Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by bojangles22 on Apr 12, 2007 16:35:51 GMT -5
I'm sure something like this has been posted before, but it's totally my favorite thing to talk about. Anything from what if's , to the meaning of life or the nature of human peoples, society, history, whateva. Basically I like to look at anything from a different angle, Any subject whatsoever is game, just stuff you think about when yer drunk, or high on life, things you used to think when you wher a kid, ect.. it never really has to be based on fact, just so long as it is an interesting take on daily life.
Post by bojangles22 on Apr 12, 2007 17:21:36 GMT -5
When I was little I used to get what I call "sick dreams". i would be sick and have a high temperature, and I would sleep and have the same type of dream (my brother had'em too)... in the dream there was nothing except darkness, and then in the middle of the darkness whould be a pulse/a thud like noise that seemed to push the darkness closer creating a lighter black color in the middle. In the begining of the dream the pulse is slow, and i realize that I can controll the thud and can make it slower or faster, louder or softer. But then when i speed up the pulse, I will loose the ablity to controll it and the beating gets faster and louder, Then it gets sooo deaf'ning and sooooo chaotic of a pace that i wake up in a frenzy with my mind in a spinning panic. I was just wondering if anyone else has had "sick dreams" before, it's not really Whats happining in the dream, it's just more how it feels while you're having the dream.
I know someone that would dream of really fat & tall people walking around and the tall people would make "scratchy" noises when they walked, and the fat people made "drowning" noises when they walked.
Though thease dreams make no sense at all, It seems intersting to me. It's like a window into a mind that is half asleep and half awake. sorta like LSD.
Post by thefussydutchman on Apr 12, 2007 17:35:13 GMT -5
There's two people tied to the train tracks and a speeding train is coming through. There's a 1000 people on the train and the only way to save the 2 people on the train tracks is to destroy the train killing the 1000 people. Suppose the 2 people tied to the train tracks will cure cancer in their lifetime. You have the power to destroy the train. Do you kill those 1000 innocent people so that 2 can live and save others with their cure?????
"We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, movie gods, and rock stars. But we wont, and we're slowly learning that fact & we're very, very pissed off......."
John: We don't even understand our own music Spider: It doesn't, does it matter whether we understand it? At least it'll give us . . . strength John: I know but maybe we could get into it more if we understood it
Post by poopzilla33 on Apr 12, 2007 18:48:36 GMT -5
bojangles22 said:
When I was little I used to get what I call "sick dreams". i would be sick and have a high temperature, and I would sleep and have the same type of dream (my brother had'em too)... in the dream there was nothing except darkness, and then in the middle of the darkness whould be a pulse/a thud like noise that seemed to push the darkness closer creating a lighter black color in the middle. In the begining of the dream the pulse is slow, and i realize that I can controll the thud and can make it slower or faster, louder or softer. But then when i speed up the pulse, I will loose the ablity to controll it and the beating gets faster and louder, Then it gets sooo deaf'ning and sooooo chaotic of a pace that i wake up in a frenzy with my mind in a spinning panic. I was just wondering if anyone else has had "sick dreams" before, it's not really Whats happining in the dream, it's just more how it feels while you're having the dream.
I know someone that would dream of really fat & tall people walking around and the tall people would make "scratchy" noises when they walked, and the fat people made "drowning" noises when they walked.
Though thease dreams make no sense at all, It seems intersting to me. It's like a window into a mind that is half asleep and half awake. sorta like LSD.
i agree. i think dreaming and phychoactive chemicals are linked, and are very spiratualy
i also had sick dreams as a kid. i dreamt that i was in a room that was completly empty except for an angel and a fox. the angel used to throw a ball of lgiht at the fox while i was in the middle. this was no ordinary ball of light though, it was the msot awe inspiring, terrifying thing i'd ever thought about. it used to bounce off the walls and i just remember beign so terrified it would come near me. when i woke up i always felt bad for the fox
John: We don't even understand our own music Spider: It doesn't, does it matter whether we understand it? At least it'll give us . . . strength John: I know but maybe we could get into it more if we understood it
Post by poopzilla33 on Apr 12, 2007 19:21:45 GMT -5
dmt is a weird and wonderful subsatnce. its been the portal to the world of the devien in countless tribes throught history. its one of the two main ingrediants of ahuscha, the spiritial drink of some south americans tribes. daniel pinchbeack has taken it wiht them and from his experiences he concluded that the myans were right and 2012 is going to be catastrophic. he just wrote a new book about it, and one fo the review snip-bit on the back is by sting!
As far as philosophy goes, I like existentialism, but people who really knew what was up were ancient Hindus (Upanishads, Mahabarata, Ramayana), Plato and Taoists (Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu). Those guys pretty much had all of the important stuff figured out.
Post by spookymonster on Apr 12, 2007 20:05:53 GMT -5
No one questions the limits of brotherly love. The thought of telling someone 'you have enough friends, you can make no more' seems childish and unrealistic. Love is boundless in its depths and abundance - there can never be too much, only too little. Love can only create, not destroy; destruction is the work of lust and envy, not philia and eros. Why then must we bind romantic love in these ridiculous trappings?
No one questions the limits of brotherly love. The thought of telling someone 'you have enough friends, you can make no more' seems childish and unrealistic. Love is boundless in its depths and abundance - there can never be too much, only too little. Love can only create, not destroy; destruction is the work of lust and envy, not philia and eros. Why then must we bind romantic love in these ridiculous trappings?
What's wrong with destruction? Necessary, no? You can't have freedom/boundlessness without binding/trappings etc.....
Post by ChiefPemperToadWigginsky on Apr 12, 2007 21:03:41 GMT -5
Since i was a child I had a reoccuring dream similiar to yours, bojangles. I start out walking with people towards some unknown direction outside and people transform into unintelligable objects that are chaotically rushing and this horrible dread fills me. I hear the same kinda of thumping noise you spoke of, and it is a maddening sound and feeling. I soon realize that i am being smashed incessantly, I look around and am lying on a bronze like ground that stretches past the horizon, the ceiling has teh same effect of eternity and i keep on getting slammed by the celing above. When i realize that i can control the smashing i always wake up in a frantic way, usually yelling or unknowing of who i am. My little brother also had "sick dreams" that later turned into full out night terrors. He spoke of a thudding sound too, though his were very bad. He would sleep walk n talk but totally wide eyed like someone who took the brown acid, frightened me to the core everytime it happened.
Post by spookymonster on Apr 12, 2007 21:45:11 GMT -5
faletti said:
What's wrong with destruction? Necessary, no?
No... entropy, the natural process of change that moves all things from order to disorder, is necessary. Life without death is stagnation. It does not follow that forcing disorder, i.e., destruction, is natural.
You can't have freedom/boundlessness without binding/trappings etc.....
You can't? I think the universe would beg to differ. Where are the walls that hold it in?
[edit] My orignal point was that monogamy is not a necessary state, but rather one that was imposed on us, either by biology or society. It has it's place (Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash has an interesting angle on it), but is it still necessary, or can we evolve beyond it?
You can't have freedom/boundlessness without binding/trappings etc.....
You can't? I think the universe would beg to differ. Where are the walls that hold it in? [
Well, it may be a doughnut. The predominant scientific theories do posit that there is a finite amount of mass in the universe. The three spatial dimensions that we live in are in some sense limited, although not in the way that we would intuitively picture it (walls that hold it in). Anyway I wasn't saying that there was no "limitlessness" (I think there is), just that there is also "limitedness", and that you can't have one without the other. And you can't, they are two sides of the same coin, and if one concept didn't exist, the other would be meaningless.
As for monogamy, it works awesome for me, but I don't necessarily think its the best thing for everyone.
"White collar conservative flashin down the street, pointing that plastic finger at me, they all assume my kind will drop and die, but I'm gonna wave my freak flag high." Jimi Hendrix
My orignal point was that monogamy is not a necessary state, but rather one that was imposed on us, either by biology or society. It has it's place (Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash has an interesting angle on it), but is it still necessary, or can we evolve beyond it?
yes it is still necessary for both of the reasons you've listed: biology and society. biologically speaking, monogamy is important because the human species is not truly mature enough to fend for itself for a much longer period of time than most animal species. a human baby requires the care and attention of more then just a single parent in order to survive the trials of nature and pass its genes on.
society too would likely not exist, at least in its current form, without monogamy. the kind of citizen it takes to fuel the world's economy, to produce just enough offspring to sustain our species without placing an unnecessary burden on the planet's natural resources...these are all made most efficient by the dominance of the nuclear family as method of living/reproduction.
we can certainly evolve beyond monogamy as a practice. but it requires a paradigm shift in our view of what we want to do with our society, and even our species as a whole.
Maybe I'll throw myself to the dogs, but my back's not to the wall Maybe I'll lay some bricks for the man, but the days just aren't that long So if I settle back and chill will I see far enough to feel the angel's dream? I thought it was the Story of the World!
Post by jambandjohn on Apr 13, 2007 0:08:12 GMT -5
xiphoid420 said:
yes it is still necessary for both of the reasons you've listed: biology and society. biologically speaking, monogamy is important because the human species is not truly mature enough to fend for itself for a much longer period of time than most animal species. a human baby requires the care and attention of more then just a single parent in order to survive the trials of nature and pass its genes on.
I'll have to go with Spooky on this one, monogamy is just an available option in this day and age. Look no further then the divorce rate and number of single parent homes. The place of the second parent has been taken over by the teacher, baby sitter, older sibling, TV set, etc. Nature as a whole cares little for monogamy and current society is making it look more and more like a failed experiment. Too many find it tough to make a firm commitment in such a causal world...
Post by spookymonster on Apr 13, 2007 8:16:56 GMT -5
faletti said:
Well, it may be a doughnut.
But this is the shape it has taken in an unbounded space; it is not the shape compelled upon it by external forces. The universe is everything in existence, known or unknown, so by definition, it cannot be impacted by external forces.
Anyway I wasn't saying that there was no "limitlessness" (I think there is), just that there is also "limitedness", and that you can't have one without the other. And you can't, they are two sides of the same coin, and if one concept didn't exist, the other would be meaningless.
Fair enough. But just because the universe is full of dichotomies (good/evil, order/chaos, freedom/limits) does not mean they must apply in all cases to all things. The laws of nature insist that physical action have certain limits (the basic principals of Newtonian physics). But emotions are not physical actions. The physical qualities of shape and mass cannot (and should not) apply to them any more than the moral poles of good and evil apply to the effect gravity has on an apple.
As for monogamy, it works awesome for me, but I don't necessarily think its the best thing for everyone.
As an intelligent, informed choice, I can respect that. But I think far too many people just do it because it's the societal norm, without considering whether or not they are capable of maintaining a monogomous relationship.
Understand that I am not proposing that we turn into 'one night stand' animals... that's lust, not love. Lust is part of the biological imperative necessary for procreation. Humans are one of the few (if not the only) animals that have sex for recreation as well as procreation. While we cannot control our biological sexual drives (attraction is not a choice), we can (and should) control our acting on them.
Post by spookymonster on Apr 13, 2007 10:32:59 GMT -5
xiphoid420 said:
biologically speaking, monogamy is important because the human species is not truly mature enough to fend for itself for a much longer period of time than most animal species. a human baby requires the care and attention of more then just a single parent in order to survive the trials of nature and pass its genes on.
I would say that's more of an argument for the biological imperative to gather in communities (safety in numbers, it takes a village to raise a child, etc). I would argue that both men and women have stronger biological drives towards polygamy than towards community. Polygamy among males encourages diversity within the species, while polygamy among females is a 'safety net', to ensure they and their offspring are protected. I read a study once that discovered that married women were more likely to engage in extramarital sex during their fertile cycles (can't find the reference now, so feel free to call bullsh!t ).
society too would likely not exist, at least in its current form, without monogamy.
Agreed. Monogamy has been a powerful tool throughout history; as a representation of the merger of kingdoms, to seal a pact on the transfer of lands and chattel, or to keep those same goods and lands from being lost (think: Catholic priests vows of celebacy and the Vatican). This was all good and well when law and order was something only city-states had, and chaos blanketed the lands in between. Societies needed this kind of structure to survive. Can we honestly say that still holds true today in a world overrun with laws and lawyers? (no offense to any esquires that may be reading this )
we can certainly evolve beyond monogamy as a practice. but it requires a paradigm shift in our view of what we want to do with our society, and even our species as a whole.
Post by bojangles22 on Apr 13, 2007 11:24:09 GMT -5
I remember listening to this psycologist dude in an AA class once, talking about how the neurotransmitters in the brain work. He went on about emotions and feeling and compared the brain to a massive pharmacy. Different emotions trigger different chemicals and the neurotransmitters react to the chemical, and just like a drug, one's neurotransmitters will adapt and become accustomed to a certain chemical produced by a particular emotional response thus explaining that you can literally become addicted to certain emotions. This notion pretty much opened a door for me in the way i veiw how the mind works, because it makes the idea of 'fake it till you make it' a reality. If you wanna be happy, practice being happy, get yer mind used to being positive even if you have to force yerself and pretend, and then just like getting in the habbit of brushing your teeth, in about thirty days you will see a difference.
But you must realize that in a consumer society, you are costantly made to feel unhappy; to be convinced that "If I could only have X, I would be happy." The whole science of psychology has been warped for marketing purposes to make us sad so we will buy things. A "happy" state of mind begins with detachment of material things; not letting what you have (or more rightly, don't have) define you. Kind of a buddhist philosophy (The root of suffering is desire.) This from a very happy Christian.
Post by poopzilla33 on Apr 13, 2007 12:39:36 GMT -5
i don't comprehend how some people can be so meanspirited that they can cause the suffering of others. people who are the head of big buisnesses put the adds otu there that make you feel terrible so that they can walk away with mroe moeny in their pocket. is a peice of paper mroe important than a mans happiness? the heads of the oil company are "buyign stock" in washington so that in roder to make way mroe moeny than they'll ever spend they can pollute the earth and make it a dismal place for future generations. they care so much about they own superwealth they disregard the feeling of everysingle living thiign on the planet. i do nto comprehend how someone can have such an evil soul
We've created a dysfunctional society based on greed. (remember what the root of all evil is?) We've taught people selfishness is okay. And we've created the perfect Beast; the Corporation. It is a legal "person" but has no body to incarcerate. In fact we've by law required it to do whatever legally maximizes shareholder profit. Even if it kills people, rapes the environment, and degrades society. It is legally REQUIRED to do so if it is llawful. It is a person created with no conscience or morality. By definiton, a sociopath. And since 1980, we've encouraged deregulation and mergers which only strengthen it.
Post by poopzilla33 on Apr 13, 2007 12:56:28 GMT -5
we've gone the complete oppisite of the obvious way of improvement. we've moved toward a more permanent capitolist society instead of toward trying something new. i'm not saying capitolism didn't work cuz it worked just fine for a logn time. in fact its what made this country so powerful. but ets face it, it doesn't work anymore. lets try something new already
Post by bojangles22 on Apr 13, 2007 13:02:41 GMT -5
I think money tends to distract people from realizing their greedy actions will only leave them more depleated(sp? i'm hopeless).. I think that may be why rich people never seem to feel rich enough because society has painted this imaginary picture that more money = more satisfaction.
Just like the painted wall under the bridge that Wiley Cyote runs into....
Economics is like everything else. Extreme capitalism is no better than extreme socialism or extreme feudalism. We all know anything taken to extremes is dangerous and/or harmful whether it be religion-->zealotry, drugs/alcohol-->addiction, dieting-->anorexia, eating-->obesity, saving$-->miserly hording, spending$-->bankruptcy, etc. Hell, drinking too much water will kill you.
A well regulated capitalist system is probably the best we can do. We've just been taught "free trade" is utopian and abandoned the regulation part.
"Moderation in everything and everything in moderation"
).
)
