Life calls. I’ll reply with more later tonight.
Where did I finish off? Oh yes I remember now… 
The expansion of mind is limited on one’s expiriences and enviroment. You expand only in what your enviroment allows you to.
I can guarantee that if you lived amongst a tribe of aborignes who had no knowledge of math that you wouldn’t be able to expand on calculus.
But not too taboo otherwise they would be taken off the airwaves.
The necessity was installed in you by your enviroment that dictates necessity.
Nods.
How were they not forced?
They certainly did a bang up job with the recent economical fiasco,didn’t they?
Tons of disputes yes but tons of similarities and agreements too.
Sure. Welcome the new boss same as the old boss.
For the same power.
Never said they were.
More like total obedience.
Or being told by the end of a barrel of a gun. That’s what Mao said. ( Effective politician. He didn’t give a dam what the populance thought.)
There is a reason why they call modern industrial nations police states or describe them as the military industrial complex.
The world is always in a constant state of rebellion where likewise the elite are always in a constant campaign for control.
Sure we do.
It’s all we are allowed to know.
Indeed.
Funny. Society isn’t moral or ethical in my opinion. Both are fantasy tales we lull ourselves to sleep with.
Show me where society is moral and ethical where I will in return show you where it is not.
I’ve never seen one. I read about one once in Plato’s republic but Plato always was nice at writing fiction.
Governments dictate hence the dictatorship.
“The powerful”? What does that mean, exactly? Anyone with any kind of power?
Your assertions are becoming far too general. I certainly hope you don’t actually believe that every “powerful” person shares a malevolent agenda.
Efficiency keeps a machine running, but does not ensure job security. Efficiency and control do need ethics in dealing with people – that is a huge deal, especially now at the height of corporate culture. Pure efficiency, at a moral/ethical sacrifice, only works to a certain extent. This is a well recognized idea. Businesses have been shut down for this, wars have been fought, etc.
Even if just for the sake of appearances alone, all forms of rule must have an ethic to persist.
We are not talking about just functioning, we are talking about functioning while persuading people to accept it. What you argue is enough for someone to strategically attain power, but not enough to maintain that power.
And you don’t see this as slightly ridiculous? Your theory would necessitate a group of omniscient, and omnipotent, people who know, or are able to predict, everything the masses do, and can possibly ever do, and then censor it before it is communicated. This just is not the case, man. Sorry.
Define a “controlled environment”. If you are referring to society, then I suppose I would agree – what use does a society have with an idea that simply does not work within society? That is not an instance of forced removal though, it is just a matter of practicality. There are always things which are not completely permitted or accepted within society that not only survive, but persist. My example with the Epicureans was to give evidence of this. I could give endless examples of people, groups, beliefs, ideas, theories, objects, etc. that remain unaccepted/permitted by most societies; but remain none-the-less.
Break through to what? This is kind of an absurd statement to make without any justification. So, to be clear, the universe itself conspires against us as well?
Such as?
I don’t disagree with this at all. We are limited by our environments the same that we are limited by our bodily apparatus and so on. These limits are not imposed by the state, so I don’t understand the relevance.
Again, we push at the boundaries until they budge, little by little. I never said anyone was smashing the boundaries down. The airwaves are regulated, but the masses influence what is aired as much as we do what is regulated. We are not victims in this equation – most people would have that we censor public media, which is why we do.
Conformity or removal by force is different, in my opinion, than the concept of adaptation out of necessity.
Many things dictate necessity. My biology alone dictates some things, but environment is a large part of the equation. Fortunately, I don’t believe my natural environment to have a malicious hidden agenda against me. Some of the actors within it may, but that which is determined by my environment shouldn’t be assumed malicious or benevolent. It just is.
…how do I explain this any clearer? They were not changed by an opposing will, they adapted, by choice, over a span of 1000+ years. The time and nature of changes that occurred were determined by them, for them.
Irrelevant.
Point?
How can you possibly know this? Also, what do you propose this universal idea of ‘power’ to be?
Do you know of any governments that get total obedience? I can’t think of one. This would require omnipotence.
…because they are policed?
You consider activities like elections to be acts of rebellion? We participate by choice.
According to who? Don’t just say “the elite/powerful” either, please expound a bit.
Sure it is, that is the purpose of a society. The actors within a society may not always be moral, but that doesn’t make morality a fantasy tale.
That isn’t a difficult task. Hows-a-bout showing me why you believe a society is not a moral ideal?
Perhaps a quick glance at the actual definition of “dictatorship” would prove beneficial.
Statiktech I like how you are trying to make me look like a irrational nonsensical paranoid without even bothering to listen to what I’m saying. 
It’s so patronizing.
When I talk about power within society I mean economical power.
Everybody has their individual strengths but those strengths are irrelevant towards those with economical power who control the interface
of how everybody elses individual strengths should be used or not.
Those with economical power control how others should compete or exist amongst themselves while decrying which ways of competition that are deemed unacceptable.
By creating limitations and barriers of how one must compete or live a monopoly ensues.
You seem to think that some sort of ethics has to exist for anything as complex as society to prevail.
I believe you are incorrect. All that exists as far as my opinion is a give or take interaction with a promise of reward for cooperation and a hard stance on punishment for any non conforming disobedience.
Ethics do not have to exist at all for efficiency to exist and neither does morality have to either.
All that has to exist is reward and punishment in order to maintain the efficiency of control.
You do not need to be omniscient or omnipotent to have a monopoly of power. You just need power and the ability to convince enough people.
If you control the means to which people exist it really doesn’t become that hard to figure out what most people will do if you have their means to existence at your disposal.
Human beings live very routine lifestyles and are very predictable overtime.
If a group was to not only figure out the routine of specific persons in their lifestyles or habits but also have the means to control the routine itself a monopoly of power would be so easily achieved.
I’ll reply more later. I got to go to sleep for work now. ( I’m returning back to my easily controlled and regulated routine not to mention predictable.)
I’m not trying to make you look like anything. You are the one painting the picture, I’m just trying to get some clarity out of it.
Besides, we are all irrational and nonsensical in our own ways, and paranoia is certainly not a foreign concept around here. Though, I do admittedly think some of your paranoid ideas are pretty far fetched. My humble opinion is that you have recognized a process in the relationship between the ‘have-not’ and ‘elite’ in society, but you have twisted it into something impossibly malicious.
People discover things all the time, that is what we do. We are curious by nature and pride ourselves in our ability to reason. These curiosities, discoveries, theories, experiments, etc. that aid the evolution of knowledge in mankind are not exempt from censorship – I agree with that much. Also, to be sure, I agree that it is primarily a class of “powerful” (wealthy) people that seek censorship in the interest of control. However, there are also those that favor censorship for ethical reasons – and these are the people that the ‘puppet masters’, so to speak, seek to mimic. By doing so, the wealthy elitists, who are bent on ownership and control, can give a somewhat convincing illusion of honesty, integrity, and decent moral fiber. So, we essentially have several groups imposing the types of limits you speak of, but not all are wealthy, malicious, or acting in the interest of some hidden agenda.
Further, the ideas, language, or actions being censored are most often done so after they have already reached the ‘masses’ and found a less than hospitable welcome. The “impossibly malicious” idea I am referring to is this idea that all of which is/has been censored has somehow been filtered to some degree before the offending discovery, or declaration, was made. That is to say, we do not speculate, theorize, think, act, and discover only that which we are allowed, or already ‘know’. Our most profound discoveries come from the most daring speculation – having the ability to predict some of these events beforehand would be entirely unlikely, let alone having the ability to predict and censor the entire process from speculation, to discovery, to communication. This, specifically, is where I think your theories fall apart. Nobody is predicting our actions with that kind of unbelievably stunning accuracy. Speculation is born of curiosity, and, sometimes, leads to an amazing discovery, which is immediately communicated – Once that discovery has been validated and communicated, the information can then be intercepted and reshaped. However, in such a case you will likely still have a group that knows more than what censorship allows to the masses, and they will communicate this (though, likely at a much slower pace).
In short–
- Censorship is not “full proof”; leaks are inevitable in cases of compelling truth.
- Censorship is not all-encompassing – For instance, how could 50 different countries, entailing 50 different cultures, 50 different belief systems, and 50 different power structures be brainwashing people to think exactly the same? There is no “agenda” like that of which you speak, spanning all of history and all of humanity. Surely, you must realize this feat would be near impossible.
- Censorship is applied to something that has already been realized, not merely predicted.
- The first three points are evidence enough that we are neither fully controlled, nor censored.
- We are becoming better at avoiding control and censorship than we are at maintaining it.
The shaman/priest is graced/inspired/impelled by God
to freely service his neighbor’s soul needs
in gratefulness they build him a church
the congregation ends up servicing the church
and paying dearly for it
The warrior leader is graced/inspired/impelled
to freely service his neighbor’s social needs
in gratefulness they instate him as a king
society ends up servicing the state
and pays dearly for it