A conclusion (likely not unique)

[Beanfondler]

Swibf has always put the utmost importance in striving for the absolute truth. This lead to his development of logic-oriented persona of which he feels has and continues to serve him well. He does see there as being a common and blatant hypocrisy exhibited by Swibf and decent share of the ranks of other would be pseudo-intellectuals. Giving credence to his philosophic foundations was that this would only be guilty by association, but also the whistle blower and cleanup crew. This does require a bit of qualification though before it can be received and interpreted as Swibf hopes to portray it. In essence it explores the individual, the species as a whole, and how it is they relate to each other. The individual, he himself as well as all others have the right to the same privileges and as such each individual will effectively not deny this to others without various factors influencing them to do so. This was a sort of roundabout way of describing a portion his previous believes as well as current etc.. In what he intends to discuss the stereotypical "freedom" or right to the privileges that are inherent in what it is to be an individual will be extrapolated to represent prosperity/happiness and such. He doesn't see that this would be much of a stretch, but feel free to call him on lack of evidence.

The discovery his own hypocrisy even with his resolute intent of submitting himself to the a greater level of critical analysis than anyone else it still only became evident evident after seeing it as being a component of just about all others even beyond the pseudo-intellect types. On a side note he thinks it really sucks how difficult it is to objectively judge one's self, Swibf means its sort of difficult take the philosophic high ground and administer a lecture to one's self while at the same time admitting to exhibit the opposite role. Anyhow this is probably the best way to summarize what his conclusions after not having discovered his hypocrisy, but finally reaching a point where it was illogical to justify or belittle it.

The individual to achieve ideal happiness ie what it is to be an individual is absolutely contingent that of the collective species' ideal happiness; which further can only be so after the individual as well as the species completely have and prioritize a the following concept... The individual and the collective are one in the same... No matter the traditional ways there could be differentiation Swiy1, Swiy2, Swiy3, ...... 2342, Swibf are one or simply that the interest of Swiy1both dependent and independent of the existence Swicollective as well as that of Swi*every combo* will all have an ideal that equates or is the same no matter.

Since Swibf is pretty sure that made a minimal amount of sense he thinks this should work better... Swindividual can only be an individual when they see themselves as Swicollective.

So what it was that he finally allowed the analysis of was they way in which he saw other individuals. Specifically the stupidity of others being the source of Swicollective's problems and by association Swibf's. But no it wasn't that Swiy#s or Swicollective or Swibf for that matter was stupid, poor, fat, ugly, black, eskimo, etc... etc... That prevented the ideal happiness from being acheived, it was rather Swi*'s and their perception of the previously listed attributes as being something that could possibly remove them and or anyone/group from the collective and thus removing all.

Swibf knows why he hadn't allowed this revelation to occupy his mind before. This notion of being genuine, caring, loving, cookie-tray-in-the-back-pocket-turn-your-frown-upsides-down mof*ckers made Swibf f*cking sick and even though he believes this to be the absolute truth; set and programmed in his old ways he can't see how they won't continue to make him sick or even worse that the prospect of him allowing this philosophy to have major authority in his actions will never happen(not probable from what he thinks). This again is an input and an output of the dilemma Swibf will not enter the needed posture while he can see Swi34563 taking advantage of Swicollective's trust etc. The second that thought enters Swibfs mind all progress comes shattering down to the polar opposite of the ideal happiness.




Edit: Essentially he thinks this suggests he is of the opinion that there is no such thing as a Utopian society unless it is one without life or at least how those who would benefit from this thought would portray life to him.
Edit 2: To expand on why he thinks its not going to happen the simple distrust Swibf has for Swi# will not allow the transformation.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	I'll enjoy watching you further grapple with this age old conundrum ;)
	good to see people taking constructive advice

[Beanfondler]

Swibf sees a potential fountain of discussion though he may be delusional to that end. Anyone else have similar epiphanies? Did it alter your life to any extent there after beyond the parameters of your philosophic hypothetical mind?

[~lostgurl~]

Maybe a more descriptive thread title would bring more viewers. Also I find your bold font hard to read so others may have the same trouble.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Thanks for the incite.

[Mr. Giraffe]

Also, I don't mean to be unkind, but I couldn't make sense of the sentences. The meaning is not at all clear. Perhaps this, combined with the lenght of the post accounts for the lack of response.

[Beanfondler]

Swibfs far from a word wizard, between the abstract nature of the topic and his short comings as an individual he'd still venture to say that it meets if not surpasses the norm present on these forums. The especially nonsensical portions are explained away shortly after as being such. The intent of it is not hard for one to find, but Swibf may just be more accustomed to similar ramblings.

[stoneinfocus]

I think I can make some sense of it, but I think the enviroment and the actions of the collective and the individual on it is altering the enviroment, which will change the influence of the collective on the enivoment, on the individual and it´s collective srtucture and that of the induvidual itself.

I think, one could read the UNA-Bomber manifest, abstracts are of little use, if they are not nailed onto real-life experiences and from there on then logically related to any other similar problem, and this by anyone with the sameo one logic reuslt (this is scientific working and 3rd party verification: the results stay the same when they are going to be proven by any party, because the results are true).

I find most truth, in getting to the most possible and underlying cause of a problem, or in seeing the main results in opposition to the intentions and question the intentions, with their executing methologies, on their liability to the true result.

[Beanfondler]

The thing that Swibf realized is that he cannot worry about the actions of members of the collective in order to reach the desirable. Though he sees this as something he'll not be able to allow himself to do. This would be the barrier to entry that all face and the problem is that a majority would have to pass it as one to yield the ideal. Once that is achieved the collective would act as one to quell the actions of the few.

[MrG]

Ok, I'll have go.

In a nushell and by all means correct me if I missed the point but:

Your point appears to center on the premise of a unified concept of pursuing "happiness" - unfortunately you seem to miss the point that one man's heaven can be another man's hell, so there is nothing to be achieved through the "collective".

One should pursue "quality" (read Zen and the art of motorcycle maintainance for a more in depth coverage of that concept) in life.

Therein lies the answer you seek.

I think.

[stoneinfocus]

You are not the collective, the collective is working for you and you are working for the collective, which is then better to separate (thus autonomicity of the private life) and vive versy, to generalize.

If everyone was happy with the efforts he puts into the collective, because he could then pursue his own happiness.. which might be another man´s hell, but who bothered, if everony had his own heaven.

This would then result in a collective happiness, strenghthening the collective´s efftivness and productivity, because then, everyone might find his heaven in the best compromise of the both, working in and for the collective and for himself. (maybe not even a compromise, but a full blown expression of statisfation, energy and happienss in this combination, in the best cases) and the good thing about that is: even if the collective work might be a chore, sometimes, anyone would respect the happieness of one- another and wouldn´t bother with the time, doing the chore.

This is a kind of thinking, we´ve (or wanted to, or were said that we were going to)built our society on, and were wishing, this was already true, or believe it had already become true, but unfortunately, for the greed´s sake of some and us, most likely denying being tricked by these evil greedy mechanism of some "superior" elite, we take a lot more suffering and are doing worse under their say and are living a lie and are unhappy with our work and why our children are fat, asthmatic, lazy and desintegrated, aggressive, fascitsoid, arrogant and dumb.

At the same time, we´re more praying, than knowking, that this was how it should be and the only way to go and are unwilling to thinking-through alternatives and trying them, with the same effort and opitmization and idealism we´re now forced to apply to the existing system.

[Beanfondler]

Swibf will have to go into it further later, but he still thinks that his ability to be an individual i.e. what he equated as being happiness is one and the same with the collective's. The zen business at first glance he would assume would have to deal with spiritual happiness which wouldn't be what he was trying to get at, when he's got a moment he'll have to verify that.

[Heretic.Ape.]

I'm trying to follow this. So is the basic premise that there is a universal human means to happiness and that once everybody is in step with that we have utopia (fascist ideology) or that when everyone is doing their own things for relative happiness, there naturally arises an overall harmony like some emergent property (an almost Crowlian "do what thou wilt" type thing)? Or am I drunk and missing what's going on completely?
Or actually it appears to be fairly standard democratic ideology of "majority naturally means better"?
I have the feeling one of us isn't fully coherent right now and it's probably me. I'll come back later.

[Beanfondler]

More or less that Swibf's absolute freedom/happiness is only possible if the Collective is completely has complete freedom as well. For there to be any deprivation of freedoms of anyone individual no one else can possibly be free/happy. Swibf extends that to his freedom/happiness equating to that of the collectives ability to be free/happy. Probably not as deep as one would potentially think, but this also means that any bullshit labels, race, status, all of it cannot mean a thing. Not in the socialist sense, but rather in the way individuals see themselves relating to others. There can be socioeconomic differences, but for the ideal to be so those statuses cannot be seen by the various components of the collective as anything that would present a difference in the two different classes freedom/happiness. The individual can only be the individual to the fullest extent i.e. ideal happiness if they/the collective see every individual's/ the collective's as one in the same. Not that all would be the same, but rather the collective would be made up of the fullest individuality.

To summarize Swibf guesses he is describing the ideal as a republic with empathetic and selfless(scratch that doesn't necessarily apply) individuals which ultimately is a product of self-interest.

[stoneinfocus]

the premise is, that no individual form of happiness or ideology, shall be forced onto others or has to be seen as superior to antother.

The collective´s output of wealth, must be in consent with its distribution and
appliciability to the individual needs, so that a free individual will see a perfect sense in working in and for the collective, as if he would work for his own happiness and needs.

There shall not be the slightest incompliance with the production of the collective and its distribution of wealth, i.e. giving certain groups or individuals major (dis)advantages in pursueing their happiness, by the use of the resources for the creation of goods, which are unnecessary and favour disbalancies in the equal distribution of resources, manpower and wealth.

This can be calculated by the total of resources we have in work capacities and energy; the output and the prices of products shall be made up from an extrapolation of workpower and the equal share of costs for providing resources; so no unequal distribution of money (= extrapolated worth of energy, transformed to products and services, by machines and manpower), but total devotion of the system to the collective´s and individual´s needs, thus total equanity.
Some pink-golden cell phones might not be found anymore, except if enough people were willing to possess one and the possibilities and resources for producing them were given (again, no commercial winning, but just a share, in fact most of the system would remain the same, in the economical demand-production sense, there was just no wasting anything, anymore or any disbalancies, like, e.g. providing gender transfere surgerys, but no general helath care, from health insurancies).

stoneinfocus added 17 Minutes and 3 Seconds later...

Waste = a giant investor ruins the African/Colombian market, by importing ores, oil, etc. makes a big win, invests in a facility, which will produce pink-golden cell phones, so the money is in the investor´s homecountry. The jobs created, will make people earn money and buy pink-golden cell phones, from their tiny, hard earned share of the investor´s stolen money, while Africa / or Colombia is being wasted in mud and poverty.

Suddenly, there´s not a big enough win from the cell phones, the people in teh facility are fired and the money is saved by the investor. Then, the politicians will "find a need to help" Africa or Colombia to fight the misery created, so they will buy from our taxe money fire arms and chemicals, which are now being produced by the former oil and cell-phone investor´s money, of which he had bought a share of Heckler&Koch(tm) and MerckOrange(tm), especially Pfizer´s departement of chemical warfare is now very well funded, while the money is missing for, e.g., HIV or cheap medicine and other research, but this is paid by the people´s insurance money, thus, by the individual, anyway. A win-win situation for them.

[~lostgurl~]

I watched A Perfect Mind last night with Russell Crowe and I thought of this thread. He (John Nash) was looking for a new theory / mathematical equation when a hot blond woman walked into the bar with 4 of her friends. His 4 friends all wanted to score the blond woman, but he realised that if they all did what they wanted they would all try to score the blond woman but none would succeed, then they would all try to score the 4 friends, but again they would not succeed because nobody likes being second best. But if they did what was good for themselves and good for the collective, they would all go straight for her friends and they would all succeed.

[Beanfondler]

Swibf thinks a broader connection to the Collective is being assumed than he intends. He claims that absolute freedom or individuality is not the only ticket to happiness, but that specific component which most other aspects of happiness are founded on and or associated... Swibf/Swiy will never be absolutley free while any other member of the collective is not also. The racial, etc.. w/e is all none sense that perpetuates the individual's and the collective's mental barrier to what they desire.

While Swibfs got a Lennin, Marx, Moa T-shirt he'd have nothing of the sort in his government.

[stoneinfocus]

Sure nothing is absolute, absolute onlyis a standardized convention to a system.If teh system changes, the former sense of absolute changes. All is relative, and I wouldn´t want to be misinterpreted as being a communist, it´s just, that the solution lies in chanigin the standard, to which absolute would be appluied again and the solution lies within the advantages odf communism and capitalism. Hell, you could make a better society, by using sadistic assholes, to let young people feel for a while, how it is, being misused, for no reason at all. under controlled conditions, and them set them free to tehri normal world, which they then will use wiser and happier, than before.The sadist and the rest of the community were served to their best.