[!@#$%!]

so im reading this list of "basic human needs" (post-maslow) and i see there listed next to each other "identity" and "freedom"

• subsistence
• protection
• affection
• understanding
• participation
• leisure
• creation
• identity
• freedom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundame...ation_of_Needs

identity is belonging (to a group, obviously).

then later thinking about global corporate rule (which got me started on this "basic human needs" search in the first place) i remember how belonging and freedom can so often be at odds, i.e., "this is what we as a group do and you can't break the rules"

then i realize (it's not like i invented gunpowder, but anyway, even 2+2 requires an operation) you can have your cake and eat it if you have power. you simultaneously belong (at the very center) and have freedom (to create rules). needs = met.

a society of free individuals would have to be by necessity (?) one of reasonably distant and loosely associated people. a frontier-like kind of environment with little personal fiefdoms.

crowd people in cramped quarters and with all the mandatory belonging and competing drives for "freedom" (to lord it over others) a hierarchy will quickly emerge.

for this very reason I AM MOVING TO ANCTARTICA.

 

[dead_battery]

isolate people and destroy public space and you can increase desperation and mental illness, thus allowing better conditions for harvesting peoples bodies through addictions which = profits

we know that what we do (basically without exception) is form ingroups which cohere around exclusion. there's always a scapegoat. it's naive and unscientific to think the individual can stand against this. his brain is going to do what it does despite what his (illusory) sense of self thinks.

dominance hierarchies are going to form not because of some folk psychological bullshit about our impure souls, but because all we are are machines programmed to pass on their genes. so behaviour that benefits this is going to occur. most of what humans do is just about status bragging which is another way of peacocking - look at me and my big brain.

the dim folks think they can sidestep all this by realizing it, as if their reason is not subject to the neurochemistry of the brain. no matter how depressed you are, if you find yourself a well liked member of a group one day you'll suddenly feel great.

you will probably feel at your best in a situation where you are climbing up into a higher social strata.

[dead_battery]

females like attention but what they want most of all is to be attached to the alpha. thats why ugly bastards who have a high social status can bag hot wives. how a man is treated and talked to by other men is MORE important to a woman than what he looks like. (she might not realize this or agree but its scientific fact).

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

isolate people and destroy public space and you can increase desperation and mental illness, thus allowing better conditions for harvesting peoples bodies through addictions which = profits

actually i'm a lot less desperate and addicted when isolated

 

i mean-- SHOO, people, SHOO!

i'm thinking about the rest and will reply later. i have 1,000,000,000 junk mails to delete and the satellite connection doesn't make it easy.

but hell is other people.

[!@#$%!]

ps as someone who "believes" (snort) in biological evolution, i know well it's all about the spread of genes.

however, i do experience life as an "individual," and from this (admittedly illusory) point of view, genes can EAT MY FUCK.

the levels of organization don't all have to pull in one direction. especially for mutants.

 

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

you can have your cake and eat it if you have power. you simultaneously belong (at the very center) and have freedom (to create rules). needs = met.

Fly in the ointment. What about the experience of rich or wealthy or powerful people in seeking "true love" or even have in-depth relationships with other people in natural ways? Power doesn't buy or coerce authentic relationships or genuine belonging. If anything, quite the opposite no? Don't people tend to resent the person who bullies their way into a group or who abuse other peoples freedom?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Fly in the ointment. What about the experience of rich or wealthy or powerful people in seeking "true love" or even have in-depth relationships with other people in natural ways? Power doesn't buy or coerce authentic relationships or genuine belonging. If anything, quite the opposite no? Don't people tend to resent the person who bullies their way into a group or who abuse other peoples freedom?

read the link to get the meaning of the words

"identity" (group-derived from language, norms, etc) is not about "true love". that's a different category of things.

[!@#$%!]

ps- some copypasta wikipasta

to add:
Types of satisfiers

Max-Neef further classifies Satisfiers (ways of meeting needs) as follows.

1. Violators: claim to be satisfying needs, yet in fact make it more difficult to satisfy a need. E.g. one could buy a gun for protection, yet if everyone bought a gun, your need for protection would be more difficult to meet.
2. Pseudo Satisfiers: claim to be satisfying a need, yet in fact have little to no effect on really meeting such a need. E.g. most addictive behaviours are pseudo-satisfiers.
3. Single Satisfiers: meet one need with one new behaviour. E.g. Bottlefeeding meets the need for sustenance.
4. Synergistic Satisfiers: are a case where one behaviour meets multiple needs simultaneously. E.g. Breast feeding meets needs of sustenance, protection, affection, identity etc.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

read the link to get the meaning of the words

it's not about "true love". that's a different category of things.

 

By true love I simply implied genuine acceptance (following your line of reasoning for identity). So in other words, sometimes isn't it the experience of folks who are wealthy or who have power to have a problem or hard time building sincere friendships, social relationships, and romantic partnerships all built on trust and mutuality rather than coercion or power grabbing? I'm not arguing with you, just adding a side-note in a friendly way.

[Rob Instigator]

humans are social creatures. it is the loners among us that are the outliers, the weirdos, the different ones.

[dead_battery]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

 

By true love I simply implied genuine acceptance (following your line of reasoning for identity). So in other words, sometimes isn't it the experience of folks who are wealthy or who have power to have a problem or hard time building sincere friendships, social relationships, and romantic partnerships all built on trust and mutuality rather than coercion or power grabbing? I'm not arguing with you, just adding a side-note in a friendly way.

nothing about this seems more than a stereotype or caricature - the lonely miser - the reality is that there are some individuals who will simply live isolated lives of wealth grabbing, but the majority won't.

wealthy and powerful individuals are in fact more likely than anyone to experience contentment, since they have such a wide social circle open to them, and are likely to encounter people who want to impress or get to know them.

[dead_battery]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

ps as someone who "believes" (snort) in biological evolution, i know well it's all about the spread of genes.

however, i do experience life as an "individual," and from this (admittedly illusory) point of view, genes can EAT MY FUCK.

the levels of organization don't all have to pull in one direction. especially for mutants.

 

its about the spread of genes but the process itself is also blind and purposeless. but you cant accurately say that genes can 'eat your fuck' because your (sense of) will does not possess the power to override your neurobiology. individualism alone is not enough for any man.

but the real question here is what personal crisis has caused this thread to exist?

[Rob Instigator]

the eternal dillema between Sue Storm's invisible blonde bush and Wonder Woman's mighty Amazonian brunette bush.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

nothing about this seems more than a stereotype or caricature - the lonely miser - the reality is that there are some individuals who will simply live isolated lives of wealth grabbing, but the majority won't.

wealthy and powerful individuals are in fact more likely than anyone to experience contentment, since they have such a wide social circle open to them, and are likely to encounter people who want to impress or get to know them.

You read into it what you want Sir Charles Dickens, but that was not my insinuation at all. Again, you mistake having social acquaintances with having substantive social support systems. Think, people you'd invite to be pallbearers at your mothers' funeral kind of substantive. There is a world of difference between schmoozing and social support. I'd argue that yes, especially in the TMZ world, that the wealthy and elite people have hard team building sincere relationships with people.

 

[dead_battery]

the people in the tmz world are not always wealthy. the only thing most of them have is a sliver of cultural capital, which stems from the imagination of the masses that they are rich and special and sexy because of their personality and not because of circumstance.

there are some wealthy ones in that world, but they are the minority. but they still hang in elite circles with the upper classes.

the myth you have is from the perspective of the mass man whose so jealous of the celebrity he has to invent this fantasy that they're desperately unhappy to salvage his pride. what he should really be focusing on is his limited imaginative capacity in having idolized these people in the first place.

they sell the socius the lie it wants, which is that the self is magical and can create its externalities as manifestations of what it is. "be the you that you want to be with your summer look and your vapid narcissism will be reflected in all the screens, sorry, mirrors and the zero sum nature of the economic system will dissipate by the sheer radiant positivity of your ignorance!". but all rich celebrities got that way through the economic rationality of the entertainment industry.

also, once you get income above a certain level, the opportunity to massively increase it skyrockets because successful and accredited advisors that, if you have any sense at all you can tell are legit or not, want to invest it for you because they get a decent commission. they dont get a decent commission out of the average joes savings so they dont bother. the average joe doesnt understand how people get rich and is too frustrated/stupid/busy/determined to blame everyone else but himself to know how to try and so is sold the idea that it's just the magical personal essence of the celebrity that got them to where they are. but thats bullshit.

so tldr only the stupidest or damaged of the wealthy and the elite would have that problem. the rest spend their time hobnobbing with non celebrities. the majority of the wealthy and elite are not entertainment industry figures.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

also, once you get income above a certain level, the opportunity to massively increase it skyrockets because successful and accredited advisors that, if you have any sense at all you can tell are legit or not, want to invest it for you because they get a decent commission.

so tldr only the stupidest or damaged of the wealthy and the elite would have that problem. the rest spend their time hobnobbing with non celebrities. the majority of the wealthy and elite are not entertainment industry figures.

 

[dead_battery]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

I'd argue that yes, especially in the TMZ world, that the wealthy and elite people have hard team building sincere relationships with people.

 

Well Cobain drugged himself to dementia most of the time, and was basically consumed by his greed hungry wife, whose appetite would make kali yuga herself blush.

Hemmingway was legitimately being spied on by the FBI, so yeah.

And Van Gogh was nuts.

Anyway, these are the tiny minority of famous people, ie. prole type artists who got rich through their 'genius'. The majority of rich and elite people are NOT like this and DO NOT get their wealth this way. Their circumstances would make them substantially more likely to be able to make friends and have better social standing and mental health because of it.

When wealth drives people to insanity it is when someone who has been relatively poor suddenly encounters tremendous wealth by near fluke. This is so incredibly rare, but usually it ends in absolute destruction for the person involved.

What is the name of that primitive island which suddenly got insanely wealthy due to oil or something, and where all the inhabitants suddenly had thousands of pounds, and promptly destroyed themselves in obesity, reckless spending and drug and alcohol abuse?

It's in a book I have but I can't remember which one. Anyway - that same thing happened to Cobain.

[dead_battery]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

 

If your comedy and marijuana based christo-rasta street level keeping it real ism was remotely liberatory and beneficial to anyone you might have a point.

[dead_battery]

Also - I think if Cobain had laid off the fucking alcohol cigarettes drugs and junk food for a while he might have had the mental clarity to save himself and not have been consumed by childish narcissistic wounds and ego mania. he might have developed a detachment from his situation and simply retreated without guilt and managed his finances and life better.

instead he destroyed himself and then decided it wasn't "punk" enough to clean up and go talk to the bank manager after courtney blocked his card. that isn't daring rebelliousness, that's adolescent cowardice. instead of claiming what was rightfully his and fighting back he chose oblivion.

altho its unfair to judge him since what happened to him seems to happen to most individuals who gain the type of wealth he did in such a short time.

[Rob Instigator]

Kurt had chronic stomach ulcers. those were, as far as I have read, congenital. he had them much of his life.