h a l f b a k e r yLeft for Bread
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
This is an online system that tests you to find out what social
archetype you display most often and then trains you in the other
social archetypes so that you can be more adaptive and versatile.
The wisdom of the day is don't practice what you are bad at, and
that works as long as there aren't
diminishing returns. What I have
noticed about disadvantaged populations -- kids, nuclear families,
people who are cut off from the cultural conversation, is that they
display stronger social archetypes. An example is the joker who
finds a joke and can't stop joking and the situation becomes
abusive.
If the jokee isn't independent and will not remove themselves
from
the situation then you have abuse and these eddies complement
each
other and turn into whirlpools. Solution: get the rocks out of the
way. A system that strengthened people's ability to take on social
archetypes that are not customary to them would balance social
groups out and allow for greater social cohesion, especially in
disadvantaged populations where things get most out of hand and
this kind of thing is needed most.
The way to frame reasoning against a defense of archetypal
specialization in social groups is basically to point out that the
process of developing greater and greater systems is allowed by
the
process of subsuming all of the archetypical behavior that goes
into
attaining a certain level of process into one managerial module,
and
then processing the modules. Can anyone tell that I failed
anthropology?
[link]
|
| |
[+] Like most of your ideas, I don't fully understand
it, and that's what makes it deeply interesting. |
|
| |
Basically: If we want to get something done, play to
our strengths. |
|
| |
But, If we want to work better together over the
long haul, develop those weaknesses. |
|
| |
// Can anyone tell that I failed anthropology? // |
|
| |
I assumed you hadn't got that far with it. |
|
| |
[sophocles]
Yes and also to recognize that "getting things done" in the
big picture, in the small picture is psychosis, and to
recognize that it has repercussions, there is always a
shadow to getting things done. It is obvious in a nuclear
family or in a kindergarten classroom that the joker has a
jokee, and that for every member of the court there is
someone in the dungeon, that it is a relationship with two
sides. But not so clear when you get a concert pianist or
CEO. |
|
| |
//"getting things done" in the big picture, in the small picture is psychosis// |
|
| |
Wait - is that just a rhetorical chiasmus, or is there some kind of logical nesting going on here? |
|
| |
no, just saying that for every up there is a down,
and that in the big picture most of what counts as
productivity is tied up in some way with the wheel
as a technology which is a bubble or complexification
eddy and that it will have a corresponding corrective
eddy; and that places of low measured human
productivity are where we should be looking for
portals to the corresponding eddy. |
|
| |
That's just restating the Platonic theory of
Higher Forms, not an original idea. |
|
| |
I would see Plato as saying there there is another
world, and there are two kinds of existance, and I
am saying that there is not another world and that
everything is connected and has an equal and
opposite reaction. But I agree that neither of these
are original ideas. |
|
| |
To be fair to [Jesus], neither of the above is the idea here. The idea is something else. |
|
| |
If I have understood it correctly, it is, in my opinion, wrong and harmful ... but not unoriginal. |
|
| |
As one of Plato's contemporaries, (Jesus, you came later, or
came not at all if we believe you were virgin). Where was I? |
|
| |
Oh, Plato had some classic ideas, ESP about forms. |
|
| |
I've met too many insane morons who babble nonsense like
JHC, but JHC here usually has some really cool insights into
the human condition & how it relates to the universe. So, I
don't dismiss his teasing ideas. I like to chew on them to
break out of my bubble of routine filters. He is one of the
few HB contributors that really challenges us at our core . |
|
| |
True, it is sad when the joker is the collateral damage from a joke and society isn't evolved enough for a fix. |
|
| |
but... then who'll discourse on the pompatus of love? |
|
| |
The whole thing is bursting with "convenience". Yes it is a comfort to imagine that things are in balance, that some benign mechanism acts behind and underneath. The reality is far more terrifying and hard to grasp, that there is no unifying mechanism, that every aspect of existence that we treasure could be destroyed by a large rock, a small vascular hole, or the idiocy of our own intentions. The granular analysis of human behavior reveals that it is no more sensible and organized than that of bathtub fung and yet the reality of being part of such a thing is so overwhelming to the individual mind that we would rather be blind; fill our eyes with pretty paint, than face it and have our egos torn apart. The Joker, is the fool who comforts us, even with pain, that we may feel that we matter. We can only pretend to hate the human drama, because the entire matter is staged to let us forget about the other thing; the development of society closely paralleled our growing understanding of mortality and our place in the universe. As a species we gained capacity, and to protect ourselves from that capacity we filled it up with our own shit. |
|
| |
{pours [WcW] another scotch} |
|
| |
So, this would be an online Meyer's-Briggs test? |
|
| |
... and a related gamified identity modification
module, yes. |
|
| |