Joker
(Joker)
July 25, 2007, 5:36pm
1
In society our lives are always at the disposal of others and our form of surviving is always on the account of others or their creations.
Forgive me if I am wrong but I have always looked at survival being somthing that one accomplishes by themselves alone.
Can we really call living in society survival when infact it really is a elaborate labyrinth of dependencies in comparison? Is this a cruel joke or just another farce of humanity’s hubris?
Many call these dependencies a form of hierarchical survival which seems insane considering the individual doesn’t make any choices for himself since society makes all the choices for him in all reality where he remains a slave.
People can survive as slaves. Also, alot of people would say that survival means finding things that you can depend on.
Joker:
In society our lives are always at the disposal of others and our form of surviving is always on the account of others or their creations.
Forgive me if I am wrong but I have always looked at survival being somthing that one accomplishes by themselves alone.
Can we really call living in society survival when infact it really is a elaborate labyrinth of dependencies in comparison? Is this a cruel joke or just another farce of humanity’s hubris?
Many call these dependencies a form of hierarchical survival which seems insane considering the individual doesn’t make any choices for himself since society makes all the choices for him in all reality where he remains a slave.
But we survive and prosper based on these social institutions, however flawed you may believe they are. Look at human populations now compared to 20,000 years ago or even 5,000 years ago. Look at average lifespans. Look at human-wide population increases. I would say this ‘co-dependency’ is working rather well; more people are surviving longer.
i’ve got my fist i;ve got my plan i’ve got survivalism (sm sm sm…)
u have a good musical taste… and…yeah, a good musical taste…
and maybe also…nevermind… focus on the music…
maybe you can be like zach de la rocha hahahahahhhhahaha.
Joker
(Joker)
July 27, 2007, 10:26pm
5
Survivalism to me means by your will as a individual only.
Today’s survivalism means in the service of others and I have always wondered how we got to that transition or specifically how we can even call our existance surviving.
Joker
(Joker)
July 27, 2007, 10:28pm
6
BlueChicken:
Joker:
In society our lives are always at the disposal of others and our form of surviving is always on the account of others or their creations.
Forgive me if I am wrong but I have always looked at survival being somthing that one accomplishes by themselves alone.
Can we really call living in society survival when infact it really is a elaborate labyrinth of dependencies in comparison? Is this a cruel joke or just another farce of humanity’s hubris?
Many call these dependencies a form of hierarchical survival which seems insane considering the individual doesn’t make any choices for himself since society makes all the choices for him in all reality where he remains a slave.
But we survive and prosper based on these social institutions, however flawed you may believe they are. Look at human populations now compared to 20,000 years ago or even 5,000 years ago. Look at average lifespans. Look at human-wide population increases. I would say this ‘co-dependency’ is working rather well; more people are surviving longer.
That doesn’t mean anything and in the face of nature or the cosmos that is all meaningless.
Survivalism literally means by your will individually. If survivalism was all about dependency we wouldn’t have the world survive and instead we would replace it with the word dependent in our vocabulary.
Joker
(Joker)
July 27, 2007, 10:32pm
7
Domestication does not equal survivalism.
thezeus18
(thezeus18)
July 29, 2007, 1:13am
8
Joker:
In society our lives are always at the disposal of others and our form of surviving is always on the account of others or their creations.
Forgive me if I am wrong but I have always looked at survival being somthing that one accomplishes by themselves alone.
Can we really call living in society survival when infact it really is a elaborate labyrinth of dependencies in comparison? Is this a cruel joke or just another farce of humanity’s hubris?
Many call these dependencies a form of hierarchical survival which seems insane considering the individual doesn’t make any choices for himself since society makes all the choices for him in all reality where he remains a slave.
The bushel of twigs breaks less easily than all of them alone. Survival isn’t about how you survive, it’s about surviving. If societies help individual people survive, then good. If the choices made for somebody without his consent are correct, then good.
You are not a slave, Joker. At any time, you could completely disregard society’s rules, go build your own house, grow your own food, grind your own power, knit your own clothes, cut your own hair, pull your own wisdom teeth, implant your own pacemaker, and darn well kill anybody who comes within a hundred meters of your self-sufficient freedom.
Why don’t you?
Where can we go and live that way? Is it possible to just take a vacation there?
Joker:
BlueChicken:
Joker:
In society our lives are always at the disposal of others and our form of surviving is always on the account of others or their creations.
Forgive me if I am wrong but I have always looked at survival being somthing that one accomplishes by themselves alone.
Can we really call living in society survival when infact it really is a elaborate labyrinth of dependencies in comparison? Is this a cruel joke or just another farce of humanity’s hubris?
Many call these dependencies a form of hierarchical survival which seems insane considering the individual doesn’t make any choices for himself since society makes all the choices for him in all reality where he remains a slave.
But we survive and prosper based on these social institutions, however flawed you may believe they are. Look at human populations now compared to 20,000 years ago or even 5,000 years ago. Look at average lifespans. Look at human-wide population increases. I would say this ‘co-dependency’ is working rather well; more people are surviving longer.
That doesn’t mean anything and in the face of nature or the cosmos that is all meaningless.
Survivalism literally means by your will individually. If survivalism was all about dependency we wouldn’t have the world survive and instead we would replace it with the word dependent in our vocabulary.
It isn’t all about dependancy, but as thezeus18 rightly points out it is not divorced from it. There are VERY few people alive in today’s society that could survive alone, and yet so many that survive based on dependancy on others.
And what exactly do you mean that it doesn’t mean anything and that it is meaningless? That is a hard point to argue, given that even existentialists don’t argue that there is no meaning in anything.
Joker
(Joker)
July 31, 2007, 8:38pm
11
thezeus18:
Joker:
In society our lives are always at the disposal of others and our form of surviving is always on the account of others or their creations.
Forgive me if I am wrong but I have always looked at survival being somthing that one accomplishes by themselves alone.
Can we really call living in society survival when infact it really is a elaborate labyrinth of dependencies in comparison? Is this a cruel joke or just another farce of humanity’s hubris?
Many call these dependencies a form of hierarchical survival which seems insane considering the individual doesn’t make any choices for himself since society makes all the choices for him in all reality where he remains a slave.
The bushel of twigs breaks less easily than all of them alone. Survival isn’t about how you survive, it’s about surviving. If societies help individual people survive, then good. If the choices made for somebody without his consent are correct, then good.
You are not a slave, Joker. At any time, you could completely disregard society’s rules, go build your own house, grow your own food, grind your own power, knit your own clothes, cut your own hair, pull your own wisdom teeth, implant your own pacemaker, and darn well kill anybody who comes within a hundred meters of your self-sufficient freedom.
Why don’t you?
If society helps people learn how to survive for themselves it is useful.
If society only helps people survive by having them depend on it in enslavement of all means it is an abomination.
You are not a slave, Joker. At any time, you could completely disregard society’s rules, go build your own house, grow your own food, grind your own power, knit your own clothes, cut your own hair, pull your own wisdom teeth, implant your own pacemaker, and darn well kill anybody who comes within a hundred meters of your self-sufficient freedom.
Why don’t you?
Because a million fools surround me with knives along with their moralistic propositions, greed,constructed societal forms of truth or consequence, and their unsubstantiated oughts .
Joker
(Joker)
July 31, 2007, 8:46pm
12
Presently it is impossible.
If we were to destroy our assumptions it would be possible but I have a feeling that won’t happen until our extinction.
Joker
(Joker)
July 31, 2007, 8:47pm
13
BlueChicken:
Joker:
BlueChicken:
Joker:
In society our lives are always at the disposal of others and our form of surviving is always on the account of others or their creations.
Forgive me if I am wrong but I have always looked at survival being somthing that one accomplishes by themselves alone.
Can we really call living in society survival when infact it really is a elaborate labyrinth of dependencies in comparison? Is this a cruel joke or just another farce of humanity’s hubris?
Many call these dependencies a form of hierarchical survival which seems insane considering the individual doesn’t make any choices for himself since society makes all the choices for him in all reality where he remains a slave.
But we survive and prosper based on these social institutions, however flawed you may believe they are. Look at human populations now compared to 20,000 years ago or even 5,000 years ago. Look at average lifespans. Look at human-wide population increases. I would say this ‘co-dependency’ is working rather well; more people are surviving longer.
That doesn’t mean anything and in the face of nature or the cosmos that is all meaningless.
Survivalism literally means by your will individually. If survivalism was all about dependency we wouldn’t have the world survive and instead we would replace it with the word dependent in our vocabulary.
It isn’t all about dependancy, but as thezeus18 rightly points out it is not divorced from it. There are VERY few people alive in today’s society that could survive alone, and yet so many that survive based on dependancy on others.
And what exactly do you mean that it doesn’t mean anything and that it is meaningless? That is a hard point to argue, given that even existentialists don’t argue that there is no meaning in anything.
It isn’t all about dependancy, but as thezeus18 rightly points out it is not divorced from it. There are VERY few people alive in today’s society that could survive alone, and yet so many that survive based on dependancy on others.
Weakness.
One reason why I am not a existentialist although I do admire Paul Sartre.
I like to remember that even the most wilderness-wise survivor needs to be immersed in a particular gas mixture within a relatively small temperature and pressure range.
It’s a question of extent, not yes or no, when it comes to independence from the world.
I choose co-dependancy, I am too lazy for the implications survivalism.
Does that raise problems in co-dependancy?..too lazy
That was my first thought too.
Now I’m confused:
How does one life lived by individual will alone mean infinitely more “in the face of nature” than eons of life in “slavery”?
What is this basis of meaning? Why is survivalism valuable in the context of “the cosmos”?
Joker:
BlueChicken:
Joker:
BlueChicken:
Joker:
In society our lives are always at the disposal of others and our form of surviving is always on the account of others or their creations.
Forgive me if I am wrong but I have always looked at survival being somthing that one accomplishes by themselves alone.
Can we really call living in society survival when infact it really is a elaborate labyrinth of dependencies in comparison? Is this a cruel joke or just another farce of humanity’s hubris?
Many call these dependencies a form of hierarchical survival which seems insane considering the individual doesn’t make any choices for himself since society makes all the choices for him in all reality where he remains a slave.
But we survive and prosper based on these social institutions, however flawed you may believe they are. Look at human populations now compared to 20,000 years ago or even 5,000 years ago. Look at average lifespans. Look at human-wide population increases. I would say this ‘co-dependency’ is working rather well; more people are surviving longer.
That doesn’t mean anything and in the face of nature or the cosmos that is all meaningless.
Survivalism literally means by your will individually. If survivalism was all about dependency we wouldn’t have the world survive and instead we would replace it with the word dependent in our vocabulary.
It isn’t all about dependancy, but as thezeus18 rightly points out it is not divorced from it. There are VERY few people alive in today’s society that could survive alone, and yet so many that survive based on dependancy on others.
And what exactly do you mean that it doesn’t mean anything and that it is meaningless? That is a hard point to argue, given that even existentialists don’t argue that there is no meaning in anything.
It isn’t all about dependancy, but as thezeus18 rightly points out it is not divorced from it. There are VERY few people alive in today’s society that could survive alone, and yet so many that survive based on dependancy on others.
Weakness.
Perhaps, but we will never know because there is no comparison to a non-weakness in this context. In any example where something has opposed society as a whole it has disappeared, society remains and propogates indicating it has strength. Results are the key, anything else is arguing an ought… which you should be firmly against.
No, but the faliure to address the distinction frightens me. How is there no meaning in anything if even when we dismiss the universal meaning we can find personal meaning, if through nothing other than our own existence or being.
And WHY do you admire JPS? Always seemed a little too convoluted for me.
Joker
(Joker)
August 8, 2007, 4:15pm
18
That was my first thought too.
Now I’m confused:
How does one life lived by individual will alone mean infinitely more “in the face of nature” than eons of life in “slavery”?
What is this basis of meaning? Why is survivalism valuable in the context of “the cosmos”?
If dependency is the basis of living there would be no such thing as the word survival .
We wouldn’t have any need for the word survival if dependency was the rule of life.
A independent life of living by the individual will freely is in accordance with nature than the later. The later is the betrayal.
The cosmos created nature somehow with goals,functions, and intentions.
Survivalism is the fulfillment of those implementations of creation.
Joker
(Joker)
August 8, 2007, 4:20pm
19
The only thing I like about civilization is the toilet.
( You can quote me on that.)
Joker
(Joker)
August 8, 2007, 4:27pm
20
BlueChicken:
Joker:
BlueChicken:
Joker:
BlueChicken:
Joker:
In society our lives are always at the disposal of others and our form of surviving is always on the account of others or their creations.
Forgive me if I am wrong but I have always looked at survival being somthing that one accomplishes by themselves alone.
Can we really call living in society survival when infact it really is a elaborate labyrinth of dependencies in comparison? Is this a cruel joke or just another farce of humanity’s hubris?
Many call these dependencies a form of hierarchical survival which seems insane considering the individual doesn’t make any choices for himself since society makes all the choices for him in all reality where he remains a slave.
But we survive and prosper based on these social institutions, however flawed you may believe they are. Look at human populations now compared to 20,000 years ago or even 5,000 years ago. Look at average lifespans. Look at human-wide population increases. I would say this ‘co-dependency’ is working rather well; more people are surviving longer.
That doesn’t mean anything and in the face of nature or the cosmos that is all meaningless.
Survivalism literally means by your will individually. If survivalism was all about dependency we wouldn’t have the world survive and instead we would replace it with the word dependent in our vocabulary.
It isn’t all about dependancy, but as thezeus18 rightly points out it is not divorced from it. There are VERY few people alive in today’s society that could survive alone, and yet so many that survive based on dependancy on others.
And what exactly do you mean that it doesn’t mean anything and that it is meaningless? That is a hard point to argue, given that even existentialists don’t argue that there is no meaning in anything.
It isn’t all about dependancy, but as thezeus18 rightly points out it is not divorced from it. There are VERY few people alive in today’s society that could survive alone, and yet so many that survive based on dependancy on others.
Weakness.
Perhaps, but we will never know because there is no comparison to a non-weakness in this context. In any example where something has opposed society as a whole it has disappeared, society remains and propogates indicating it has strength. Results are the key, anything else is arguing an ought… which you should be firmly against.
No, but the faliure to address the distinction frightens me. How is there no meaning in anything if even when we dismiss the universal meaning we can find personal meaning, if through nothing other than our own existence or being.
And WHY do you admire JPS? Always seemed a little too convoluted for me.
Perhaps, but we will never know because there is no comparison to a non-weakness in this context. In any example where something has opposed society as a whole it has disappeared, society remains and propogates indicating it has strength. Results are the key, anything else is arguing an ought… which you should be firmly against.
Strength is independent survival of the free individual will while anything else is the weak or enslaved.
We can make comparisons by looking at the rest of creation.
No, but the faliure to address the distinction frightens me. How is there no meaning in anything if even when we dismiss the universal meaning we can find personal meaning, if through nothing other than our own existence or being.
Just because we can create meaning out of thin air or our imagination synthetically doesn’t mean that it is real externally.
Just like when the cosmos goes into infinite regression into nothingness it would seem that no external meaning exists which translates to nothing .
I only trust the material physical things that I can see or expirience.
I like him for his deconstruction of human realities that were once thought sacred.