I just read a post suggesting that if your dad is an abusive meth-head that beats you, it may just mean your spiritual self was a badass and chose that particular path/adventure/"thrill ride" from the other side of eternity.
Yes, the author used the phrase "thrill ride."
He went on to explain that nothing is really "bad" from an eternal perspective.
I wonder if he is getting ass-raped every night by a drunken foster parent, or has had his children blown to bits by US Drones. I wonder how badass he would view the "thrill ride" as being if in those circumstances.
What the author suggested may indeed be true. I have often thought of such things myself. Maybe this is all a ride we signed up for in some other realm, where we know everything, knowing we would take the plunge and become human. I get it, I really do. It is cool to think about. Honestly, though, a lot of this stuff just comes off sounding like pure bullshit when the world is looked at through truly open eyes. It sounds trite. Like saying "everything happens for a reason" to a grieving mother who has just delivered a stillborn baby.
It also keeps people apathetic about changing things here and now, because, "hey brah, it's all just a simulation."
This silly Nagasaki atomic bomb victim thought the burns were "bad." So unenlightened!There are now also several self-labeled anarchists on Steemit taking a similar tack with it comes to talking property.
You can USE the land you live on, but you CANNOT OWN IT. It's not fair that one dude worked really hard to build a whole apple orchard. He can't use that all at the same time, so it's okay if others steal that "extra land" from him, because property is not real!
NOTHING IS REAL NO BOUNDARIES BRO IT'S ALL GOOD. I am almost tempted to make one of those click-bait-y article titles from this idea of no property/arbitrary property regulations on others for "equality":
COMMUNIST DICTATORS HATE HIM! Read how one man got a 30 million body count in just two years!
Not that any of these folks want to kill people. Most of these folks are great, loving people. The idea of arbitrarily regulating what others can and cannot own however, is the beginning of that street.
I always am tempted to show up at the homes of these folks, post up on their couch for weeks on end, and eat all their food. Because, hey, YOU WEREN'T USING THAT FOOD IN THE FRIDGE. PEACE LOVE AND HAPPINESS!
Much respect to all these human beings, but Jesus, these ideas are trash.
I agree we should not be abusive. We should not exploit our planet to destruction. We should love others. We should pursue happiness. These things are the very reason a realistic perspective recognizing pain and the need for improvement, and the utter necessity of property are necessary!
I'll leave you with a brilliant quote from Robert Pirsig:
“…One day in the classroom the professor of philosophy was blithely expounding on the theory on the illusory nature of the world for what seemed the fiftieth time and Phaedrus raised his hand and asked coldly if it was believed that the atomic bombs that had dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illusory. The professor smiled and said yes. That was the end of the exchange.
“Within the tradition of Indian philosophy that answer may have been correct, but for Phaedrus and for anyone else who reads newspapers regularly and is concerned with such things as mass destruction of human beings that answer was hopelessly inadequate. He left the classroom, left India and gave up.”
~Robert M. Pirsig, ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE.
~KafkA
(None of the above is meant as a personal attack on anyone. This is how I express myself, and I realize that it is an irritant to some, but, nevertheless, this is me, for better or for worse. All in the spirit of heated and fruitful ARGUING! I mean..umm...discourse and sharing...or some hippie bullshit like that.)
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as DTube and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
Doesn’t mean you don’t want to slap a hippie now and again! 😂
HaHAH! :)
Damn right, man! Been seeing more and more of that type of shit myself, too. All these parasitic bums living off their rich parents' pocket money giving otherwise commendable philosophies a bad name piss me off, too. Seem to have got rid of a lot of dead weight in the crypto-currency community, here's hoping same thing will happen in the blockchain blogging sphere... Speaking of which, I'm not sure how many of these bums have understood the concept of the blockchain: they seem to be totally unaware of the fact that their drivel will be available for all to see for all eternity irregardless of whether they like it or not...
I agree...Even talking to some people who hold these ideas feels like talking with someone who is not there. Or talking to a piece of soap. (I think you get what I mean with that ;)
I sometimes reply or talk in the same manner as they do, to point something out. Don't know if it's always effective though, could be too subtle or look like I agree with them. It's hard in the written word.
What's up with these comments, the first looks like s/he is talking about something
But the second is weird, and like a copy, but with other words.......strange.
YES!
As for the comments, yeah. It's like a quick, cheap attempt to summarize in view of getting a vote, gone horribly wrong... :) Glad I can "cooperate clothes," though!
I want to make a few comments. If our reality is a simulation or not is entirely pointless until we find out how to manipulate it from the inside.
Our reality is all we got, anything that might be on the outside does not affect at all the value of the things on the inside.
Then on the people rejecting ownership of things such as land, air.... We all agree on the value of ownership, but that does not mean that this concept has to be applied to everything. People would probably agree that you cannot own an idea because it is fundamentally different from a physical object. Land is also different from a human made object as no work was required to create it. In order to own something that you did not create you have to trade it, but what if there is no previous owner? So I dont claim to know the answer, but I think it can be more complex.
Our reality is all we got, anything that might be on the outside does not affect at all the value of the things on the inside.
Agree 100%.
Well, in the case of the apple orchard that was given to me, a lot of effort would have been required to create and maintain it. Anarcho-Capititalist/Voluntaryist property ethic is pretty clear that land which has been "mixed with labor" belongs to the first user that can be most directly linked to it. It may not be a perfect way of doing things, but so far these property norms are the best for each individual, and objectively most logical when minimization of potential conflict is the value being sought. Any other system not based on individual rights inevitably results in a "ruler" or "king" type of situation.
I was never really convinced from a philosophical point of view in the labour-mixing idea. It seems it is a compromise, but one that is working fine in practice. In the case of the apple orchard, the value is probably much larger than the value of a piece of barren land. I think we all agree that you at least own your work so that means you basically own the orchard in any practical setting.
In a world where labour is the main source of wealth there is no problem and we have always lived in such a world. But I think that in the future there might be a time when labour becomes essentially worthless and in that case all value will be derived from the value of raw materials and land. In that sense how can you then claim that just mixing some of your almost worthless labour with something makes it yours?
In any case, in the current world we entirely agree.
Although there does need to be some boundaries set out when dealing with personal property rights like housing, food, farmland, etc, wouldn't it be great just to be able to leave your current home and all the belongings and just travel until you find another empty house where you could stay for a while. It would require people to treat everything as theirs to take proper care of it, though. Most will destroy anything that doesn't belong to them, which makes this scenario highly unlikely to ever succeed.
But, I have an example where it was working.
We used to go camping on this lake when I was a kid. At first we used tents and found a little spot where we could set up camp and make it 'home' for the weekends. Then one day canoeing around the lake, we found an old cabin. It looked like no one had used it for a while. So, the next time we went camping we canoed by this cabin and it was still empty so we stayed there. We ended up going back many times to this cabin and started using is as our own for almost 2 summers. We also began treating it as our own and made repairs, improvements, and cleaned it up. We eventually found more cabins on the lake with the same kind situation. Someone was using them, but they didn't own them. People would use them at different times as well and people would also bring stuff to leave at the cabin to make it better, like chairs, bbq's, tables, etc.
Everyone seemed to be getting along with sharing all these cabins that did not really belong to anyone. Nothing was ever destroyed or stolen aside from the occasional group of kids (which might happen even if they were owned). Eventually, the government found out that all these cabins were out there and burned them all to the ground because no one was paying taxes on them. Yay, the government came to the rescue again.
I know this kind of situation would never work throughout society, because people are assholes and the government has molded them to think that way over time. But, it is nice to think about and I hope I don't come off too hippyish lol.
Lol. Typical government bullshit, right? Find a perfectly happy situation and shit on it. Have you read about the destruction of the orange crops in California when thousands were dying of starvation during the dust bowl era? In an attempt to regulate prices, the US government sprayed napalm on entire, massive crops of oranges that people could have eaten. I swear if there is a hell these fuckheads' feet are already warm...
Anyway, in the case of the cabins, if all parties including the owner who built it were cool with the situation, that's great. If the cabin was actually unowned, great. If not, what you were doing was breaking and entering (theft) albeit in a pretty polite fashion. If they were government cabins then, fuck yeah, get your tax money back by living it up!
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. Contrary to how I may come off on here, I actually enjoy the hippie side of life--I just recognize the objective need for well-defined property norms and boundaries if violent conflict among humans is to be minimized. This is the essence of anarcho-capitalism.
Haha, I guess it was violating what I also believe should be property rights the first time we stayed there - since at that time we still believed it was owned. It may be a gray area because it was pretty obvious it was abandoned. Once we found out it was for sure not really owned by anyone and there were other cabins, I think fixing it up and taking care of it would be considered rent - at least in Canada.
I'm not sure about breaking and entering, though, since everything was open (broken window, other damage, and open door already) and the place was in pretty rough shape and appeared abandoned. I'd say trespassing if the land was owned by someone, at most. And even then, I think there still needs to be some sort of interference of some kind. Like being allowed to walk up to someone's front door to knock on it. It's not trespassing until they tell you to leave as long as you didn't damage or take anything. But if there was a sign and you chose to enter the property anyway; trespassing. I guess if they were going for the abandoned look and we made it look more like a nice cabin in the woods, that would be considered interference.
That actually makes me think of how long something has to go unused before it can no longer be considered owned? Of course, if you have a car sitting in a garage and you just don't use it, it's still yours. You're taking care of it by sheltering it and it shows that by it being in a garage. But, if you leave that car out in the middle of the woods and it begins to decompose, at what point can someone else go and take it to fix it up or to even dispose of it without it being theft?
All excellent questions which I think the free market and individuals/local property owners/homesteaders could figure out non-violently.
It's all about balance. I happen to agree with him but I would never tell that to someone who doesn't want to hear it, not intentionally anyway. But then again the nature of social media turns us all into broadcasters of our own viewpoints rather than balanced collaborators. Or maybe it was school that fucked us up?
I appreciate him for saying such things and I appreciate you for challenging him to question his comments.
How hippie is that!?!? :-D
Yep. That's what it's all about. I suppose my main gripe is this idea that seems to be gaining huge traction around here that the goal of everything is to "share ideas" but never share a cold, hard point because "nobody can really be right" and "we've all just got to get along..."
Yes. We can thoroughly disagree and get along as long as property norms are respected! As for the "illusory nature" of tragic lives and suffering, that just rings hollow to me, even if we come to find out it's true "in the end." Some things definitely are bad. Full stop. They may result in some good later down the line, but calling being abused by a meth head dad "not bad" is ludicrous.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, @whatamidoing.
I found this and thought of you, I think it's probably stated much more eloquently and with more compassion than our hippie friend. I can totally understand if you don't believe it one bit, as from a "consciousness arises from matter" perspective it does sound like nonsense, but from a "matter arises from consciousness" point of view, it makes a lot of sense.
This is excellent man. The bus story is so apt for me right now. Very fucking real and powerful.
Great work my friend .. I can relate! Because I'm a spiritual person and I often incorporate spiritual perspectives into my writing I get this a lot. It's as if there is a set way to behave and act .. personally there is no right way or wrong way there is only your way. Life is a play on balance and as such it's sometimes hard but to deny the hardship is to deny the inherant lesson. To deny the darkness is to not appreciate the days when you're bathed in light.
I often find myself surrounded by people that seem to think the key to solving the worlds problems is to hold your breath and hum. If only it was that easy .. the key for me is in accepting and balancing your own darkness, to deny the darkness is to unbalance yourself. I know many spiritual people whom deny any negative thoughts .. but how can you deny the essence and duality of our humanity? How can you learn if you don't listen to your inner teacher? Dig deep enough and many of the aforementioned spiritual people are unhappy .. they're unhappy because of their inability to face and indeed acknowledge their inner demons.
Thank you for this thought provoking post @kafkanarchy
Can't disagree here. Thanks for commenting my friend.
Yeah there's problems with a new age movement for sure. Are you using these perspectives on reality as an escape for the harsh reality of the suffering of the world? Even if it is illusionary it's very real for the ones suffering in pain. It's something that we should not tolerate. I think the biggest group of people who need the "wake up" are the order followers. Once they "wake up" then we can sing Kumbaya... Having said all that it doesn't mean you have to miserable all the time. Putting all of the world's problems on your back is too much for anyone. Do what you can and take time for yourself when you're spent. It's all a dream man, like chill out.
Haha. Well said. This type of hippie advice is pretty much much okay with me.
Yeah, the whole reincarnation thing seems like it is for people who are bad at math.
There are not enough past lives for everyone to have had one, not nearly enough. Past life regression as a psychological modality does have some promise. Whether it is real or not people do have these past life experiences and they can be a powerful tool for people to resolve their current issues.
Was it just that communist anarchist d bag I had a run in with that got you going or are there more of them?
Nah, different person. Interesting stuff about reincarnation. Never thought of that before!
Thank you for your reflections and indifference to various problems of the modern world!
Wish you success and prosperity!
Health and personal achievements in our complex world!
I already like her.)
I am not sure you meant to thank me for my indifference :) but thanks for commenting all the same.
You like the owl, you mean?
not indifference! Certainly ) and owl your liked )
"New agers" and what I call pseudo-"spiritualists" are a bane... non-thinking fools.
But now,the philosophy of indian societies have also change.It is not base on illusion right now.Thanks for your great post ,have a great day .
Well said, this is why we can be friends.
I have also engaged with, and muted because I don't think they are real, fake anarchist/fakarchists on steemit who basically say the main tenant of formal satanism,
'everyone do what they want just don't hurt anybody' (thanks @kennyskitchen!)
I've also been told by an anarchist that 'no one cares what i think' (thanks @dbroze!)
Then there are all the anarcho capitalists and 'the secret' believers out there, thinking that amassing massive wealth is in some way a. doable without coercion and b. very spiritual, and poorness is itself a lack of spirituality
so yeah, I have attacked these foul ideas and you can see by my popularity how that has gone for me on steemit.
I don't care about popularity, I care about credibility. For all their flags and exclusion(while of course loving of obvious shill propagandists like elizabeth lea vos and caitlin johnstone), not one have them has had the guts to even present an argument against what I say.
I decided also today to post about anarchy, and only 2 bots and one new soul from africa has dared to upvote it and no comments at all. I wonder sometimes where everyone is on this platform.....
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@mindhawk/what-anarchy-means-to-me
upvoted, resteemed
We can not force whoever does not want to see. very deep your criticism @kafkanarchy but you have, a lot, reason.
You relate things in an excellent manner, I too believe if anyones father is an meth head his son would get tortured every night and the child will choose an other part of eternity, also If you own an apple tree, you can't eat all the apples some of them will get stolen too, this means nothing in this world can be owned by you completely.
You cooperate clothes in an exceptional manner, I excessively deem if anyones priest is an meth go his young man would urge angst-ridden every night and the infant will prefer an other amount of eternity, as well If you private an apple tree, you false piety scoff each and every one the apples roughly of them will pick up stolen too, this income nil in this planet tin be owned by you completely.
How,,, very good FOLLOW @ekayuliana yes
Its true that we should not exploit our planet to destruction and we should also love others.
I think people have become too weakling and namby-pamby in realizing what's going on the world right now... If the bad things seem to him like thrill ride then it's his take on how he perceive the things... But talking about different realm altogether,i don't think it goes too conjointly.. Becoz these are worst times to think like that in reference to human rights violations and child killing, so such thinking makes no sense..
great point here. love to read your post very much. May God bless you dear @kafkanarchy84:- I will waiting for your next post.
I don't think your land example is very good. If the man mixed his labor with the land and is using it productively to produce apples, people would not be entitled to the output unless it was surplus from what was being used. Do you favor occupancy and use?
People would not be entitled to the output.
Wealth redistribution cannot be achieved without force. That is why "anarcho-socialist" is an oxymoron.
@ancapbarbie. Dead on.
I take it you don't favor occupancy and use.
If you mean occupancy and use agreements, it not only doesn't matter whether or not I favor them, as long as they are voluntary, they are consistent with anarcho-capitalist theory. You are free to use, or give away, or destroy your own property, or whatever else you want to do with it. You are not free to lay claim to my property and have armed men come to take it by force if I resist.
By what mechanism do you claim property is yours? If you claimed to own a bunch of land that you don't use, would you be opposed to people using it? Would you use force to keep them out if that was not favorable to you?
Sorry, I don't get sucked into answering loaded questions.
Let me frame your loaded question differently: Can I come to your house uninvited, sleep in your bed, eat your food, drive your car, not pay you a dime, and claim you're violating my "rights" if you object?
My house is occupied and being used so no you couldn't do that. I'm talking about absentee ownership. There would need to be some common sense agreements about what constitutes occupancy and use.
Collective commons are largely missing from society in the USA. People live isolated in the illusion of self sufficiency.
At the end of the day we can't take any of it with us when we die.
Shit... At least there is someone around here that doesnt Sing along the lets all hold hands and praise How steemit is a perfect place.
Well done.
This is vary valuable post
vary sad ...
This is a spam comment. The post is not about music.
sorry
I am just asking out of curiosity and am not here to blame anyone. But I realised this trend that spammers will always reply with sorry once they are downvoted. So my question: What exactly are you sorry for? Are you sorry for spamming, sorry for getting caught? Are you trying to save your reputation or are you trying to get an upvote on the sorry comment?