freedom +/vs.belonging
 

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

precisely, genes are just random pieces of code hashing it out just like everything else.



any (perceived) teleology is simply the product of natural selection; genes ("individual" genes if you will) have no great agenda and don't coordinate your actions as an alien reptilian conspiracy.

the sense of individuality is a product of those genes (some of them anyway). this is mostly because individuals make good gene packets.

but where i think you're misreading i think is in seeing a direct line between a one-party one-leader gene conspiracy and predetermined action-- it's not like that, it's more of a genetic melee and its interactions with the environment.

also there is such thing as emergent systems-- that sense of individuality for example.

which is what makes things like suicide or cancer possible (suicide doesn't "spread genes"). one level of organization at odds with another. it's not all linear and cohesive at all.

but true, true, true enough, the genes don't care one shit about the individual either-- maybe it's the species, maybe it's the whole mass of dna, but more likely there is no privileged anything and it's just formations and disintegrations-- no agenda of any kind.

for a comparable model read up on the "pandemonium" theory of the mind. or old chinese medicine, where the body is nearly nothing other than the cooperation or competition of various "organs". (or the greeks and their humor theory)

the sense of will/ etc is not one with the underlying genes. they are clashing all the time because even the underlying genes are clashing all the time.



but of course not. i like a healthy distance though.


oh, this reminds me of that trite shit people say in speeches about the chinese character (blech), but true enough even if trite, it's an opportunity of sorts-- to create a living space the way i fucking want.

to put it in a way that you can immediately relate to (since you've mentioned your own project), i am trying to make human need soylent. and i realized there is a necessary tradeoff between those two needs (identity + freedom) as defined in that list , kinda like in the way copper and zinc or calcium and magnesium or sodium and potassium need a certain balance-- too much of one or too little of the other makes you sick or kills you.

in other words, i'm making an economic calculation to fit my particular needs. which is harder to estimate than minerals. and i realized that i value "freedom" (delicious) a whole fuckton more than i value "identity" (which in other than small doses gives me rashes). power (which isn't mentioned in the list) is a kind of violator for me actually because it gets me deeper into group identity and severely limits my choices.

tl;dr; i need lots of elbow room

well as long as your isolation doesn't disempower your chances of survival.

the only lesson i was trying to impart is that SERIOUS isolation, which i have experience of, will cause insanity and incurable depression that can only be lifted by reentering some sort of group. casual drinking groups or whatever are not enough.

it seems we are moving in a direction where people barely even have friends anymore, and even talking to someone is taken as the same thing as wanting to fuck them. very depressing. every social circle i've been in in recent years has been worse than hell, since they were engaging in groupthink and suicidal behaviour with substances etc.

i cant even pretend to know how to solve these problems.

this is all happening at a time when reproduction rates are going down amongst us white folk, and especially amongst us rich and middle class folks. most of the racism i see stems from a deep jealously of the real or imagined community solidarity the racial groups are unconsciously thought to posses.

we dont even really have places left were you can go just to discuss things with people. there are just a few highly competitive and highly hedonistic bar type places where you go to bleed money and have one night stands.

i can see no way this process is suddenly going to reverse.

i am really envious of christians because they at least have some sort of trace of community.

apparently in my town people have started going to the psych ward on CHRISTMAS DAY just because they are so lonely and have nowhere else to go. that's really sad.

most suicides happen over the winter holidays. people get depressed

hyuk hyuk

Yeah, I saw you retracted later and got less troll more serious, but I couldn't resist. As to Kurt, people abusing drugs tend not to be in their right minds, we can't judge them to harshly or even seriously, the chaos that becomes their lives doesn't entirely fit into easily analyzed template. Also, I think you touched on my point about the wealthy and elite..

those we are so determined to save from judgement are often those we have absolutely no respect for in the first place.

Yes, but part of the support system we're discussing is directly working to help people, and since folks like ourselves were not in anyway a part of his own support system, any judgments we pass, good or bad, are just needless meddling gossip. As to the wealthy? Its gossip too. I was just discussing with !@#$%!'s point, and your agreement, that wealth or power might bridge the gap between freedom and the human need for belonging to others which by definition limits personal freedom and empowers other people. Wealth or power alone can't do this, and if anything might hinder such, rather individual readjustment and applied effort to build and sustain supportive relationships will suffice. You will inherently sacrifice freedoms, but you will gain all the more. Even evolutionarily speaking, human beings are social mammals, we can't survive independent of each other. We must sacrifice aspects of ourselves for the benefit of the group, it is the basis of survival of the fittest for social mammals like ourselves. Shit, even isolated or solitary creatures have to momentarily yield to etiquette when on those few occasions they interact with their own kind, in order to reproduce. No reproduction? Evolutionary dead end. In social mammals, even those who never reproduce still contribute to the overall group, and maintain a critical role in the success of the species, even if not directly contributing offspring to the gene pool. Plus, DNA isn't everything, genes simply lay out options and potentialities, its the interaction with real life and the environment which determine those which are activated, and those which will remain dormant.

on the contrary, i think. i've loved cities for a long time but it's kinda the way one loves a pricey whore-- satisfaction isn't ever fully realized and you always have to pay and pay and pay and if you run out of money the love is gone. whereas now i'm spending the summer in the middle of nowhere and i'm enjoying it more the more i do it-- at first it's harsh, but then you settle into a satisfaction you can feel in your bones. so i'm considering staying for the long run (which is why the soylent recipe must be completed soon)

of course the fracking company could show up tomorrow and fuck it all up for good.



oh, i have a family-- and some animals-- hA!



funny thing, couple of years ago i'm in new york, of all places, and i'm positively drunk on beer in some brewery playing darts with a bunch of international people, bunch of people i don't even know but it's all friendly, and i start talking to this dogfaced american lady who's hovering around us, because i'm not prejudiced with looks and i'll be friendly with anyone, and suddenly she acts like i'm trying to hit on her and i say ARE YOU FUCKING DEMENTED? i didn't tell her she was dogfaced or anything about her looks, but man, i made fun of her social incompetence, i didn't say or do anything remotely sexual except maybe be my hot manly self, but no, she had to fucking go there for no reason. idiot!


it's an experiment! have fun with it.


i grew up middle class but i'm not "white" but rather a full transcontinental mongrel and i married a brown savage and in my country of birth all "races" interfuck, but i read this yesterday which you might find hilarious:

http://gawker.com/video-of-violent-r...re-o-954939719




gotta say, the latin american middle class where i grew up was pretty highly educated relative to income, so while there were of course all those places to snort coke and act like an suntanned idiot, there were plenty of boho places full of nerdy leftists and street musicians and all kinds of people who were sincere in their experiments. which made it possible to stay up till 6am talking about all kinds of revolutions and singing cuban folk songs and other stereotypical latin-american boho bullshit. but silly as it was, it was enjoyable. that's something one can't find in 'merica-- but i have a couple of friends i can do that with--at home of course, because public places are utter shit here.

by the way, scientists are far more interesting and open-minded than humanities people. check them out if you can.


hence the need for need soylent!


ew. seriously.


i know i say this a lot and i really hope it doesn't sound patronizing like it might in other contexts, but you really really really need to travel, even if only to be able to pick and choose some refreshing/useful/fortifying cultural memes (in the dawkins sense, not the internet sense) before they are wiped out from the planet by anglosaxon capitalism.

I disagree.


Barely able to understand that.

You can order soylent online, I highly recommend it, or make it your self. It would be a good idea to learn how to make it, then store supplies of it for the long term. That's what I plan to do anyway.


the body politic has been infected with juggaloism - as evidenced by the young mans cry of 'woop woop' at the end. my ceaseless calls for a genocide of this group can be ignored no longer.


the only thing anglosaxon capitalisms still capable wiping out is anyone who opposes its senile decline into hell. and innocent muslim women and children.

also - dont have travel money, wont have travel money for a while, but will consider it.

oh, i love "real" food too much, if anything i'll be able to eat more "wild" food if i proceed in this route (grass fed cows! deer! wabbits!). the soylent i meant was the "fundamental need soylent", i.e., to construct a life that satisfies all fundamental human needs without the added fillers and bullshit (especially at the social level).

of course it's an absurd plan, but i like experiments-- even when they fail, they are useful.

good luck

ha! i'll need it for sure. thanks!

ps anyway my original point (retranslated) was that maybe nietzsche's will to power is just the will to freedom up in arms when it encounters an obstacle-- e.g. social resistance, gravity, etc.