What is your image of the ideal society?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
21

Gaiaguerilla, thanks for the post!

This is definitely important for society. To collaborate we need to find out some of the main sources, the roots, of what we want. Obviously, many desires are psychological, and they grasp for things that really won’t improve the condition of the person, or humanity as a whole (Joker, I sympathize with your issue with this).

What wants do all people have in common? Can we take care of these needs?

That’s true, but the advancements that are made during these times are valuable because they progress us towards something we value, right?

If we are clear on what these values are, shouldn’t we be just as able to make the advances to reach them (clearly, the intensity of war, and the need to win it and/or prevent one’s group and individuals from being destroyed causes everyone to drop the bullshit and start using their heads; I think our ability to predict further problems, such as war and what war threatens, if a certain problem isn’t solved can drive us to work just as hard… and perhaps with a more careful outlook towards the effects of one’s actions in other domains/better preventive planning).

Kriswest:

Humans could still prepare for violence from others with defensive technologies, wouldn’t that prevent us from becoming victims? I don’t see why actual violence is needed for humans to imagine violence and develop means to take care of it.

To be a submissive species we’d have to submit to the will of an attacking species. Defense technology could prevent this from happening. I don’t think violence for the sake of preparing us for violence is a very good argument in support of it; it just doesn’t seem necessary. But maybe you can give me an example that proves shows otherwise?

That’s because “satisfaction” is dependent on the cessation of a goal, no longer wanting to improve a certain thing. Just because humanity feels secure (physically, emotionally, etc) doesn’t mean people can’t have engrossing hobbies, artistic creations, physical challenges, etc, or continue learning more intricacies about how the universe works. It’s difficult to eve imagine what kinds of intellectually stimulating activities may one day be possible. I don’t think it’s possibe for man to be a stagnant species.

I just don’t see hw violent changes are necessary to move forward. What do you mean by “conquering” space?

I’m also interested in hearing your description of an ideal society )or lack thereof), and the reasons why, if you’re up for it! :slight_smile:

Joker:

Thanks for answering the questions!

Can you explain what you mean by “animalism”?

Can you explain what you mean by “nature”? It almost seems like you are using this word as a metaphysical totality that simply lacks the characteristics of a caring God. I don’t think your use of the word refers to anything concrete, and other than explaining that humans are insignificant when the workings of the entire Universe are taken into account (which is a good thing to think about, I suppose, as it is opposed to the idea that a certain kind of God willfully created man and requires man to be a part of whichever religion and see those that are not as evil–causing a lot of unnecessary problems; it throws away a lot of delusions that prevent man from removing the fat), I don’t think it makes any definitive statments about how man should use/not use his abilities.

In using the word “nature” to describe the workings of physical things, I’d argue that (all parts of) nature strive(s) to protect itself(ves).

It just doesn’t seem possible for no acts to be discouraged (I am assuming we are keeping physical laws intact in this imagined existence). If one was physically attacked by another, he would be discouraging the other’s attempt to harm its body by protecting itself. All beliefs aside, the pain signalling the body to protect itself is not relative, it is instinctual self-preservation.

Can you define “neighboor”? This strikes me as a contradiction.

To strive for more territory requires the ideal of having more territory (rather than in impulsive, or mindless (I am using what I think is your definition of mind–an abstract introspective planning as opposed to (your idea of) instinct and impulse)).

But isn’t it man’s instinct to introspect and plan for the future and progress towards what is seen as a favorable goal? Your procilivity towards acting according to “instinct” doesn’t escape this sapient inevitability.

But what if it is (human) nature for humans to realize they can use each other’s minds as tools (gain an extra nervous system of memories, which itself has gained another’s nervous system in the past… and with the use of language… well you get the point) to increase everyone’s survival chances in effort to secure one’s own? What is stronger, an (your idea of) “instinctual”, animalistic individual, or a united civilization acting out of the preservation of itself (and everyone in it). How well does a rogue cell manage compared to the entire healthy functioning organ to which its functions suggest integration (the organ is definitely unhealthy right now, but that doesn’t mean its cells can’t one day clean up their act).

It’s funny… I can’t even count how many times you’ve called others’ thoughts “dualistic”, and yet I think your entire philosophy rests on the first-person delusion of man being seperate from nature.

[/b]

22

Impious, come on!

Can you answer some of the questions I wrote? I’d like your input to my specific question, not a song you made previously.

23

“When I am asked where I would like to live, my standard answer is: deep in the virgin mountain forest on a lake shore at the corner of Madison Avenue in Manhattan and Champs Elysees, in a small tidy town.”

So begins a wonderful address by Leszek Kolakowski, under the title, The Death of Utopia Reconsidered.

It ends

“The victory of utopian dreams would lead us to a totalitarian nightmare and the utter downfall of civilization, whereas the unchallenged domination of the skeptical spirit would condemn us to a hopeless stagnation, to an immobility which a slight accident could easily convert into catastrophic chaos. Ultimately we have to live between two irreconcilable claims, each of them having its cultural justification.”

The beginning, end, and everything in between may be found here.

I hope that you enjoy it as much as I did.

Michael

24

Two things I notice on this thread.
Mostly the idea of an ideal society is based on the material.
The other is based on the mental ideal.
Not much is said about the spiritual ideal, and ultimately the answer lies here.

If physical evolution is to have any meaning in giving rise to human consciousness, and then developing it further via the graduated advancement of increasingly complex social constracts, then this material experience has to be seen as both the practical vehicle and spiritual medium for developing higher states of self-realization - with the ultimate goal of arriving at an ideal state of being.

Instead of trying to unravel the Ages long complexity of our collective development in order to determine exactly what an ideal of state of being could really be for all of us, and thereby understanding the best social arrangement that could accomplish this, I have found it much more simple to look at the graduated growth of the individual consciousness and try to determine the ideal from that more familiar ground of being.

Each of us expereince seven distinct states of consciousness between birth and death.

  1. Infancy 0 - 3 years (ethically weaned)
  2. Childhood 3 - 11 years (ethical student)
  3. Puberty 11 - 14 years (spiritual initiate)
    4 Teenhood 14 - 21 years (Academic Student)
  4. Young adulthood 21 - 42 years (Student strewardship till menopause)
  5. Mature adulthood 42 - 63 years (parent-teacher. Estate manager)
  6. Sagehood 63 - 84 years (retirement. Advisor )

Each one of those states can be quantified and qualified by measuring distinct differences in consciousness regarding the relativity of time and space. The infant, for instance lives in naive realtivity - everything is here and now. Between childhood and young adulthood time is measured in a gradually deminishing sense of furture expectations. The reverse happens from menopause onwards.

So what is the evolutionary goal of this investement in individual growth, if not allowing each of us to arrive at increasing stages of self-realization - and in doing so achieving ever higher states of self enjoyment The ultimate goal then, is to live a dynamic and varied life in order to become a magical sage who grasps the true nature and wonder of time and space and does not end up as a senile elder.

So it would seem to me that the ideal social structure is one that grasps the holism of the evolutionary cycle, sees it as graduated sequence of collective development, undersands exactly where it is in present time, corrects its mistakes, and works towards creating the dynamism and diversity thast will alllow the collective consciousness to achieve a sagacios state of cosmic clarity.

This returns me to my first post on family values.
It here in a sound and happy family milieu that the foundation stones of the ideal individual and ideal state is laid - and we are not paying enough attention to the precise nature and developmental importance of the maturing sequence. Net result, we are producing uncreative, semi-dissatisfied production-line workers and not the creative geniuses all of us have the potential to be.:confused:

25

To MattHatter

A life like any other primitive creature filled with instinctual or intuitive living on impulse only concerned with momentary necessities unconcerned about the future and only concerned with basic forms of needs in survival.

I believe in a teleology of nature and creation in the sense that it gives goals,functions or intentions to all living things but I do so in a un-orthodox manner most people are not used to.

Of course this teleology I don’t call a god by any means as it exists as nothing more than a mere energy from that of the random big bang that comprises the cosmos.

Evolution does have intentions,goals and functions ingrained into it.

That is because you have been coerced all your life revolving around a authoritative presence and since it has consumed your entire life you lack the sight of seeing any existance beyond it.

There is no duality or moral presence upon self preservation. It is a construction of man not nature.

Given a state of people amongst nature such an existance would operate upon necessity and non-necessary motives would have little use in survival to the point that there would be little to fight over beyond territory in the first place.

Merely other creatures who share the same eco space as that of humans in a natural symbiosis.

Sometimes such neighbors happen to be a tasty food source.

Not true.

If another tribe randomly travels into your territory ruining your chances of survival one picks up real quickly of the understanding what territoriality stands for.

I don’t think so.

I think man’s instinct is to survive in the moment while all other things are deceptions.

I don’t see it as a inevitability.

How am I dualistic?

What is human nature beyond self preservation?

Your fundamental flawed fallacy is assuming that there is a superior existance to begin with.

26

MagnetMan, but society needs uncreative production line workers to sweat all day and suck up the entertainments of technology all night far more than a bunch of poets swanning about in togas and waving foot-long cigarette holders who say “Darling” a lot.

I mean - who’d fight the wars…?

“Oh Gerald, grenades you know, so passé.”

Your ideal society is the one that becomes more numerous, supports those numbers, and defeats other competitors. All else is slow death, romantic folly.

27

You’re limiting “impulse” to the body externally reacting in the shared/“objective” world, when it fact every action, including activity in one’s imagination/introspection/thoughts come about by impulse. If a human is presently physically secure with its current survival, the prediction of not being so in the future IS a present concern. You can’t seperate s human’s present environment from what its mind interprets; an animal’s understanding (whether physically immediate or abstract) of its situation is what causes its reaction.

So what is the goal it gives to humans? Did it intend for humans to have the function of our abstraction abilities so that it can better secure its goal (I’m using the words of your own definition, mind you)? You may want to reword your definition of nature.

Again, you are using the word “random” to mean the lack of some purposeful significance (when “random” is merely the inability to understand the forces that led to that action), rather than actually making concise arguments.

Does? Or doesn’t? Explain?

You should really determine one’s message before you start ranting nonsense based on your own interpretation of certain words. Please, please, please read “Language in Thought and Action” by Hayakawa. It should help fix these mistakes.

There is YOUR dualistic thinking again: seperating man from nature.

The fact that one is searching for necessities shows that one needs something it doesn’t have. If, at a certain time, one is not currently requiring a physical necessity, it can either rest or work to make the necessity easier to obtain in the future. With sufficient rest, a human will always imagine how something can more easily be obtained in the future. That is what humans are–planners.

Define “share” please.

Sometimes such neighbors happen to be a tasty food source.

Ah, my mistake then. When you said “territorial competitors” I thought you meant competitors for territory (which suggests direct desire for more territory, which suggests/requires strategic planning for resources) rather than competitors for resources, which can lead them to territorial behavior.

Then why did man begin to introspect and plan for the future in the first place? Obviously it had to happen “naturally” before man began to instill the practice into its cultural teachings.

The main point you are missing is that man’s introspection, and planning for the future, IS inevitable (given that one’s immediate biological needs are secured). That is what man is: the thinking ape.

What exists in man’s imagination may be a “deception”, in that it does not reflect the immediate shared physical world, but it does increase man’s ability to survive in future present moments.

I understand your frusteration with many of man’s current goals, but that doesn’t mean progress towards a better present moment is a lost cause (how can you doubt that man’s current ability to survive in themoment has been increased due to past progress?).

Would you agree that it is instinct for an animal to alleviate the sensations of hunger? After all, survival seems more of an abstraction coming about by imagining death. The animal does not act to survive as much as act to alleviate this discomfort.

When the human mind is not concerned with present biological needs, and does not require rest, its survival instinct will still function, and its abstract ability will imagine a future in which it won’t have its necessities. If he sees that the obtainment of these necessities are not secured with planning, he experiences the anxious fight-or-flight reaction of cognitive dissonance due to the conflict of one’s dependence on biological necessities and the fact that one has not secured them in the future. This creates a present discomfort that the human strives to alleviate, just as the animal strives to alleviate hunger, through means of securing future self-preservation.

Because your misanthropy clouds your ability to see what man objectively is. Again, your personal issues are preventing you from thinking reasonably.

I’ve explained your delusion that man is seperate from nature, for example. But then again, most of the words you’ve used are heavily personally and emotionally charged, based on ego-preservation rather than communication.

What do you mean when you say “dualistic/dualism”?

Nature is self-preservation. “Human nature” simply describes the mthod of self-preservation that is unique to humans.

That’s completely meaningless. Your fundamental flaw is letting your issues towards man’s current limitations (due to the angst it has caused you) prevent you from seeing how man’s ability to increase its survival chances is better (in terms of your goal–survival in the present moment) than your dream existence.

You have been so physically comfortable your whole life that your (conflicting abstractions-induced) psychological pain is your truest enemy. In your ideal existence, your pain is what wouldn’t exist, because it is what currently torments you. Your dream existence threatens the survival chances of not only you, but everyone, simply because you have issues with a sick culture (which exists due to a lack of progression, not because of progression).

Do you have any other arguments or are you going to keep going in circles I’ve already successfully refuted?

28

Tab, I don’t think MM ever said that product line workers aren’t needed (maybe they won’t be some day, but we’d have to reach that point, of course).

He wrote:

and

It seems he’s made an emphasis on everyone doing their part to take care of the necessities.

29

Your response to my statement is excellent, matthatter. No conjecture here.

I’d like to try my hand at literal productive means instead of any sort of ambiguity. So a few suggestions.

SOCIALISM

The United Nations pools resources for an “Everyone’s home” project. It is a massive complex of housing, using sophisticated means for efficiently providing for human essentials.

Outside of safety and efficiency, Everyone’s home has NOTHING to brag about. It is quite literally prison. You eat nutrient-provisions, sleep in tiny cots, receive a hose shower or the like, wear coveralls. You are watched with NO privacy, and policed as heavily as technology finds reasonable. Maybe tranquilizer guns remain locked on anyone at all times. To keep from insanity, you might have wax crayons and paper or the like. No sharp objects. You might opt to have writing stored.

What is this rigid cruel society for?

It’s better than starving. Better than being trapped in a country in war that you want nothing to do with. Better to send your kids there if you believe anyone nearby will throw them in the garbage. Is it because our resources are so few and far between? No. But our waste won’t end. Live with it. Everyone here has the freedom to LEAVE and the RIGHT TO ENTER. It is uncomfortable, and encourages its residents to consider a better way of life on their own steam.

In response to Everyone’s Home, nations worldwide give up socialist programs (they pay tax to this home anyway). Instead they offer semi-capitalist deals for anyone wishing to travel en export to this home. Employers offer free transportation away from Everyone’s home given the client shows good potential and signs the right waiver.

It has greed, it has a sense of suffering and dismal choice. But it is the principal of offering every human being on the planet that basic choice of survival. No demand for work, posterity, belief. Just life.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT / WAR

With Everyone’s Home, no one is obligated to a human rights charter. There is a more simple version written in stone. Every country offers the option- “If you don’t like it, you can leave.” It states (or a similar iteration)-

“No human being may be entered into contract nonconsentually. Consent as defined by scientiffic criteria in the brain’s ability to decide upon agreement.” Bear in mind, you can consent to become subject to rules which you did not consent to. This is an option, because you consented in the first place.

and-

“No war can be made without a declaration and the proper means for citizens to escape.”

and-

“Degradation of ecology must be sufficiently taxed.”

SUMMARY

I have really tossed in a simplistic, barely justified “solution to all the world’s problems.” Absolutely true, it seems to offer almost nothing. Three general rules and a housing complex. In fact this world painted seems even bleaker than ours. There is little guarantee as to the quality of lives we can lead. You could sign a contract that you will be shot dead upon being suspect of stealing a chocolate bar- and you could be legally bound to it, given the nation supports it. So why?

Because we are not as intelligent as we pride ourselves to be. Our sciences are amazing. Our ability to organize ourselves doesn’t work. So a simple set of principals plops it down for us. The “until you figure it out better, go back to the drawing board” solution. There is no primitivist utopia. There is no technological or artistic utopia. There is a simple offer we work to make for each and every single human being in existence: “You have a right to live. A right to think. To make choices. The rest we are still trying to figure out.”

I’m anxious for conjecture.

30

Does anyone take into consideration the modern primitive? These people have not changed. They are strong healthy and intelligent for the most part. The primitive tribes and clans throughout South America, Africa and Australia. should be factored into any world order.

It should be questioned, why are they still primitive, why do they continue, why are they only minimumlly affected by modern civilization in their aproach to life. What makes them different? I look at them and I see the heirs to humanity. Why are their children not flocking to the cities in droves to partake of civilization? a few do but not many.

Yes modernization has encroached upon them but, they permit only a minimum.

If you want a perfect society best take a look at them. So far their form of governing is the longest lasting out of all. Their social hierarchies seem to withstand more than the “civilized” world. What is it that is working so well for thousands of years? The rest of the world can only deal with a few hundred years at the most of any sort of governing.

Adapting and adopting certain ways of theirs may be in order. They sure are not socialst, nor communists nor capitalists. Perhaps they are all.

31

I judge a society based on how bad the shared problems of the society are. If you go to a town, any town in the world, you open the newspaper and read the headlines and they read murder, famine, rape, and things of that caliber than you’re in a worse place than a place where the headlines read bus fares may rise or long lines at the concert.

32

Has anyone considered that we’re the “best that we can be” at any particular point in social evolution? Utopias fail because they try to force a unified perspective across the intended citizenry. The most valuable part of any dynamic society is the engine of conflict. It is the constant experimentation with conflicting perspectives, the old giving way to the new, the constant adjustment to more technology, fewer resources, and greater numbers of humans that drives each and every one of our social selves. There is no perfect society. There never has, nor will there ever be such a thing. One would have to have perfect predictive capabilities and the power to freeze all variables. It would be a totalitarianism unimaginable. There are two human traits that defeat any utopia: What do you suppose is over that hill? and, Life is perfect, lets fuck with it.

At best, societies adjust approximately thirty to fifty years behind current realities. We are just now trying to deal with problems that were quite well understood in the 1950’s. That isn’t going to change. Your grandchildren will be the ones who make the changes to social structure that are the problems of ‘today’.

If there is anything ‘new’ in societal evolution, it is the rate of changing conditions. There is greater disparity in social practice and understanding brought on by the increasing rapidity of technological advances. Your great-grandfather only had to name the world once. We now have to re-name the world every five years or so. It makes the idea that we could predict all the conditions far enough in advance to create the perfect world order a pipe dream.

33

That is one of the reasons we moved to the country and the simple mental state of Mississippi. Although the politicians here are desperately trying to bring the citizenry up to the 21st century.

34

Your rationale lacks on-site observation. The reason why they are where they are is lack of opportunity. Ask any bare-breasted tribal woman what she wants for her children and she will tell you " a modern technological education" The reason: to lessen the sheer tedium of her chores to start with and make survival more certain. Try carrying a calabash laden with water up from the river all day long just to keep the maize patch alive.

As 3rd world populations keep increasing, technology becomes ever more vital. The price the developed world has paid for it - with both parents stuck on the mass production line - has been the gradual erosion of traditional family values ( which primitives still enjoy) and industrial pollution ( which primitiv regions are still largely free of.)

The 3rd World does not need to make these same mistakes if we show them how to avoid them - that is one of the positive factors about their delayed development

35

People make their own opportunity. Lack of drive maybe. Lack of ambition, Lack of want, desire. Lack of opportunity, no. A person may want something but, if they don’t drive themselves to get it, then the want is not nearly as much as resolved to the way things are. It is easy to stay the same, it takes work to change. The tribal female that carries water every day has opportunity for her children , if she has the drive.

It is this attitude that should be examined. We should not see lack of drive as lazy or dull. Perhaps there are more underlying aspects. I can see that technology changes the way were aproach life. The opposite then can probably be true also, The desires, the wants, the perceived needs, change with technology.The lack of technology would give life a different perspective on needs, wants and desires.

Our perspective of their lives is seen with a jaundiced eye. We need to use some eye drops and see it differently to see the benifits of such living.

Oh and LOL Why did you feel the need to throw the bare breasted part in?
That about made me choke on my coffee. :laughing:

Nope, my rationale does not lack on site observation.

36

First you praise them then you lambaste them.

My Dear Kris. Much as we would all like to, we can’t have it both ways.

3rd World people are the kindest and hardest working folk I know. They do not lack ambition. They want to stand shoulder to shoulder with everybody. They gave us tens of millions of slaves to help our national development. We owe them a fair share in the technological expertise we gained from it. .

We are one family of man. For good or bad, all our desires for the future are the same the world over

Just messing with you :wink:

37

LOL How did I lambaste them? I can guess but, I want to see how you are thinking that I think.

38

Funny that is not what the mind body dilemma theory states.

Also the world operates on physicalism not mentalism.

You just don’t want to admit that the mental states of man are insignificant or unimportant externally as that would ruin your humanism perception of reality.

( Mental states are only important individually through seeing ourselves internally.)

The ability of self preservation is the motion of revolving around the actions of acquiring food,water,reproduction and sociality in group collectives.

Everything beyond those functions,goals and intentions are insignificant artificial realities beyond evolution.

I used the word random in a sort of connotation that a god did not infact create the cosmos but instead a cosmic energy did.

Of course creation has a purpose but to understand it fully is impossible so I revert to the word random.

Does. Explained above.

I know man isn’t seperated from nature but that doesn’t stop many people creating moral obligations that is indeed seperated from that of nature in the first place!

Man has seperated himself from nature in instances that started in ancient times to our contemporary present and the very few people like myself who know better actually try to show that such distinctions is idiosyncrasy.

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

If that was the case there wouldn’t be such a thing called non-necessities.

What is good for you isn’t good for me sport.

Why must you make such simple things so complicated?

All I am saying is that animals comprise the same living space of human beings in the wild where one event that happens to one species often times affects the other.

If a tribe has to migrate from one area because of enviromental factors and depleted resources isn’t it possible that they could randomly or accidentally go through a territory of another tribe that has abundant resources?

The desire doesn’t have to be necessarily directed but can come about randomly or through accident.

If it was so innate and natural then why did man spend thousands of years in momentary instinctual movement unconcerned about the future in primitive states?

No it isn’t.

That is a modern idealization,perception and assumption.

If you say so…

You keep forgetting that I view such things to be insignificant or relative manifestations.

A sensation of hunger is alot different in comparison to a sensation of one desiring a SUV sports car.

The anomaly of self love and narcissism is what created the deviation from simple survival to more deceptive forms of existance.

Which I would gladly like to explain in more detail later on.

So you think it clouds my vision? Come out with the honest dualism of yours for once…

You think I am wrong and a fool. Why?

Because my form of thought conspires against the very humanism you behold.

Look I know that man is a active part of nature and that is what my form of thinking advocates, but if you can’t see that in the past two thousand years or so that man has rather effectively seperated himself from his enviroment you are blind.

Don’t play coy with me in your defamation of describing myself.

No… Man’s original nature is simple self preservation all the while contemporary man’s mental abstracted civilized society is a extension of some insane wild narcissistic ego.

More defamation. Perhaps I should try to attack your character in seeing how effective it is in conversation.

If you are going to keep acting like this I rather assume in telling you to shove off.

39

Because you ARE wrong and you ARE acting like a fool (at least in terms of this argument).

The reason I make things “complicated” by asking you to define words is because, in my definition of those words, what you say is nonsense, and I’ve explained to you why so many times in so many different ways, and you refuse to see it (as in the case of plenty of other threads) You care less about communication and understand and more about proving to yourself that you are right to be angry.

The psychological issues and reasoning definicies of the nihilist are obvious to anyone who has sufficiently exercised their mind. You can’t get an accurate view of the world because you aren’t taking your bias into account. Above all, you are concerned with the cessation of your own (in many ways culture-induced) angst. Your philosophy is too simply (not to say a simple philosophy is bad, but you’ve ignored every good arguments anyone has ever made towards you by twisting their words into something they never intended to say, just so you could go off on another angry ranting session), too absolutist, and to inapplicable to what humans ARE.

I’m not sure which member it was in another thread (was it Gaia?) who suggested you seek therapy, but I have to agree. With your (refusal to honestly look at your) issues your philosophy is absolutely fruitless. You can’t understand other’s arguments and you can’t move past this silly wall you’ve built.

I’ve no more patience with you. I can only point out the same mistakes over and over. I’d continue if it was some kind of exercise, but seeing your errors is easy. Although you have potential, you are currently a waste of time for true thinkers.

An example of how you bullshit:

Where in my argument do I mention an SUV sports car? Did my entire explanation not rest on the biological necessities that you emphasize are the reality of each individual’s present moment?

If this doesn’t help you understand why I, and others, have become so frusterated trying to reason with you, then I don’t know what will. Who are you arguing with? It sure isn’t me!

I have told you flat out, many many times that I sympathize with your annoyance towards ideals that shouldn’t be of value, one feeling the need for an SUV sports car fits. You think I am a part of this problem when I wrapped many messages very carefully with words so that you would understand I am not of that category. And yet you still associate me with it. It is because the larger category is the simple duality “I” versus “It”. I argue against you and so you assume I am arguing in support of all things you argue against? Don’t bother answering these questions, just them over. Maybe they’ll wake you up a bit.

40

How about you take your nanny state and yourself in shoving off?

That sounds like a great plan.

It was a analogy.

You seemed to imply that the sensation of hunger is the same as the desire of material possessions. If I was wrong in my assumption just say so instead of getting all pissy. ( This is the internet you know.)