Altrunchen Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 yeah,thanks for fixing my definition my point of veiw is extremely odd to some,but is generally a self re-enforcing package immune to some of the usual human corruptions for example pride and humility being interchangeable,i.e. to have great pride is the same as having humility wrath sometimes being a needed component in a schemos to enact mercy gluttony being encouraged but hardcapped envy being more or less a force of nature,but never the less,too much of a good thing can mess with your head if your not carefull greed being an encouraged but heavily regulated emotion essentially,ill toss it all into a very straight to the point video for you,that i think is informative https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC8QtwIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DSnnmT2UtBBg&ei=n_2_VJ2gMImyggTft4LYAQ&usg=AFQjCNHS4agEVw5tt82oD1m9Rx_9ODVgug&sig2=U3JJzXBwOFh_Bg13oBIwlw&bvm=bv.84116906,d.eXY A very compelling video to say the least. I'd be interested to hear what you mean by "Pride and humility being interchangeable" as I don't think I understand your reasoning there. For that matter I'd be interested to hear your explanations about the other comparisons you made following that statement as well. One concern I had about your perspective, though, was your use of the word "immunity". Are you suggesting that your perspective is immune to corruption because it embraces it instead of rejecting it? It seems that might provide a means of balancing the two objectives by mixing them instead of struggling to hold them mutually exclusive of each other, but then how would one "regulate" or "hardcap" the variables as you imply? If the oversight for the balance is flawed, for whatever reason, wouldn't that then allow for the corruption of a supposedly immune system? I'm not referring to an external oversight like an Orwellian distopia, I mean more of an internal oversight or how one would govern oneself. At least in terms of your statements concerning regulating the supposedly juxtaposed aspects of humanity by combining them. In a sense I'm asking that in terms of the regulation and control that you mentioned, who watches the watchman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altrunchen Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Power is both the means of obtaining and maintaining control AND the benefits of it. You use to to achieve control and you use to it ensure you stay in control and you also are granted it by those subjects of yours who would have you stay in control. So you're saying they'd be symbiotically related? Is that fair to say? Your previous statement seemed to imply that the acquisition of power would yield personal fulfillment, if I'm understanding you correctly. If that's true, what exactly guarantees that gaining power would grant personal fulfillment? Edited January 21, 2015 by Altrunchen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VampirePirate Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 And a very eloquent one at that. I very much like how you juxtaposed contentment with desire for power, I think there may be something there. And I too think that oftentimes in games and even in real life, people use technology to compensate for their own shortcomings. Whether it's out of medical necessity for people with disabilities, or if it's for people who want results more than they want to learn and develop. The motivations vary widely across a broad spectrum (and not necessarily between those two poles alone), just as most things involving people can, but why don't we try to further the discussion? With your interpretation in mind how do you respond to this statement here: "True power is delegated." "True power is delegated." In this phrase, I would assume that the use of the term "true" implies 'absolute' or 'immense'. "True power" is used loosely here, because there is nothing in the phrase that hints as to what is true verse what is false. It could mean that though everyone has some kind of power, they may not have 'all' power or a great deal of it. So with that assumption, power should not be obtained by anyone unless it is granted to them. Why? Perhaps not everyone is qualified to have that power. Perhaps not everyone is responsible with that kind of power. Perhaps not everyone is worthy of that kind of power. It all depends on what that "power" is and how it will be utilized. With the use of the term "delegated", I would say that any form of power, especially great power, is only granted and not self-acquired. For example, a king that rules his kingdom is only a king because his people collectively agrees that he is the king. If his people did not collectively agree to that, he could in no possible way, rule over anyone or have any authority. No one has power unless it is given to him or her. If considering my earlier comment, then perhaps the people that have the power acquired it because it was granted to them. Those people would be in the "strong" category, since people of the "weak" category desire power they do not actually have. (No one desires something they already have.) If desiring to be "truly" powerful or have the ultimate power, it would mean that the person is "truly" or ultimately weak. Therefore, power is granted to those that do not lust for power. Those that do lust for power, never actually have any power to begin with. This is why they desire it and perhaps will never have it. Those that were content in not having the power, were granted power anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunDownGrace Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 A very compelling video to say the least. I'd be interested to hear what you mean by "Pride and humility being interchangeable" as I don't think I understand your reasoning there. For that matter I'd be interested to hear your explanations about the other comparisons you made following that statement as well. One concern I had about your perspective, though, was your use of the word "immunity". Are you suggesting that your perspective is immune to corruption because it embraces it instead of rejecting it? It seems that might provide a means of balancing the two objectives by mixing them instead of struggling to hold them mutually exclusive of each other, but then how would one "regulate" or "hardcap" the variables as you imply? If the oversight for the balance is flawed, for whatever reason, wouldn't that then allow for the corruption of a supposedly immune system? I'm not referring to an external oversight like an Orwellian distopia, I mean more of an internal oversight or how one would govern oneself. At least in terms of your statements concerning regulating the supposedly juxtaposed aspects of humanity by combining them. In a sense I'm asking that in terms of the regulation and control that you mentioned, who watches the watchman? well not necciscarily,im human,dont feel like it personally but other people tell me that im human but as for pride and humility being interchangeable,thats maily cutting through semantics with a logical razor humility is a phrase to describe "enduring humiliation",not the same as being humble people will often get into relatively feircesome debates over humility,or a lack thereof...which indicates a very zealot lvl of beleif on the subject...this indicates an extreme level of pride in one`s beleif on,supposidly not having pride? as logic demands that one to the best of there ability dispense away with oxymorons...i have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as humility,nor pride,those ideas are merely two of the many humans attempts to categorize people`s character at different times in the cycle for example: if a person with great humility gets into an argument with a person that has great pride due to the pride person`s lack of humility,or vice versa, then logic,even common sense dictates they are both defeating there own arguments before they begin,and thus there whole reason for this conflict and beleif must have a huge flaw as for "hardcapping" that basically refers to not controlling overhead "like orwell" as you say,but manipulating from underneath to hardcap people will get gluttunous beyond the safety threshold because it does not cease to be pleasureful...humans are unfortunately simple like that my idea,is through a hitherto unrealized method,to somehow make gluttony cease to be pleasureful beyond a certain point...abit like if you consume too much of the same food for too long,youll grow to abhore it so much that the mere presence of it will make you ill as for the final paradox you mentioned yes it is a paradox,that is it`s intention...to entirely limit break such things,to implement an unrealized dream perfect disorder order due to chaos humans are extremely compatible,whether they admit it or not,with order due to chaos proof positive,world war 2 was chaos,but it initiated a cycle of change that wound up with the world as a whole being undeniably superior to the world of yesteryear nowdays from gender rights,to different races rights,to every last quantifiable measure of human existence.the past is undeniably inferior in measures of freedom,happiness,quality of life to say otherwise is to delude yourself.The metrics dont lie,and neither does life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morec0 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 So you're saying they'd be symbiotically related? Is that fair to say? Your previous statement seemed to imply that the acquisition of power would yield personal fulfillment, if I'm understanding you correctly. If that's true, what exactly guarantees that gaining power would grant personal fulfillment? The ability to expend the authority granted by power over the lives of those people lesser than I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunDownGrace Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 The ability to expend the authority granted by power over the lives of those people lesser than I. indeed,even if someone had a vengeance bent ,it would wear off pretty quickly with humanitys numbers being as big as they are today.. then the only game left would be further perfecting the system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morec0 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 indeed,even if someone had a vengeance bent ,it would wear off pretty quickly with humanitys numbers being as big as they are today.. then the only game left would be further perfecting the system That or exploiting the commoners for the sake of my own personal gain - because I MAY have all the power in the world, but I DON'T have a 50-foot golden statue of myself, OR a TV the size of a living room wall to play Donkey Kong on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunDownGrace Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 That or exploiting the commoners for the sake of my own personal gain - because I MAY have all the power in the world, but I DON'T have a 50-foot golden statue of myself, OR a TV the size of a living room wall to play Donkey Kong on. yeah,but you just admitted in an indrect way that you would aquire those things,and the other things you want relatively quickly to put it this way,i could imagine you quoting nudar from that one futurama movie "Now that i have all the riches of history,i suddenly care if the world is destroyed" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morec0 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) yeah,but you just admitted in an indrect way that you would aquire those things,and the other things you want relatively quickly to put it this way,i could imagine you quoting nudar from that one futurama movie "Now that i have all the riches of history,i suddenly care if the world is destroyed" Duh! 'Cause I'd lose all my stuff! I works like this: yes, I'd care about the things around me, but only because they're the barest of barriers between me having my stuff and me losing my stuff and not having it anymore. Edited January 21, 2015 by Morec0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altrunchen Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) well not necciscarily,im human,dont feel like it personally but other people tell me that im human but as for pride and humility being interchangeable,thats maily cutting through semantics with a logical razor humility is a phrase to describe "enduring humiliation",not the same as being humble people will often get into relatively feircesome debates over humility,or a lack thereof...which indicates a very zealot lvl of beleif on the subject...this indicates an extreme level of pride in one`s beleif on,supposidly not having pride? as logic demands that one to the best of there ability dispense away with oxymorons...i have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as humility,nor pride,those ideas are merely two of the many humans attempts to categorize people`s character at different times in the cycle for example: if a person with great humility gets into an argument with a person that has great pride due to the pride person`s lack of humility,or vice versa, then logic,even common sense dictates they are both defeating there own arguments before they begin,and thus there whole reason for this conflict and beleif must have a huge flaw as for "hardcapping" that basically refers to not controlling overhead "like orwell" as you say,but manipulating from underneath to hardcap people will get gluttunous beyond the safety threshold because it does not cease to be pleasureful...humans are unfortunately simple like that my idea,is through a hitherto unrealized method,to somehow make gluttony cease to be pleasureful beyond a certain point...abit like if you consume too much of the same food for too long,youll grow to abhore it so much that the mere presence of it will make you ill as for the final paradox you mentioned yes it is a paradox,that is it`s intention...to entirely limit break such things,to implement an unrealized dream perfect disorder order due to chaos humans are extremely compatible,whether they admit it or not,with order due to chaos proof positive,world war 2 was chaos,but it initiated a cycle of change that wound up with the world as a whole being undeniably superior to the world of yesteryear nowdays from gender rights,to different races rights,to every last quantifiable measure of human existence.the past is undeniably inferior in measures of freedom,happiness,quality of life to say otherwise is to delude yourself.The metrics dont lie,and neither does life Well thank you for sharing. It sounds like you've thought about this quite a lot. The ability to expend the authority granted by power over the lives of those people lesser than I. So then are you saying your personal feeling of fulfillment would come from controlling others? Duh! 'Cause I'd lose all my stuff! I works like this: yes, I'd care about the things around me, but only because they're the barest of barriers between me having my stuff and me losing my stuff and not having it anymore. Are you saying that your reason to gain power and influence would be mainly to gain more physical possessions and to control more people so that you can gain even more physical possessions that can also keep all your possessions safe? Edited January 21, 2015 by Altrunchen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morec0 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 So then are you saying your personal feeling of fulfillment would come from controlling others? Sounds about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altrunchen Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) "True power is delegated." In this phrase, I would assume that the use of the term "true" implies 'absolute' or 'immense'. "True power" is used loosely here, because there is nothing in the phrase that hints as to what is true verse what is false. It could mean that though everyone has some kind of power, they may not have 'all' power or a great deal of it. So with that assumption, power should not be obtained by anyone unless it is granted to them. Why? Perhaps not everyone is qualified to have that power. Perhaps not everyone is responsible with that kind of power. Perhaps not everyone is worthy of that kind of power. It all depends on what that "power" is and how it will be utilized. With the use of the term "delegated", I would say that any form of power, especially great power, is only granted and not self-acquired. For example, a king that rules his kingdom is only a king because his people collectively agrees that he is the king. If his people did not collectively agree to that, he could in no possible way, rule over anyone or have any authority. No one has power unless it is given to him or her. If considering my earlier comment, then perhaps the people that have the power acquired it because it was granted to them. Those people would be in the "strong" category, since people of the "weak" category desire power they do not actually have. (No one desires something they already have.) If desiring to be "truly" powerful or have the ultimate power, it would mean that the person is "truly" or ultimately weak. Therefore, power is granted to those that do not lust for power. Those that do lust for power, never actually have any power to begin with. This is why they desire it and perhaps will never have it. Those that were content in not having the power, were granted power anyhow. An interesting interpretation. I would agree with almost everything you just said with some small exceptions: "This is why they desire it and perhaps will never have it." I agree that it is likely why they desire it but I'm not as confident about them never having it. For instance, sometimes cowards rise to power on the backs of others. They may not be very strong in character, but that doesn't stop them from wielding the power they have. "Those that were content in not having power, were granted power anyhow." I could think of some examples of this occurring but I'm confused by your usage of the past tense here as it would imply a certain event or example of some kind. Would you care to elaborate some more please? Sounds about right. So if you don't mind me asking, why exactly would this be fulfilling for you? Edited January 21, 2015 by Altrunchen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VampirePirate Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 An interesting interpretation. I would agree with almost everything you just said with some small exceptions: "This is why they desire it and perhaps will never have it." I agree that it is likely why they desire it but I'm not as confident about them never having it. For instance, sometimes cowards rise to power on the backs of others. They may not be very strong in character, but that doesn't stop them from wielding the power they have. "Those that were content in not having power, were granted power anyhow." I could think of some examples of this occurring but I'm confused by your usage of the past tense here as it would imply a certain event or example of some kind. Would you care to elaborate some more please? For the first quote: That is why I said "perhaps will never have it." It is possible to desire power and want to obtain it and never achieve that goal. I did not meant to say that it can't happen but more so as that their desire is becomes a hindrance. Always wanting something but not striving to get it, or striving to get it and not succeeding. Maybe because they know or believe self to be too weak to accomplish that goal. That was what came to mind as I wrote that part. For the second quote: In example, a person that does not lust for power can be seen as someone trustworthy and therefore is granted power. On the other side, the person that desires or lusts for power can be seen as someone not trustworthy and therefore is not granted power. For example, there are two people that could inherit money from their father. 1 million dollars. Son-A loves to have money and spend it, and he wanted anxiously to get the 1 million when he became legally an adult. Son-B is not really concerned because he is fine the way he is. If father wanted to give him the money, then wonderful, but if not then oh well. When they both become 18 years of age, father decides to give the 1 million to Son-B because that son was never anxious about receiving it and had a character that showed contentment without the 1 million. Son-A never receives the money even though he strongly desired to obtain it, probably because he seemed less trustworthy. I hope that explained it better. I don't think I have the right words to express my thoughts on this at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morec0 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 So if you don't mind me asking, why exactly would this be fulfilling for you? A bit late, missed this somehow, but a bit of a duh answer: What about controlling other people DOESN'T sound fulfilling? The very nature of having the power over others is, by itself, the greatest of achievements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)Pharen Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 "The truly weak desire most to be the truly powerful." What does this statement mean to you? If anything. It's the old saying, no matter what you have, you will always want something else. We will never have everything we want no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(XBOX)Grihaly Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Sounds like the TL;DR version of Stalker's lore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts