Freedom & Modern Systems of Control

[Tripolation]

We can reject everything else: religion, ideology, all received wisdom. But we cannot escape the necessity of love and compassion. This, then, is my true religion, my simple faith. In this sense, there is no need for temple or church, for mosque or synagogue, no need for complicated philosophy, doctrine, or dogma. Our own heart, our own mind, is the temple. The doctrine is compassion. Love for others and respect for their rights and dignity, no matter who or what they are: ultimately these are all we need.
- Lhamo Thondup

 

[fink]

We can reject everything else: religion, ideology, all received wisdom. But we cannot escape the necessity of love and compassion. This, then, is my true religion, my simple faith. In this sense, there is no need for temple or church, for mosque or synagogue, no need for complicated philosophy, doctrine, or dogma. Our own heart, our own mind, is the temple. The doctrine is compassion. Love for others and respect for their rights and dignity, no matter who or what they are: ultimately these are all we need.
- Lhamo Thondup

And a big, bloodthirsty army of willing murderers to defend our love and compassion from the world...

 

[Tripolation]

And a big, bloodthirsty army of willing murderers to defend our love and compassion from the world...

Dark..

Yeah.. you know it's just pointing a direction for all. It would be nice if we did not require military to defend our basic right to love and show compassion. If everyone in the world took this direction, the need for armies would not exist. Unfortunately your point is accurate as much as I would like to it not be so.

 

[fink]

Darkness is 50% of the puzzle, from my perspective.

I wonder how many times in human existence has a society achieved such a level of peace and compassion, no armies, no weapons, that all it took was one rogue minded individual to end it all.

The more peaceful we get, the easier we are to conquer.

 

[blig-blug]

It would be nice if we did not require military to defend our basic right to love and show compassion.

More like its purpose is to export and enforce "our love and compassion" around the world no matter how many innocent people are killed and tortured in the process...

 

[LuxObscura]

Globally, we haven’t reached the necessary level of caution yet.

 

[LuxObscura]

Darkness is 50% of the puzzle, from my perspective.

I wonder how many times in human existence has a society achieved such a level of peace and compassion, no armies, no weapons, that all it took was one rogue minded individual to end it all.

The more peaceful we get, the easier we are to conquer.

Humans getting conquered by who?
Themselves?

 

[fink]

Humans getting conquered by who?
Themselves?

Exactly. It's in the same level of stupidity as humans could achieve project X, Y or Z if only they had the money.

We tell ourselves we cannot improve because humans cannot afford to pay humans to do it.

I'm not agreeing with the stupidity. I'm saying it exists if we like it or not.

The only way to stop humans dominating each other is to kill everyone that could be a threat.

Life seems to be full of these catch 22s. The only way to be free is to compete at the thing which enslaves us to begin with.

 

[blig-blug]

The only way to stop humans dominating each other is to kill everyone that could be a threat.

So the only way to stop humans from dominating each other is to ultimately dominate all those who try to dominate others? Hmmm...

The only way to be free is to compete at the thing which enslaves us to begin with.

No. That's the only way to become fully enslaved yourself. If you're participating in games that you consider a net negative you're not a poor martyr forced by the circumstances, you're a willing part of what you recognize as a problem. This line of thought is what perpetuates the issue.

Following your logic, as you've stated that you consider necessary to kill those who you consider "a threat", you become a potential threat to me and I should consider necessary to kill you, right? Do you actually believe that?

 

[LuxObscura]

Exactly. It's in the same level of stupidity as humans could achieve project X, Y or Z if only they had the money.

We tell ourselves we cannot improve because humans cannot afford to pay humans to do it.

I'm not agreeing with the stupidity. I'm saying it exists if we like it or not.

The only way to stop humans dominating each other is to kill everyone that could be a threat.

Life seems to be full of these catch 22s. The only way to be free is to compete at the thing which enslaves us to begin with.

I see what you mean.
These rogue like individuals we talked about earlier often use similar arguments to justify their actions.

While there are many ways to achieve this, I think that might be the fastest one.
But hopefully, at that point, we don’t end up stepping into the shoes of those being vindicated.

Something I’ve noticed lately, and find very satisfying,
is the growing global awareness that’s being spread through social media and communication.
People are openly discussing the red and green flags of personalities.

 

[blig-blug]

People are openly discussing the red and green flags of personalities.

Could you expand on that? I admit I don't use social media, but all the "flag" discussion I've seen second-hand has been about either clearly negative behaviors (i.e. someone screaming at you daily is not a "red flag", it's just abuse) or just prejudice. For example, judging people that just don't have good non-verbal communication or aren't particularly socially aware.

 

[fink]

So the only way to stop humans from dominating each other is to ultimately dominate all those who try to dominate others? Hmmm...


No. That's the only way to become fully enslaved yourself. If you're participating in games that you consider a net negative you're not a poor martyr forced by the circumstances, you're a willing part of what you recognize as a problem. This line of thought is what perpetuates the issue.

Following your logic, as you've stated that you consider necessary to kill those who you consider "a threat", you become a potential threat to me and I should consider necessary to kill you, right? Do you actually believe that?

It's not my mantra, it is simply how things are. I can be as peaceful as a floating cloud by nature. But if another lifeform comes and threatens the safety of my children, I'm going to kill them or die trying.

There is a difference between being peaceful and being helpless.

The world today as a whole draws a picture of the same thing. The main difference is that the elimination of threat is to defend wealth. Not offspring. This is a perversion almost entirely exclusive to the human animal.

Our very bodies are at war with the environment all through life. Try telling a white blood cell not to be violent towards incoming threat.

I see what you mean.
These rogue like individuals we talked about earlier often use similar arguments to justify their actions.

While there are many ways to achieve this, I think that might be the fastest one.
But hopefully, at that point, we don’t end up stepping into the shoes of those being vindicated.

Something I’ve noticed lately, and find very satisfying,
is the growing global awareness that’s being spread through social media and communication.
People are openly discussing the red and green flags of personalities.

That is interesting. In a way, social behaviours that are seen as a threat are now able to be globally targeted.

Is excluding a rogue social element wise? This could generate future physical threats. Brings us back to the only real truth about this physical life. Kill them before they kill you.

How would anyone here propose that we create a globally accepted way of thinking and behaving without doing the genocide part?

The humans who have the power understand this and always have done.

We fought so hard as a species to claim the top spot here. Now that we own everything, we cant stop trying to dominate. We owe our position in the food chain to the same behaviour we now really should stop.

This is why Shaolin monks are romantically depicted being truly peaceful humans who understand how to kick the crap out of you.

 

[blig-blug]

But if another lifeform comes and threatens the safety of my children, I'm going to kill them or die trying.

That's not what you said. You said that the way to stop humans from dominating each other is to eliminate anyone that could be a threat. You weren't talking about self-defense. If you want to talk about self-defense we can, but that's a different topic.

Kill them before they kill you.

I'm on my way!

How would anyone here propose that we create a globally accepted way of thinking and behaving without doing the genocide part?

Then what problem do you have with the current state of affairs? That logic has the support of most world powers, and they are either working towards it or actively doing it already. However, you may be one of the genocided. You sound quite obsessed with violence to me! And rather than excluding you and generate future physical threats, any responsible state should eliminate you. Right?

If you were on the receiving end of what you preach, you would see things very differently. But it's a comfortable position to act like some kind of hardened realist while supporting murder and torture on your behalf. I have to point out it doesn't sound cool or gritty, it sounds spoiled and like someone waiting for a real wake-up moment. Not someone brave but someone that lives in fear.

 

[LuxObscura]

Could you expand on that? I admit I don't use social media, but all the "flag" discussion I've seen second-hand has been about either clearly negative behaviors (i.e. someone screaming at you daily is not a "red flag", it's just abuse) or just prejudice. For example, judging people that just don't have good non-verbal communication or aren't particularly socially aware.

Is "just" abuse not itself a red flag?

There are people who try to work together with each other and others who do not care of others as long they serve their needs and be the best no matter what.
This shows one of many different contrasts.
Both individuals will have some kind of behavior which can be either a red or green flag.
And all of this flags compose an individuals personality.

Regarding not having non verbal communication aspect.
If someone has good intentions then it will be visible whit what one tries to achieve.
Single flags do not tell everything but they tell a lot.

 

[northape]

From the Dhammapada

 

[blig-blug]

Is "just" abuse not itself a red flag?

No, it's way beyond any "flag". A flag is a sign of something that may come in the future. Present abuse is not a sign, it's already past any flag. That was what I meant.

But I understand what you mean, I think.

 

[Voidmatrix]

How would anyone here propose that we create a globally accepted way of thinking and behaving without doing the genocide part?

Why is genocide even on the table... also can we be careful about such discussion being flippantly used at this point in time...

I've noticed that a lot of this discussion seems to be under the scope of freedom as an absolute. Perhaps it's a spectrum, one of many, to find balance on. And perhaps talking about this on a global scale at this point in time is like trying to talk about the the cosmos in terms of atoms: each person is dynamically dynamic, and the interactions therein are as well.

One love

 

[fink]

Wow Blig, no man! I'm describing what I see of human behaviours and trying to understand why we do it. Objectively.

We are not seeing the same messages here my friend. Not preaching. Nor complaining

Objectively making an opinion on why humans behave the way they do, nothing more.

 

[blig-blug]

Wow Blig, no man! I'm describing what I see of human behaviours and trying to understand why we do it. Objectively.

We are not seeing the same messages here my friend. Not preaching. Nor complaining

Objectively making an opinion on why humans behave the way they do, nothing more.

Well, your use of "we" and implying that the murder of "potential threats" is wise led me to think otherwise. I'm glad it's a misunderstanding, then.

I disagree with your view not in the sense of what you describe doesn't exist, but that it's only part of it. There's much more than "kill or be killed". Even if that exists too.

Maybe it's a problem with my understanding. But I think a different way of expressing your view would make it more clear that you are just describing how you believe humanity works. Precisely because a lot of people not only believe that too, but believe it to be fair, and that their side is the good side that deserves to "do the genocide part" on others.

 

[fink]

It's ok man, that's why I didnt take offence to what seemed like a quite personal response from you. I know we all use this place to clear our heads of madness. I bet we would understand quicker if I had used 35 words only!