|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on May 14, 2007 11:15:23 GMT -5
I had seen "K-PAX" in the theatres, and last night it was on the Idiot Box and I remember enjoying it so I taped it. Watched a bit before going to bed, and I forgot this priceless exchange of verbiage... [OMG!] windycitymike.com/2006/05/30/subversive-talk/Very annoying. Just caught K-Pax on Bravo, and grateful I checked it out a bit on the Internet Movie Database. Evidently, a few lines of Prot’s got cut: Every being in the universe knows right from wrong, Mark.And: Let me tell you something, Mark. You humans, most of you, subscribe to this policy of an eye for an eye, a life for a life, which is known throughout the universe for its ... stupidity.And: Even your Buddha and your Christ had quite a different vision. But nobody’s paid much attention to them, not even your Buddhists and your Christians.Harrumph. Well, we couldn’t have that sort of subversive propaganda now, could we? People might start getting the wrong idea. [/OMG!] "Queer Eye" is okay, but "we don't need no steenking government" is not okay?  |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on May 14, 2007 11:26:23 GMT -5
I find Christina Molynuex's (Stefan's psychotherapist spouse) theory on this point on.
I've often found myself bewildered at why both in my own inclinations and other's, there is such a draw or appeal to The State to "do something!". Some capture this in the phrase "Nanny State". [Her and Stefan also draw similar parallels to family upbringing and an inclination towards gods; both gods and states being of course, authority figures]
The "why?" of this then being so captured in the above posted quote; its the "Tell mommy!" and get her to get "daddy" to do what we want to ("belt") our "brothers/sisters". Which is in adult childhood ala The Parental State yet another transference of both liability and accountability for doing "it" (the violence). After all, if "the parents" do it, it has to be 'right'/good. [not to mention the children get to watch tv or play games while They do "the dirty work"]
Secondly of course, is that children (regardless of biological age if not empirically, rationally matured aka "subjects = citizens") naturally accept parental authority because its all they've known. Ditto with "citizens born in the U.S."-- its all they've known. And they ultimately (Supremely) accept "Because I said so!" (aka the ruling by "your Honor"/"Father God") as a valid and final response. Hence again, why The State seeks to sponsor/mandate the earliest capture of the child (ie 'day care' now): transference of "the fear factor". Someone else carries out the violence for U.S./"us".
I find the parallels this insight draws most provocative. And certainly of vital significance when seeking to de-State both ourselves and others. We are our childhood?
|
|
|
|
Post by lummox2 on May 14, 2007 11:46:13 GMT -5
Which makes thos in "the state" parents. >.< On such a scale, market anarchy is for grown ups between themselves, and this is in fact mirrored in the state itself, which has no outside authority controlling it and is internally at least anarchic. Could it be that someone who defines themself as "parent" has trouble letting go of their "children".....because then...who would they be?And the other way around of course. "Children" are seeking their "parents"...but maybe this whole process is backwards. That is, families who are succesful in a culture will be the ones that adopt the dominant ideology of the day as their own, because they way they act internally will enable the kids to learn how to survive outside the family. Given the history of the state is dictatorial monarchy with power slowly leaking away over time into abstractions that run the whole show regardless of particpants........which comes first seems to be a viable question. Not that this is an answer...  |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on May 14, 2007 11:49:17 GMT -5
Interesting thoughts, Lummox.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on May 14, 2007 18:14:56 GMT -5
Which makes thos in "the state" parents. >.< precisely-- or at least high enough up the pyramid, you get to the "parental" (authority/control) mindset-- [most likely the big money finance boys] precisely  the ideal state of affairs, both socially and familial-- sadly the reason it is not the state of affairs fully, is that many if not most adults are still of a adolescent mindset-- It seems there's the potential for all kinds of perversion when we get to co-dependency relationships; finding an ideal role as typical level politicians. I figure the big money boys understand the underlying psychology and are using it. Can you clarify this more or expand upon it? I'm not sure I'm following the thought here; particularly regarding "adopt the dominant ideology of the day". Do you mean by that, the status quo, like with today, The Sate being the dominant ideology? Or by ideology do you mean a more universal/healthy (voluntary association) ideology? Again, Mrs Molyneux says follow the dysfunction of the family and you get to the corollary dysfunction of society. Where of course, the dysfunction/dependency can be held as "normal" or the dominant ideology. Central of course is whether the familial parents have used philosophy to empirically reason ideal child development or instead built upon religious/superstitious belief(s). I remember chuckling while listening to some comments made by Molyneux as I recalled the Bill Engvall/Travis Tritt comedy song " Here's Your Sign"-- a song along the Jeff Foxworthy " You might be a redneck if..." vein. Where the song suggests that stupid people ought to have to wear signs identifying them as such so others know what they're dealing with. Where one example was: I was out in the front yard with my boy the other day
And he was playing with his little friend, and he hit his friend,
And I went up to him and said,
''Hey! *whack* We don't hit.''
He looked at me like, Here's your sign, dad. Sort of like the police State saying "You can't have guns" but of course "we can/must". Stefan also discussed how the typical dogmatic, almost instinctual, defense of having the State by so many (patriotic citizens) then parallels assaulting one's family character for so many. In some ways, just as an abused child will often defend and cling to its abusive parents? Or simply in telling a child their parents just have to go away for good?? |
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on May 15, 2007 15:16:15 GMT -5
Battered-wife syndrome eye2. The trauma creates a bond to the parent.
|
|
|
|
Post by lummox2 on May 15, 2007 15:53:32 GMT -5
Sure thing. From a strictly biological point of view, the dominant ideology is the one that makes the most babies. (Well duh!)
From an economic point of view, those who control the most resources are the ones with the dominant ideology. How they got those resources and maintain them is kindof important to the genetics passing along. Of most importance is how they pass those resources around.
Those who think alike get along, everyone knows that. An explotative upper "class" will find most traction in a "class" that's immediately below them who are open to bullying, bribery, flexible morality etc..i.e. people from incredibly awful childhoods. Eager to please people with no moral fundamentals...great...
The feedback loop this creates is obvious. Those at the top think that everyone else is an idiot*, and they have the real life experience (that they have unconsciously selected) to prove it.
Bear in mind that this is a system that has been slightly modified from dictatorship, and remains fundamentally just that. People who work from first principles and morality or anything else other than kow-towing to brute power are going to get nowhere...fast...and will probably be vastly puzzled why.
Who gets the most experience kow-towing to brute power?
-----------------------------------------------
*How else are they "at the top" if not through utter genius and superior genes? Luck you say? Better education? Grandad was a great big thief or the largest murderer in the area? Insane banking practices? nahhh, can't be....
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on May 18, 2007 15:59:42 GMT -5
" ... In the end, the market is bigger than the government."
Where unfortunately, paradoxically, a huge part of the market is selling the munitions to The Government(s)*.  [dutifully Nonoting, there are no "Governments"-- only individuals play-acting like it] |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on May 18, 2007 16:26:57 GMT -5
From a strictly biological point of view, the dominant ideology is the one that makes the most babies. (Well duh!)
From an economic point of view, those who control the most resources are the ones with the dominant ideology. How they got those resources and maintain them is kindof important to the genetics passing along....
Those who think alike get along, everyone knows that. Ok, I think this is clearing up for me (?). I think when I heard "dominant" I read into it something along the lines of "the most popular" -or- "the more universally held" -or- "the most widely held"; "most", "universally", and "widely" then implying literal numerical majorities. Where then your first example (the biological) seems to support my summation, where perhaps the second doesn't inherently. (tho, for the same reason as the second, the first could also support my summation as well!? more on that in a moment...) Simply because: the second, numerically, "dominant" ideology can be a minority's ideology being inflicted upon a literal majority through power/violence, no? [ditto, if the powers-that-be-minority use their domination powers to enforce population growth, where growth is Their ideology, etc] Does that help to unravel where I needed to ask for some clarification? And am I on point regarding the dominant ideology not necessarily being synonymous with the most popular=dominant ideology, the latter simply being suppressed? The later also then being merely mental while the former actually, literally manifests? |
|
|
|
Post by lummox2 on May 18, 2007 17:09:16 GMT -5
I'd go with that.
The "dominant" ideology is that of "take what you can, give nothing back" and is reflected biologically. Who are the current big winners in the genetic race we call life?
Welfare/dole mothers! The jobless! Bored and unenthused people in offices with no risk and no efforts to make. Those who can tell a good story as they pat you down and take your stuff.
8 kids with three fellahs for no outlay (Unless signing a form and buying a short skirt counts as "outlay"). How can raw, naked genes refuse such an offer?
A cushy life with no thinking to do, food on the table and a roof over the head. how can raw, naked genetics refuse? it's battled for millenia for such luxury. Alright you have to give up your ability to make decisions, think or have any dignity but ..really..so what?
If you know no different...so what?
With no philosophy, no ability to think, to envision the inevitable future of such circumstance....what lifeform (never mind human) would or could possibly refuse such riches?
The dominant ideology is of saying one thing while doing something entirely different....and the rewards for doing it are enormous, even for the economically "lowest".
Government is a pimple..underneath is the pus....soon we will have a squeeze (again.)
------------------------------------------------
The ideology being in my estimation, what is done, not what is said to be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on May 19, 2007 16:53:02 GMT -5
I think we need a new "Super quotes discussion DISCUSSION thread" -- seriously, maybe a "what's the root cause of this mess" or something, I hope we keep THIS thread as purely commentary on the Superquotes thread. |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on May 19, 2007 17:10:06 GMT -5
No need for new thread. Root cause = FEAR. Next topic? - NonE (I'm typing this during Marc's show and he just quoted me, right after I wrote this... I'm SO powerful!)  |
|
|
|
Post by Key on Oct 22, 2015 4:46:12 GMT -5
No need for new thread. Root cause = FEAR. More about wedding article at <a href="http://www.uk-dresses.co.uk">uk-dresses.co.uk</a> |
|
|
|
Post by Key on Oct 22, 2015 4:47:40 GMT -5
No need for new thread. Root cause = FEAR. More about wedding article at uk-dresses.co.uk. |
|
