rigorousintuition.ca

Lies within that small and worthless part of the human brain (too bad evolution is too slow). That greedy, angry, paranoid, vengeful, hateful, insecure, egocentric, self-absorption part. Lizard part. Back brain. The internet introduced the anonymous human interaction allowing all of those characteristics to flourish and eh, thrive. It's easy to find like-minded places and people online and spend time bouncing one's reflection around from mirror to mirror.

Humans need physical touch, sight, sound, etc. to survive.

Corporatism is killing us all.

Oh and btw I haven't posted here in awhile because the last time I was here I clicked on a vid and acquired a malware that caused me a week's worth of pain to clean my computer.

First of all, Blue, I'm sorry to hear about your computer difficulties.

Second, I agree with everything else you said.

And third, after reading the thread title, I half-expected this guy to be involved, somehow:

"Corporatism is killing us all."

That's certainly a popular perception today, and a familiar refrain.

But I don't think that we're as aware of the sources of our problems as we like to think we are.

They (our problems) wouldn't persist as they do, if we were truly aware of their origin.

Take greed, for instance.

We have no problem contending that greed is evil or bad or worth decrying.

Is greed really the problem, though?

Or is it something else?

I heard it once said that our lives reveal an acceptance of certain levels of greed and an unacceptance of other levels.

If this is true, then are we just simply experiencing a realignment of what constitutes unacceptable greed?

For if all greed were unacceptable, would you have more than what you need at the expense of someone else not having what they need?

Greed may not be the problem.

Our willingness to accept certain forms of greed... while decrying other forms... may be.

Thanks Simulist.

I have to go now and help my partner prepare for an unexpected flight tomorrow because his job requires it because the system is FUCKED. Believe me, it's no fun. Fuck Corporations and the fuckers who run this Earth into the depths of Hell so they may prosper.

"Ce grand malheur, de ne pouvoir être seul"

The anoymous human interaction is a by-product of the invention of the the city and the so-called industrial revolution that has existed probably since the 1840's if not before. It has been remarkably described (for example) in many of the paintings of James Ensor:


The forum on a Thursday evening?

...as well as by Poe in The Man of The Crowd, and by Baudelaire in Paris Spleen:

12. Crowds


    Not everyone can take a bath in the crowd: enjoying the crowd is an art -- and he alone can go on a drunken spree at the expense of the human race who has been visited by a fairy in his cradle and had breathed into him a taste for disguises and masks, a hatred of home, and a passion for travel.

    Multitude, solitude: two equal and exchangeable terms for the active and fertile poet.  He who does not know how to people his solitude, also does not know how to be alone in a busy crowd.

    The poet enjoys this incomparable privilege: that he can, as he chooses, be himself and another.  Like souls that wander in search of a body, he enters, whenever he wishes, into the person of others.  For him alone, all is vacant; and if certain places appear closed to him, this is only because in his eyes they are not worth the trouble of visiting.

    The solitary and pensive stroller derives a singular drunkenness from this universal communion.  He who easily marries the crowd knows feverish pleasures, of which the egoist -- closed like a strongbox -- and the lazy man -- confined like a mollusk -- will be eternally deprived.  He adopts as his own all of the professions, all of the joys, and all of the miseries presented to him by circumstance.

    What men call love is very small indeed, very restrained, and very weak, compared to that ineffable orgy, to that sacred prostitution of the soul that gives itself entirely -- poetry and charity -- to the person who appears unexpectedly, to the unknown passerby.

    It is sometimes good to teach the happy people in this world, if only to humble for an instant their stupid pride, that there are happinesses superior to their own, happinesses more vast and more refined.  Founders of colonies, shepherds of men, missionary priests exiled to the ends of the earth, all undoubtedly know something about these mysterious intoxications.  And, in the heart of the vast family made by their genius, they must sometimes laugh at those who pity them for their so troubled destinies and their so chaste lives.

Blue wrote:Oh and btw I haven't posted here in awhile because the last time I was here I clicked on a vid and acquired a malware that caused me a week's worth of pain to clean my computer.

What video was that, if I might ask?

Waiting. To hear if the trip is one requiring a passport or not and all that requires... even to fly to Canada or Mexico.

Hi barracuda...I have no desire to relive that problem.

I'll read the rest of your stuff when I have a moment. Quick read: Just because some French guy said something a hundred years ago doesn't mean I give a shit, popular in University classes or not.

Blue wrote:doesn't mean I give a shit,

That may be a clue to your happy mood. And Baudelaire wasn't some French guy; he was some drunk guy.

Wrong.

FASCISM is killing us all.

You can't omit the National Insecurity State from the equation with Big Money corporatism.

That's like talking about drowning in H2O but only discussing Oxygen/money
and omitting Hydrogen/covert social control.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Wrong.

FASCISM is killing us all.

You can't omit the National Insecurity State from the equation with Big Money corporatism.

That's like talking about drowning in H2O but only discussing Oxygen/money
and omitting Hydrogen/covert social control.

That's a familiar middle class sentiment. The poor may feel otherwise.

Just like there are two classes of rich (old and new), so there are two classes of poor.

Those who have always been poor and kept poor by the other classes (let's call them the old poor, for analogy's sake), and those who are afraid of becoming newly poor (or the new poor, commensurately). The latter almost always consists of the middle class.

The former never has anything to fear losing, whereas the latter does.

Fascism is often the identified enemy of those folks who have and are fearful of losing what they have (usually the middle class). I have rarely met a member of the old poor class, however, who saw fascism as an enemy of theirs. Very often, they saw the middle class as the maintainers of the old poor class instead.

Agree or disagree with their perception, it's certainly a provocative one.

It provoked quite a stir back when Marx first said it, that's for sure.

The largest problem of all?

To quote OP ED quoting Pliny: Nec Vitia Nostra Nec Remedia Pati Possumus.

I think the Buhdists have the right idea.... Its desire that creates greed, eliminate desire to become at one and happy.......Ohm

Ahhh, but this lil Boddhisatva's hungry, thirsty, needs to get paid and wants to get laid.

I mean the bo tree's great n shit, don't get me wrong.

Shepherd-like Bodhisattva - one who aspires to delay buddhahood until all other sentient beings achieve buddhahood.

Since I have to wait anyway.

barracuda wrote:"Ce grand malheur, de ne pouvoir être seul"

The anoymous human interaction is a by-product of the invention of the the city and the so-called industrial revolution that has existed probably since the 1840's if not before. It has been remarkably described (for example) in many of the paintings of James Ensor:


The forum on a Thursday evening?

Thanks a lot for this post, barracuda. I'm absolutely mesmerized by this painting! Shame on me for not knowing anything about this Belgian painter.
Now I have to move my lazy butt to the local art museum.

"For most of human history, the two birds More and Better roosted on the same branch. You could toss one stone and hope to hit them both.
...
But the distinguishing feature of our moment is this: Better has flown to a new tree to make her nest. Now, if you've got the stone of your own life, or your own society, gripped in your hand, you have to choose between them. It's More or Better."

--- from Deep Economy by Bill McKibben

He goes on to point out that this only goes for those of us who already have our needs and some of our wants met. This does not apply until a certain standard of living is met.

Interestingly, that cut off point (where More stop being Better) is reached when per capita income is only $10,000.

I'm enjoying this book thus far.

The largest problem of all is figuring out how to stop the methane from escaping from under the permafrost. If we don't do it soon, we won't be here long enough to worry about other problems.

Sorry to hear you had a computer meltdown after clicking a vid here, Blue.