You apparently do find nationalism meaningful, since you drop it as an all-purpose tactic to try explaining away discussions of many diverse topics. Sure, those things exist. But, apparently, I do not attribute to them the same significance that you do.
The way you frame this is deceptive. ANY social structure, made by anyone, exists only so long as people believe in it. Whenever I try participating in discussions about social issues, people instantly resort to framing it as being all about me, personally, when it isn’t. Reality is not that which exists when PopoBawa quits believing in it, reality is that which exists when anyone quits believing in it. As I struggled to explain to millifink, it is sloppy to conflate the fluid, participatory nature of social reality with the more objective reality of the universe at large. The constant diversions of “What is “reality” (LOL)” are only evasions some seem to use to make some kinds of social reality appear more objective and less scrutable than others.
So what? Those are simply the beliefs and social structures of other groups of people. It cuts both ways. If I live in the borders of the US as an infiltrator, then that too is a reality which the US is subject to. Influence is not a one-way phenomenon, and your blind insistence upon hierarchy being “real” - so long as it is devised by someone else - prevents you from considering or accepting this. It’s why many forms of government strike me as being antisocial, they are only ever just so long as accountability is symmetrical. If it isn’t, you’re being taken for a ride.
What it does gain me? I never claimed to be doing any such thing, nor pretending to it. But if you paid attention when reading my posts, you would know my position on this.
I don’t believe in “dominance”, it’s a tired reduction of primitive behaviors. For the Nth time, I am not resisting nor reacting to anything. What I am trying to do is entirely pro-active, to establish the social structures needed to go about my daily life. Fortunately, I socialized by internalizing egalitarian rather than hierarchic principles and practices for living. This is just what I do.
No, I find a legal system meaningful because I exist in one. That isn’t “nationalism” though. I’m also not an anarchist and believe in the rule of law and the ideas of democracy and, to some extent, republics with their representational designation of people to act as the agents of the citizenry. If I didn’t believe in these things, I certainly wouldn’t be living in the United States.
And the point people make over and over to you, time after time, is that hundreds of millions of your fellow citizens believe in it and participate in it and you don’t really get to opt out of it, even if you pretend it isn’t there.
Except the US doesn’t consider you an “infiltrator.” It considers you a “citizen” and expects you to follow its laws. If you choose not to do so, they aren’t going to deport you because you are a citizen here. They’re just going to arrest you and put you through the legal system, whether you believe in its validity or not.
Sorry, like many others, I find much of your content nearly incomprehensible (and convoluted) much of the time, at least in its ability to be understood in any meaningful way. Hell, I could understand Schopenhauer* but I still can’t figure out what you’re going on about most of the time.
I’m not even sure what you expect the rest of us to do with the “wisdom” you share here. Walk away from our homes or jobs and squat someplace while dumpster diving for free food?
Damn straight, my crusty friend. You and I are going to drink too much beer, puke in the alley behind Dunkin Donuts at 2AM and see how many doughnuts we can stack on your gavel of power.
I just see it as you are not very open to new ideas. We bring a lot to the table, but it gets dismissed as wrong when all we are trying to do is present a new opinion for your consideration.
I love that on THX1138 there was a television show, Theater of Noise, which was scripted in such a way:
Combined with economic advantages of the mating structure, it far surpasses any disadvantages in increased perversions. A final tran - An infinite translated mathematics of tolerance and charity among artificial memory devices is ultimately binary. Stimulating rhetoric - absolute. The theater of noise is proof of our potential. The circulation of autotypes. The golden talisman underfoot is phenomenon approaching. And, in the history of now, all ethos are designed.
I approach discussion and debate differently than many others. In that I try to avoid influence or persuasion. To many I have met, success in conversation involves some people being convinced, resulting in a total sum of less ideas, models, or solutions to problems being drawn from. But I see it as being more like a giant tool chest for anyone to use, which functions through comparative realities/perceptions. The more different ideas and questions it ends with (if it must end), the more successful it is. But just as this process could be hindered by being convinced by other people’s ideas, there is a greater risk of becoming convinced of one’s own ideas.
When do I dismiss other people’s ideas? I rarely ever do. Sometimes I dismiss what I perceive to be a confrontational attitude in the presenting of ideas, or dismiss inaccurate paraphrasing or representation of my own ideas. But this need not prevent anyone from putting forth their own ideas or opinions.
What you might be picking up on is a peculiar kind of frustration I experience. As milliefink pointed out, I often put forth ideas which are quite simple. What I find is that the simpler, the more fundamental my ideas become, the more difficulty people seem to have in understanding them. Usually because it involves re-thinking a fundamental point of social interaction which they would find much easier to leave alone! It’s only an odd sensitivity of mine, I prefer for people to dislike my actual ideas, rather than mistaking them for something else, which seems to happen quite easily. This in no way suggests that those ideas or opinions are special or more valid than others.
Many people here explicitly tell me that they refuse to honestly engage with my ideas and opinions, while also insisting that if any party here has a problem - it is me. Is it surprising that I might consider this somewhat reactionary? I think that there is a significant difference between a person telling me what their position is, versus them telling me what my position is. If a person is unclear, one could simply ask them for clarification where it is needed, rather than being presumptuous. I think that’s a basic courtesy.
I’m wondering why you refuse to acknowledge and consider how your nearly constant effort to get people to “rethink fundamental points of social interaction” and the frames into which they insert the world and so on are usually derailments from the issue at hand? Do you even know why that’s a problem when the issue at hand is a serious one?
