Search the Community

I think I had a dream that might be very helpful to some people if it means what I think it means. I was lost in an airsoft arena (for anyone who doesn't know that's paintball but with plastic bbs) that was more of a plywood maze than a coherent arena. I had one of my real steel guns with me (I'd been shooting the day before) but it had no ammo. I wanted to find my way out, but I had no clue where I was. I decided to follow this kid, a 10 year old boy in full gear who navigated like a pro, and as I followed him I'd get lit up by players who either didn't see my hands up or just wanted to shoot at me because I was defenseless. Another thing, I only had shorts on, no protection so the bbs stung like hell. We were making our way very slowly, and I had taken a lot of shots and was getting irritated. Finally I started searching around on the ground for airsoft magazines that would fit my gun and still had some bbs in them. I found a small magazine with odd looking bbs. They had the shape of practice rounds for police training courses, like little pills cut in half. I loaded them and let the bolt chamber a round, but it discharged and accidentally shot the kid in front of me in the head. The sound was deafening and everyone around us stopped. The kid in front of me collapsed to the ground. I threw my gun and picked him up. I saw there was a hole in the back of his helmet. I'd somehow loaded live ammo. I checked his cheeks to see if any blood was trickling. There wasn't any flowing, but I knew he was dead. I started to cry. I could feel myself crying, but I could only hear ringing. And right in front of us was a huge hole in the wall, right around the corner, that lead to a park with a calm pond, sunny and beautiful. I think the dream represents my journey through FDR so far and how I've been backsliding into forms of verbal abuse online. The arena represents the world. The airsoft bbs/guns represent dysfunction and abuse. The child who leads me is my true self/inner child. The arena/world is a place of uncertainty and fear where dysfunctional people can pop out of nowhere and attack you at any time. Me having my gun means I have the capacity for abuse, but keeping it unloaded means I choose not to participate. Wearing only shorts means I'm very vulnerable, which makes sense considering striving for virtue requires vulnerability. My child self is the kid in all the gear picking players off and slowly advancing towards the exit. But when I pick up bbs that I can fire back at these people, they aren't just bbs. They turn into real bullets. That's why I had a real gun. I realized how deadly and corrosive this abuse can be, and that's why I kept it empty. I still have the capacity to abuse, but I choose not to. And that explains why everyone else had bb guns. The shots didn't hurt like bullets, they only stung like bbs because I'm becoming immune to abuse. Everyone has real guns and real bullets. The abuse is 100% deadly, but only if you shoot back. And that explains why I shot the kid. By loading what I thought was just bbs, in truth I was loading 100% deadly live ammo, because abuse is perceived to the true self as just that. Live fire. And when I loaded my gun, I was choosing to abuse. And the only person an abusive me hurts is my true self. That's why I accidentally shot him in the back of the head. The second I choose that path, my true self is dead. And freedom was just around the corner. Is anyone else struggling with resisting the urge to be snarky or "clever" in comment sections and discussions? I can resist it to the point of seeing it for what it really is and losing the urge but sometimes things slip through.

I’ve been digging into the philosophy of Freedomain Radio and Stefan Molyneux and I find this concept of the non-aggression principle- which obviously did not originate from FDR but which is central to the philosophy- to be quite muddy. What does it mean to initiate violence or aggression? I think the idea that it is only the ‘other guy’ that initiates violence is akin to what Girard called, “the romantic lie” The ‘romantic lie’ is Girard’s idea that our desires and purposes arise from some creative inner depth within ourselves. The truth is that our desires are generally inspired by the desires of others. We want things not because they are inherently desirable but because someone else's desire for them has made them attractive to us. We see it in advertising where the products are not presented on their merits but as the possessions of attractive or prestigious people. We are invited to enjoy some quality of being that belongs to the person who has the product and not the product itself. Desire is never a straight line between a subject and an object but always has some ‘other’ as it’s model. Desire is essentially borrowed desire. "There is no such thing as ’natural desire’, otherwise it would be instinct. If desire had a fixed object it couldn’t change and it would be the same as animal instinct. Therefore desire always come from the ‘other’. This other, if he is close enough socially, physically, will necesarily become our rival when we desire his object. Human desire is changeable by its very nature. Beyond the basic things to which instinct or appetite direct us, our wants and our abilities are shaped entirely by imitation of those who surround us and those we admire. This is how we develop our entire cultural repertoire, beginning with the language we speak. We learn because we want to be like those from whom we learn. Aristotle say humans are the most mimetic of creatures. What Aristotle doesn’t point out is the shadow side this aptitude for imitation, which is the way it leads to rivalry between those who desire the same things. This rivalry will be most intense between those who are most alike in their interests and affections. The paradox is that the closer you are, the more your goals will be the same. This will be true at the highest level, at the intellectual level. If we are close intellectually, we are going to look for the same things and there will be moments when we feel that the other is more successful than we are. In fact, it’s everybody’s tendency to feel that the other is more successful. It’s also everybody’s tendency to feel “I am more successful” or “I should be more successful” but anyway the problem will be there because man is essentially a dynamic individual who wants to occupy the entire stage. This individualism will lead us into competition with the people who are closest to us. Aristotle says tragedy is conflict to the death between people closest to each other. The closer you are to someone, the greater the possibility of conflict given what man is, his goals and his individual imperialism. This is the unspoken truth of social existence that is hidden by the ‘romantic lie’ but revealed in the greatest works of literature." "I offer my hand. You take it. We shake hands. But if you don’t take my hand and if you put your hand behind your back, I will also put my hand behind my back. In other words, I will reciprocate a friendly action, you will reciprocate it too. But if there is no good reciprocity there will immediately be a bad one which takes over. And this is what I think the specialists of human relations have not noticed enough. That far from lacking reciprocity, we can not get out of it. But it’s very easy to shift from good reciprocity to bad reciprocity and terribly difficult to shift from bad reciprocity to good reciprocity and I think the problem of mankind is really precisely that. That whichever reciprocity we have, we are not going to be able to get out of it, it will be a vicious circle into which things will always get worse and worse, because even good reciprocity can become bad by force of repetition. We are very different from animals in that respect. I think that reciprocity begins with a glance. We look at each other. This is a very striking thing in my view. When you look at animals fighting on TV, even the two goats that hit precisely the center of the forehead. They don’t look at each other. They don’t look at each other before the fight, during the fight, or after the fight. There is a total lack of glance. This is so true that Kipling had a special theory, which was typical Kipling. He was a genius, but in the Jungle Book there is that story that animals can not stand the glance of man, which is human superiority- it’s not true! If you look a cat in the eyes too long, the cat will be bored, will go to sleep. But men will never go to sleep. They’ll rise to the challenge and they’ll fight. I think it is the good and the bad of man. It’s inescapable. We are terribly mimetic, and being mimetic we are inevitably open to conflict. What is vengeance? Vengeance is doing what the other guy does, always the same thing. But it’s the ultimate in bad reciprocity. To stop it by killing the opponent. And all men know how to do that and only men (and women) know how to do that because animals don’t have intra-specific murder. So when people say, “Humans are violent, animals are much less violent”- they are right. If we didn’t have culture, in the human sense, there would be no humanity. Humanity would have destroyed itself at birth. When the mimetic power rose in the relationship between animals- and we know that it rises, and we know it today scientifically through the mirror neurons. The higher you get, the more mirrored neurons you have and the more mirrored neurons you have (with man) the more you do the same thing. But this ‘doing the same thing’ includes enough violence to kill. And we call it vengeance. The human species is the only one which threatens it’s own existence from birth.” René Girard

I listen to The Art of Manliness Podcast every now and then and I came across this interesting conversation about biological origins of male aggression. I immediately thought of the FDR shows I've heard on the topic and wanted to share. What do you guys think? http://feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/173724074-artofmanliness-86-demonic-males-with-dr-richard-wrangham.mp3

Powder and I have been discussing whether verbal abuse intrudes on the Non-Aggression Principle, and what response it may justify. Verbal abuse, as in swearing, libel, defamation, insults, and labeling. We are excluding threats, because we both agree that threats violate the NAP. My argument is that just like actual threats, to defame someone's character may lead to escalation of abuse, and the risk of physical harm. My example was a person being called "a terrorist." We all know how such a label can destroy human life. Powder's argument is that since this does not directly involve the "initiation of force" or "violation of property", then even if there is a justification for a defensive response, the entire situation is not included within the NAP. Does the 'initiation of force' include verbal abuse? Are insults akin to threats? What is a justified response to insults, and to what extent?

This is an event which occured a few months ago. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. It was my younger brother's bedtime, which is usually quite a struggle between him and our parents but this time, my father took it too far. Firstly I heard him walking down the hall calling "Into your bed, boy!" It sounded so militaristic, as if my father was some sort of sargeant addressing his soldier. He walked into my brother's room where he was playing a video game and refusing to turn it off. Within seconds my father began shouting "Turn it off now!". No negotiating, no reasoning. Just cold commands. A few more seconds passed. "I'm going to slap you if you don't turn it off!". This is when I got out of my chair, and walked to my brother's room to face my father. You see, my father and I have talked about using aggression against children before and at the time, it sounded as though he agreed with me, that there are better, non-violent ways to deal with them. Yet there he was threatening my brother. I said to him "You are not going to hit him". I saw pure anger in my father's face. He pushed me out of the room while shouting about how little I know, "you think those books and those videos give you the moral high ground!". He then pushed me into my room and closed the door. I began formulating comebacks, "Well its more books than you have ever read on parenting" and "I may not be the parent but I am his brother" and all these other cliches I could think of in the moment. I psych myself up and just as I'm about to walk out the door to face my father...I burst into tears. I realise how little influence I have and walking out there to address my father will only make things worse. About 10 minutes pass, and the door opens. It's my father. He walks over to me and gives me a hug and says, "I'm sorry for acting snappy, I know you have the right intentions, but you don't have the authority to tell me how to raise my son". I don't say anything I just cry. My mother then walks in and basically repeats what my father said while adding, "It's that computer brainwashing you, giving you unrealistic expectations from the world". Right, beacause talking to your son with love and warmth is an unrealistic expectation

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-07/in-france-kidnapping-the-boss-usually-pays-off Because violently abducting someone falls under the realm of negotiation?