[What Came Before]

Do not all societies strive to improve?

Who is? When did you or I last improve anything?

Even if it's not a conscious decision, simply existing is enough to be causing constant changes in the universe, however minor. Assessing which changes are improvements is a highly subjective topic, indeed.

Necessity leads to innovation, and thus complexity, if you believe Jared Diamond. Western society seems to have gotten stuck on a track of never-ending necessity.

Western culture cultivates desperation, rather than engages necessity. Smell the tension of mortgages in the air, you can smell crops of desperation, ripening for the harvest!

What apparent necessity are we looking at? People gotta get to work? Because they fear for their job - because that's their only source of food and shelter, because you can just stake a place and grow crops and build shelter there because...authorities have declared they own the land! And will employ martial force if you attempt anything otherwise! When who owns land, like, ever? Perhaps 'of the land'...but owning the land?

That's just man made desperation for other men. It's not necessity.

Just on my soap box, banging off thoughts I've mulled over a fair few times!  I could be wrong and we just overall strive to improve. I think a fair number of people do try to do that, to be sure.

I'm sure I picked this up from somewhere, but I can't remember where: I'm guessing that the agricultural revolution led to an exponentially increasing population, which led to the need for more land/food/what have you, and this "culture of desperation cultivation", as you put it well, is what happened to spring up from the pile of possible reactions in order to tackle that challenge. Western culture could have taken vastly different routes -- some, perhaps, resulting in sustained growth without losing sight of the basics. Or, perhaps I've been reading too much of the Alternate History Wiki: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page :lol:

As it stands now, even those committed to overcoming circumstance and making their thoughts their own realistically must begin with certain givens -- perhaps each person can think of a couple of reduced concepts or axioms to start off with.

That's a hard one! Will have to think about that!

The Golden Rule, for example.

What's the golden rule??

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or variations thereof.

Such basic principles like that would give some sort of foundation not only to those trying to think and act with insight into the sway of their mind's currents, but to anyone!

It would seem that there is a limit to the Darkness, and a limit to circumstance that one would have to master to become "self-moving". However, let's look at it as a certain configuration of the brain that one who attains such a state would have to have. If there is only one possible configuration, then would two people who have the same exact configuration really be different people?

Interesting spanner to throw into the works there!? Maybe you should pitch that to Scott on the three pound brain at some point?

I'd love to hear his opinion on that topic at some point.

Heraclitus seems relevant here: "You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you."

Also in other news, I want your avatar to be in a platforming game! Every time I see it, I imagine her little legs moving like Mario's and dashing off to jump a chasm! I think it'd make a cool platformer!

My avatar is, in fact, from a game -- though not a platformer. It's a portrait of Refia from the Nintendo DS remake of Final Fantasy III as a scholar! http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Final_Fantasy_III_Jobs

[What Came Before]

It would seem that there is a limit to the Darkness, and a limit to circumstance that one would have to master to become "self-moving". However, let's look at it as a certain configuration of the brain that one who attains such a state would have to have. If there is only one possible configuration, then would two people who have the same exact configuration really be different people?

That's really good question - I for one don't think that it is possible for two people to have the exact same genetic predisposition nor the exact same circumstance from inception. But it's a neat thought experiment.

I've realized that there can be a difference between a state of relative self-moving and a state of absolute self-moving. One who is relatively self moving has mastered all emotions/circumstance/etc. that they would personally experience in their lifetime. Someone who lives in a very closed system has less stimuli to take in than a seasoned diplomat or an explorer of the universe. Two relatively self-moving people would have different experiences throughout their lives and would thus be different people with different brains.

Someone who is absolutely self-moving would have mastered all circumstance in the universe to ever exist, and I would say that two such beings would have probably have to be in the same state. Or, they would be different in a different way than the brain-states of two relatively self-moving beings.

There's a big difference between a civilization striving to reach the stars, and striving to make the next iPod or other consumer trash.

I didn't get the feeling Meyna was writing about innovation within an economy of planned obsolescence.

I suppose it could be any sort of change that someone out of the people that the change affects sees as improvement or innovation. Everyone exists and exerts change whether it's gathering a meal or designing an iPod :lol:

[What Came Before]

Even if it's not a conscious decision, simply existing is enough to be causing constant changes in the universe, however minor. Assessing which changes are improvements is a highly subjective topic, indeed.

Bit of a distinction between that and striving to improve? I presumed 'striving to improve' was a reference to what might be passed around regular communication chanels. As I understand what definition is passed around, it's not a fairly conservative one like the one you've given?

I'm sure I picked this up from somewhere, but I can't remember where: I'm guessing that the agricultural revolution led to an exponentially increasing population, which led to the need for more land/food/what have you, and this "culture of desperation cultivation", as you put it well, is what happened to spring up from the pile of possible reactions in order to tackle that challenge. Western culture could have taken vastly different routes -- some, perhaps, resulting in sustained growth without losing sight of the basics. Or, perhaps I've been reading too much of the Alternate History Wiki: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page :lol:

From what I've read, various english warlords drove people off their ancestral farmland and made them live in concentrated areas with only land for a house, not enough to grow crops. And then simply let the fear of starvation (as well as forces to stop them returning to their ancestral fields) make them work in the warlords fields. Now A: I read this once, but haven't done a series of double checks on it but B: If I were a warlord, I would do this very thing - it's a smart move and consolidates ones own power. As much as I think it's a smart move (once you put aside or never had to begin with certain values), I think it's true. I must check it some more, though.

The agricultural revolution was precipitated by warlords (well, generations on, who wore fancy wigs and white stockings) as a way to extend their own fortunes. It wasn't just some issue no one is to blame for/increasing population issue.

Those warlords continue today as the heads of various huge corporations, as well as the governments own martially enforced claims of owning land.

Anyway, skipping the radical claims the upshot is I'd recommend growing your own food to what extent you can. You can grow vegetables, like potatoes in a bucket, for example. Even just snapping off shoots from a sprouting potato and using that sprout to start growing some more potatoes) - it applies more leverage in the bargaining that goes on in regard to food prices. Sadly the people who bear the brunt of that first are the farmers - the middle man super market chains pad themselves against 'fluctuations'. But even growing a small amount of food for yourself will eventually prickle the chains (jeez, I just realised they even call themselves chains!).

Such basic principles like that would give some sort of foundation not only to those trying to think and act with insight into the sway of their mind's currents, but to anyone!

I think one Axiom is to relinquish world encompasing axioms! To relinquish the idea of making ideas that swollow up the whole planet and everyone has to obey it. Ideally instead ideas are limited to cover only part of the planet - thus allowing anyone who disagrees with the ideas to leave the area the idea covers. To give a choice (to some degree) about accepting the idea, instead of enforcing and idea onto everyone (even those to yet be born). A return to consent, instead of more of the normalised enforcement of ideas.

My avatar is, in fact, from a game -- though not a platformer. It's a portrait of Refia from the Nintendo DS remake of Final Fantasy III as a scholar! http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/List ... y_III_Jobs

I think it begs to be also used as a graphic for a platformer - perhaps running through a many layered library, collecting books? It'd be cool!

[What Came Before]

Heh, my last axiom kinda cross references with a tweet by some guy on the tweeterwebs

Truth: Whatever you happen to agree with at any given moment projected across all space and time, until you change your mind.

As in the ceaseation of projection across all of the world. Though I was more refering to lifestyle and law design, I'll grant, so YMMV!

[What Came Before]

Even if it's not a conscious decision, simply existing is enough to be causing constant changes in the universe, however minor. Assessing which changes are improvements is a highly subjective topic, indeed.

Bit of a distinction between that and striving to improve? I presumed 'striving to improve' was a reference to what might be passed around regular communication chanels. As I understand what definition is passed around, it's not a fairly conservative one like the one you've given?

I should be more consistent and precise when talking about beings "making progress" and "improving", yes. Though, in any and all definitions, there is the Darkness.

I'm sure I picked this up from somewhere, but I can't remember where: I'm guessing that the agricultural revolution led to an exponentially increasing population, which led to the need for more land/food/what have you, and this "culture of desperation cultivation", as you put it well, is what happened to spring up from the pile of possible reactions in order to tackle that challenge. Western culture could have taken vastly different routes -- some, perhaps, resulting in sustained growth without losing sight of the basics. Or, perhaps I've been reading too much of the Alternate History Wiki: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page :lol:

From what I've read, various english warlords drove people off their ancestral farmland and made them live in concentrated areas with only land for a house, not enough to grow crops. And then simply let the fear of starvation (as well as forces to stop them returning to their ancestral fields) make them work in the warlords fields. Now A: I read this once, but haven't done a series of double checks on it but B: If I were a warlord, I would do this very thing - it's a smart move and consolidates ones own power. As much as I think it's a smart move (once you put aside or never had to begin with certain values), I think it's true. I must check it some more, though.

The agricultural revolution was precipitated by warlords (well, generations on, who wore fancy wigs and white stockings) as a way to extend their own fortunes. It wasn't just some issue no one is to blame for/increasing population issue.

Those warlords continue today as the heads of various huge corporations, as well as the governments own martially enforced claims of owning land.

Anyway, skipping the radical claims the upshot is I'd recommend growing your own food to what extent you can. You can grow vegetables, like potatoes in a bucket, for example. Even just snapping off shoots from a sprouting potato and using that sprout to start growing some more potatoes) - it applies more leverage in the bargaining that goes on in regard to food prices. Sadly the people who bear the brunt of that first are the farmers - the middle man super market chains pad themselves against 'fluctuations'. But even growing a small amount of food for yourself will eventually prickle the chains (jeez, I just realised they even call themselves chains!).

Great comments, Callan! Unfortunately, my vagueness has muddied the waters again. I meant the first agricultural revolution, circa 10,000 B.C.E.

But, then again, domesticated crops were probably just one in a line of technological revolutions which propels the never-ending necessities of some cultures.

Such basic principles like that would give some sort of foundation not only to those trying to think and act with insight into the sway of their mind's currents, but to anyone!

I think one Axiom is to relinquish world encompasing axioms! To relinquish the idea of making ideas that swollow up the whole planet and everyone has to obey it. Ideally instead ideas are limited to cover only part of the planet - thus allowing anyone who disagrees with the ideas to leave the area the idea covers. To give a choice (to some degree) about accepting the idea, instead of enforcing and idea onto everyone (even those to yet be born). A return to consent, instead of more of the normalised enforcement of ideas.

+1. I wish I had a response to this. Any way I look at it though, thinking about how to live -- whether it be in a personal, cultural, or global scope -- seems way too complex. R. Tweet Bakker phrases the problem quite well there!

My avatar is, in fact, from a game -- though not a platformer. It's a portrait of Refia from the Nintendo DS remake of Final Fantasy III as a scholar! http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/List ... y_III_Jobs

I think it begs to be also used as a graphic for a platformer - perhaps running through a many layered library, collecting books? It'd be cool!

I'd play it! 

[What Came Before]

Great comments, Callan! Unfortunately, my vagueness has muddied the waters again. I meant the first agricultural revolution, circa 10,000 B.C.E.

Ah!

But, then again, domesticated crops were probably just one in a line of technological revolutions which propels the never-ending necessities of some cultures.

Well, producing more children until you outrun the current capacity of your technology to feed them, true.

I guess it's hard to say, but it depends on whether during the agricultural revolution you raised, whether communities would stabilise in population. Or whether authorities provoked a culture of continual breeding (certainly todays economies of scale enthusiasts do). Or whether some communities stabilised, while others just kept breeding (in which case it's an uncomfortable question of genetic inclination). Also as a mid case, communities which stabilised, but then enviromental catasrophe happens and they cannot feed themselves, so they go raid other communities (then get used to raiding, because it takes ages to grow a crop and no one would respect them having land because they are raiders, etc).

I still question whether it's something we the common folk did, or it was something fostered by various institutional authorities (ala the scale of economy lovers today).

+1. I wish I had a response to this. Any way I look at it though, thinking about how to live -- whether it be in a personal, cultural, or global scope -- seems way too complex.

But how do you argue with a politician without a notion of such? Do politicians actually bank on people being unable to argue at such a level, to maintain their own power?

Do we complain to politicians, yet ultimately we just urge them to do us well, then leave it up to them? Because we can argue no overall life support plan? We make unhappy noises, but without a grander plan, we can go no further (like sorcerers in PON can't build anything or heal anything, complaining can't build a life support system, only detract from what someone else made) so we leave it to the politicians?

Certainly you'd think they'd teach you (or to be more exact, raise the idea in a coordinated way) the idea/question of how to live and various methods one might invent or emply, in school at some point. But they don't. Yet it's vital, isn't it? Funny.

R. Tweet Bakker

Heh! 

My avatar is, in fact, from a game -- though not a platformer. It's a portrait of Refia from the Nintendo DS remake of Final Fantasy III as a scholar! http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/List ... y_III_Jobs

I think it begs to be also used as a graphic for a platformer - perhaps running through a many layered library, collecting books? It'd be cool!

I'd play it! 

I really aught to learn the unity programming language (it's kinda like flash, but 3d). But the learning always seems so very far from the enthusiasm end of the dealio! Still, it's a good idea to simply look for characters people already like, instead of trying to invent new ones, but ones they'll also like. Okay, I'm drifting into game design, so I'll stop...!

[What Came Before]

For the most part, we are very short-sighted and care not for long-term solutions to society's ills. What can politicians do but cater to these immediate demands? I still don't feel right thinking about societal change, though, as I am not so confident with the content of my thoughts. I wouldn't even know where to begin!

I dabbled in programming in university, and thought about making little adventure games. So far, I don't have the interest necessary to really get started  :?