people and animals

[strrrng]

Occult wisdom teaches us that in the midst of our 'fall,' interbreeding with the various beasts of the world took place. Intuitively there's no leap in associating clusters of traits and behaviors between animals and humans; only, since we are defined by our conscious experience, do said things manifest in tiers, connected by axes, which can be likened to the various genera and species. What I'm positing is a balanced interplay between these qualities and their situational expressions; a platonic backdrop of thematic harmony that can only be appreciated in its most grotesque forms (see Ovid). Once familiar with the basic groups and their qualities, the seemingly endless variations can be meshed without much difficulty.

For example, I have noticed a strong tie between birds and reptiles; in fact feathers are merely the wind's scales. When you look at a creature like the velociraptor, consider why it's a land animal that has two legs and a tail for balance; why its wrists are permanently pronated, and middle claw a talon several inches longer than the rest; to boot, that its sole social motivation is predation. Then examine the ideology of someone like Ayn Rand in its socio-economic implications, and it should become clear that altruists would preserve baby bird eggs to suck dry what only the most willing deserve! The list goes on. So is this thread devoted to a cross-examination of this forum's members and the various animals embodied therein. It has the makings of a bnd novel, sociopathy disclaimed.

A starting point: birds (prehistoric, birds of prey, 'gliders' and the younger ones), dogs (wolves, hounds, watchdogs, scufflers...), reptiles (subdivided into prowlers, watchers and guardians, i.e. komodos, iguanas and cobras; extract...). A nexus point would be animals such as the gyrfalcon and indian cobra, who eat everything, including their own kind.

How the forum members interact tells all. This also has broader evolutionary meaning: no animal exists but in relation to what it used to be, those it had to consume to evolve, and what it is soon to become. The rest is up for speculation.

[WVBRY]

For example, I have noticed a strong tie between birds and reptiles; in fact feathers are merely the wind's scales.

Did you know that birds actually evolved from dinousaurs? So the resemblance you mention makes sense.

[ashlesha]

that's why i don't like birds. they sit in their cages relatively harmless but their beady little eyes tell you their brain wishes they could tear your throat out and eat you. plus they shit everywhere.

the premise of this thread is really interesting but i have no idea what to do with it. match animals and forum members? hm

[strrrng]

trying to find an aesthetically pleasing way to express what 'everything is everything' really means. animals are a convenient proxy to model humans' traits because of the interbreeding, which ties into our fundamental conflict between instinctive and spiritual impulses, 'good and evil' abstracted. anyhow within this platonic polarity lies an infinite variety of forms which are only temporal expressions of a more composite energy that, in 'relating to itself,' sunders itself so as to fully 'resolve' the equation. what animals express is how our energy fields collide as external boundaries necessitate; in a sense, this is why they maintain their 'kingdom' with such balance, while we, the self-appointed monarchs of the beasts and land, can't even keep our own in check. by extracting more prominent movements of these traits in various situations, the spiritual parallels will manifest; an example of this is how in Ovid's Metamorphoses, the gods are depicted in a viler way than most anti-heroes, with a light-hearted neutrality at that (and the occurrences themselves are metaphors for everything from the destruction of kingdoms to the formation of constellations... yeah). so it's a starting point, and yeah I figure a little BnD flair could give more open-endedness to the whole equation, but hopefully this post clarifies what I was getting at.

[Creepy-pokeball]

[jessica129]

I wish i was smart enough to understand you, strrrng.

[Creepy-male]

Your basically using the idea of spirit animals -- that certain people's instinctive behavior nature mirror's that of the nature of certain animals. Then your breaking down the species barrier to understand the connection between various animalistic natures in people to understand how people connect to their environment or nature.

Ftr I identify alot with hawks and eagles, birds of prey. They are opportunistic apex predators, not because of their raw might but because of their ability to fly which allows the to retreat from most other hunters, their ability to escape, and the ability to swoop down on prey opportunistically. They have acute vision for spotting things and tend to be rather abrupt and jerky/tweaky in their movements on ground, but graceful in the air. They also are migratory and birds in general will fly together in flocks. Most animals will form groups but the basis of these groups are different -- herds of gazelle for example stick together so they aren't alone and vunerable to predation, its an instinct to herd together... unlike humans the nature of a gazelle will rarely defend members of the pack, if a straggler looses the herd its not sought out, instinctively herd animals learn to stay together, this is why the nature of wolves in dogs make them superb at maniuplating the instincts of sheep as sheep dogs. Birds flock, but its more out of a repitilian sense like a pack of raptors than a sophisticated moral social contract, they observe the movements of other animals and go with the flow, not out of advanced moral reasons but out of a general sense of fluidity and grace, flocks form spontaneously out of this. Birds will scatter together and migrate to new places, stick with good hunters in packs to scavenge for food. They flock and migrate together basically for the synergy it offers. Birds of prey specifically will also try to outmaneover smaller birds... they will try to out fly them, and gain a tactical advantage on small birds, and will sometimes prey on them if they are hungry or threatened.

This isn't supposed to be a direct allegory to my personality -- but I think in terms of animalistic/instinctive nature it fits. I'm not really big into raw might like a bear or lion -- I'm a lot more acute, opportunistic, and fluid. I tend to mesh with others in a sort of entrancement of movement like birds flock together, at an instinctive level -- if someone isn't up to fly as high, I have no problems taking the higher ground and seizing an opportunity -- such as in traffic instinctively I'll pass slower moving drivers with little regards to how they feel, especially if I feel they are trying to constrain the flow of things. It's not personal but it's just my animalistic nature I think. Though I'm not one to try to tailgate or ram into others -- this would be more fitting to certain land animals that instintively charge -- such as well rams or mountain goats.

In terms of mammals versus repitilians/birds/fish -- I like cannines, wolves, coyotes, and dogs. In terms of sea creatures I tend to like large massive whales, that can dive very deep... I think if I was an ocean animal I'd be drawn to try to go as deep as possible, but still have contact with the surface.

[strrrng]

This isn't supposed to be a direct allegory to my personality -- but I think in terms of animalistic/instinctive nature it fits. I'm not really big into raw might like a bear or lion -- I'm a lot more acute, opportunistic, and fluid. I tend to mesh with others in a sort of entrancement of movement like birds flock together, at an instinctive level -- if someone isn't up to fly as high, I have no problems taking the higher ground and seizing an opportunity -- such as in traffic instinctively I'll pass slower moving drivers with little regards to how they feel, especially if I feel they are trying to constrain the flow of things. It's not personal but it's just my animalistic nature I think. Though I'm not one to try to tailgate or ram into others -- this would be more fitting to certain land animals that instintively charge -- such as well rams or mountain goats.

this is exactly what I was talking about. it doesn't matter how trivial a situation, by extracting the instinctive currents, one will eventually see that it's all the same situation repeating itself in an endless variety; so do I posit that not only is one's personality comprised of a specific combination of animal energies to greater or lesser degrees, but that in fact they are ceaselessly 'moving through' said things; further that, being metaphorical placeholders, they can be related to anything else, i.e. why a certain point of a song strikes one in a certain way, how two different responses mirror the same disposition (like different pitches having the same texture). there's a lot to be put together, but the premise contains the solution to the very divide of self-consciousness itself.

fwiw I relate to a lot of what you describe. I'm a somewhat aggressive driver, but it's just because higher speeds feel more comfortable; the entire highway system is just like a body to me, which is why I see speed limits as redundant; just let the molecules form how they will, if people have to pay attention to each other, instead of moving through signposts, competency will undoubtedly increase, and probably a kind of camaraderie. the same holds true for all legal measures. I'd analogize it to a bird of prey attitude, where I'm not just concerned about picking someone off for its own sake, but think the hunt should be timed within broader currents, so that everything from an ant to a falcon can move in harmony; and since feeding is inevitable, there's no point in placing a value judgment on it. some people like to drive fast, others like to coast, the lanes will adjust themselves to these preferences, like the prices of a market, instead of being stifled by restrictive measures that gun-toting pigs (I analogize cops to disgruntled hounds always stuck between defying and satisfying master farmer john) use to sustain their lives. it ain't a crime unless you get caught.

[Creepy-male]

just let the molecules form how they will, if people have to pay attention to each other, instead of moving through signposts, competency will undoubtedly increase, and probably a kind of camaraderie. the same holds true for all legal measures.

Yea this pretty much.

[Kim]

fwiw I relate to a lot of what you describe. I'm a somewhat aggressive driver, but it's just because higher speeds feel more comfortable; the entire highway system is just like a body to me, which is why I see speed limits as redundant; just let the molecules form how they will, if people have to pay attention to each other, instead of moving through signposts, competency will undoubtedly increase, and probably a kind of camaraderie.

Actually, what really happens is that "the stronger" people (in this case the ones in the faster cars) will take over and bully the slower ones to get out of their way. In a slower car you get stuck behind even slower traffic (trucks) because passing becomes too dangerous with fast cars flying by or sitting on you tail end flashing their lights. I have seen this over and over again on German highways without speed limits. Competency does increase, but camaraderie doesn't.

[FDG]

then you wake up sweaty and it was all a dream

[strrrng]

Actually, what really happens is that "the stronger" people (in this case the ones in the faster cars) will take over and bully the slower ones to get out of their way. In a slower car you get stuck behind even slower traffic (trucks) because passing becomes too dangerous with fast cars flying by or sitting on you tail end flashing their lights. I have seen this over and over again on German highways without speed limits. Competency does increase, but camaraderie doesn't.

what's your point, that it's too mean?

[Kim]

what's your point, that it's too mean?

That is does not create camaraderie like you suggested.

[Gilly]

I think strrrng is alluding to the general idea that people are more innately cooperative and don't take each others cooperation as much for granted when cooperation is an voluntary, positive action for direct and observable benefit, rather than a passive act that involves submission instead of ACTUAL comprehension.

People don't trust each other as much because we are not allowed to weed out the bad seeds, nor water the good ones. Instead we just get force-fed while being forcibly exercised and staring mutely into the next tank over.

[Kim]

I think strrrng is alluding to the general idea that people are more innately cooperative and don't take each others cooperation as much for granted when cooperation is an voluntary, positive action for direct and observable benefit, rather than a passive act that involves submission instead of ACTUAL comprehension.

People don't trust each other as much because we are not allowed to weed out the bad seeds, nor water the good ones. Instead we just get force-fed while being forcibly exercised and staring mutely into the next tank over.

Yes, and my point was that the scenario he described does not bring about innate cooperation. But then I guess it depends on what you consider "cooperation."

[strrrng]

as if 'innate cooperation' can be brought about any other way than by, I don't know, doing away with abstract boundaries that stifle innate processes? you're driving, you feel the hum of the car, the connection to the pavement below, gauge the surrounding territory, know how far you can veer, how quickly to tap the steering wheel, when the touch the radio tuner, and so on. the cars around you are mirrors of your inner state, by seeing the people and their cars you develop a sense of their driving patterns, and begin to form in a fluid, cohesive manner, as traffic issues show themselves more and more as mutual, things that can only be resolved by both parties making a real, mental effort to figure out the optimal path. yeah, sounds just like how markets work when they aren't clotted by parasitic crooks. and frankly, if you can't drive comfortably without a bunch of lights and signs telling you which way to skip down the yellow brick road, just start clicking your heels now.

[Kim]

My point is that I am not exactly comfortable driving with someone going 110 mph on my tail, flashing their lights at me and putting my life at risk. And that is what happens when you drive on German highways with no speed limits. Cooperation goes as far as them not actually hitting me, but that's about it.

I have seen a lot of "Locked up Abroad" lately and it's interesting to see the prisons in different countries. Japanese prisons are extremely regulated with every step of the inmate regulated. There are no fights and no violence among inmates. In South American prisons, on the other hand, you basically have no rules and prisons are ruled by gangs and money. It's survival of the fittest at its finest and hundreds of inmates get killed and raped. I am just throwing that out there because I am curious how that fits into the discussion.

[Kim]

So, basically what you're saying is that Japanese prisons are essentially no different in how they're regulated than say, Bolivian prisons. Merely that in Japanese prisons, the government gang happens to an active primary role in setting/enforcing the rules of conduct; the threat of violence is still there just the same, only more implicit.

Right. It goes to show that if you take away government-regulations, other entities will put regulations in place and those seem to be the ones in control of the most sought-after commodity.

[Kim]

PS: Or the strongest/fastest/smartest, etc., depending on the context.

[strrrng]

it goes to show that people who have already been subjugated turn against one another when master grants them a false sense of carte blanche.

[Kim]

]Sure, but I fail to see how giving one entity a monopoly on the use of force (government) necessarily leads to an improvement in the well-being of those under it.[/B] Plenty of governments have been equally atrocious and worse to their own people, as your S. American prisons example. And the scale of violence is exponentially larger by many orders of magnitude whenever the government gangs happen to fight each other…

I never said it was. I was making a point re the assumption that de-regulation leads to cooperation and possibly camaraderie. I don't think it necessarily does.

[Kim]

That's fair—and it would be interesting to evaluate the conditions where cooperation doesn't emerge from ostensibly deregulated environments—though you seemed to be suggesting a need for hegemonic regulatory bodies (i.e., Leviathan states in the Hobbesian sense).

I didn't suggest that anywhere. I was just throwing out scenarios.

[Kim]

it goes to show that people who have already been subjugated turn against one another when master grants them a false sense of carte blanche.

Maybe so. But I doubt that's all there is to it.

[Kim]

So if the world could be ruled like a benevolent Japanese prison where the human race was basically free of violence and deprivation, you wouldn't think that a good idea?

I don't think so at all. The regulations in there are horrible (and not benevolent at all).

[strrrng]

Maybe so. But I doubt that's all there is to it.

there's a more basic psychological mechanism in play. the law operates on the logic that you must stay out of the garden if you hope to taste of the forbidden fruit (in this case, freedom). being in prison exemplifies the contradiction inherent to this, namely that one can be within the garden without access to the fruit; it's a kind of middle-ground between absolute freedom and death. so when prisoners (the majority of which probably aren't getting out for a while) are told that within these inviolable boundaries they have free reign, all the violence, depravity and oppression entailed in their position finds its purest expression, and they mirror the power structure that they (unconsciously) hold responsible for their lives in order to regain the very power they gave away to it to begin with; it becomes a figurative, almost mythic means of 'escape.' this is also why men would rather rape each other in prison than masturbate.

analogizing this to any remotely civil form of de-regulation/disintegration is, therefore, flawed. the closest approximation you'll find is a looting riot. other than that, it will take a much more intricate and organized set of interactions to bring about any real change.

[Gilly]

Maybe so. But I doubt that's all there is to it.

Probably something to the fact that *shocker* your sample includes only criminals.

[Gilly]

By the way I am not an anarchist; I believe governments are both natural and necessary, at least for the time being (likely the next 100 years or so), but I also feel in myself and observe in others the exact patterns and psychological mechanisms that strrrng is addressing.

Hey how bout them animals....

[strrrng]

By the way I am not an anarchist; I believe governments are both natural and necessary, at least for the time being (likely the next 100 years or so), but I also feel in myself and observe in others the exact patterns and psychological mechanisms that strrrng is addressing.

Hey how bout them animals....

anarchism is ultimately as short-sighted as being a goa purist. the fundamental principles behind a free market will continue to manifest themselves until the wellspring of 'corrective measures' runs dry; I don't think it will result in any sort of 'look, the crooks!' epiphany, given the amount of evil and oppression we've already connived. collective responsibility will most likely entail a subtler transition inward, which is what we have seen the inklings of over the past several decades, with psychics and healers becoming more prominent. once people pole vault over the 'we are all one' crescendo, we'll probably witness a more gradual dissolution of the mentality that depends on governance.

can't say much on animals now... given that we've been addressing the necessity of larvae for the past three pages.

[Kim]

Probably something to the fact that *shocker* your sample includes only criminals.

It wasn't a "sample" meant to prove anything, just a scenario about which I said

I am just throwing that out there because I am curious how that fits into the discussion.

.

[Creepy-male]

Yes, and my point was that the scenario he described does not bring about innate cooperation. But then I guess it depends on what you consider "cooperation."

Isn't that a pretty sad view of humanity though that the only reason anyone would want to cooperate is out of mandatory submission to a system of laws. It completely undermines the entire meaning behind a person's actions.

[Creepy-male]

it goes to show that people who have already been subjugated turn against one another when master grants them a false sense of carte blanche.

Freedom can seem like a system shock to some, and they easily burn out when allowed to exercise their individual power.

[Gilly]

It wasn't a "sample" meant to prove anything, just a scenario about which I said .

Let me ask you this: how long do you think sociopaths would last if there was nobody to stop somebody from snuffing them out, now that we have studied and know how to recognize them?

[FDG]

This.

Reminds me of a vid I saw about a town which suspended the use of stop lights… low and behold, the traffic flow was much better, people were far more attentive to pedestrians, and accident rates dropped. I'll try to find it.

Something similar has been set in place in many italian small towns (my hometown included). It does work, but on the other hand bigger vehicles do have a slight tendency towards using their weight to "intimidate" smaller ones. Nothing outstanding though, given how most vehicles are still roughly similar in size.

[mu4]

I don't think so at all. The regulations in there are horrible (and not benevolent at all).

I don't think Japanese culture is either, it's based on virtue and etiquette. There is very little benevolence within that culture.

Japanese culture is intensely rational and controlled, which is why when they left that island during WWII, all sort of very brutal and horrific things were done to individuals outside of that controlled setting.

I would say German culture also exhibits this control and rational impulse over it's own culture which has had it's own express when outside of that

However it's false to assume the cause is the rational and controlled culture, but rather that there is a deeply rooted brutality that is human and part of our psychology, and even well intentioned individuals can exhibit those in time of distress, not to even speak of poorly intentioned individuals.

I think the solution isn't how to cure brutality as that isn't all that desirable from a evolutionary standpoint, but rather how do we manage the brutality, channel it, even use it. From my perspectives, humans aren't controllers or free individuals granted some special form of agency, but managers and adapters. However it's useful for some individuals to feel like they are controllers or granted some special form of agency. Anyways, when ever I think about a problem these day, I just ask myself, "What would Bruce Lee do?" Because of this my life has gotten 10000x better and everything that I've ever wanted has come true, if you use the tried and true mechanisms of Bruce Lee, your life will be empowered and you will take control of your life and find happiness. Why are you waiting, call now for a free full color brochure. Shipping and Handling Fee not included: $19.99

Also if you make noises like Bruce Lee you will be showing your monkey form, as well as your tiger claw, but once you've mastered these techniques, you will learn your own form, call it Mixed Martial Animal. You'll be a human.

[strrrng]

the primal fuel (not cause) of a rational(ized) culture is the unspoken fear that we are not in control of our instincts. however, imposing regulations on them only intensifies this fear, as the apparent level of security increases; such that, while a tolerable level of civility may be sustained in the short run, it will have mass-scale collateral damage, a modern day example of this being terrorism, the spectral evil threatening our 'freedoms,' that gives the basis to further impinge on them. ultimately this is an antagonism that will be resolved neither by conveying ourselves to a mechanized utopia nor simply dissolving the governing body; self-governance starts within, and without the conscious effort to monitor and channel one's instinctive energies in a balanced manner, improvement will never occur.

[redbaron]

Did you know that birds actually evolved from dinousaurs? So the resemblance you mention makes sense.

Jurassic Park anyone? Or maybe all of you are too young... lol

[blackburry]

Jurassic Park anyone? Or maybe all of you are too young... lol

lol i only like the first and the last one. you favor the young blonde girl a lot

[Kogoro Akechi]

I don't like animal

[WVBRY]

Jurassic Park anyone? Or maybe all of you are too young... lol

No, its a fact, I dont remember pulling it out of that movie.

[strrrng]

yeah, there's just a bit of intricacy to it, which is irrelevant to this thread's purpose. an interesting point of discussion would be the instinctive attitudes that have shaped peoples' positions on government&tc, their animal derivatives, and what this implies about our form of government both as a whole and in terms of the kinds it produces (in terms of those it desires). genealogy of entrails ftw.