“Socialism” is only a sign that a particular civilization’s strength has failed it, nothing more.
It’s not as if i avoid rational debate, i’m just not sure whether it’s worth the time. Nevertheless, for you i shall take it up.
Your reaction is merely syllogically derived (“this is a socialist plan, therefore blah blah blah”).
Similar for this reaction:
By socialist i mean only that people whose nonlinear thinking skills are weak, will be helped to live like kings, as in Scandinavian welfare socialism.
What i propose is no “socialism” – in the sense that you can’t empirically use contemporary European Nazi socialsm or the USSR to gauge what i propose, which is “socialist” only to the extent that it promotes logical (time saving) cooperation and incentivizes problem-solving behavior thus helping high-RQ, low-IQ types, and physically discourages “solution-fetching” behavior (the opposite of IQ-based problem-solving behavior).
The only material culture i propose to flood the people with, is trees and animals, the forest.
What i propose is merely a return to the forest, via a minimally inclusive jungle-based culture based on the great Fukuoka’s teachings*, though without abandoning modern conveniences like AC and economy (though that must become Gesellian**).
Why do you presume that I want to be emperor? I just humbly propose the plan*. In fact, if this takes of, i’ll have you (and your friends) declared emperor – though only ceremonially, since the final power is with the people of the 90-man units!
Don’t tell me that you’re perfectly happy with the System you have*? With the richest 1% and their dependents quivering with increasing fear, in America, and the American economy itself unjustly leeching off the world economy?
- I never could understand that aspect of the right.
You’re falsely comparing my humble proposal to the (fatally infiltrated, thus monstrous) quasi-Brezhnevid USSR.
I’m only talking of a positive change to health – remove depression – and dementia – from its grey-matter-heavy sufferers.
Your reaction is overly McCarthyistic. Chill out, man, the “Reds” or “Borg” will do you no harm. We’re all humans of differing types, and though you might not realize it, none is as bad as you think.
By saying “human beings continue inexplicably behaving like human beings”
You propose that depressed psychopaths and sociopaths should run free, as they do today? I propose they should be re-attuned with nature and thus become happy and like any other homo sapiens sapiens. See, there used to be a golden age of Kronos… which proves that sociopaths are not really all that unmanageable as you say (Saint, holds for you too). It is only that the current system can’t manage them.
Ridiculously, largest number of imprisoned peeps… are in the USA, the American militant right imprisons its own.
But the system i propose, a new non-incarcerating system, an isolationist ecology (maximizing interhuman distances), with cool features like underground workshops and jamming rooms, can help even sociopaths greatly, in their quest to become “true human beings” (or at least less RQ-based, more IQ-based, thus enjoying longer lifespan etc.).
Your reaction is far too McCarthystic/suspecting.
I don’'t call myself “Glorious Founder”, indeed my system is inspired by others like Silvio Gesell, Masanobu Fukuoka, Venus project guys et al. I release the plans so that intellectuals like you can improve it, under Creative Commons.
But, surely, America must be more progressive; as it’s people like you who constitute the power of America, i must beg of you: don’t be so right-leaning! For the world we have today is the theater of the absurd, isn’t it?
You can have a better life, though, how, that perhaps that lies outside your ability to understand. Scientists/Engineers like me, trained in the art of nonlinear thinking, are much more inclined to quickly grasp the technicalities of what i propose, You might have to work harder.
But i’ve described my proposal to the fullest of my abilities. You might even implement it yourself, without and help from me. I am but a poor proletarian philosopher, it is the bourgeoisie philosophers like you who must fearlessly grasp the ideal ideas and lead humanity towards achieving them. We only live once, why not work together and go for the best? 90 people is all you need to make a self-governing utopia like this.
A Gesellian monetary system redistributes wealth equitably, eliminates the niche of economic criminals, making them normal, scientific human beings.
The presence of internet enabled direct democracy displaces the niche of “managers” and tyrants. See slide 45 onwards here: slideshare.net/psymarine/blu … ted-utopia
Except that my ‘therefore’ is actually based on what socialism means, what you describe your plan as, and the actually methodology behind your plan- what you have here is a plan where you think you can change how people think and feel based on changing their material conditions. Yes, that happens to be the aim of socialism, but its what your plan seeks to accomplish whether or not you call it socialism.
MechanicalMonster just said some random stuff that gives no indication that he actually read the thread beyond the title, and which isn’t even true.
Also, referring to my counter-point as a ‘reaction’ is another political tactic to de-rationalize the opposition. I am not having a reaction. I am making an argument.
What you mean by the word socialist isn’t really that relevant. If I was reacting to your arbitrarily selected definition of a word in your thread title, THEN we cold say my point was syollogistically arrived. The fact is, what you have here is a plan that involves changing fundamental human nature by changng material conditions. That you identified this as socialist and naturalist is precisely correct, there’s no reason to back away from it.
Fine, so change your mind and don’t call it socialism anymore. That’s no concern to me. Regardless of what you call it, your plan has the same faults as any other plan that seeks to change human nature through a central government controlling people’s material conditions. Nazis and Stalinists have little to do with it; As I said to James, socialist structures aren’t the only ones that exhibit this failing, so changing the label doesn’t escape the criticism.
You propose to change where people live, the design of their architecture, whom they associate with, their relationship to their property, how they earn a living, what they believe, and how they are educated so that ultimately you can change the fundamental way in which they think about the world around them.
Yes, just like Marx. See, Marx didn’t want to be emporer, he just proposed a plan that obviously would require an emporer to put in place. That way there’s this permanent illusion of schism between the idea proposed (which is peaceful and incoherent) and it’s implementation (which is coherent, draconian, and cruel).
This is why the analytic reasoning that you criticize in the first few panels of your presentation is important; being perfectly happy with a system is not required to recognize the flaws in a proposed change to a system. Suppose I live in an apartment, and the rent is too high. My roommate proposes we burn the apartment down and live in the street. I don’t have to be perfectly happy with the current situation (high rent) to see that his proposed alternative is worse.
Ah, so you DON’T believe that changing the material conditions of a person’s life will change how they think? Because your presentation very much gives that impression. If you DO believe that changing the material conditions of a person’s life will change how they think, then I’m precisely correct- you mean to change society through educations and reforms that make it impossible for people to disagree with you. Everybody will see that your way is right when they are made to live in the society you’ve come up with. Again, this is why reformers such as Marx or the orchestrators of the French Revolution think everything will go so well- you say “People will be free to leave if they don’t like it” with a smug certainty that everybody will like it. When ‘people will be free to leave’ begins to look like ‘everybody is leaving’, Marxism becomes the USSR, or China, or Cuba.
I know that. All these utopian fantasies always begin with a ‘wouldn’t it be nice’ scenario. Wouldn’t it be nice if there were no more depression, or starvation, or jealousy, or exploitation or war or whatever your pet bugaboo is that you think needs fixing. The problem isn’t that removing depression is a bad thing. The problem is that you can’t possibly predict what the outcome of changing society in such a radical way will be. It is literally impossible for any academic with any amount of research to say “If we change what people eat, where they live, who they associate with, how they relate to property, and etc., society will change in the way we desire”. It simply never works, because people aren’t like that.
You're telling me people aren't as bad as I think, but YOU'RE the one that wants to change every single aspect of how humans live their lives. This is another common contradiction of utopian folks. So fond of saying 'people are basically good' and manipulating concepts of open-mindedness when you want other people to trust you...while at the same time advocating that human society is such a horribly fucked up disaster zone that we need you to save us.
Case in point. Your immediately previous comment was shaming me for being 'afraid' of the commies and the reds, and trying to assure me that I need to chill out. Now you instantly revert to the "Holy shit psychopats are roaming the streets and militant right-wing Americans are imprisoning everybody and you need my Grand Reforms to fix it!" So I need to be open-minded and accepting when the subject matter is you, and communists, and reds, but I need to be paranoid and afraid when it comes to the 'militant right' and the 'psychos in the streets'.
The rest of your post is more of the same- chastizing people for being suspicious of your ilk, while pushing hard for people to be paranoid and fearful of those that oppose you. You spend half your post complaining that I compared the plan you called socialist to Socialism, and the other half of your post calling me “McCarthystic” with no indication that you grasp the irony. Everywhere it is the same.
Stop thinking you know what’s better for everybody else. If you want to live in a commune in the forest and share everything and bring down your RQ levels and rock out in your basement jam room, then go fucking do it and if it really makes you that super duper happy then the rest of us will be able to tell, and some other folks will eventually join in. That’s the kind of society we live in right now.
The guy above still believes in government freedom. That’s cute for being so irrational.
Just that i do know 
Neuropyrosis – the burning of the brain cells – can’t be good for anyone. It is truly that they say that some people “fume” and are incidentally unable to understand nonlinear arguments. I’m not saying you are so, just saying.
That’s what i’m gonna have to do. I was hoping Americans, since they’re so rich especially in time – take the lead, and make such a return to nature near their great lakes perhaps, but, ach, nevermind. Now I’m gonna have to find some German friends to understand my point of view and work on this with me. A 90 person set-up initially, near some riverbank, expandable to 540 people, and we’ll see where it goes from there 
That’s an offensively banalizing underrepresentation of what i propose!
I’ve redefined the project, check it out here:
slideshare.net/fullscreen/ps … d-utopia/1
Typical socialist style of argumentation that I already described in my last post to you- instead of interacting with the points made, you try to come up with special categories and defects for people who disagree with you such that there’s no room for disagreement. Does somebody think your plan is full of crap? Well, it can’t be because you made a mistake, it must be bceause they are suffering from a condition where they are unable to comprehend nonlinear arguments. Ha.
You have to understand, what you’re doing isn’t new, it’s very very old. The “Here’s what’s wrong with everybody else’s brains such that they can’t see the virtue in my plan for their lives” routine has been played out by all political factions so many times that it’s just a cliche at this point. It goes back at least as far as Plato.
There, see? Now you’re not being a demogogue/dictator trying to tell everybody else how to live their lives. You’re just engaging in a personal experiment based on your ideals and your resources. Best of luck to you! Those of all that are already living a ‘back to nature’ lifestyle without trying to tell everybody else what’s wrong with their brains if they don’t embrace it salute you.
Oh, am I being MaCarthyist again? Or a right wing extremist? Or militant? Or reactionary? You insult people who disagree with you in every post you make, but call me out for refering to socialism as socialism, or a commune as a commune.
Anyway, your plan has a good chance of succeeding if you hand-pick 90 people who have volunteered for it and have a temperment suited for it. This will allow your commune to thrive well enough for you to convince yourself that the whole world should follow suit, which will make everybody happy- you’ll get the lifestyle you want, your prejudices confirmed, and the rest of us will be saved from one more utopian reformer.
Let me know how you guys plan on maximizing happiness.
I’m still going with my gut by banking on human misery and exploitation.
Why would I try to maximize other people’s happiness? I can barely manage my own, I barely understand what makes me happy. Best thing is to get the hell out of the way so other people can try to manage their own happiness.
That’s exactly the point i’m trying to make Maximize normative inter-human distances by spacing apart (individualist) human dwellings as much as possible, and fill nature in between. This automatically discourages (the largely dopamine-dependent manners involved in) quantitative inter-human interaction (RQ), leading to the rise of Norepi-dependent manners (more Norepi, more happiness*) – qualitative interaction, inventing and DIY in a workshop culture, and so forth
Leading to a culture of IQ-based problem-solving instead of RQ-based “solution-fetching”, as i call it… the plus side of which – is more happiness due to more Norepi, extended lifespan, and freedom from dopaminic mental disorders** and internal disorders (due to improvement via exercise of the Norepic base of reactions i.e. the Orbitofrontal cortex, which is the control system for all bodily organs) like cancer or diabetes.
More on how excessive neuro-architectural dependence on dopamine is associated with depression (and dementia):
Hey, sorry for the apparent bad manners and insensitivity. I’m an aspergian, who are often perceived as rude, though they don’t mean to be rude. I ain’t perfect and the theoretical side of my brain is all i have, and effective communication is a skill i’m still working on
besides, as Wells says, “Continental philosophers are notoriously bad at appreciating criticism - at submitting to interpretation by others”.
“They are often overcommitted to the truth of their own approach and exhibit impatience with other perspectives and traditions and decline to take them seriously”.
bad manners, i know, i’m improving on it? What can i do, i’m not the most typical type of “Aspergian” either.
Uccisore, your name is cognate (root: Kaiser/Caesar) to the name of one of my favorite childhood friends, Kasera, his full name was Manish (Kumar) Kasera, of Delhi, India. Ever heard of such an individual (not that you would have, but cognates often help solve mysteries? I’ve got nowhere else to ask for him, so…) We parted ways on a sad note (blame bullies) and I’ve not had contact with him for 16-17 long years and wonder how he’s doing.
Well, yeah; that was obvious. Not from the way you behaved in the thread, but from the way your thesis is based on the notion that there’s something wrong with everybody who isn’t autistic. I saw that right away: “OK, this guy is crazily claiming that there’s something about the autistic brain that works better than everybody else and needs to be emulated, he’s trying to state that normal modes of thought are dangerous and based on lies, it must be because he’s autistic himself.” That’s pretty standard for a utopian- you have to puff yourself up, have something that nobody else has, before you can justify the hubris of thinking you can fix everything.
OK. Well, as a general rule, if you would find something rude when done to you (having your ideas called socialist, or a commune), then somebody else will find it rude when done to them (being called a Mcarthyist, or a right-wing extremist).
My name is Italian for “Murderer”.
By Autistic brain/Autist i mean the hyper-Norepic Aspergian Autist, rather than the hyper-dopaminergic Kannerian Autists who are more common in America e.g.: Temple Grandin, John Eldar Robinson, Kim Peek et al.
More about the Aspergian Autist here: academia.edu/3876719/On_Asp … ype_Autism
a thumb rule; Dopamine is linked to dendrites and gray matter, Norepi is linked to Axons and white matter.
The less gray matter, more-white matter/glia containing Aspergian Autist brain is in fact biologically ideal (better for the body; more Norepi = more happiness, freedom from disease etc. – after all, Norepi is the newer, functionally more advanced (multiconditional signalling) molecule, coming way after the ancient, sponge-era, functionally simple (monoconditional signalling) molecule of Dopamine, that is over used in Neo-Neurotypicals*)
The less white matter/glia, more gray matter-based “normal” Neo-Neurotypicals (e.g.: “normal” people or their extremes, the Kannerian Autists), who are effective at herd-based survival even though increasingly diseased and short lived, touch my sense of sympathy. Besides, they are deadly in their herds. Pro-logic education can easily multiply their white matter, so something is wrong with the education system that emphasizes rote; it should equally encourage the growth of IQ… do you not agree?
In any case, good, Uccisore, for what we have here is a continental school (represented by me) vs. analytic school (represented by you) debate going on, which debate seems even more focused on matters of centrality than the old Searle-Derrida debate, about which, as Gary Gutting says:
"Although the two sorts of philosophers seldom read one another’s work, when they do, the results can be ugly. A famous debate between Jacques Derrida (continental) and John Searle (analytic) ended with Searle denouncing Derrida’s “obscurantism” and Derrida mocking Searle’s “superficiality.”
More on it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Searl … ida_debate
The relationship between Norepi and Dopamine and Axons and white matter and the price of tea in China has nothing to do with anything. Showing off how smart you are like you tried to do with my name isn't interesting to me. You link me to basic information on Asperger's as though it's not common knowledge. And yes yes, you've read Searle. Honestly, this comes off as frightened; flinging various signs of your great intelligence at me as a defense mechanism. But none of that matters to me- you could be a PhD in all the fields you cite, and that would just make you one more PhD I've argued with.
In short, if your assertion that the Aspergian brain is superior to the normal brain has merit, then publish that in a peer reviewed journal and show me the academic world’s response. I think we both know that the experts in the fields you cite simply think of Asperger’s as an unfortunate lack of development in the hippocampus and amygdala and so on, far from superior. It’s a mental disorder - and there’s no shame in that, I’ve got my own.
Things follow classic forms. Listen; you are autistic, and your vision of utopia is for everybody to behave more like autistic people, and for everything to be shaped/organized in a way that is easier for autistic people to understand. Do you see the classic form there? You can throw all the big words and irrelevant links at me you want, the autistic person claiming autistic brains are superior and the rest of us all ought to live in a way that seems ideal to the autistic brain is clearly just one more self-serving utopian fantasy, like the agoraphobic trying to convince us all that the key to world peace is to live underground.
I don’t want to live underground because I’m not agoraphobic. I don’t want to live in a tower surrounded by a moat avoiding all unplanned social interaction because I don’t have Aspergers’. Your ideas aren’t, at root, an attempt at helping anyone but yourself.
This is a classic example of the continental vs. analytic debate, and how full of friction and bitterness it can get! Well, folks this is what happens when an axonic brain comes across a dendritic brain.
Thus says the analytic philosopher. And where do I publish? Do not continentals see the exercise of (“analytic”) power everywhere? Is it not said that “Analytic philosophy (sometimes analytical philosophy) is a style of philosophy that came to dominate English-speaking countries in the 20th century. In the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Scandinavia, Australia, and New Zealand, the vast majority of university philosophy departments identify themselves as “analytic” departments”.
By the way, i never meant to say that the Aspergian brain is superior.
Your method of argumentation is aggressive. For example, a moat for holding irrigating waters nearby, and to keep out big animals – is, for you, something medievalish.
you make illogical “analogies”:
That’s a classic example of quasi-syllogistic reasoning, a vice to which your likes are so prone.
You say “self-serving” utopian fantasy… wonder how you came to feel that i intend only some cheap self-service, rather than real betterment of humanity and the plant/animal kingdom.
I ask you: our old wood elf cultures were as i say (as cultures should be). Your likes did wrong by burning them to the ground. And we made the USSR, meant to morph into what is ideal (something like what i say).
But your analytic warlords like Reagan (who ultimately died of Alzheimer’s disease) destroyed the USSR.
“avoiding all unplanned social interaction” – You evidently haven’t taken the pain of understanding my proposition. You can walk and walk and drive/take trains and walk forever in the culture i propose, and see people, who are friendly to an above-than-conventional degree, all along your path, just that they’ll be few and far between… no visas, no $%#shit. In other words, quantitative interaction (and the concomitant RQ usage) is discouraged in favor of qualitative interaction.
You find great joy in calling me “Autistic”, showing how you don’t understand Asperger’s syndrome. You’re in good company; most American psychiatrists misdiagnose NLDs as Aspergians. you probably won’t understand my PoV because you neither have the type of thinking/axons to see my big picture, nor the right attitude to read what all i show, you probably feel it is “obscurantist bunkum”.
I don’t blame you, your mind is “overly” analytical rather than theory-friendly/theoretical after all.
i’ve not read a word of Searle… just how you can’t get my PoV despite my attempts to explain it well, continentals like me can’t tolerate Analytic literature… even though, is war the only way? I think not. I still think that both types of people can be good friends and cooperate for the betterment of the world. Though it may have been a mistake that i made, to come to an analytic forum and look for help… i’ll be searching elsewhere… 
Nevertheless, thanks for the interesting spirit of debate you brought in…
But your thesis isn’t philosophy, it’s social science mixed with a little neurology. You imagining that our discussion is a microcosm of analytic vs. continental styles is hogwash. I haven’t made any arguments against your position in the analytic style, and your empirical arguments have nothing to do with the continental school.
Then you meant to hide it? Whatever you meant to say, it’s very clear that’s what you think. In fact, it’s pretty much explicitly stated on your website and in your thesis that you linked to.
An aggressive use of illogical analogies would not be a representation of the analytic approach to philosophy, now would it?
My likes, huh? Is that another example of you being accidentally insulting on purpose because you just can’t help it?
There’s no need to wonder, I explicitly told you how I came to that conclusion, multiple times; You are an autistic proposing to change the world so that everybody thinks and behaves as if they were autistic, and lives in communities that are designed to be most comfortable for autistic people. If that’s not self-serving, what is?
I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about here. I'm not aware of any wood elf cultures, and I'm not aware of who my 'likes' are such that we burned them down. If it helps, I should point out that I've never played World of Warcraft, so you might be mistaking me for somebody else.
This is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. From the very beginning of this thread, the moment your ideas had any opposition, you made up fantasies about who you are, who the people who disagree with you are, and how if anybody doesn’t like what you say it must be because there is something inferior about their brain. This, combined with your brazen “What’s best for me must be best for everybody” attitude demonstrates nicely the foibles of Utopian pursuits. It’s self-centeredness. First, in the sense of hubris that you think that the world YOU would prefer is the world everybody ought to be forced to live in, and second, the arrogance of assuming that there must be something fundamentally wrong with anybody who doesn’t share your vision.
I mean, look at you- telling me what my mind is and what my mental shortcomings are based on a few hundred words of text about a single topic. You know the madness in that, right? You know that every expert you’ve ever read on such things would call you foolish for trying to diagnose a stranger with such little information, right? You call me the things you call me NOT because you have sufficient evidence to justify those conclusions, but because it defends your worldview to come up with ways to dismiss people who disagree. I notice that habit so quickly because every utopian, every socialist does it.
In short, you don’t need science to explain why you want to live in a big tower surrounded by a forest, surrounded by a moat, where your family cooks your meals and you don’t have to worry about strangers. All you have to do is state it and show a picture and just about everybody will say “Neat.”
You need science to take this from your own personal ideal or fantasy into a global game-plan that leads to the abolishment of everybody else’s way of life. That’s the part I’m critical of. Why do you think it’s your place to try and reform the world instead of just create a happy niche for yourself within it? Well, because you make the mistakes utopians make:
1.) An exaggerated perception of your own ability to understand and predict human society,
2.) An underestimation of the capacities of people who don’t want to live like you, and
3.) A belief that human life is so simple and easily measured that there could be such a thing as a best way to do it.
All utopians, from Plato through to Marx and into the present make these same mistakes, I don’t know why.
You do good to ascribe that belief to me, since this belief’s opposite is nothing but nihilism…
If you say so. I know you won’t defend that claim, so I’ll settle for having correctly identified your assumptions.