General

[quote=StrangeVisions]Okay, I'll try and paraphrase that.

Sociologically-speaking, in terms of social institutions, the modes and relations of social interaction which govern contemporary western society, EG The education system, the prison system, the welfare system, basically any form of regime that functions as an administration, operates at its foremost upon scientific method. I'm referring to the dual revolutions which speciously saw the separation of church and state.

I have no clue who chopra is. I've been reading the dialectic of enlightenment by Adorno and Horkheimer.

When I talk crudely, I actually get that from Slavoj Zizek.

The remark about "men who beat their wives" is a remark about the history of classical Western culture. A large amount of the way social interaction occurs in Western Society, and on a global scale too, operates upon the logic derived from this system. It is not the only system, there is also Buddhist philosophy. However, the type of Buddhist philosophy taught in university courses within western society teach and assess the Buddhist philosophy course from the perspective of Aristotelian logic. It is taught within a system which operates upon different symbolic relations to (Chinese culture?) from which Buddhist philosophy originates.

What I am suggesting here is learning the symbolic orders of multiple cultures and noticing similarities and differences from an educated position, rather than remarking upon it from an imperialistic monocultural perspective which only produces a derivate and incomplete understanding.

When I say "culture" though, I don't mean it in a narrow sense, I refer to culture in every sense of the world. Male culture, skater culture, malaysian culture, grunge culture, lady gaga's little monster culture.

A huge barrier to communicating in hybrid terminology is that due to the vast scope, linguistically-speaking, many different connotations and denotations, signs, signifiers, symbols, etc, get muddled if you don't have an familiarity with many different cultures and come from only a few different cultures. Personally, I'm a half-caste, gender fluid, androgynous, gender neutral, okay, I'm just a lot of things, trust me on that one. So when I say things that sound confusing, it's because I see the world like a (bee?), like a kalidoscope, I can see many things happening in many different places at once, it feels like I'm standing in the middle of the road a lot of the time. But as traumatic as it's been, I've also learnt certain things about every culture that many monocultural people of those cultures don't realize until later on in life. But I'm a very weak individual right now, and I can't effectively communicate what I'm trying to say when I speak to audiences of diverse backgrounds, because to speak in one language is to omit understandings from another. I try to use words and speak so that as many people can understand me as possible, but it's difficult when there are so many things to say and no one has the time. So I've developed certain methods of my own to cut down that time dramatically and grab their attention, I typically analyze the most likely narrative the individual I'm talking to has lived, I try to show them that I understand the world they can see with their eyes in any way I know how, then I try to show them that the world they see on an ordinary basis is only the very very tip of the iceberg, metaphorically-speaking. I assess them through culturally, socially, psychologically, etc, then I assess them culturally, socially, psychologically from their own perspective. I learn every type of person out there inside and out, and I locate the short-cuts. It's not mind reading, is a very highly calibrated hybrid technology. But there are huge gaps which I'm still filling in. These holidays I plan to re-read the communist manifesto, learn how to skateboard and firedance, put together a large collection of art, learn how to DJ, bartend, find a way to earn $4000, take a road trip to the south island, find some hot white guy, make him fall in love with me, break his heart and take enjoyment in his misery. It's not difficult for me anymore, I spent the last 8 months overdosing on ritalin, been suicidal, got sent to the hospital, now I'm a shapeshifter and a time traveller and a werewolf, and I'm only getting faster and more skilled these days. I'm a cyborg. I'm Mewtwo. Actually, I'm just a mess, but a very high functioning one. High functioning and low functioning at the same time. Hopefully someone can give me a reason not to be the next hitler, because I probably could. No one loves or cares about me so why should I care about anyone else. I'm the lonliest person in the world. I'm Mewtwo.

@xFaceIess you're a borderline chinese girl who's going to end up just like her mother, your father's probably got a gambling addiction, and you go around trying to manipulate white guys in order to get a false-sense of validation in the world instead of actually accomplishing anything, go study for your med exams, wanna test me some more? I'm well aware of who you are. I'm a half-caste and I can equally destroy a person as well as help them. I could be the next hitler if I wanted to. You think I don't know your game? I've been watching you. You're weak and I can crush you. Delicate little pansy.[/quote]

Omooooo
Excuse me? o.o I didn't attack you in any way whatsoever, you should sit back and reflect on how rude you're coming off to be.
Your lack of respect disgusts me. Here I was, thinking that you were probably starting a thread with some intelligence and class.
Clearly not. </3

Its quite amusing how you've created an image of me. Should I be disgusted, .. or impressed at your level of creepiness? Not sure. </3
But since your image of me is entirely false, i'll spend a minute on you.
First of all, i'm not chinese. Dayuuum, I wish duuuude. Their skin is sooooo pretty~ <3
Second of all, my mother is a fantastic woman - I would love to gain many of her traits and become as strong as her some day. Thirdly, my father does not have a gambling addiction, in fact, he's quite the successful businessman himself. I don't manipulate people.
I'm not as shallow as you are. I don't sit behind a screen to attack people. I don't make up false images of other people in my head - I'm not delusional.

Don't put me into the same class as you, child.

no organization whatsoever

your writing is as formless and amorphous as the worldview you advocate
and what you are describing is nebulous. you speak in abstractions. everything you said can be summed up in this: "i wish everybody was more open and more perceptive." thats all. no need to take 10 paragraphs to say it.

I find this reading very thoughtful, insightful, and observant. Thumbs up!

@ColdAir: I'll return years later, I'll become the strongest for a short period of time when Cell is here, then after that I'll dress in spandex with my gf and fight crime, but you wont know it's me cause I'll have glasses and a bandana on.

Uh oh @StrangeVisions (Frieza) @Sezbeth (Goku) finally went super saiyan.. @AntiSenpai (Gohan) take Krillin and get out of here.

[quote=StrangeVisions]What I mean by impartial opinions are ones which seek to be as least one-sided as possible.

There are these continual persistent criticisms which label the approach as naively idealistic, attempting to be altruistic and objective when such a thing is impossible and offensive, afraid of offending people, when actually, i personally believe its the furthest from all of those things and reflects a far more advanced approach.

the thing is, when there is an controversial or divisive issue, opinions tend to fracture, and all the little fragments which make up those opinions gravitate toward one of two opposing poles. its in this kind of dynamic where opinions then become [i]popular[/i] or [i]unpopular[/i], and are assessed on that basis rather than upon the merit of the argument itself. its essentially an appeal to populism, hegemonic thought, bandwagoning, however you want to slice the cake: [b]its not critical[/b], its copypasta politics

this kind of mode operates upon adversary, competition and opposition. fundamental to those things are power relations, and within binary relationships (like male vs female dichotomies), one becomes a master and one becomes a slave. the way language of an opinion is framed, when making no effort to perceive the world from more than one cultural position (ethnic culture, gender culture, sexuality, class, age (teenagers vs adults, etc)), perpetuates cultural oppression, regardless of the opinion's intention.

the authoritarian left is incredibly harmful, far more than it would like to believe it is. while the popular opinions advocate gay rights, pro-choice, etc, they are almost inseparably related to the opinions which attempt to colonize thought by prescribing what is allowed and what is not. (EG: 'You're not allowed to say that word because it's racist' 'you're not allowed to think about that because its homophobic') unlike the conservative factions which justify their views in god's word, they justify themselves in political correctness, but [b]both[/b] are forms of morality-based judgments, and the question it eventually boils down to is: who is validating this? the answer are the socially-privileged. and the socially privileged, in a capitalist society, derive much of their thinking, historically, from the affluent anglo-saxon landowners who beat their wives.

im not solely racking on white culture though. every culture has quite a barbaric past. while im not educated in many different cultures, im sure there are people on basil who could fill in the gaps. im talking about brutal japanese torture involving sticking needles and boiling liquids, viking pillages in scandanavian history, etc

inherent in every word spoken from a monocultural position reflects and perpetuates that dialectic, and while you may not be barbaric and primitive yourself, these wars continue to rage on a very deep unconscious and abstract level and continue to fuel normal everyday instances of injustice that you can see with your eyes.

the bad thing about authoritarianism of any kind is that it is [b]repressive[/b], basically, in attempting to encroach upon other people's thoughts through telling them what they can and can't do, [b]or even think[/b], we are essentially building a [b]sterile[/b] culture.

a free culture, a truly free culture, is a culture that does not operate on the strict enforcement of rules, one which operates upon guidelines and principles instead, principles which emphasise [b]responsibility[/b] as more important than [b]rights[/b], one encorporates a plurality of perspectives into its language, one which operates modally upon collective thought rather than oriented around the individual, one which encourages active participation and engagement rather than passive consumption.

[b]I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM[/b]. i am talking about hybridity and new modernity.

the thing many people dont seem to understand, especially in america, are what socialism, communism and anarchy are.

the way socialism and communism are commonly referred to in common sense discussions reflect a strict interpretation of [b]the materialist dialectic[/b], much like foot washing baptists strictly interpret the bible. it is, to translate into oversimplified and ordinary terms: [b]what you think communism is, is only one theoretical possibility proposed by some guy about how the future [i]might[/i] work[/b], a view [b]even he[/b] disagreed with himself, a view that was later perverted by stalin and maoist authoritarianism, much like hitler's eugenic movements were a perversion of darwinian theory. (i have my opinions on arguments which recourse to science and atheism, but thats a topic for another thread). anarchy, similarly does not necessarily mean an opposition to any and every form of authority, it is a culture and a political movement against oppressive and grossly unjustified exercise of authority, such as mass surveillance. and anarchy is not mutually exclusive to other modes of political organization, anarcho-capitalism is just one example which sees the possibility of integrating aspects of both into a unified system.

all in all, i personally believe that there is no one way, and that if enough people get talking, we wont have to theorize what a new world order might look like, as it will construct itself through a coalescing of ideas, but some important stepping stones toward true freedom is an abandonment of these walls we established which keep us separate, im talking about old conventions, labels, stigma, the basic things the teach you in a level I sociology course, norms, deviance, categories, social constructedness, the basic things they teach you in a level I film studies course, different symbolic relations, modes of communication, the basic things they teach you in a level I anthropology course, practices and beliefs universal across all human cultures, things which all humans share in common.

really, i hugely agree with a lot of what lady gaga and lily allen do, and i think they represent the pinnacle of modern culture and one of the contemporary frontiers of the new social emancipation movement, and i think a lot of idiots like to idolize dead musicians like kurt cobain without realizing what a severely depressed and traumatized individual he was, and how most of the stuff they say in his defense are the type of things which probably made him want to commit suicide, not courtney love

and thats why im sick of people trashing on impartial opinions

[b]go ahead and throw your stones, all this was was a rant for me, and i have solice knowing that the only reason ya'll are hating are cause ya'll know ya'll gonna end up miserable in some medium wage job with a wife you hate and children you wish you never had for the rest of your life, and that's my opinion, ahahah[/b]

for anyone who agrees with what i said, this how you rile them up: [b]9/11 was the best show on earth[/b][/quote]

This reads like a rambling adolescent's angst-fueled diatribe on the perceived incompetence of society.

"Dear Diary,
People just don't understand, but I do, I can see clearly. I know better, I see the world for what it really is.

Sincerely, Snowflake."

@StrangeVisions: Bout to catch these hands

[quote=StrangeVisions] It is not the only system, there is also Buddhist philosophy. However, the type of Buddhist philosophy taught in university courses within western society teach and assess the Buddhist philosophy course from the perspective of Aristotelian logic. It is taught within a system which operates upon different symbolic relations to (Chinese culture?) from which Buddhist philosophy originates. [/quote]

Yes, Aristotelian logic is not the only system of semantic understanding, however that sole fact is hardly a testament to its dominant validity in how we understand information. The issue with Buddhist philosophy and other existential approaches is how most of them are heavily subject to cultural bias. Even under the presupposition of your suggestion where we consider all approaches (seemingly regardless of logical relevance), there are simply too many contradictions between cultures to the point where some are mere radical opposites. This, of course isn't a shot at impartial opinions, but rather pointing out how the melding of such cultural biases would at times, be a logical impossibility without some form of cognitive dissonance, which is a fallacy in its own right.

What you're referring to as "incomplete understandings" of such cultures is largely due to the lack of bias (provided the tutoring is proper) produced by the existing Aristotelian-based education. Such lack of bias is often misunderstood by many parties as another bias, simply being it conflicts with principles their cultures hold dear. This branches onto why the general public in any area tends to misunderstand sociology and social psychology, however, that is a topic for another time.

[quote=StrangeVisions] When I say "culture" though, I don't mean it in a narrow sense, I refer to culture in every sense of the world. Male culture, skater culture, malaysian culture, grunge culture, lady gaga's little monster culture. [/quote]

"Culture" is a general term for multiple types of cultures, whether it be male, "skater", "grunge", etc. I don't see why you needed to make that distinction.

[quote=StrangeVisions] A huge barrier to communicating in hybrid terminology is that due to the vast scope, linguistically-speaking, many different connotations and denotations, signs, signifiers, symbols, etc, get muddled if you don't have an familiarity with many different cultures and come from only a few different cultures. [/quote]

This begins to touch onto a psycholinguistic theory known as "Universal Grammar". In simple terms, the theory suggests that across all languages (regardless of origin), multiple terms for the same meaning (e.g. red, rojo, etc.) are due to the innate ability to create a language which will always be based off of the intended meaning. Even if it's some personal language between a small group of people (e.g. personal sibling languages), the intended meaning will always be the same across any language in comparison.

The innate ability to create a structured language consisting of pragmatics, syntax, lexical structures, etc., is as proposed to be the result of certain areas in our brains (specifically Broca's, Wernicke's, and a few others having to do with symbolic thought) interacting with each other to form structured sentences.

One can actually communicate with another person with minimal to no cultural familiarities if they have a functioning knowledge of lexical terminology and gestures. If your goal is to improve your ability to speak with others from another culture, then I'd work on gaining a basic understanding of such. It was quite helpful when I was working customer service before I landed my research assistantship at my graduate program's university.

[quote=StrangeVisions]I typically analyze the most likely narrative the individual I'm talking to has lived, I try to show them that I understand the world they can see with their eyes in any way I know how, then I try to show them that the world they see on an ordinary basis is only the very very tip of the iceberg, metaphorically-speaking. I assess them through culturally, socially, psychologically, etc, then I assess them culturally, socially, psychologically from their own perspective. I learn every type of person out there inside and out, and I locate the short-cuts. It's not mind reading, is a very highly calibrated hybrid technology. [/quote]

I feel as if you're blowing out of proportion how advanced this may or may not be.

I've done literally the same thing (but explained in a much more systematic, scientific manner, as well as lacking the slight glorification of such) all my life. Being that I have Asperger's syndrome (a form of autism), a lot of my understanding of sentiments derived from social constructs are learned, rather than innate (as is with the typical individual). If I didn't have my intelligence to compensate for this deficiency, my life would've remained miserable past age 10, when a school counselor actually decided to do their damn job. Though, that's a story for another time.

In any case, assessing an individual from their own perspective is simple empathy, which all typical individuals (without a psychological disorder) are entirely capable of, no matter how aware they may be of the process.

[statement withdrawn]: seeking therapy for behavioural issues and generalized anxiety. there is something wrong with me and im leaving now. i apologize

[quote=StrangeVisions]

@xFaceIess you're a borderline chinese girl who's going to end up just like her mother, your father's probably got a gambling addiction, and you go around trying to manipulate white guys in order to get a false-sense of validation in the world instead of actually accomplishing anything, go study for your med exams, wanna test me some more? I'm well aware of who you are. I'm a half-caste and I can equally destroy a person as well as help them. I could be the next hitler if I wanted to. You think I don't know your game? I've been watching you. You're weak and I can crush you. Delicate little pansy.[/quote]

First of all, you need to calm down boy.

You come on here attempting to act all high and mighty when you still live at home with mom and dad http://www.basilmarket.com/forum/2884872/1/Where_can_I_go_to_get_away_from_society__Is_there_a_way_.html#46457748

You claim you could be a Hitler, but who would follow you? What can someone who can't even live on their own offer to anyone?

I'm not sure if you're just some troll trying to get under people's skin but you're not scary, you wouldn't say any of these things to anyone's face and you can't do anything without mommy yelling at you.

You're weak and pathetic, you can't destroy nor can you save, you're a nothing, a no one and will forever be that.

So please, keep up the act, it was enjoyable until you got to this point.

[statement withdrawn]: seeking therapy for behavioral issues and generalized anxiety

@Sezbeth

The Deepak Chopra retort got me. Couldn't stop the giggle.

Sorry I didn't read most of anything in this thread
just wanna say that I snickered when I saw OP reply to someone on pg 2 with a huge wall of text, and more bolded spots.
Hehehehe.

[quote=StrangeVisions]Science and atheism: I relate these two not based upon any strict convention, I relate these two because I understand them to be the two dominant forms of the way in which knowledge is validated within society, and while they have been largely helpful, they, combined, can not explain [b]everything[/b], they only chip at the surface of what humans could [b]possibly[/b] understand if we didn't restrict the scope so heavily to (empiricism?), the scientific method. Science and atheism, as well as a form of understanding things, [b]also[/b] have a history, these systematic modes of interpretation, have been, to put it bluntly, been formulated by white men who beat their wives. It all comes from aristotelian and platonic foundational understandings. The future hybridizes western, eastern, northern and southern historical systems of understanding the world, possibly even incorporating spirituality too. Not dogmatic religiousness, like, to put it crudely, opening your third eye a little bit.

I'm well aware that there are fields which attempt to blend western existentialist philosophy with other western disciplines. I guess what I'm trying to say is blending different cultural systems to create a new hybrid model which expands the scope of what we as humans can understand, rather than inbreeding ourselves so much, to put it crudely.[/quote]

Atheism has literally nothing to do with the validation of knowledge. Atheism the stance in which someone takes on the idea of a deity and/or mysticism, religious or otherwise. This has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method, which involves studying a hypothesis in order to test its validity, after of which, we take from the knowledge that the testing of said hypothesis produced and apply it to the larger body of scientific knowledge. In this process, both the invalidity and the validity of such a hypothesis are equally valued as contributions to the larger body of knowledge. This is to say, knowing what we know and what we don't know, as well as is or isn't, are equally valuable in the larger scheme of understanding the universe through actual testing of observed phenomena.

That said, I'm not quite understanding where you're getting the whole "formulated by white men who beat their wives" remark. Seems like a bit of a random addition to this discussion. One of which, is poorly grounded, I might add.

Back to the point; your proposal in blending different cultural understandings of the world, while grandiose and noble, would never work. Science works to understand the world through objective experimentation of phenomena while spiritualism is borderline in religious dogmatism in its own right, with little compatibility with the scientific method. Any attempts to do so are always grounded in pseudoscience.

I think you've been reading too much of Deepak Chopra's writings. You seem to have a habit of using terms and concepts in which you have a tenuous understanding, much like him.

[quote=Sezbeth]I'm not sure how you're associating atheism entirely with science. While science may to some degree imply the nonexistence of a deity as man has constructed such, it would be intellectually dishonest to take an absolute stance of certainty in regards to what exactly happened before the Big Bang, deity, none, or somewhere in between. Don't associate the two so closely; doing so exhibits blatant misunderstanding of the scientific body of knowledge.

In regards to your "science can't explain existentialist issues" remark; there's actually an entire field dedicated to mapping out how consciousness and general self awareness manifest themselves. It's called cognitive science, which is a branch of psychology. Cognitive science in its own right is a general term for numerous sub-interdisciplinary fields, which brings me to my next point.

Linguistic science is not an independent discipline separate from other fields. Linguistics, like every other scientific discipline, relates and expands into other fields to form sub-fields, which progressively become more specialized as specification narrows. In the case of linguistics, specific interdisciplinary fields are as follows: psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, sociolinguistics, and many more. Sociolinguistics specifically contributes to the sociological sciences, which in turn, also have specific sub-fields which study media, business, etc. The interactions go on and on. Bring up any of these fields and I can point you to interdisciplinary examples of such, as well as studies in which they've produced.

Also, not that this has much to do with the discussion, but I feel I should point out that linguistics is also a branch of anthropology.

I strongly encourage you to make an attempt to learn how science actually functions before viewing it as some sort of ideology with doctrines and whatnot.[/quote]

Science and atheism: I relate these two not based upon any strict convention, I relate these two because I understand them to be the two dominant forms of the way in which knowledge is validated within society, and while they have been largely helpful, they, combined, can not explain [b]everything[/b], they only chip at the surface of what humans could [b]possibly[/b] understand if we didn't restrict the scope so heavily to (empiricism?), the scientific method. Science and atheism, as well as a form of understanding things, [b]also[/b] have a history, these systematic modes of interpretation, have been, to put it bluntly, been formulated by white men who beat their wives. It all comes from aristotelian and platonic foundational understandings. The future hybridizes western, eastern, northern and southern historical systems of understanding the world, possibly even incorporating spirituality too. Not dogmatic religiousness, but instead, to put it crudely, opening your third eye a little bit.

I'm well aware that there are fields which attempt to blend western existentialist philosophy with other western disciplines. I guess what I'm trying to say is blending different cultural systems to create a new hybrid model of assessing the world which expands the scope of what we as humans can understand by merging the different orders of symbolic relation in historical narratives, rather than inbreeding ourselves so much and eventually crippling, to put it crudely.

[b]the hybrid withstands new and emergent strains of diseases, it is stronger genetically, cross contamination of DNA or whatever[/b]

[quote=Sezbeth]I'm not sure how you're associating atheism entirely with science. While science may to some degree imply the nonexistence of a deity as man has constructed such, it would be intellectually dishonest to take an absolute stance of certainty in regards to what exactly happened before the Big Bang, deity, none, or somewhere in between. Don't associate the two so closely; doing so exhibits blatant misunderstanding of the scientific body of knowledge.

In regards to your "science can't explain existentialist issues" remark; there's actually an entire field dedicated to mapping out how consciousness and general self awareness manifest themselves. It's called cognitive science, which is a branch of psychology. Cognitive science in its own right is a general term for numerous sub-interdisciplinary fields, which brings me to my next point.

Linguistic science is not an independent discipline separate from other fields. Linguistics, like every other scientific discipline, relates and expands into other fields to form sub-fields, which progressively become more specialized as specification narrows. In the case of linguistics, specific interdisciplinary fields are as follows: psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, sociolinguistics, and many more. Sociolinguistics specifically contributes to the sociological sciences, which in turn, also have specific sub-fields which study media, business, etc. The interactions go on and on. Bring up any of these fields and I can point you to interdisciplinary examples of such, as well as studies in which they've produced.

Also, not that this has much to do with the discussion, but I feel I should point out that linguistics is also a branch of anthropology.

I strongly encourage you to make an attempt to learn how science actually functions before viewing it as some sort of ideology with doctrines and whatnot.[/quote]

I learn so much from you < 3

I'm not sure how you're associating atheism entirely with science. While science may to some degree imply the nonexistence of a deity as man has constructed such, it would be intellectually dishonest to take an absolute stance of certainty in regards to what exactly happened before the Big Bang, deity, none, or somewhere in between. Don't associate the two so closely; doing so exhibits blatant misunderstanding of the scientific body of knowledge.

In regards to your "science can't explain existentialist issues" remark; there's actually an entire field dedicated to mapping out how consciousness and general self awareness manifest themselves. It's called cognitive science, which is a branch of psychology. Cognitive science in its own right is a general term for numerous sub-interdisciplinary fields, which brings me to my next point.

Linguistic science is not an independent discipline separate from other fields. Linguistics, like every other scientific discipline, relates and expands into other fields to form sub-fields, which progressively become more specialized as specification narrows. In the case of linguistics, specific interdisciplinary fields are as follows: psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, sociolinguistics, and many more. Sociolinguistics specifically contributes to the sociological sciences, which in turn, also have specific sub-fields which study media, business, etc. The interactions go on and on. Bring up any of these fields and I can point you to interdisciplinary examples of such, as well as studies in which they've produced.

Also, not that this has much to do with the discussion, but I feel I should point out that linguistics is also a branch of anthropology.

I strongly encourage you to make an attempt to learn how science actually functions before viewing it as some sort of ideology with doctrines and whatnot.

This has got to be the trippiest "discussion" I've read in a LONG time. It's somewhat entertaining.

[statement withdrawn]: seeking therapy for behavioral issues and generalized anxiety..

[quote=StrangeVisions]i very strongly disagree with the way language is structured, language influences the way we perceive reality. [/quote]

Any scientist involved in linguistic studies would cringe upon reading this.

[quote=MrPickles]So you hate how the majority of people perceive debatable topics as black and white because you don't like the way governments are structured? Am I reading this correctly?[/quote]

i very strongly disagree with the way language is structured, language influences the way we perceive reality. governments only exist the way they do because of how language has evolved and shaped our way of making sense of the world. governments and other cultural and political institutions are the source from which power flows in society. im not anti-government [i]per se[/i], im anti the governments we have in contemporary world society.

im an anarcho-capitalist, and i believe that there can be a government and society which does function in a way which maintains egalitarian social standards, but i dont believe any government in the world today, even the more liberal ones, even come close to cutting it. i believe that if people collectively reassess language, [b]then[/b] government can be restructured.

im talking about a global existentialist crisis which is coming very soon. i can sense it, things are beginning to develop [b]very rapidly[/b] on a global scale and its only a matter of time before things start getting crazy. i predict within the next 40 years things are going to change [b]very[/b] dramatically.

[b]we are still in the dark ages, and this will become very clear very soon after the upcoming paradigm shift in cultural, social and political relations on a global scale[/b]

late capitalism, laissez faire capitalism as we know it, post-modern liberal democratic individualism, its coming to an end.

the enlightenment was a sham. this concept of god still exists, money has just replaced it as the face. i predict the new society will still have money, but the way we perceive and use money will be far different than now. the way commodities are produced, regulated, distributed and consumed will change, it always has changed, and it will always change. change is the only thing that has ever remained the same throughout history, and change is going to change itself soon too.

[b]think exponential curve[/b]

So you hate how the majority of people perceive debatable topics as black and white because you don't like the way governments are structured? Am I reading this correctly?

I read only the bold parts and didn't understand a thing

Reminds me of that eighth grade kid who used a thesaurus for every two words in his essay.

wow this is a wall of text I may or may not read

edit, il read it all and give you an answer if you give me that name

[quote=Jaredragonx9]he mad that some ppl mad that some ppl dont care about controversial stuffs[/quote]

ok thx

ok i also agree wit u when ppl r like if u r bystander by watchin some1 get beat up u jsut as guilty i think u jst mindin ur business not ur prob but ya ppl these days,,,

But that's just like, your opinion man.

[quote=Killeem]can some1 dumb this down 4 me so i can reply

thx[/quote]

he mad that some ppl mad that some ppl dont care about controversial stuffs

can some1 dumb this down 4 me so i can reply

thx