Sexuality, Human Expression, and Personhood

[The Federal Republic of Simonia]

Well someone believes in traditional gender roles....


But seriously, why return to 50s style family models?

Hey Simonia.

Ello Pan, it's certainly been a while

[Pandeeria]

Hey Simonia.

Ello Pan, it's certainly been a while

Indeed a long while.

[Seperates]

I can't see how totalitarianism is being set in motion, if it is then it's being done very strategically and subtly or unintentionally.

No, it not. Separates was saying that the extremely vague way you phrased it, essentially most countries already are totalitarian.

Not 'totalitarian', but on the wheel of fate, moving purposefully toward an unspecified goal. Following the cultural super-organic, if you will.

[Pandeeria]

No, it not. Separates was saying that the extremely vague way you phrased it, essentially most countries already are totalitarian.

Not 'totalitarian', but on the wheel of fate, moving purposefully toward an unspecified goal. Following the superorganic, if you will.

Not you too, Seperates

[Shie]

The idea that people need to be led by any institution is how the state came to be, without that belief(regarded as fact) there would be no state.

So you're conceding? You just said without the belief that people need to be led by an institution is how the state came to be.

Ignoring the vagueness, you're saying without people ruling others there would not be a state.

Not necessarily, the relationship you're describing is a master/slave dichotomy where people rule one another. The ruled and the rulers. In a representative democracy the dictator isn't a human being. A state can exist without people ruling others, by "representing" them instead. The dictator in representative 'democracy' is the idea that people can adequately be represented by other people or even need to be.

[Pandeeria]

So you're conceding? You just said without the belief that people need to be led by an institution is how the state came to be.

Ignoring the vagueness, you're saying without people ruling others there would not be a state.

Not necessarily, the relationship you're describing is a master/slave dichotomy where people rule one another. The ruled and the rulers. In a representative democracy the dictator isn't a human being. A state can exist without people ruling others, by "representing" them instead. The dictator in representative 'democracy' is the idea that people can adequately be represented by other people.

Which means in theory there is no rulers, however in practice in a Totalitarian state there needs to be leaders. In a representative Democracy the representatives are the leaders. A state cannot exist with leadership.

[Seperates]

Not 'totalitarian', but on the wheel of fate, moving purposefully toward an unspecified goal. Following the superorganic, if you will.

Not you too, Seperates

*laughs* Ok, enough with the vague phrasing.

Seriously though, this 'super-organic' is a concept within anthropology. I encourage you to look it up. While not all that popular anymore within modern anthropological studies, it is an interesting theoretical standpoint to use when looking at cultural history and the functioning between culture and the individual. What Shie is proposing is essentially creating a cultural 'super-organic' that is above human meddling, thus incorruptible.

Unfortunately, the concept of creating a super-organic completely breaks the idea of the super-organic, as it creates a paradox, as the one thing that makes the super-organic different than culture is that individuals, societies, and even governments cannot alter it. If you can alter it, it is corruptible,

[Shie]

No, it not. Separates was saying that the extremely vague way you phrased it, essentially most countries already are totalitarian.

Not 'totalitarian', but on the wheel of fate, moving purposefully toward an unspecified goal. Following the cultural super-organic, if you will.

The unspecified goal of 'freedom' is what keeps people together by allowing them to retain an individual identity while not allowing the individual identity to dissipate as a means to the end which should be totalitarianism.

[Pandeeria]

Not you too, Seperates

*laughs* Ok, enough with the vague phrasing.

Seriously though, this 'super-organic' is a concept within anthropology. I encourage you to look it up. While not all that popular anymore within modern anthropological studies, it is an interesting theoretical standpoint to use when looking at cultural history and the functioning between culture and the individual. What Shie is proposing is essentially creating a cultural 'super-organic' that is above human meddling, thus incorruptible.

Unfortunately, the concept of creating a super-organic completely breaks the idea of the super-organic, as it creates a paradox, as the one thing that makes the super-organic different than culture is that individuals, societies, and even governments cannot alter it. If you can alter it, it is corruptible,

Wait, so in a super-organic is everyone ruled more by a concept then an actual person?

[Seperates]

Not 'totalitarian', but on the wheel of fate, moving purposefully toward an unspecified goal. Following the cultural super-organic, if you will.

The unspecified goal of 'freedom' is what keeps people together by allowing them to retain an individual identity while not allowing the individual identity to dissipate as a means to the end which should be totalitarianism.

Can you restate that? I don't quite understand what you are saying.

[Shie]

Not necessarily, the relationship you're describing is a master/slave dichotomy where people rule one another. The ruled and the rulers. In a representative democracy the dictator isn't a human being. A state can exist without people ruling others, by "representing" them instead. The dictator in representative 'democracy' is the idea that people can adequately be represented by other people.

Which means in theory there is no rulers, however in practice in a Totalitarian state there needs to be leaders. In a representative Democracy the representatives are the leaders. A state cannot exist with leadership.

without leadership? A long lasting state perpetuates itself when its "leaders" and populace believe its own lies/myth/stories which justify legitimatly held charismatic authority set in place by the original leader who set the leviathan in motion. Future totalitarian leaders more often then not believe the founding myth of their regime while authoritarian regimes which are usually unjust don't usually have founder myths because the presence of charismatic authority in most authoritarian regimes is low.

[Mollary]

Oh look, the 'I find gentiles offensive' crowd. No, the state should not legislate morality as people have the right to make their own decisions when it doesn't affect the lives of others (negatively).

[Pandeeria]

The unspecified goal of 'freedom' is what keeps people together by allowing them to retain an individual identity while not allowing the individual identity to dissipate as a means to the end which should be totalitarianism.

Can you restate that? I don't quite understand what you are saying.

My best attempt at translating it:

The unspecified goal of freedom is what keeps people united. It allows the united people to all have a identity while still allowing everyone to their own individual identity. Destroying the right for all individuals to have their own identity it just a tactic to a goal, and the said goal should be and is totalitarianism.

[Shie]

*laughs* Ok, enough with the vague phrasing.

Seriously though, this 'super-organic' is a concept within anthropology. I encourage you to look it up. While not all that popular anymore within modern anthropological studies, it is an interesting theoretical standpoint to use when looking at cultural history and the functioning between culture and the individual. What Shie is proposing is essentially creating a cultural 'super-organic' that is above human meddling, thus incorruptible.

Unfortunately, the concept of creating a super-organic completely breaks the idea of the super-organic, as it creates a paradox, as the one thing that makes the super-organic different than culture is that individuals, societies, and even governments cannot alter it. If you can alter it, it is corruptible,

Wait, so in a super-organic is everyone ruled more by a concept then an actual person?

YES! When that concept is taken literally totalitarianism then becomes justified in pursuit of actually realizing this concept.

[Seperates]

*laughs* Ok, enough with the vague phrasing.

Seriously though, this 'super-organic' is a concept within anthropology. I encourage you to look it up. While not all that popular anymore within modern anthropological studies, it is an interesting theoretical standpoint to use when looking at cultural history and the functioning between culture and the individual. What Shie is proposing is essentially creating a cultural 'super-organic' that is above human meddling, thus incorruptible.

Unfortunately, the concept of creating a super-organic completely breaks the idea of the super-organic, as it creates a paradox, as the one thing that makes the super-organic different than culture is that individuals, societies, and even governments cannot alter it. If you can alter it, it is corruptible,

Wait, so in a super-organic is everyone ruled more by a concept then an actual person?

Hmmm... Calling it 'a super-organic' would be misconstruing the concept. Theoretically, we all live within 'the' super-organic, which dictates the way we dress, create, talk, etc. It is driven by humans, but not subject to them. Think of it like laws of physics. The super-organic has unspoken laws and rules that operate through all times and spaces, but rather than laws of gravity, they are laws of behavior and societal development. It's not simply an idea, it is the path that we are destined to follow, the patterns of history.

I'm not a big fan of it, for much the same reasons I am not a card-carrying member for Cognitive Dissonance Theory. It's not because I don't think it has valid points... it's because I think is too reductive. It uses too little to explain too much, and is therefore unhelpful in terms of framing research questions.

As for a society ruled by a concept than an actual person, all societies are that. People stand in to represent the ruling concept and lead, but without people believing in the concept itself nobody would follow the leader.

[Pandeeria]

Which means in theory there is no rulers, however in practice in a Totalitarian state there needs to be leaders. In a representative Democracy the representatives are the leaders. A state cannot exist with leadership.

without leadership? A long lasting state perpetuates itself when its "leaders" and populace believe its own lies/myth/stories which justify legitimatly held charismatic authority set in place by the original leader who set the leviathan in motion. Future totalitarian leaders more often then not believe the founding myth of their regime while authoritarian regimes which are usually unjust don't usually have founder myths because the presence of charismatic authority in most authoritarian regimes is low.

Explain how in a authoritarian/totalitarian regime there doesn't has to be leaders.

There has to be a chain of command under a totalitarianism. Without it the state has no power. The people might believe there is a person in power but without orders the society will fail because there is no leadership.

[Pandeeria]

Wait, so in a super-organic is everyone ruled more by a concept then an actual person?

Hmmm... Calling it 'a super-organic' would be misconstruing the concept. Theoretically, we all live within 'the' super-organic, which dictates the way we dress, create, talk, etc. It is driven by humans, but not subject to them. Think of it like laws of physics. The super-organic has unspoken laws and rules that operate through all times and spaces, but rather than laws of gravity, they are laws of behavior and societal development. It's not simply an idea, it is the path that we are destined to follow, the patterns of history.

I'm not a big fan of it, for much the same reasons I am not a card-carrying member for Cognitive Dissonance Theory. It's not because I don't think it has valid points... it's because I think is too reductive. It uses too little to explain too much, and is therefore unhelpful in terms of framing research questions.

As for a society ruled by a concept than an actual person, all societies are that. People stand in to represent the ruling concept and lead, but without people believing in the concept itself nobody would follow the leader.

But isn't that what a super organic is? You said yourself a super organic dictates the way we dress, talk, etc. Could the way we dress and talk be the concept and then we abide by it?

[Pandeeria]

Wait, so in a super-organic is everyone ruled more by a concept then an actual person?

YES! When that concept is taken literally totalitarianism then becomes justified in pursuit of actually realizing this concept.

So totalitarianism needs to be used in order to justify totalitarianism?

[Seperates]

Wait, so in a super-organic is everyone ruled more by a concept then an actual person?

YES! When that concept is taken literally totalitarianism then becomes justified in pursuit of actually realizing this concept.

But one cannot fully destroy identity. It is, and I mean this quite literally, impossible. I'm not even talking ethics. I could care less about ethics. The fact is that people will always find something to call their own and claim it, thus creating individuality within the totalitarian system.

After-all, you yourself advocated for the idea of a nuclear family. That is an identity. "I am a Father" "That is my Mother" "My Cousin" "My Aunt", those are all things which structure society. You cannot have both.

[Seperates]

Hmmm... Calling it 'a super-organic' would be misconstruing the concept. Theoretically, we all live within 'the' super-organic, which dictates the way we dress, create, talk, etc. It is driven by humans, but not subject to them. Think of it like laws of physics. The super-organic has unspoken laws and rules that operate through all times and spaces, but rather than laws of gravity, they are laws of behavior and societal development. It's not simply an idea, it is the path that we are destined to follow, the patterns of history.

I'm not a big fan of it, for much the same reasons I am not a card-carrying member for Cognitive Dissonance Theory. It's not because I don't think it has valid points... it's because I think is too reductive. It uses too little to explain too much, and is therefore unhelpful in terms of framing research questions.

As for a society ruled by a concept than an actual person, all societies are that. People stand in to represent the ruling concept and lead, but without people believing in the concept itself nobody would follow the leader.

But isn't that what a super organic is? You said yourself a super organic dictates the way we dress, talk, etc. Could the way we dress and talk be the concept and then we abide by it?

The concept is a product of the super-organic, not the super-organic itself. The concept itself changes with time. The super-organic does not.

The equation F=M x A is the super organic. The concept comes out of those variables.

[Shie]

without leadership? A long lasting state perpetuates itself when its "leaders" and populace believe its own lies/myth/stories which justify legitimatly held charismatic authority set in place by the original leader who set the leviathan in motion. Future totalitarian leaders more often then not believe the founding myth of their regime while authoritarian regimes which are usually unjust don't usually have founder myths because the presence of charismatic authority in most authoritarian regimes is low.

Explain how in a authoritarian/totalitarian regime there doesn't has to be leaders.

There has to be a chain of command under a totalitarianism. Without it the state has no power. The people might believe there is a person in power but without orders the society will fail because there is no leadership.

I'm saying that under authoritarianism charismatic authority(for clarifications sake, charismatic authority = personality cult) isn't a necessity while a personality cult is necessary under totalitarianism. The object of worship under the personality cult can be the leader or head of state. The head of state is often as much of a believer in their own propaganda as the people of their society unless this leader is the founder of the regime who knows that their foundational propaganda stories are really just a myth designed to bring about to consolidate power, the end goal being totalitarianism.

[Pandeeria]

But isn't that what a super organic is? You said yourself a super organic dictates the way we dress, talk, etc. Could the way we dress and talk be the concept and then we abide by it?

The concept is a product of the super-organic, not the super-organic itself. The concept itself changes with time. The super-organic does not.

This entire realm of politics and society sucks.

The Super-organic must die painfully. Good thing it never existed.

[Pandeeria]

Explain how in a authoritarian/totalitarian regime there doesn't has to be leaders.

There has to be a chain of command under a totalitarianism. Without it the state has no power. The people might believe there is a person in power but without orders the society will fail because there is no leadership.

I'm saying that under authoritarianism charismatic authority(for clarifications sake, charismatic authority = personality cult) isn't a necessity while a personality cult is necessary under totalitarianism. The object of worship under the personality cult can be the leader or head of state. The head of state is often as much of a believer in their own propaganda as the people of their society unless this leader is the founder of the regime who knows that their foundational propaganda stories are really just a myth designed to bring about to consolidate power, the end goal being totalitarianism.

This thread has became a cluster fuck of questions, vague paraphrasing, Stalin & Mussolini, Society, and Totalitarianism.

Why do you like totalitarianism?

[Shie]

YES! When that concept is taken literally totalitarianism then becomes justified in pursuit of actually realizing this concept.

So totalitarianism needs to be used in order to justify totalitarianism?

Propaganda needs to be used in order to justify totalitarianism.

[Pandeeria]

So totalitarianism needs to be used in order to justify totalitarianism?

Propaganda needs to be used in order to justify totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism has never worked. Brutal oppression of all individuality is never justified.