- Welcome to abreaction.
heresy against conformity
Recent posts
#1
sense / Re: Platonism
Last post by prime - Today at 05:22 AMWe finally learned last year that most of humanity has no "inner narrative," and I think it is safe to conclude that very few of them wrestle with any big problems whatsoever. They are there for what is convenient and makes them feel good, and anything else they backfill rationalize.
#2
Reply to Daniel
I am replying here, as the directions seemed to be.
Nothing I am aware of but personally, I favor reaching "enlightenment" in a natural state, substance-free, tech-free, gimmick-free.
It depends. Intuitively, some interventions make more sense than others. Life extension, quality of life, reproductive health and fitness, absolutely. Turning humans into machine-hooked vegetables? Probably not.
People of higher caliber - meaning intelligence, realism, big picture thinkers, natural leaders (and empaths, believe it or not). Creating policies and incentives to prevent the struggling and defective from reproducing requires compassion. Part of that is letting natural selection take its course, with an emphasis on female choice unconstrained by fear of starving. It's a much more finely-tuned eugenic mechanism than male choice.
We might have some disagreement here. I see little evidence that most individuals wrestle with those kinds of things. Most stay on script.
A majority, probably. The higher-minded ones tend to want to rise above ham.
Oh, definitely. I recognize the right to subjectivity, in fact, I insist on it; but until I see evidence that animals and animal-like humans are capable of experiencing the kind of conscious love that rises above ham, I reserve the right to see it as inferior/primitive type of love.
I'd have to read more on those before opining.
But once again, my skepticism towards "choice" in the presence of high social pressures and constraints remains.
Note, for example, attitudes towards smart phone use. When the practice reaches a critical mass, the 'choice' to NOT use it acquires increasingly dire consequences. Choice is never outside of social context, so legitimate alternatives and structures must be created, maintained, and culturally defended.
Forcing is rarely required. Social epidemics basically never fail to deliver which is why a counter-epidemic is necessary for choice to continue to exist. Individuals cannot make atomized choices.
I can't have a feeling of indifference knowing how much harm, waste, disruption, destruction and obstruction the overgrown masses of lower humans create unintentionally. This is where I can relate to frustrations with the "lolberts" (lol). We can't out-of-sight-out-of-mind the consumptive masses. They are ultimately innocent in their unintentional harm, but that doesn't change reality. This is why I want them well, then out.
I can't think of myself as a "good woman" since I don't subscribe to universal conceptions of morality. Maybe someone effective who refuses gratuitous cruelty. Otherwise, I may be gold for some, disaster for others, it all depends on "truths," interpretations and goodness-of-fit. I am a fanatic of freedom of association and compatibilism in a wider and deeper sense. We can only be "good" to birds-of-a-feather.
QuoteHello [ ], adding your personal email here, since sadly, the mailinglist will
be/has ended, so just want to be sure you get my reply even if the mailinglist
is no more.
I am replying here, as the directions seemed to be.
Quote>> But perhaps this experience was meant to be achieved consciously and
>> deliberately, and then to be integrated into our core being? So that if we
>> continuously "pound the drum of god" we'll eventually harm ourselves?
>
> It becomes talisman that prevents connection to reality, so I'd say yes.
Hmm... I wonder if there is any research into this?
Nothing I am aware of but personally, I favor reaching "enlightenment" in a natural state, substance-free, tech-free, gimmick-free.
QuoteDo you believe in stretching or eliminating the limitations of nature? Or is
your definition of "nature" so wide as to mean the utmost and final limits of
nature and physics, given what we can do with science?
Or do you view science and technology with suspicion?
It depends. Intuitively, some interventions make more sense than others. Life extension, quality of life, reproductive health and fitness, absolutely. Turning humans into machine-hooked vegetables? Probably not.
QuoteHow do you decide who gets to breed and who does not? And what if your values
clash with someone else's values?
People of higher caliber - meaning intelligence, realism, big picture thinkers, natural leaders (and empaths, believe it or not). Creating policies and incentives to prevent the struggling and defective from reproducing requires compassion. Part of that is letting natural selection take its course, with an emphasis on female choice unconstrained by fear of starving. It's a much more finely-tuned eugenic mechanism than male choice.
Quote>> Yes, there is something charming with how we torture ourselves with our ethics,
>> values, choices, and how we consciously choose to give, love, and so on.
>
> Again, who's "we?" People all over the world ... all 144,000 of them?
Most individuals.
We might have some disagreement here. I see little evidence that most individuals wrestle with those kinds of things. Most stay on script.
Quote> It gets me when people project love on animals: "Oooh, Maxxy loves me!" No it
> doesn't. Maxxy is Pavloving on you, but he would throw you under the bus for a
> piece of ham. Most HINO-s (humans in name only) do the same. They "ham" each
> other. Only an actual Human can love, so protect these people at any cost. A
> smart mind once said "The stupid can't love." Yes, because they're like Maxxy.
Well, actually, it could be argued that humans do the same.
A majority, probably. The higher-minded ones tend to want to rise above ham.
QuoteThe only thing we have to go on is the behaviour of animals and other humans. We cannot look into
their brains and feel what they feel. We only have indications and inferences.
But the good thing is that this is enough. We all have the right to our own
feelings, and if I "feel" that Maxxy the dog loves me, then that's alright.
Objectively, only actions, words, inferences, subjectively, that's where the
magic happens!
Oh, definitely. I recognize the right to subjectivity, in fact, I insist on it; but until I see evidence that animals and animal-like humans are capable of experiencing the kind of conscious love that rises above ham, I reserve the right to see it as inferior/primitive type of love.
QuoteAhh... but I think this rests on a common misunderstanding of transhumanism.
There is nothing forcing in it. Everyone is free to use or not to use any
technology that exists, to prolong life, edit genes, upload themselves into an
AI, or what ever they enjoy. It's about pushing the limits, improving ourselves,
but ultimately, how to do that, which technology to embrace, which technology to
reject, that is up to each and every one of us.
I'd have to read more on those before opining.
But once again, my skepticism towards "choice" in the presence of high social pressures and constraints remains.
Note, for example, attitudes towards smart phone use. When the practice reaches a critical mass, the 'choice' to NOT use it acquires increasingly dire consequences. Choice is never outside of social context, so legitimate alternatives and structures must be created, maintained, and culturally defended.
QuoteAs soon as someone argues for forcing people to accept a certain technology,
then the label (in my opinion) "humanism" is out the window. That would be more
something along the lines of transauthoritarianism or transsocialism.
Forcing is rarely required. Social epidemics basically never fail to deliver which is why a counter-epidemic is necessary for choice to continue to exist. Individuals cannot make atomized choices.
Quote>> Excellent! Then we are at least 2 misanthropes in the world!
>
> As a misanthrope humanist (palm to head, right?) I don't want any of these already-born humans to suffer. I just want them:
>
> - Far away from me and my walk of life.
> - Prevented from perpetuating poor quality of life and suffering (all over the world, because in high-tech era, the Globe becomes a nut).
>
> While they're here, I want them to be OK, but I do not think they should be
> prioritized over higher-minded humans, since that causes the largest amount of
> unnecessary waste and suffering - as those are the most stoic but also the
> most sensitive, creative and most likely producers of good.
Here I have more a feeling of indifference, coupled with a pinch of cynicism,
when it comes to the common man. You are a good woman!
I can't have a feeling of indifference knowing how much harm, waste, disruption, destruction and obstruction the overgrown masses of lower humans create unintentionally. This is where I can relate to frustrations with the "lolberts" (lol). We can't out-of-sight-out-of-mind the consumptive masses. They are ultimately innocent in their unintentional harm, but that doesn't change reality. This is why I want them well, then out.
I can't think of myself as a "good woman" since I don't subscribe to universal conceptions of morality. Maybe someone effective who refuses gratuitous cruelty. Otherwise, I may be gold for some, disaster for others, it all depends on "truths," interpretations and goodness-of-fit. I am a fanatic of freedom of association and compatibilism in a wider and deeper sense. We can only be "good" to birds-of-a-feather.
#3
idea / Re: DiversityWatch
Last post by prime - Jul 07, 2026, 11:05 AMDiversity News (July 7, 2026)
Mafia concrete, German economic collapse, new Red Scare, Defund Police pt 2, Smithsonian propaganda.
https://www.amerika.org/politics/diversity-news-july-7-2026/
Mafia concrete, German economic collapse, new Red Scare, Defund Police pt 2, Smithsonian propaganda.
https://www.amerika.org/politics/diversity-news-july-7-2026/
#4
idea / Re: Divorce, cheating, and inf...
Last post by prime - Jul 07, 2026, 10:27 AMQuotePeople who reported higher levels of animosity consistently required more medical attention. For example, in the five years following a legal divorce, a standardized increase in reported conflict was linked to a 28 percent rise in completely filled prescriptions.
This increase in medication use was largely driven by a category of drugs known as psycholeptics, which includes sleep aids, sedatives, and anti-anxiety medications. The researchers noted that the persistent stress of a hostile split likely contributes to sleep disturbances and lingering anxiety following the breakup. In contrast, the use of antidepressants showed a different trajectory, rising primarily in the years leading up to the divorce.
https://www.psypost.org/the-enduring-health-cost-of-a-hostile-divorce/
#5
sense / Re: Neechy
Last post by sub rosa - Jul 07, 2026, 09:18 AMI mentioned fear of isolation in the list, which is closely related to the fear of freedom.
(If I feel free to do x / not do x, I will be ostracized. So I'm free to 'choose' but only as long as it's 'right').
Freedom from the crowd is needed for individuation, internal-external alignment, and choice/autonomy, whether for better or for worse.
The crowd is Social Control and peer pressure, not just a mob in front of Bastille.
Even where some degree of freedom is made available, people fear it so they become their own prison guards. Thought, discernment, agency and taking responsibility for outcomes scare humans, so they default to systems of control and person-pruning.
"If I follow script and abstain from ad libbing, I'll be safe with good outcomes." This means I don't have to face the grueling complexities of holistic reality, who I am and who relevant others are in reality, how I'm evolving and what I'm learning.
Even those who aren't afraid of freedom understand social systems punish failure to conform. Any freedom is usually the "Come Get It!" sort. Granting theoretical freedoms then turning around and threatening with "consequences" is mafia-type coercion, not freedom. Unlike individuals, systems of control cannot be held accountable. Systems automatically assign moral credit to scripts and roles even when not deserved. Jobs and bosses cannot be jails and jailers, you just lack resilience and work ethic. A family member cannot possibly be abusive or non-loving - love is there by ascription. Government cannot possibly be a thief, you're just a tax evader. Mbappe cannot be questioned, you're just a racist. Etc.
So the tendency is to default to script and always consider that the "better choice" even if this is inherently not true, and outcomes are measurably worse except in degree of conformity.
The cognitive dissonance between what the script and roles promise and the lived experience drives humans insane, which is why most can't communicate effectively, retreat into denialism, and are mental wrecks by EOL.
The answer is never infinite freedom (pure abstraction) or hard script (system slavery). It is agency within naturalistic reality, a supple social fabric, and gently defined guidelines of 'life with people.'
For example, I have the theoretical freedom to climb a tree, build a nest there, and live like a squirrel, although someone will soon call the nice men in white coat.
Discernment and sanity are needed indeed to detect where freedom turns to mental illness. Same for closely following script, at the other extreme.
Cessation of stupidity, insanity and individualism can only come through pop control and hard eugenics. But breaking cycles require going off script, which means freedom to change course away from cliff.
(If I feel free to do x / not do x, I will be ostracized. So I'm free to 'choose' but only as long as it's 'right').
Freedom from the crowd is needed for individuation, internal-external alignment, and choice/autonomy, whether for better or for worse.
The crowd is Social Control and peer pressure, not just a mob in front of Bastille.
Even where some degree of freedom is made available, people fear it so they become their own prison guards. Thought, discernment, agency and taking responsibility for outcomes scare humans, so they default to systems of control and person-pruning.
"If I follow script and abstain from ad libbing, I'll be safe with good outcomes." This means I don't have to face the grueling complexities of holistic reality, who I am and who relevant others are in reality, how I'm evolving and what I'm learning.
Even those who aren't afraid of freedom understand social systems punish failure to conform. Any freedom is usually the "Come Get It!" sort. Granting theoretical freedoms then turning around and threatening with "consequences" is mafia-type coercion, not freedom. Unlike individuals, systems of control cannot be held accountable. Systems automatically assign moral credit to scripts and roles even when not deserved. Jobs and bosses cannot be jails and jailers, you just lack resilience and work ethic. A family member cannot possibly be abusive or non-loving - love is there by ascription. Government cannot possibly be a thief, you're just a tax evader. Mbappe cannot be questioned, you're just a racist. Etc.
So the tendency is to default to script and always consider that the "better choice" even if this is inherently not true, and outcomes are measurably worse except in degree of conformity.
The cognitive dissonance between what the script and roles promise and the lived experience drives humans insane, which is why most can't communicate effectively, retreat into denialism, and are mental wrecks by EOL.
The answer is never infinite freedom (pure abstraction) or hard script (system slavery). It is agency within naturalistic reality, a supple social fabric, and gently defined guidelines of 'life with people.'
For example, I have the theoretical freedom to climb a tree, build a nest there, and live like a squirrel, although someone will soon call the nice men in white coat.
Discernment and sanity are needed indeed to detect where freedom turns to mental illness. Same for closely following script, at the other extreme.
Cessation of stupidity, insanity and individualism can only come through pop control and hard eugenics. But breaking cycles require going off script, which means freedom to change course away from cliff.
#6
sense / Re: Neechy
Last post by prime - Jul 07, 2026, 07:32 AMI think it misdirects. Our fear is of choice, specifically making lesser choices when better options were available. Fear of disease is in there too, along with pain, which is separate from death. There is also fear of isolation.
But freedom? Freedom is entirely negative in expression: "freedom from" is the same as "freedom to" but you have to posit a Christianlike good/evil in there to make it work. What do we need "freedom" for? We have freedom... we need a cessation of stupidity, insanity, and individualism.
But freedom? Freedom is entirely negative in expression: "freedom from" is the same as "freedom to" but you have to posit a Christianlike good/evil in there to make it work. What do we need "freedom" for? We have freedom... we need a cessation of stupidity, insanity, and individualism.
#7
sense / Re: Mailing List
Last post by prime - Jul 07, 2026, 07:10 AMhttps://github.com/jimt/smf-mailer
This uses the Recent Posts page
https://www.corrupt.org/boards/index.php?action=recent
Which has an RSS feed
https://www.corrupt.org/boards/index.php?action=.xml;type=rss2
and pipes it into your email
This uses the Recent Posts page
https://www.corrupt.org/boards/index.php?action=recent
Which has an RSS feed
https://www.corrupt.org/boards/index.php?action=.xml;type=rss2
and pipes it into your email
#8
sense / Re: Mailing List
Last post by GoldSoul - Jul 07, 2026, 05:43 AMIs there a daily summary option that can be sent via email?
#9
sense / Re: Neechy
Last post by sub rosa - Jul 06, 2026, 11:38 PMQuote from: prime on Jul 06, 2026, 04:44 PMCould not disagree more. People act for what makes life better. This does not require abstractions like "freedom" and "liberty." It requires making sane decisions.
Could this be just semantics?
When people invoke freedom it is to make life better. Very existentialist.
That does not mean becoming a solitary atom floating in space, free of any ties or relevance (freedom from everything). But overly rigid systems, totalist narratives, tyrannical scripts, cog machines, personhood-devouring social roles and social pressure (conformity) DO make life worse (freedom from arbitrariness and dysfunction needed).
If we ever wondered why we can't seem to "get through" to others - it is not always because those people are too thick (many are). It is because we think we talk to a person, when in fact they pruned themselves down to role & script (dehumanization) and they expect the same from us.
There are four major existential fears:
1. Fear of death
2. Fear of isolation / exclusion
3. Fear of meaninglessness
4. Fear of freedom (to which we are ultimately condemned)
Because absolute freedom is infinite and scary, people jump at the opposite end, thinking that none or very little should save them headaches. They want to escape the anxiety of agency by pretending scripts and roles are actual things and exhaustive truths; and if they identify with them and perform well, this should guarantee best outcomes.
The illusion of performativity works until the organicism of life comes through. Then esotericism kicks in, with the realization that there's no way around becoming who we are and forging our own conscious path, including contributions to the world.
Choice paralysis does not exempt anyone from the perpetual task of self-discovery and becoming creator of life-content and meaning-making based on that discovery.
In this sense, freedom (from and to) is as practical as it gets.
#10
idea / Re: Divorce, cheating, and inf...
Last post by sub rosa - Jul 06, 2026, 07:08 PMQuote from: prime on Jul 05, 2026, 07:08 AMHint: why you distrust "relationship satisfaction." After all, most of the guys in these stories were very satisfied until they suddenly noticed the wife having a gangbang with the entire population of Uruguay in a back room.
Uruguay, Paraguay ...that gives World Cup. Will never look at these teams the same way again. Thanks for the ruins and the rofls.
USA-Belgium as I type. I AM SO watching this.
...
What about the entire population of Norway? Would we at least cut the wife some slack for ethnically correct behavior?
This kid...He looks like Greta.
https://www.soccerbible.com/features/2026/07/norway-s-football-project-has-reached-its-moment/