[Rei Murasame]

To actually address your OP now:

If fascists emphasize that people must mature aside from exploratory attitudes and behavior

That's a good try there, but we are not against exploration, as you can see from the tag-line in y signature at least. It's just that you believe that we are not about exploration because you think that exploration is a 'just purely personal' matter, whereas I think that exploration is a collective endeavour.

What I'm asking here is how fascists can actually appreciate technology itself.

Because it helps us to get things that we need to do done, with less effort, and from another angle, it enables us to push boundaries and discover things about the world or ourselves, that we didn't know before.

It's a little bit odd that you think that only western liberalism is capable of doing this.

If anything the drive towards primitiveness and naturalism would condemn technological invention.

Only if you assume that adopting primitivist social mores into the superstructure would not result in those mores being changed and adapted to the economic structure. Which would be the wrong assumption.

Example, people claim that my attitude toward women and pregnancy appears a little bit 'primitive', they may be right, but this time whereas in the ancient past they'd give birth to a child and then kill it if they didn't want it, we now do it better and just take a morning-after pill right away.

asserting physical primacy would make technology unnecessary for a fascist society to cohere.

How did you draw that conclusion? What do you think body primacy is?


Funny how this term is everywhere now.

Okay, but really, in all seriousness, the body has an ability to communicate things which cannot be rendered in words but actually are signals which should not be ignored. The way that you phrased that statement seems to imply the following:

"Should you trust the feedback from the body rather than analyse with tools?"

This is a false dichotomy, and in fact both should be used in order to avoid depriving yourself of the full spectrum of feedback and analysis. Just because the body doesn't form words or equations that can be easily expressed, doesn't mean that a type of analysis is not occurring.

A lot of your questions set up this sort of false dichotomy, by trying to place a line between two things, but that line is just a formal conception which is misused (by you) to obscure the inter-dependent unity of all feedback and the primacy of the body, setting up a false dichotomy which creates an non-useful self-doubt in various situations.

Ergo, ecologically speaking, the best course of action would be to eliminate cars, refrigerators, computers, etc. from existence altogether. If you really want to survive as long as possible and as organically as possible, simple reversion to a primal state of nature would achieve fascist utopia.

In fact, the elimination of all those things would actually dramatically shorten our lifespans and hamper our ability to find higher meaning. Didn't we have this conversation before?

_______________

You know I'm going to ask how philosophy began.

You know I'm going to give you this answer: It probably began when some people decided that they wanted people to agree on a certain world view which would in turn create some predictable social mores that would become part of the relations of production that would ensure - in their estimation - that their society would overcome challenges, remain viable, and have a good chance of surviving extra-group selection.

The statement means if you build a "fascist" society off the ingenuity of libertarian personalities, your society isn't really fascist.

Well, you thought wrong, I've now told you what the statement actually means when I used it, so that's sorted. For the record as well, the statement has never been used in any way other than the way that I've described it.

You had it upside down.

[Andropov]

See my response to Fasces on the Chinese Room above.

"Understanding" is just another layer of processing that fits inputted information according to a framework.

[Daktoria]

That's a good try there, but we are not against exploration, as you can see from the tag-line in y signature at least. It's just that you believe that we are not about exploration because you think that exploration is a 'just purely personal' matter, whereas I think that exploration is a collective endeavour.

OK, my apologies. This was a countercritique to Fasces last night after accusing me of needing to grow up for still believing life is about exploration.

Because it helps us to get things that we need to do done, with less effort, and from another angle, it enables us to push boundaries and discover things about the world or ourselves, that we didn't know before.

It's a little bit odd that you think that only western liberalism is capable of doing this.

My concern is about how fascism defines which angle to take when exploring.

The thing about history is history doesn't teach you how to be creative. It only tells you where you came from.

Only if you assume that adopting primitivist social mores into the superstructure would not result in those mores being changed and adapted to the economic structure. Which would be the wrong assumption.

Example, people claim that my attitude toward women and pregnancy appears a little bit 'primitive', they may be right, but this time whereas in the ancient past they'd give birth to a child and then kill it if they didn't want it, we now do it better and just take a morning-after pill right away.

Still, doesn't that mean you're compromising on primitivism?

In order to change mores, you would need a new ideology.

How did you draw that conclusion? What do you think body primacy is?

Okay, but really, in all seriousness, the body has an ability to communicate things which cannot be rendered in words but actually are signals which should not be ignored. The way that you phrased that statement seems to imply the following:

"Should you trust the feedback from the body rather than analyse with tools?"

This is a false dichotomy, and in fact both should be used in order to avoid depriving yourself of the full spectrum of feedback and analysis. Just because the body doesn't form words or equations that can be easily expressed, doesn't mean that a type of analysis is not occurring.

A lot of your question set up this sort of false dichotomy, by trying to place a line between two things, but that line is just a formal conception which is misused (by you) to obscure the inter-dependent unity of all feedback and the primacy of the body, which creates an unwarranted self-doubt in various situations.

What I said though was "physical primacy would make technology unnecessary".

I'll agree that we should appreciate what we feel in order to live well, and I'll agree that synthesizing technology with feelings can be beneficial.

However, in order for this to be true, there has to be another value at stake besides survival. Again, remember what I said about the second law of thermodynamics. If survival's extension is the ultimate goal, then minimizing entropic growth would be paramount.

The mere development and application of technology involves increasing entropy, so at the very least you need a motive (if not a reason) for doing so.

In fact, the elimination of all those things would actually dramatically shorten our lifespans and hamper our ability to find higher meaning. Didn't we have this conversation before?

Well I'm not so sure if our lifespans are really important here. Heck, you said, "so long as we take actions to ensure that the new epoch actually comes about, I can accept not being around to see it myself."

Species survival isn't about making individual lives as long as possible. It's about making sure sustainability lasts as long as possible. If everyone lived for 50 years, but the human race lived for 100,000; it would represent longer survival than if everyone lived for 100 years, but the human race lived for 50,000.

As for meaning, OK, but then you need another value besides survival.

You know I'm going to give you this answer: It probably began when some people decided that they wanted people to agree on a certain world view which would in turn create some predictable social mores that would become part of the relations of production that would ensure - in their estimation - that their society would overcome challenges, remain viable, and have a good chance of surviving extra-group selection.

Still, that depends upon those people philosophizing what to agree upon in the first place.

Well, you thought wrong, I've now told you what the statement actually means when I used it, so that's sorted. For the record as well, the statement has never been used in any way other than the way that I've described it.

You had it upside down.

All the things on your list depend upon technology though. Culture, role choices, production, policy, stories, lineage...

...they all depend upon having some inventions to practice with. If you have libertarian personalities (or let's subdivide the mind, use libertarian thought processes) to establish yourself, you're not really being fascist.

[Rei Murasame]

The thing about history is history doesn't teach you how to be creative. It only tells you where you came from.

You can't know where you want to go without knowing where you came from.

Still, doesn't that mean you're compromising on primitivism? In order to change mores, you would need a new ideology.

Yes, obviously, hence why it's an influence and not the presently-existing ideology, it underwent aufhebung almost immediately. We aren't actually primitivists.

It's like you're assuming that we have a bunch of 'isms' all lying haphazardly on the table and we leap between them, but that is not the case at all, only middle class liberals do that, because they are in the liberal hegemony and think that social mores and public interest issues are ideologies in themselves.

But that is not the definition of the word 'ideology'. Notice how I never actually say anything about primitivism without pointing out that it's undergone drastic alterations? That's on purpose.

I'll agree that we should appreciate what we feel in order to live well, and I'll agree that synthesizing technology with feelings can be beneficial. However, in order for this to be true, there has to be another value at stake besides survival.

Yes, the aforementioned exploration.

Well I'm not so sure if our lifespans are really important here.

They are, because it's inefficient if we have our population dying before they can build up experience and skill to maximise their contribution to society.

This is for obvious reasons connected to survival.

Still, that depends upon those people philosophizing what to agree upon in the first place.

So?

...they all depend upon having some inventions to practice with. If you have libertarian personalities (or let's subdivide the mind, use libertarian thought processes) to establish yourself, you're not really being fascist.

If you really think that basically everything is libertarian because everything it built atop technology made by inventors who you have decided to label as having 'libertarian thought processes', then you have in fact just ceded your entire argument to me since it means that in fact you think that your beloved engineers would survive just fine under Fascism.

You even now go as far as to say that it is - to you - as though we're "not really being fascist". If you think so, then why not just agree to join us?

[Daktoria]

You can't know where you want to go without knowing where you came from.

Yes, the aforementioned exploration.

You should talk about this more.

Yes, you can make decisions beyond the decisions you've already made. There are times in our lives when we complete projects, finish achievements, and overcome trauma when new directions have to be chosen in order to go on without becoming decrepit.

You choose based upon your values. For many people, this involves tradition since it's an easy guide. For others, it involves randomness because that's also an easy guide.

For some though, it involves analysis and discipline. That's how great strides are made because that's how people discover new ways to focus and relax. For example, you can listen to your body's signals. You can also investigate your body's signals and learn what they really mean in fields such as medicine, athletics, martial arts, dance, nutrition, etc.

The thing about exploration and subjective theory of value though is nobody else can listen to your body's signals besides you. We can't feel when each other gets a headache or stomach ache, or when each other laughs or smiles.

In fact, if your goal is to imbue confidence in socially and generally anxious people, one of the last things you want to do is encourage body primacy. Anxiety is a physical feeling as I've described to you before, and overcoming it is purely based on mental ingenuity. Even with support, you have to willingly choose to override and transform the resistance.

An anxious person who concedes to body primacy would never do anything at all. You can push the person all you want, but it will only make things worse. The best thing you can do is engage anxious people at an individual level to garnish trust.

(Just an aside, you'll notice a lot of my criticism against nationalism and ethnocentrism is focused on how nations and ethnicities will subdivide. Coincidentally, my anxiety focuses on small groups. I'm fine in front of large groups because I can usually take security in how extroverts will not speak up in front of large groups since they're focused first on fitting in. For example, I have less stress talking in front of audiences of 100s than I do mingling in say a dozen or less of people I either don't know very well or people who I do know who also know each other.)

But that is not the definition of the word 'ideology'. Notice how I never actually say anything about primitivism without pointing out that it's undergone drastic alterations? That's on purpose.

What values do you believe have drastically altered primitivism then in fascist context?

They are, because it's inefficient if we have our population dying before they can build up experience and skill to maximise their contribution to society.

This is for obvious reasons connected to survival.

Mmmm.... I'm not sure why you're only looking at the beginning of life. Longer lifespans also entail longer demand for contributions for people in decline.

So?

Well that proves philosophy predates collective agreement.

If you really think that basically everything is libertarian because everything it built atop technology made by inventors who you have decided to label as having 'libertarian thought processes', then you have in fact just ceded your entire argument to me since it means that in fact you think that your beloved engineers would survive just fine under Fascism.

You even now go as far as to say that it is - to you - as though we're "not really being fascist". If you think so, then why not just agree to join us?

I'm not sure if you understand. What I asked was about, "how fascists can actually appreciate technology itself". It sounds to me your model is based upon a master-slave relationship where libertarian personalities (and libertarian thought patterns) are fed noble lies to be kept out of the loop and avoid disillusionment. The other thing is libertarianism is not premised on survival in itself either, so no, merely keeping libertarians alive would not show appreciation for how technology is arrived towards.

When I was younger, I saw value in fascism because I believed in hierarchic authority and community as a path to victory in the kulturkampf. As time went on though, I realized and experienced both of these values not owing up to their promises either internally or externally. In fact, it was when I became disillusioned too many times that I gave up on becoming an engineer because I didn't believe people would use my inventions in ways I wanted, nor would they make the effort to relate with me since all they'd care about are my inventions.

That's why I don't agree with fascism. I've been there, done that.

[Rei Murasame]

You should talk about this more.

What more is there to say on it?

The thing about exploration and subjective theory of value though is nobody else can listen to your body's signals besides you. We can't feel when each other gets a headache or stomach ache, or when each other laughs or smiles.

Fundamental disagreement here, as you know.

ROBERT KRULWICH: Iacoboni says that the part of my brain that's working when I make a face, the same part gets busy when I see the face.

Plus, when I was looking at these faces, I remember feeling extra uncomfortable, kind of bad. But when these faces came on, I felt, I don't know, I felt better, almost happy. And, in fact, at that moment I was looking at the happy face, my brain—and this is my brain at that instant—see that red area here, it shows activity in the "happy" emotional part of my brain.

And when I was imitating "happy" faces, look. I get an even bigger response.

This, says Iacoboni, is a consistent result. Mirror neurons, he believes, can send messages to the limbic, or emotional system in our brains. So it's possible these neurons help us tune in to each others' feelings. That's empathy.

MARCO IACOBONI: We strongly believe that that's a unifying mechanism that allows people to actually connect at a very simple level.

ROBERT KRULWICH: You are saying that there's a place in my brain, which...whose job it is to live in other people's minds, live in other people's bodies?

MARCO IACOBONI: That's right.

[...]

V.S. RAMACHANDRAN: Everybody's interested in this question: "What makes humans unique?" What makes us different from the great apes, for example? You can say humor—we're the laughing biped—language certainly, okay? But another thing is culture. And a lot of culture comes from imitation, watching your teachers do something.

ROBERT KRULWICH: And here V.S. Ramachandran makes a big leap. He has proposed that at a key moment in our evolution, this is his guess, our mirror neurons got better. And that made all the difference, he says, because once we humans got better at learning from each other—looking, copying, teaching—we could do things the other creatures couldn't.

V.S. RAMACHANDRAN: In other words, if you are a bear, and suddenly the environment turns cold, you need a few million years to develop polar bear type layers of fat and fur.

ROBERT KRULWICH: It would take many, many, many bear generations to select for furrier bears. But, says Ramachandran...

V.S. RAMACHANDRAN: If you're a human, you watch your father slaying another bear and putting on a fur coat, you know, skinning it, using that as a coat. You watch it, you learn it instantly. Your mirror neurons start firing away in your brain, and you've performed the same sequence, complicated sequence. Instead of going through millions of years of evolution, you've done it in one generation.

ROBERT KRULWICH: And while no one is claiming that mirror neurons are the key ingredient that makes us different from other creatures, what these neurons do suggest about us seems almost self-evident. You can see it any Sunday at a sports bar, that deep in our architecture, down in our cells, we are built to be together.

An anxious person who concedes to body primacy would never do anything at all. You can push the person all you want, but it will only make things worse. The best thing you can do is engage anxious people at an individual level to garnish trust.

It's not sensible to break down the whole society for them though, since they are the exception and not the rule.

What values do you believe have drastically altered primitivism then in fascist context?

Didn't I actually say that in this thread?

Mmmm.... I'm not sure why you're only looking at the beginning of life. Longer lifespans also entail longer demand for contributions for people in decline.

What's the problem with that?

Well that proves philosophy predates collective agreement.

Does the average person ever collectively agree to the philosophy part of a historic bloc? So far I haven't seen it.

I'm not sure if you understand. What I asked was about, "how fascists can actually appreciate technology itself". It sounds to me your model is based upon a master-slave relationship where libertarian personalities (and libertarian thought patterns) are fed noble lies to be kept out of the loop and avoid disillusionment.

That sounds like paranoia to me...

The other thing is libertarianism is not premised on survival in itself either, so no, merely keeping libertarians alive would not show appreciation for how technology is arrived towards.

Ah, but you just leaped from "libertarian thought pattern" to "libertarianism", how did you do that?

I suspect that you are mapping your own inability to be pleased by anything, onto every engineer or scientist in existence. No matter what I said we'd do for them you'd simply say it's not enough. But I'm sure most people are happy after a certain point.

When I was younger, I saw value in fascism because I believed in hierarchic authority and community as a path to victory in the kulturkampf.

I have difficulty believing that but how long ago was all that? I think you slid into liberalism either because you weren't really a collectivist in the first place, or because you retreated from social life and thus adopted the ideology that best mirrored your dissolutionment.

In fact, it was when I became disillusioned too many times that I gave up on becoming an engineer because I didn't believe people would use my inventions in ways I wanted, nor would they make the effort to relate with me since all they'd care about are my inventions.

Isn't that a bit self-centred? You'd never do anything at all if that's what you're really worried about.

[Fasces]

This was a countercritique to Fasces last night after accusing me of needing to grow up for still believing life is about exploration.

No. I said your basis of thinking was juvenile, in that your exploration is forever guided inwards, toward ever more fundamental levels, rather than building outwards. You are the equivalent of a toddler asking her father "Why? Why? Why?" repetitively.

Every single discussion with you falls back on the existence or non-existence of free will. It is pointless to attempt any discussion with you, because you will always bring it back to that fundamental question - which is ultimately a meaningless one.

[Rei Murasame]

Exactly, Fasces, that's well said, it's like Daktoria's exploration is ever-inward, to the point where I do wonder, "why do we need to ask this?"

[Daktoria]

Fundamental disagreement here, as you know.

You know reading body language is not what I'm talking about. If you were feeling sick or happy, and I was blindfolded and earmuffed, it would be impossible for me to identify what you're feeling.

It's not sensible to break down the whole society for them though, since they are the exception and not the rule.

You're betraying them when they're loyal to you then.

Didn't I actually say that in this thread?

I'm not sure. You keep mentioning meaning and exploration, but meaning is a meta-term that applies universally (for example, I could say "survival" implies meaning because "survival" depends upon meaning), and exploration depends upon direct personal experience.

A fascist doctrine towards exploration doesn't count because regardless of whether or not facts are explored, they still exist. However, if I explore something, that doesn't mean you managed to experience or interpret that exploration.

What's the problem with that?

Well survivalistly speaking, dedicating resources to unproductive members of society would be a waste of resources. It's microscopically compassionate, but macroscopically inefficient.

Does the average person ever collectively agree to the philosophy part of a historic bloc? So far I haven't seen it.

This is really a nonsequitur because we weren't necessarily talking about the average person, nor does agreement have to coincide with history.

That sounds like paranoia to me...

It's not paranoia when you're right. I was, and I was many times over despite giving people the benefit of the doubt over, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me".

Ah, but you just leaped from "libertarian thought pattern" to "libertarianism", how did you do that?

I suspect that you are mapping your own inability to be pleased by anything, onto every engineer or scientist in existence. No matter what I said we'd do for them you'd simply say it's not enough. But I'm sure most people are happy after a certain point.

It isn't just me. Most of the engineers I've talked with (especially older engineers) realize how underappreciated they are. The engineers I've talked with who are happy are either, 1) successful entrepreneurs, or 2) military junkees who surrendered to the system because they get paid a lot, get paid to blow shit up, and get paid to invent new ways to kill people and don't care.

Regarding the IBM factor, we actually have an IBM plant not 20 minutes from where I live. Engineers who work/worked for IBM tend to be mixed. Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not the company told them about the (intended) future of their projects which it does not always do, and yes, IBM gets a lot of State funding.

I have difficulty believing that but how long ago was all that? I think you slid into liberalism either because you weren't really a collectivist in the first place, or because you retreated from social life and thus adopted the ideology that best mirrored your dissolutionment.

Before I was a corporatist, I was a progressive because everyone gets educated to be a progressive along the lines of feminism, environmentalism, affirmative activism, and multiculturalism. My family and community were rather conservative, so after corporatism, I went in that direction.

Classic liberalism was something I picked up independently after the conservative phase after dropping pursuing becoming an engineer. My anxiety became overwhelming before picking up classic liberalism though.

You could say I don't have a collectivist personality because I don't identify with groups. There isn't a click, and I don't believe anyone really identifies with groups because when you really get close with people and ask them how they view relationships, they tell you group identification is just an abbreviation to avoid having to keep track of everyone.

Some people will tell you there's an emotional feel to it, but they become awkward incredibly quickly to the point that they always seem like they're lying. Not only that, but over the long run, they do come out as liars in other ways, and it becomes apparent they were trying to pull a bag over your head because they didn't want to be seen through.

It's not correct to believe you have a relationship with someone you can't keep track of. Yes, you can be publicly compassionate, but at best, the appreciation you have for people you can't keep track of is professional and/or philosophical, not personal.

Isn't that a bit self-centred? You'd never do anything at all if that's what you're really worried about.

That's rather arrogant of you. I'm saying THEY didn't want to relate with ME. I wanted to relate with THEM. Why the hell should I be willing to produce for people who don't care to get to know who I am? How the hell can I recognize community among people who aren't interested in mutual exchange of values?

You might as well be telling me to eat shit, go fuck myself, and die.

[Fasces]

If you don't have free will, it's impossible for you to have a discussion.

Even nature itself would define whether or not you believe in it.

And yet that hasn't stopped us from having it. This is such a totally irrelevant concern, and one which I literally do not care about. It is a meaningless discussion, and your obsession with it prevents you from exploring in other ways. Given that we do not, and cannot, know every possible variable, for all practical purposes free will exists. Even if it did not, only an immature mind would feel the experience of life cheapened by the lack of free will, and only a complete nihilist would pretend that it excuses immorality, and that we should not collectively strive to improve the environment into which our children our born, in pursuit of a more perfect human.

[Daktoria]

And yet that hasn't stopped us from having it.

The only reason this discussion is continuing is because I'm continuing to be merciful in giving you shot after shot to prove yourself. If you had something else to suggest to explore, you would have suggested it.

That said, I'm on the verge of giving up because there's too much frustration to go on giving you the benefit of the doubt of not manipulating me. Your problem is you believe people are valuable even if you use people as a means to achieve improvement.

The very value of subjects, as opposed to objects, comes from how people are users, not used. Likewise, the very concepts of maturity, practice, and exploration are unnecessary in an object oriented ontology because time goes on no matter what.

[Fasces]

Value, like most everything in life, is subjective. Your search for a morality that remains constant across time and culture is Quixotic, at best.

Metaphysics is garbage. Only a fool obsesses over the how, and misses the what. Civilization is no less valuable or meritorious because it is nothing more than the deterministic result of time and nature, and it no less merits our attention or respect. You have succumbed to absurdity.

The exploration I care about is about building unto society, bettering the environmental conditions for each generation, and preserving the unique threads of human culture which have manifested themselves in societies across the globe. You seek to explore ever inward, while I seek to preserve the collective being that is humanity, to better it, and ultimately to spread it.

Here is the other thing: You can stop gracing me, and I suspect others, with your presence. We don't care about your thoughts on metaphysics, much less about conversing about it with you. You seem to me to be mentally disturbed, on some level, and if it is your inclination towards mercy that keeps you here, then by all means feel free to stop.

[Andropov]

If anything, it is more valuable, because there is something cosmic and transcendent about it.

[Andropov]

About civilization, meaning.

[Rei Murasame]

You know reading body language is not what I'm talking about.

And you know that's not what I'm referring to there either.

You're betraying them when they're loyal to you then.

No, I am embracing them by having the NHS cater to their problem. I find it really astounding how you claim that it's a betrayal that we can't tailor society expressly around the needs of an extremely small minority of socially anxious people.

You realise how preposterous that sounds, right?

Well survivalistly speaking, dedicating resources to unproductive members of society would be a waste of resources.

Define 'productive'.

A fascist doctrine towards exploration doesn't count

Irreconcilable disagreement there then.

This is really a nonsequitur because we weren't necessarily talking about the average person, nor does agreement have to coincide with history.

Then I have no idea what the hell you are asking.

It isn't just me. Most of the engineers I've talked with (especially older engineers) realize how underappreciated they are. The engineers I've talked with who are happy are either, 1) successful entrepreneurs, or 2) military junkees who surrendered to the system because they get paid a lot, get paid to blow shit up, and get paid to invent new ways to kill people and don't care.

So you are simply implying that I've met #1 and #2, and that you have met all the grumpy ones?

How many of them wanted to quit society and convince people to demolish their own communities as a result of their dissatisfaction?

You could say I don't have a collectivist personality because I don't identify with groups. There isn't a click, and I don't believe anyone really identifies with groups

That's a bit of a convenient assertion, isn't it?

Some people will tell you there's an emotional feel to it, but they become awkward incredibly quickly to the point that they always seem like they're lying.

To me, this still sounds like it's a problem that's more on your end than theirs. How did I manage to go through life so far and not have any of the problems that you are describing here?

That's rather arrogant of you. I'm saying THEY didn't want to relate with ME. I wanted to relate with THEM. Why the hell should I be willing to produce for people who don't care to get to know who I am?

Out of love. I still want to try to work toward national community even though the people in this country can be really frustrating sometimes. The reason for that is because I know what their problem is, and that it's fixable.

If anything, you are the one that's making the outlandish statements, because you keep claiming that there is "betrayal" going on, when it seems to me that your philosophy and its ideology are actually the biggest betrayal of all, since it atomises everyone.

[Daktoria]

And you know that's not what I'm referring to there either.

The fundamental problem I have with your reference is it doesn't test between learning and sharing experiences.

For example, I could just as easily say that mirror neurons allow us to be openminded in considering possible behaviors. AFTER those behaviors are engaged, pleasant feelings arrive. Say you smile. Say I see you smile and smile myself. The happiness derived could come from me smiling, not from seeing you smile.

In fact: http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental- ... happy1.htm

It's the classic gettier case scenario. If you replace those faces with artificial faces or replace a father-hunter with a robot, mirroring could still take place.

This isn't to say seeing you smile should be degraded, but it's importance has to be adjusted. The reason I would enjoy seeing you smile is because it would have inspired me to smile myself. For that, I would be grateful.

(There's also the fact that as a friend, I would care about you seeming and being happy, but caring about others does not necessarily yield happiness in itself. Quite often, caring yields struggle and frustration, and sometimes, caring doesn't yield emotion at all.)

No, I am embracing them by having the NHS cater to their problem. I find it really astounding how you claim that it's a betrayal that we can't tailor society expressly around the needs of an extremely small minority of socially anxious people.

You realise how preposterous that sounds, right?

I don't think you understand.

Social anxiety isn't innate in everyone. Heck, most of the socially anxious people I've talked with don't remember being socially anxious since they were born. I know I wasn't always. It's something that ingrained into me over time as I realized people were very haphazard in interacting with each other. My confidence in others' respecting me and each other weakened over time, and it only recovered from a combination of fear and humor which isn't really a reliable foundation because fear and humor don't grant insight to how other people are motivated to behave.

It was because other people were selfish to me that I became more doubtful over the value of selflessness.

(That said, it's possible the reason I don't have collectivist identity is because I became doubtful before my mind could have matured in that direction. When I was little, I was sociable, but I still didn't have a collectivist identity then either. I've recovered into sociable periods, but none long enough to appreciate a collectivist identity despite belonging to, and leading, groups, clubs, and teams.)

Social anxiety is something which happens to you after society rejects you over and over and over. By relegating SA sufferers to NHS, you're giving society a free pass to abuse people in advance with the excuse that mental health professionals will take care of their negligence.

Define 'productive'.

At the very least, not retired.

Then I have no idea what the hell you are asking.

Not only are philosophers not regarded as average people, but anyone (average or not) can be a philosopher.

I'm asking you about how history and agreement is sparked.

So you are simply implying that I've met #1 and #2, and that you have met all the grumpy ones?

How many of them wanted to quit society and convince people to demolish their own communities as a result of their dissatisfaction?

I have met engineers who are happy who didn't fit #1 and #2.

However, their personalities weren't strictly engineers. They had empath personalities as well.

The non-empath "grumpy" ones have only talked about tearing down society when they're drunk, heh. Other than that, they just wonder whether or not they chose the right path in life because they don't feel fulfilled. They realize they're solving society's problems, but they don't believe society really cares about the problem solving process, so they've become worn down.

Again, it seems to be something that comes with age. The less engaged, the less loved, engineers are, the more frustrated they become over time. They need social insight to remain motivated, yet people feel too awkward to give that to them unless they're already empaths.

The only reason they keep on engineering despite frustration is because they don't know what else to do to subsist. Engineers can be prone to self-destruction and suicide if neglected and disgruntled long enough.

To me, this still sounds like it's a problem that's more on your end than theirs. How did I manage to go through life so far and not have any of the problems that you are describing here?

We talked about this before regarding cultural differences, how America seems to be more haphazard and hyperactive than other countries.

IIRC as well, last time on chat, you also admitted to an idea of mutual lying for short term periods of time which I think is what all societal conflict is built upon. People tell each other little white lies to make each other feel included, but what happens with these lies is they let people play coy when it comes to interacting with, and delegating tasks, to outsiders.

You're not the first person I've met who believes hierarchy is natural, yet whenever I've heard or seen that argument, it's always an excuse to let insiders at the top of the hierarchy tell little white lies to each other, little white lies which are the slippery slope seeds to ponzi schemes.

It's not just that though. You also described relationship wall crashing as being an experience for character which is typically what I've heard before from people who advocate natural hierarchy. It's as if natural hierarchs like the drama entailed with the risk of falling from the perch. Also, it pressures outsiders to remain outside because: one, they're afraid of falling since they can't afford to fall as much, and two, when hierarchs fall, they fall at the cost of outsiders. This encourages outsiders to believe they need more guidance such that hierarchs get admired even more.

You don't need free markets for this system to take place. Ponzi schemes can exist in planned economies just as much since planners can be pressured to fudge performance to fit result quotas.

Out of love. I still want to try to work toward national community even though the people in this country can be really frustrating sometimes. The reason for that is because I know what their problem is, and that it's fixable.

I hope you don't self-destruct then. There was a time when I felt the same way, and it lead to one bad experience after the next.

If anything, you are the one that's making the outlandish statements, because you keep claiming that there is "betrayal" going on, when it seems to me that your philosophy and its ideology are actually the biggest betrayal of all, since it atomises everyone.

Yes Rei, relationships built on top of lies burdened by outsiders do not deserve to exist. The only reasons they do are because outsiders are intimidated.

Aside from that, I wouldn't want to be a hierarch anyway in that kind of world. Being surrounded by liars is a very fake and lonely experience regardless of how physically interacting they are.

[Rei Murasame]

For example, I could just as easily say that mirror neurons allow us to be openminded in considering possible behaviors.

You could, but they haven't told us this, so how do we know that?

It's something that ingrained into me over time as I realized people were very haphazard in interacting with each other. My confidence in others' respecting me and each other weakened over time, and it only recovered from a combination of fear and humor which isn't really a reliable foundation because fear and humor don't grant insight to how other people are motivated to behave.

Why did this lead you into individualism rather than away from it?

Social anxiety is something which happens to you after society rejects you over and over and over. By relegating SA sufferers to NHS, you're giving society a free pass to abuse people in advance with the excuse that mental health professionals will take care of their negligence.

The average agent in society isn't going to be aware of that! Furthermore, that's bizarre, are you saying we shouldn't treat them?

At the very least, not retired.

Then we have different definitions of the word, as your definition is solely economic.

I'm asking you about how history and agreement is sparked.

I'm pretty sure I answered that.

IIRC as well, last time on chat, you also admitted to an idea of mutual lying for short term periods of time

I don't remember saying that, but it's plausible that I would've said it. I don't know why you'd use the word 'admitted' there though, that is natural.

This is the biggest off-topic detour you've ever done by the way, so I'm starting to lose track of where you are really going with any of this.

You also described relationship wall crashing as being an experience for character which is typically what I've heard before from people who advocate natural hierarchy.

You are completely misrepresenting what I said. Needless to say, I am not going to discuss such elements of my past here.

I hope you don't self-destruct then. There was a time when I felt the same way, and it lead to one bad experience after the next.

When I get annoyed with Britons, it just makes me more determined to stick close to them, as always.

[Daktoria]

You could, but they haven't told us this, so how do we know that?

They...

...there might be no hope.

Not only did the my reference show smiling itself imbues happiness, but now, you're conceding to behaviorism.

Why is happiness important Rei? How do you know feelings of happiness are instructions to follow?

Why did this lead you into individualism rather than away from it?

It wasn't really a matter of being lead into individualism so much as being lead away from collectivism.

I wanted to be part of the group. The group didn't want me to be part of it. I tried and tried and tried, but the more I tried, the more the group teased.

Eventually, I reached my breaking point and gave up.

The average agent in society isn't going to be aware of that! Furthermore, that's bizarre, are you saying we shouldn't treat them?

I'm saying you shouldn't create us. You're wasting your resources in hoping we explode.

Anxious people are weak. You'll never get a satisfactory explosion and will kill yourself in the process.

That's exactly what happened to the groups which teased me. I didn't need to fight them. They died out on their own and struggled after disabling me from cultivating my talents. Yes, some of them tried to get me to save them, and I tried for some of them, but it didn't work because they never let me go.

Some of them were happy with partial solutions and went back to teasing me after implementing those solutions partially, but they died out anyway. They'd come back to me asking for help, but by that point, there was nothing I could do for them anyway, so even when they ensnared me again, it didn't matter. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't have saved them again.

Then we have different definitions of the word, as your definition is solely economic.

Can you share your definition? I don't see how productivity can be anything besides economic.

Culture isn't something that's concerned with production. It's concerned with consumption.

I'm pretty sure I answered that.

You're making me dizzy by going around in circles.

I don't remember saying that, but it's plausible that I would've said it. I don't know why you'd use the word 'admitted' there though, that is natural.

This is the biggest off-topic detour you've ever done by the way, so I'm starting to lose track of where you are really going with any of this.

OK.

The track is that white lies, as much as national mythology, combined with physical emotions is a contradiction. In order to come to grips with emotions (particularly in light of technology), people need to believe that their senses of physical reality are reliable.

Telling people lies... even if we believe emotions can be reliable, lies lead to sense deprivation and unreliable emotions which implodes the system.

(I think this is the problem of you being an NF instead of an SF. Feelings arrive from physical influences, but your intuition is clouding your judgment.)

When I get annoyed with Britons, it just makes me more determined to stick close to them, as always.

Everyone has a breaking point Rei. On one hand, I again hope you don't self-destruct, so I hope you don't reach it.

On the other, I want you to learn. I just hope you don't have to reach that breaking point in order to do so.

The cupcakes look better than the rice balls btw.

[Rei Murasame]

You've done it yet again, where you've retreated the topic ever-inward to the point where we are going to be talking about your personal experiences, which feels more like a therapy session than a political one. Usually I wouldn't see this as particularly unusual once or twice, but you do this all the time because your way of arguing always involves talking about metaphysics.

It's basically the involution aspect of a religion that you are doing here. Nevertheless, I will try to respond, but with an awareness that we are no longer really on topic.

Why is happiness important Rei? How do you know feelings of happiness are instructions to follow?

I don't see why this question is important.

I wanted to be part of the group. The group didn't want me to be part of it. I tried and tried and tried, but the more I tried, the more the group teased.

You were trying to hang out with Irish people while being an Italian, weren't you?

I'm saying you shouldn't create us. You're wasting your resources in hoping we explode.

In more collectivist social orders, we create less of you because there is less fragmentation in the first place. It's always bizarre how your reaction to individualistic American society kicking you around, was to... become individualistic.

Culture isn't something that's concerned with production. It's concerned with consumption.

No, it's concerned with production because it takes some effort to pass on knowledge to the next generation. To get into this would be to discuss why old people are actually socially productive when retired, something that is a cultural and ideological gulf that I don't expect can be bridged between us anyway.

Telling people lies... even if we believe emotions can be reliable, lies lead to sense deprivation and unreliable emotions which implodes the system.

Or it might not. Really, lying is one of the best inventions that humans ever had, it's a fantastic social lubricant when applied in careful moderation. Politeness, for example, is a form of lying.

That said, there is however a mystical position that there can be a moment in time between people when all lies are temporarily abolished, but I deliberately do not mention any of that because it's not on topic and I already know that you don't believe in group consciousness of any sort.

Everyone has a breaking point Rei.

My breaking point has always manifested as anger directed toward the people who break the unity, and so it doesn't consist of my trying to leave the group, it consists of my trying to discipline the defector(s).

We are totally dissimilar on this, and you know that.

But again, all this is completely beside the point, you are just trying to transform political issues into purely personal ones, and so I can see why you are trying to do that.

[Daktoria]

You've done it yet again, where you've retreated the topic ever-inward to the point where we are going to be talking about your personal experiences, which feels more like a therapy session than a political one. Usually I wouldn't see this as particularly unusual once or twice, but you do this all the time because your way of arguing always involves talking about metaphysics.

It's basically the involution aspect of a religion that you are doing here. Nevertheless, I will try to respond, but with an awareness that we are no longer really on topic.

We don't have to talk about me. We can talk about you instead.

It's not a therapy session. It's just being friendly. Some people are deeper thinkers than others. Maybe you're not, but still, it'd be nice to see (or feel) how you make decisions.

I do this all the time because it's who I am. It's not just how I argue. You might believe it's strange, but this is how I go about my life and business in the world. It's typically a lot faster than how quickly you read through this. Heck, even on my part, the longest portion is figuring out which way to write and how to be precise.

If I was an emotional particularist, I'd want to kill everybody, heh. Most people get on my nerves very quickly for being boring from keeping up with the Joneses. My answer to every political question would be something like, "Kill them, they're shitheads" and move on. Of course, I'm not very strong, so you can imagine how far that'd go.

It's not something I chose. It's just the emotions nature bestowed me with. Abstract thoughtfulness is how I keep an open mind to others' dignity and avoid getting into trouble.

I don't see why this question is important.

It's important because what makes someone happy isn't necessarily going to be compatible with society. People who are emotionally sensitive get provoked, entrapped, seduced, and otherwise exploited when they follow their hearts.

You were trying to hang out with Irish people while being an Italian, weren't you?

It's a lot more than that, but yes, that was part of it.

Every Italian in my neighborhood didn't struggle with getting along with Irish, and I didn't really succeed at getting along with other Italians either. There are rivalries, but they get accommodated. Diversity wasn't THAT bad, heh.

Personality conflict was the ultimate problem. You see it in who gets involved in what activities. I had friends growing up, but socializing was a real ordeal for me. Everything was an experiment, and the kids I got along with the most were the kids who also had to experiment at everything. It didn't matter if they were gifted and talented like I was in academics, athletics, or art and music. What mattered was personality whether they were male, female; Italian, Irish, Polish, German, Hispanic, Black; rich, or poor.

The biggest problem was my parents getting together. They're both rather socially awkward people. My father is anti-social in all facets outside of family and business, and my mother is a nervous trainwreck.

Part of why I blame government there is because they're high school sweethearts. If it wasn't for public education, my parents wouldn't have met up nevermind become the social messes they became. It even goes back to my grandparents on both sides. My grandparents on my mother's side have the same pattern. On my father's side, my grandfather is a bit nervous, my grandmother is the only one of the bunch who's socially adept.

That said, again, government came into the fray. On my mother's side, my grandfather was a union carpenter who worked on public works projects, and my grandmother... before she became a housewife, she temped at government agencies all the time as a secretary. On my father's side, my grandfather owned gas stations and garages, and my grandmother was a real estate broker.

The problem ultimately came down to how my parents never knew anything besides work. They always scoffed at culture, at sophistication, at intelligence.

As I got older, my problems with lightening up really tied into the contrast between home and school. Most people can live one way in one place and another way in another place. I can't. I've tried it my whole life, but it doesn't really work because when I try to switch modes, my brain kind of loses control.

That doesn't mean I can't switch modes though. It does happen, but it's spontaneous. It's not something I choose so much as it's something that depends upon confidence and whether I'm relaxed or concentrated. I can choose to pursue relaxation or concentration, but it isn't until it's realized that I can change how I behave.

That's the other reason I don't like government. Government plays with your mind. It plays with when you can be relaxed or concentrated or at least when it's socially strategic to be relaxed or concentrated. That playing ruins me.

In more collectivist social orders, we create less of you because there is less fragmentation in the first place. It's always bizarre how your reaction to individualistic American society kicking you around, was to... become individualistic.

Well look. We have cliques, we have clubs, people hang out together, we car pool. It's not like we're all a bunch of free roamers doing our own thing. People connect.

It's like what I said before about small versus large groups. America is a country loaded with small groups. Now that doesn't really fit me very well because I do well by myself and in large groups (or in small groups where nobody knows each other).

It goes with the exploratory personality. I do well in situations where nobody knows anything. The instant you start subsidizing people and giving people head starts, that's when I fall apart.

I also have a negative learning curve which is a little bit strange too. The longer I do something, the WORSE I get at it. I'm a quick learner, and I like to analyze systems to figure out how things come together, but I wear systems out very quickly and become biased towards efficient outcomes. My learning process is adaptable, but my performance process is not.

The only way I can adapt performance is if I have complete customizable control over the system itself. That's why government intervention doesn't help. It removes that by establishing arbitrary benchmarks over what can and cannot be done through implicit communication.

No, it's concerned with production because it takes some effort to pass on knowledge to the next generation. To get into this would be to discuss why old people are actually socially productive when retired, something that is a cultural and ideological gulf that I don't expect can be bridged between us anyway.

You should try anyway. This is one of those things you should blab and gloat about in order to show how you appreciate what you appreciate.

Or it might not. Really, lying is one of the best inventions that humans ever had, it's a fantastic social lubricant when applied in careful moderation. Politeness, for example, is a form of lying.

That said, there is however a mystical position that there can be a moment in time between people when all lies are temporarily abolished, but I deliberately do not mention any of that because it's not on topic and I already know that you don't believe in group consciousness of any sort.

Just play along. Lie to yourself then about me not believing in group consciousness. Show me how all lies can be temporarily abolished.

That could be your form of universalizability, so that could be the key to getting me to change.

My breaking point has always manifested as anger directed toward the people who break the unity, and so it doesn't consist of my trying to leave the group, it consists of my trying to discipline the defector(s).

We are totally dissimilar on this, and you know that.

But again, all this is completely beside the point, you are just trying to transform political issues into purely personal ones, and so I can see why you are trying to do that.

What happens when you can't discipline people?

Political and personal are the same thing in the end. Just relax, I'm trying to adapt to you in order to appreciate where you're coming from. I'm trying to read signs to see your history if you will.