kyla Although I can see how a person might find the idea of complete lack of order entertaining, I don't think it can ever be the case for what we now call the human race. Cool, but unrealistic. Like wanting to go back in time.

The Progress of Civilization is sold on the idea that resistence to compulsion is of value. But, the selling is just for show. Civilization will not be gotten rid of no matter its value, because the order from which it is born is that of human nature--social nature. However we may wish to flatter ourselves, we are not chaotic beings. We have a few fundamental motives, the fulfillment of which bond us to one another in what the world of atomic theory would call a STRUCTURE.

It is not the desire to resist that originally binds us, but the desire to gratify. Yet, once we are bound, as with our analagous atomic brethren, resistence becomes part of a more complex (i.e. "civilized") gratification.
dionysius cripple it's not that there aren't patterns to things we cannot understand the patterns of, but nonetheless, it can be said that everything in the universe seeks a stability we can understand, because if it doesn't, it does not exist long enough for us to describe it let alone understand it. stability is a prerequisite for existence in the dimension of time. there must be either a static, or a delayed nature to the change matter experiences as it travels through the dimension of time. or something analgous to an open system, where order is constantly imported at of course some price. 021005
dionysius cripple but yes totally. we have base desires. these base desires though have always been handled in a social matter. all you need to do is look at the lengthy gestation time of our children as well as their helplessness at birth. we need each other. we're idiots, can't feed ourselves. as culture changes though, certainly the means of negotiation have changed. perhaps what we need is the same, but the agreements we make to satisfy said needs could not be more different. hmmm now to say something meaningful about this. well, we are often given the limitations when we are given the benefits, so as not to ever separate the two in our mind. but certainly parking tickets are an example of how we accept much out of fear of the conglomeration we've entered into, or how much we can stretch the association between rewards and restraint. and of course we each think it's the other person who makes parking tickets necessary, it's them who we're holding the charade up for. and they think the same thing about us. and that appraisal of other is what makes restraint possible. others are free to do what they please so long as it doesn't interupt my freedom. but it does get more abstract and more detailed than one on one interactions as populations increase, and the amount of specialization necessary increases with it. what's the correlation coefficient i wonder? but there are moments when we realize the possibility that most of us rightly describe as ancient of that one on one individual negotiation and power struggle. we see the possibility of leaving our contract, of giving ourselves to a more basic law. the hiearchies of strength and cleverness we gave up when we saw the average person outnumbered the strong, and used the social bond as its own form of strength. compassion became a protection of weakness. it allowed weakness to become a hobby, and to this day a somewhat enjoyable one. forgiveness etc. etc. they would indeed be ridiculous in a world where everyone was always strong, but fortunately for us, all of us depend on something like it at one time or another. because we all depend on other. that is, what another can uniquely give us that we can't give ourselves. of course, the clever have still found loopholes, and the strong still cause uneasy looks when walking down the street, and these are remnants of the more base hiearchies of our past. before the social bond came along and outlawed harems and destroyed genius and...no no no...don't get me wrong i think society is great. i just wish it had more voice sometimes. in the case of weapons of mass destruction, they make no sense on an individual level, to protect the world by destroying it. hmmm...who's that benefit? higher dynamics...concepts...i wish there were a greater connection between individual and society. but i guess when there's so many people, the best we can do is representative individuality. of course, this presupposes that our leaders don't in their own moments become aware of the possibility and then feel the curious pull of a more basic law. the limits of body and mind not prescribed by another person, the gloves off, the scorecards thrown out, etc etc. this has been proven wrong time and time again. 021005
dionysius cripple and of course, we're born into our dependancy. it's just the type of it that differs. 021005
dionysius cripple (yes again) the appraisal of the other within self is what makes restraint a word. awareness at one end of the structure of the mutual dependancy between ends informing all actions. but it would be misleading though not false to call humans atoms. let's not forget the tragedy of the commons, where a self interested individual by taking more than other members of society does what is not best for society and ironically themselves. 021005
silentbob don't leave me 040306
what's it to you?
who go