Starve.Org White Noise Usenet Archive: "Re: PLEASE TAKE THE CORPORATOCRACY/SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM thread elsewhere."

Valory wrote:

> I'd like to go on record along with Rat, Axel, Derick and Rogerio in
> stating that I don't feel that these corporatocracy/brainwashing/socialism
> threads belong in a support newsgroup for shy people.

That is your opinion - I do not agree, have indicated that before. (Also
please see my three-part post on 'Toward a Bifurcation Theory of
Shyness')

>
> At first, when Billy started echoing Daeron like that, I thought it was
> a cruel joke and that Daeron was going to be offended. But now it seems that
> we're back to Billy-joins-a-cult.

Uh....er. excuse me 'Val' - but this is not about a 'cult'. It is about
being extricated from a cult: the cult of the corporatocracy. You all
should be thanking the likes of Billy, Stewart and myself for trying to
bring some semblance of light and illumination into your collective,
false-concsciousness, instead you wail and whine about a thread that
upsets you. The real question is WHY does it upset you? Are you afraid
to see real conflict, REAL difference of opinion - as opposed to the
pseudo differences portrayed in the culture on TV, or film or wherever?

> It's sad, but why should we have it take
> over the newsgroup?

I don't understand why you and some of the others are complaining If
anything you are contributing to the thread's extension! As I pointed
out to MArc, if you don't like the thread - or the topic, then do
yourself a favor and killfile (or filter) it - or use your mouse on
another post. (Though having read the whole post of yours, it does seem
you are genuinely interested in information, namely my reasons for
posting to the ng. I don't necesaarily feel one should have to be
'interrogated' to justify his or her posting, but I appreciate your
curiosity and respond).

As a last resort - you can always IGNORE the post. But - by contributing
to it - you simply further, extend the thread and illogically accomplish
the exact opposite of what you claim you want (the thread to end or 'go
elsewhere').

My suggestion - as I gave to Marc, is to exercise that option, but do
not presume to impose your form of ng censorship by saying what can be
posted and what can't - or defining what is 'off topic' and what isn't.
In terms of my frame of reference, and what I call SOCIAL SELF
KNOWLEDGE, all my posts are on topic. However, because they often go
beyond parochial bounds of what most people adopt as a standard (in
judging relevance) they are not seen in that light. Which is more an
indictment of the critics than anything else.

> Honestly, Billy - when you said things before about how you had all of
> these emotional problems (I'm thinking of your response to that post about
> schizophenia, as well as your posts about your therapy) I thought you might
> be over-stating it a little, maybe just being a bit hyperbolic for effect.
> Now I'm really starting to wonder. I really wish you'd compare some of the
> things you've written in the last couple of days with the things you were
> going through during your "cult experience". Please.

I don't see what all this has to do with 'the price of tea'. Billy is a
big boy - goes to university from what I can see- and has some
intellectual precocity, let him make up his own mind. Stop patronizing
him. You make it sound as if I am here - under the guise of some kind of
nefarious 'cult' to gain 'converts'. This is totally off-the-wall, flat
out wrong.

> And Daeron - what do you get out of this newsgroup? You must post to
> other groups. Why do you stick with this one?

Yes, I do post to other groups. I do not necessarily 'stick' with this
one more than any other. However, as a former shy person (and continued
introvert) I have issues and experiences that I feel can be shared. That
I feel others can benefit from. Many of these revolve around the
abhorrent treatment I have seen both shys and introverts receive at the
hands of corporations - being victimized by them, as well as the larger
corporate-riddled, dominated culture. THAT is the perspective I bring to
bear. Some people - who have corporate connections, families (i.e. their
fathers are money managers for mutual funds, or CEOS or whatever) can't
handle these issues. But that is their problem. They are already imbued
with false consciousness and co-opted.

The point is I am bringing to bear a much larger context, and
perspective and as I said repeatedly - this is about SOCIAL
Self-knowledge.
People in this ng are wasting valuable time searching for personal
self-knowledge, but they do not understand or comprehend that they must
have SOCIAL self-knowledge FIRST. And that includes the political and
economic dimensions of the larger society. Not just what college
fraternity (or sorority)they are in - or how many beers they can drink.
Or whether this or that guy or girl will notice them in Calculus class
if they bat their eyes this way, or put on this or that jacket, or wink
this or that way. If you get my point.

Some people will see this, some never will. I am here for those who can
see it - and who have sent e-mails urgin me to continue these postings.

>I hope you're not really
> hoping to gain "converts". (This is getting weirder by the minute!)

'Converts' to what??!! Get real. I believe, however, that release from
the cultural-societal false consciousness is imperative if we - as a
people, are to get our lives back. To lead authentic lives for
ourselves, not merely as wage slaves for a corporation. Or, don't you
think this is a vaid objective?

> I
> understand that you have a theory about the difference between people who are
> unhappy with their shyness and people who are comfortable with their
> introversion, but do you enjoy reading the posts about people's day-to-day
> ups and downs?

I read all posts, but in the case of the 'day-to-day ups and downs' am
always distressed at how people artificially delimit their field of
action and their vision. It is as if they have constricted it to the
smallest possible scope of family, or date or immediate 'personal
problems' - without being able to see how the larger society governs
each of these. Thus, if my parents have to work two jobs, 50 hrs. /week
each, they will not be there for me (the corporation is taking the time
I'd get - this is an illustration btw). That definitely impacts on my
self-esteem and how I relate to others. Thus, the fact that time is
being hoarded by a corporation bears directly on my well being - both
psychological and social.

The problem with most people in our culture, is they are trained to box
things into small, separate categories. This makes life easier in some
ways, but also impedes solutions to larger issues or problems - which
also bear on smaller, personal ones.

> What about the posts where people ask for input on social
> situations they're trying to deal with? Do you relate to those at all?

Of course, and if you have checked - i.e. in Deja News, you wouild see
posts in which I dealt with those advice matters. But - obviously, one's
time cannot be scattered all over. My main interest, my prime concern -
is with the level of general societal awareness or SOCIAL
SELF-KNOWLEDGE. Because, I believe, without that, one cannot obtain
personal self-knowledge. And - without that, one cannot overcome one's
personal problems (since s/he will be unable to see what can really be
controlled and what are manipulated, orchestrated by the larger
society)/

>It
> seems to me that those posts are what this group is all about.

No, I am sorry - but you are flat wrong. They are what YOU would like
this group to be about (which is somehwat how Marc is too). The group -
if it is to mean anything beyond being an 'Ann LAnders' column online,
must also encompass SOCIAL SELF-KNOWLEDGE, within whcih the personal
evolves. I regret that your ontology is so narrowly pivoted, but thatis
your problem - and possibly to do with your immaturity. There are many
others, from whom I have received e-mails, that do not see it in this
parochial fashion.

> Do you see it
> differently? I'm interested in your view on this.

See above - I think I have said it as comprehensively as I can. My
emphasis, again, is on SOCIAL SELF-KNOWLEDGE. Its parameters,
boundaries, control factors and evolution. It is IMHO, every bit as
important as any other individual issue - probably moreso, since the
individual issues are pivoted within the larger matrix of the SOCIAL
milieu. These are not easy things for college-age persons to grasp,
probably because they do not get proper courses in sociology, which
would at least open their eyes somewhat. But, in that absence, I am here
to fill the void.

--
*DAERON*

"We can have democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated
in the hands of a few. We cannot have both."
- Justice Louis Brandeis.