sunshinenbrick

I never said nature wasn't cruel

I know what you mean, and what I am saying is that it can (and has) become distorted. Through excess and corruption, or perhaps even deliberately by some sort of 'elders' - the 'untouchable' people you never even see. Some of it may also be a result of our willing surrender to artificial intelligence before fully understanding our own... I wouldn't necessarily look to the masses or those that try control them to find common sense, as nature is efficient enough at rooting out those who are unable to survive.

I'd say that yes we become 'accustomed' to certain things. We assume the sun will rise through repitition and it allows us to build other systems. When things cause a disturbance in such systems it causes us to have to readjust how we 'see' things. Like with astronomy it can take centuries for ideas to be discovered and accepted... only to change again. And again yes, although I do not draw personal inspiration from the study of Dionysus (although I share an interest in such 'ancient memes' :laugh:). I do believe that the wave, however intense, is just that. That isn't to say not to try ride it though! Well I am a firm believer in a sort of common consciousness - even if it is purely on a chemical basis. However this is not to say the experience cannot be 'misinterpreted' (hearing colours, feeling numbers and other trippy s***...) or even hijacked into creating simulated thoughts and consciousness. Conditioning, if you will. Of course we can take it ever further, to a more primal set of principles, but then we end up essentially bewildered and 'in the dark'. At this level it only becomes useful as a means of basic survival... and at that point everything else is just fanciful. Do you recognize the term, "collective consciousness"? In your opinion is common sense still an essential sense? Yeah, although I avoided the term deliberately to try avoid any particular association to the 'coined' phrase. Good question! To be honest, I personally believe it is relative to your surroundings - is taste necessary to eat? So right now in the world I would say common sense is pretty much at its peak, if not in overdrive. Everyone is hyper-sensitive and it causes a sense of frenzy and confusion. As to whether we are able to embrace and adapt to this heightened sense of intimacy remains to be seen. What world are you living in? In the one I am in, it seems that all politicians have abandoned common sense altogether.... They do stuff that *sounds* good, but, in reality, is about as stupid as you can get..... Like raising the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour, and not expecting it to have an impact on jobs, and prices...... I did say it was relevent to your surroundings and in previous comment that it wasn't always for the 'common good' or for 'truth'. I think my point was that what may seem as common sense - as in a sense that is common - may not be. This doesn't detract from its impact however, as I am sure would agree :wink:

My view on common/collective consciousness is that it permeates more than just ourselves, as humans, animals or even simple composites of the universe. Everything is connected - you cannot destroy a wooden chair, you merely change its shape. I think the very nature of things means that nothing can be contained within a book or even a library - you can never step in the same river, and that river has no beginning or end. Of course you can cross the river, but then that is its 'purpose'. Now one could divert the river, even dam it to make a reservoir. Does this change the nature of the river? It's shape? My feeling (what I would describe as the 'instinct' sense - the number of senses and what they are is a literal 'grey' area ) is that the experience can be 'intoxicating'. We are 'drunk' from the increase of information input/output, reaching a sort of critical mass... waiting for the chairs to start flying.

Well I am a firm believer in a sort of common consciousness - even if it is purely on a chemical basis. However this is not to say the experience cannot be 'misinterpreted' (hearing colours, feeling numbers and other trippy s***...) or even hijacked into creating simulated thoughts and consciousness. Conditioning, if you will. Of course we can take it ever further, to a more primal set of principles, but then we end up essentially bewildered and 'in the dark'. At this level it only becomes useful as a means of basic survival... and at that point everything else is just fanciful. Do you recognize the term, "collective consciousness"? In your opinion is common sense still an essential sense? Yeah, although I avoided the term deliberately to try avoid any particular association to the 'coined' phrase. Good question! To be honest, I personally believe it is relative to your surroundings - is taste necessary to eat? So right now in the world I would say common sense is pretty much at its peak, if not in overdrive. Everyone is hyper-sensitive and it causes a sense of frenzy and confusion. As to whether we are able to embrace and adapt to this heightened sense of intimacy remains to be seen.

Well I am a firm believer in a sort of common consciousness - even if it is purely on a chemical basis. However this is not to say the experience cannot be 'misinterpreted' (hearing colours, feeling numbers and other trippy s***...) or even hijacked into creating simulated thoughts and consciousness. Conditioning, if you will. Of course we can take it ever further, to a more primal set of principles, but then we end up essentially bewildered and 'in the dark'. At this level it only becomes useful as a means of basic survival... and at that point everything else is just fanciful.

Sense is common but it changes, and maybe it's even crafted for a certain purpose... The idea that common sense is also always for the 'common good' or even necessarily 'true', should not to be taken for granted either. And in the vast oceans of information, would we even be able to tell the difference anymore?? Between technology (and our reliance on it), science, and global economics, I think we are all having to learn everything practically from the beginning again.

Lose perspective on what? So far as I can see, the establishment really doesn't have to do all that much to sow division, as the public seems to do it well enough on it's own. This is precisely why we must keep trying to see the whole picture, and not just what we see through Google Glass. I know this is what you were alluding to, and I simply wanted to widen the debate.

Um... should we perhaps not lose perspective here. This is the kind of division among people that the establishment want. Problem, reaction, solution.

I don't think there is much economy left to collapse though. World over. We are all living on borrowed time and it's going to take something short of a miracle to change the tide - perhaps the hardest thing to do is ebb the consumption culture permeating the global capitalist state that has choked us all to the point of seeing the noose as a better option. People are not going to accept the same wages that the corporations offer elsewhere. The economy that surrounds them also means to do it would mean they technically become paid LESS than their 'third world' counterparts. It's economical and political checkmate.

Some sort of civil or class war appears inevitable at this point - there are similar problems in the UK, although not nearly as extreme and the general public's options are pretty much limited to write, strike or protest (and perhaps riots). While the American people may not have the 'gumption', what they do have is plenty of ammunition. This could be an unfortunate mix. With such an increasingly volatile situation, I also see the shifting of such targets to further afield than already has been the case. The pieces are moving.

Its not what you label yourself that defines you , but what you do , what you implement. The Nazi/ Fascist states of the 1930"s - 40's were in no way socialistic. They were purely state/corporatist merged entities . The word fascist is actually a misnomer , prior to its adoption it was known as corporatism and only came about as fascist because Mussolini thought the fasces (an ancient type of Roman axe) would make for a good symbol. If people use the logic of labelism as their core rational , then you can lead yoursefl down paths such as The Peoples Republic of China being some form of democracy merely because it has the word republic in it and of course thats what the communist authorities of China like to tell their people but it ain't true. It is indeed a case of emperor's clothes, but as much as those on the inside can be fooled, so can those on the outside follow false flags and be fed the facts so as to build a certain consensus. If we look back over the last seven or so decades it brings into question exactly who 'won', and what legacies have been brought forward to our present day. The way in which, particularly, WWI and WWII were started and ended is wildly complex and the more you dig the more you find that a lot of people, some of whom have held great power, kinda liked the emperor's new groove and bared themselves as wolves in sheep clothing. Whilst I like the idea of democracy, I am not totally convinced a system of multi-party 'hot potato' is any more accountable or responsible than those who are stuck in power. Having said that, as the outcome seems to end at much the same fork then perhaps a sanctuary does reside in 'knowing your enemy' and seeking a truth.

Yes, we all have some socialist ideals. We also have some Nazi ideals. Universal health care and life time pensions were promises made by Hitler. If I support those things does it make me a mass murdering Nazi? There is a delineation that you are well aware of. You're a smart dude so I know that positional parody isn't something you're not familiar with. Equality of outcome and equality or opportunity doesn't fall into that range. *pokes you hard* We both know this. The full name of the Nazi Party is the National Socialist (German) Workers' Party which technically makes it a left-wing extremist party, not much unlike the very Communist Party they tried to take control of in Russia. The clever way in which politics can divert attention like a magic trick means that we must be careful to not allow their narrative to dictate our own. 'Socialism' (as seen with the Third Reich) can be used to serve an ever smaller and smaller social class. Go further and further down this path and things suddenly flip into an essentially right-wing fascist style ideology, which we are led to believe the Nazi Party was. The idea that the right are always the conservative, or even nationalistic party, is sometimes deceiving, as is the common misunderstanding that one cannot become the other i.e. it all depends on the context you put it in. Yet, as you suggest, the issues around representing a people-driven (real) democracy and the ability to hold government to account, is something that may 'trump' everything else (pardon the pun), even if it is still an illusion. Perhaps ironically, the final hurdle for the unbridled 'capitalist dream' will be to try escape the very authoritarianism that has allowed it to flourish so.

Doesn't the very existence of an established elite show that any form of socialism is just an illusion? Also, if Trump wants to topple these powers-that-be and give it back to the 'everyday American', so to speak, doesn't that actually make him also a socialist?

I remember seeing a banner once, it read 'if there is a minimum wage, why is there no maximum?'

I was wondering just that. The UK parties are on there. My guess is most parties are authoritarian in some degree, as that is what a government does, no? I think personal and inter-personal (party) politics are what cause a lot of friction, because they can be very contradictory at times - we like to have choice, but we also like rubbish to be taken care of. It's a bit like making a big decision about something, but on a mass scale. Ultimately, in order to get stuff done the process is simplified and then hoped to level out. What is particularly fascinating is how 'separate' schools of thought are converging as we seem to be reaching some sort of tipping point. Bit like an avalanche, like you suggested.

So apparently I have the same political compass as Ghandi... could be worse I guess

I am more of the opinion that politics is indeed two-dimensional, after all, that's all you hear on the media, it's either the liberals, or the conservatives, rarely anything in between. Indeed I think you hit the nail on the head there! This is what we are tunneled into believing - increasingly rarely do you find a deep political debate that slices through all the rhetoric. Yet, politicians change their minds and stances on things all the time, however the general public buy into this sort of endless game. It's really rather clever, but also somewhat natural because most of us like to feel the sheppard is watching over us. Having only two sides, or rather a purely digital micro view of the world/universe, also has tended to be the most economic way in which to make decisions. However, with the new discoveries in science and revolutions in technology (Internet for example) it is completely throwing everything we 'know' up in the air and thus we are in a right pickle. As with most things in our limited view of the world, only time will tell - or perhaps instinct/faith gives some other resolve to the inherently inexplicable. Sorry, just rambling a bit now as I am being very lazy today cuz I've been feeling ill as of late :yucky:

Politics is more than a two dimensional paradigm anyway - this is a neat little diagram (although things tend to be a little more organic/spiritual than this represents and is relative to the people around you, obviously). In fact, the more multi-dimensional you can be then the more likely your are to win power. Furthermore, while the incentive of a policy may be different, the results can effectively be the same i.e. a fascist regime would share many of the same attributes as a communist one, for example. But then we are all just actors on our own little stage and it is the pure, visceral, unfettered reality of nature that will govern our futures. Seriously though... I'm always giving myself such a downer!! (and as for a word that describes people who blatantly believe what they wanna believe even with the facts staring then in the face, the word 'militant' springs to mind - although I like to take things on a person by person, case by case basis as much as possible myself)

Perhaps the closest thing a republic can have to a monarchy? Suppose also, that might have been partly why another Bush administration was a simple no go. But in all honesty I would imagine any candidate, including Trump, will give all the top positions to their best friends at the first opportunity... if they haven't already.

So it seems this race is between Hillary and Trump (assuming neither 'does time' before their time comes at least ) Now I am not an American, so hope I don't upset people by sharing my current thoughts on proceedings. I am however, a direct product of the American Dream. I was born and lived in two NATO countries, went to an American 'international' school, know a great number of Americans, played basketball and baseball growing up, my dad worked for big American oil and I say bathroom instead of 'loo' or 'toilet' and many other nuances and other such nonsense much to the amusement of the locals (or should I say yokels ) I say this because the kind of vibes I am getting from my surrogate 'fatherland' and, more specifically the Trump message, is that I (and 'people like me') are not a part of that dream anymore. With Hillary, while some it is a little 'pie in the sky' and she still scares me a bit, it makes me feel a lot more at ease and wanting to be invested and engaged in the future. But then many say the American Dream is dead... And here across the pond we have the Tories and a rise of far-right governments... So if I was living in America then I can understand the difficulty in retreading a beaten track. Well... between the EU vote in the UK and the US general election, 2016 is going to be a defining year in western politics.

In response to post #35626372. #35627002 is also a reply to the same post. I third this. I don't mind ads as long as they fall within the parameters described, especially if it can help you guys out. Thanks for your hard work.

Stumbled accross this on facebook - interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

I know here you can spoil your ballot by marking more than one box, for example, which is then counted as inconclusive. I have always wondered what would happen if enough people did this. But I think people are too 'well-behaved' for it to happen en masse without some sort of coercion.

The potential situation you described before sounds somewhat similar to a hung parliament, which essentially means there is no clear winner (or just not clear enough) and then the different 'factions' have to form an 'alliance' in order to convince everyone it'll work. The setup sounds familiar, except of course the terminology and institutions are different (yeah we also have a Monarchy, but that boat is rocking and I'm not sure it will necessarily continue being worth the paper it is written on ). People here are also campaigning for electoral reform exactly the way you describe it, and again the lack of traction is for the very same reasons.