politics?
Quantum entanglement is said to occur between those of close interpersonal relationships, and this new study and perhaps science of quantum-ness in relation to thought is thought to be quite close to pseudo-science. Possibly, yes... and did you know that Newton tried to turn Lead into Gold? Irrelevant defenses aside, Yeah, and so? Must everything we do be productive? Play, dear scot, on your trombone, for which others derive enjoyment and needless pleasure, and tell me that studying these fun quirks isn't simply a more complicated version thereof!
It is the lack of being able to see for which we probe and do mess. For this reason, the trombone person is not disturbed or called a quack -- anyone can see what is going on quite plainly. But the quantum mechanics thinker, the gov't employee, the card magician, and so forth - these are all quite hard to understand. And what we do not understand, we are suspicious of.
Partly, with good reason. It's hard to understand a speech by a president - it's geniusly designed to sound intelligible and convey nothing of sense. Brilliant babble. And here comes in the science of paranoia and superstition.
You see a face in the forest, and you run. Turns out, you were hallucinating the face. But, were it an actual face, and were it connected to a bear, you wouldn't be alive now.
Slow goes the progress, with much waste, and this is mirrored in the atom. 99% empty space with 1% the proton, nucleus, and so forth. 99% of the galaxy is empty space, with the few planets orbiting around. 99% of human effort is wasted through various means, famously of which is ignorance, emotional defenses, gov't, and conquest, for which all... the spreading of the living.
Reproduction, through whatever means necessary, is the standard of life, to the standard of non-existence. We start with a rough starting point, and that hasn't really changed. We have frequent examples of empires where the protons and nucleus's gather for a moment, but cannot retain their organism for long. America, for instance, is one such organism. After a while, complexity takes shape, and the shedding of our snake's skin takes place, at great cost to those inside and outside the snake, for the dead snake skin is yet living, the pseudo-zombie example that I now do shew.
I had half a mind to change the title of my blog to "Observing Is Denial", but that seems too universal; I don't feel it is necessarily correct.
But observing something changes what is being observed. And from that we get the problem of learning and understanding, for is it not rather impossible to isolate elements, if, by observing, they change? And what if they change differently depending on how we look at them? Eh? And so an outward focus must needs eventually go full loop - and back to introspection, and back to the waves settling down, whether by death, by silence, or what.
What are these babblings but more waves whose time for silence will soon be?
Saturday, March 19, 2011
The Unnecessary Gov't Dichotomty
Actually, I'm not saying with this one that gov't creates
a divide between people, creating citizen and law-giver.
I'm saying that there is an element of legitimacy to gov't
in the sense of dependency on parents. In rejecting gov't,
people also go to the extreme and go the slippery slide
of imposing their will on parents, ->in my opinion<-.
The series starts off with
"Theft, or Need? - Which Moral Question Trumps?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFMWWjgGyNA
in which the question of whether it is more important
to focus on theft or the needs of people is asked,
and not answered.
Hythloday71 commented on this video. There was a bit of
back and forth and some misunderstanding, and so a Skype conversation
was held with him as well, wherein we clarified our positions
to each other.
The video can be seen here:
"An Anti-Statist Communist?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctt6R201C5U
Additionally, I began to theorize about a new version of how
society could work, having now potentially (because I might be
wrong) realized that many anti-statists were unnecessarily
dichotomizing dependency, assuming it all to be illegitimate
(gov't makes you dependent on itself). However, this is not the
case with parents.
Accordingly, I made this video, asking for thoughts and critiques
regarding the new thought:
"Am I a Fascist?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsbuafL5rS0
So far there has not really been any thoughts or critiques.
Mostly, there have been PMs
with one person who I started talking with about this.
Accordingly, I wish to put details into the thoughts,
and make it more concrete. Whether or not others help me with
this, it's something I intend to spend some time on.
a divide between people, creating citizen and law-giver.
I'm saying that there is an element of legitimacy to gov't
in the sense of dependency on parents. In rejecting gov't,
people also go to the extreme and go the slippery slide
of imposing their will on parents, ->in my opinion<-.
The series starts off with
"Theft, or Need? - Which Moral Question Trumps?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFMWWjgGyNA
in which the question of whether it is more important
to focus on theft or the needs of people is asked,
and not answered.
Hythloday71 commented on this video. There was a bit of
back and forth and some misunderstanding, and so a Skype conversation
was held with him as well, wherein we clarified our positions
to each other.
The video can be seen here:
"An Anti-Statist Communist?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctt6R201C5U
Additionally, I began to theorize about a new version of how
society could work, having now potentially (because I might be
wrong) realized that many anti-statists were unnecessarily
dichotomizing dependency, assuming it all to be illegitimate
(gov't makes you dependent on itself). However, this is not the
case with parents.
Accordingly, I made this video, asking for thoughts and critiques
regarding the new thought:
"Am I a Fascist?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsbuafL5rS0
So far there has not really been any thoughts or critiques.
Mostly, there have been PMs
with one person who I started talking with about this.
Accordingly, I wish to put details into the thoughts,
and make it more concrete. Whether or not others help me with
this, it's something I intend to spend some time on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)