The Back Room

[The_Mather1]

And I like being unique, means I have the chance to make a difference, be a thinker instead of a drone.

 

Enjoy your instinctual needs, as I very well enjoy my personal, existential ones.

[archimage_a]

And I like being unique, means I have the chance to make a difference, be a thinker instead of a drone.

 

What I find quite entertaining is that you are essentially refuting a system not at all dissimilar from the Dewey Decimal system, more or less on the basis that you have all the books you could ever need, and if you needed more you would write them.

 

The Hierarchy is merely designed to explain why people are motivated to do certain things.

For instance, if I am a feudal farmer then I am motivated to farm by my need of food, I am motivated to serve my liege because of my need for safety, I am motivated to help my village because of my need of friendship, I am motivated to be better than others because I want to achieve, I am motivated to become literate because I want to become more knowledgable.

 

However, if I cannot get enough food, then my safety (IE not poaching in my Liege's woods), my village (Stealing from my neighbours) and my need to become better/respected are greatly diminished.

 

Similarly, your situation:

You have food, you have safety, you have some degree of belonging, you have a lesser extent of esteem and you generally lack Self-Actualisation.

In my approximation of your situation anyway...Based on you talking about food, that you more or less openly flout the law, that you gave impassioned speeches about how vastly important the Tavern is to you, that you are frequently looking for acceptance from other people (Retech and Lei to name but two) and your general creativity/spontanetity/lack of prejudices (most recently shown with the 'I am not running a game with a system') and (Though we will probably argue on this point) your general disinterst in accepting facts, favouring, instead, to reinvent the facts in a way that suits whatever you happen to be arguing.

 

 

Conversely, I have food, I have a perception of safety, my sense of belonging is more or less secured, my sense of achievement is waning as I am exposed to people who are more skilled than I am, and my self-actualisation is somewhat developed...but is weakening as well.

 

 

Its not really a 'You are here' kind of thing, it is just a model to demonstrate that our needs are in a hierarchy =P

[The_Mather1]

Actually I've got the whole hierarchic filled up, all of them are beyond what I need them to be, apart from cognitive and self-actualization, which are impossible to actually fill, though they are as full as they should be.

 

I'm at perfect balance with myself and as such I am in the perfect position to go beyond my instinctual needs and instead focus on more spiritual needs, such as my need to keep raising my karma and realize true love.

[Resistance]

And I like being unique, means I have the chance to make a difference, be a thinker instead of a drone.

 

Enjoy your instinctual needs, as I very well enjoy my personal, existential ones.

 

Your humanity is weakness, you are more likely to break under white torture. You must begin optimising yourself to avoid this, for the greater good.

 

 

In other news: My suggestion for minecraft

 

 

Now, on most forums players are notified that its their birthday. In some games players will recieve a birthday hat or a 'happy birthday' message informing of the game awknowledging their birthday. I believe that minecraft could do with a similar, possibily exciting new addition to minecraft that would only occur on the players birthday.

The birthday clown would use the same model as the player character with the addition of a bright red nose (similar to the testificates nose) and long feet. It would have a humorous clown skin which would be very happy.

 

The birthday clown would follow the player, running away if seen. It would hide behind buildings and appear in trees but would normally run away before being seen. The birthday clown will squeak when looked at and make a slow breathing sound when close. While the clown exists in the world it would give a high-pitched laugh to remind the player that its there and to expect a suprise.

Like a testificate it will discover 'dwellings' that the player has created and start living in them, leaving signs and confetti everywhere and placing cake on rarer occasions.

 

Signs would say things such as:

HahahahahHAHAHAHA!!!!

Hooo Hooo!!

Ha Ha Ha Ha!!

HaHa

Happiness is just a fall away

Haaaaahahahaahah

Dot.... Dot...

Lets pin the tail on the [playername]

Hide and seek, [playername]

I'm going to get you [playername]

Boom! Hahaha!

 

Of course this would have to occur as a 'surpise' so if the player returns the clown would attack you to make sure that you can't see the suprise. The clown would obscure your vision in the same way as a nether portal but instead of showing the portal animation it would flash different images of the clown. The clown would laugh extremely loudly when attacking the player. If the clown dies it dissapears but the enderman teleport particles appear suggesting an ominous rebirth to continue the party at a later time. It would deal knockback 3 damage and could potentially root you to the floor if you try to run. The clown would instantly destroy blocks accompanied with a TNT style blast an even louder laugh. The sounds of the clown cannot be removed by turning off the sound or music, they are seperate and player extremely loudly.

It would also constantly check on the player to make sure that they're away from their house, if they create a new dwelling it will also decorate that dwelling.

 

 

 

+ every 10 seconds

 

The clown would linger in the game for about 10 minecraft days and nights, regardless of the time spent out of game. This would ensure that everybody is able to have the event. The clown would 'spawn' on the players Birthday and if the day isn't provided it will spawn one time in a random day of the year.

 

P.S a mod request.

[The_Mather1]

Nah, I was perfectly capable of sitting still for eight hours a day during my last work placement. Also I can literally sleep all day if I'm bored (I think my record is going to sleep on my couch after school, only to wake up at midnight, brush my teeth and go to bed) or I will subconsciously start snapping a beat or singing if I'm by myself.

 

Remember, you can't break a mind that's already broken.

[Leiana]

 

I've spent months trying to learn this dance. I've got most of it down, my only problem is my footwork. And wearing my shoes.

[archimage_a]

Actually I've got the whole hierarchic filled up, all of them are beyond what I need them to be, apart from cognitive and self-actualization, which are impossible to actually fill, though they are as full as they should be.

 

I'm at perfect balance with myself and as such I am in the perfect position to go beyond my instinctual needs and instead focus on more spiritual needs, such as my need to keep raising my karma and realize true love.

 

"I am beyond true love, I am at eternal love."

"I am beyond eternal love, I am at ultimate love."

Ect.

 

To continue the catagorisation metaphor your argument reads that "I am at 1.001 in the Dewey Decimal Classification Scheme"

 

I would suggest you actually read Maslow's article, but I can only imagine you would claim it was overcomplicated or unneccessarily complex.

"Pyramids? Thats two more vertices and one more rays than there needs to be!"

[Earth]

Who says I need to be a drone? If I can catagorize myself then I know I can use my talents that are unique to myself, while using the grounding the catagory grants to make myself much happier. Like minds are great company, but don't invite them to a debate. You'll get nowhere.

[Resistance]

To be honest, the way you describe Love, Mather is just the typical commercialised limerance that the coorporations want us to believe.

[Nexaduro]

Ieyfura, Stork, someone please yell at him so he'll stop.

 

I've had enough of Mather being Mather for one week.

[Leiana]

Aye, I agree with Nex

 

-smiles at the fact I haven't been acting my "normal"self-

[The_Mather1]

Wow, since when was the term douchenozzle enough to get a post removed? It's not even a proper insult, it's just an internet term for someone who in some way hurts or brings difficulty to others through acting selfishly.

[Nexaduro]

Hence, an insult.

 

Stop being so self-righteous.

 

Also, Lei, you should watch the rest of Puella Magi if you haven't. It's a good series, and remember that it has a good ending when you watch episode 3 and onwards.

[archimage_a]

Wow, since when was the term douchenozzle enough to get a post removed? It's not even a proper insult, it's just an internet term for someone who in some way hurts or brings difficulty to others through acting selfishly.

I suppose the real question is, if I said 'Quit being a Matherard' would you/other people be offended, even though I just made it up?

 

Mather, being your name, which indicates that it is a personality trait.

Retard, meaning to slowing down or to hinder progress or otherwise delay.

 

Obviously I would never call you that because it is offensive and people who are not you may take offense to it, even if you don't personally. It is merely included to demonstate how your 'Its not really a real insult' argument is flawed.

 

Half-wit would be another term I could use, which is English Slang, similar to your 'Internet Term', yet may still cause offence.

 

I would strongly recommend you look at the rules a little more often, since the purpose of them is not to stop you from insulting people, but is to stop other people from being insulted BY you.

(And so much other jargon which is rubbish, yet, by using these forums we agree to abide by.)

[Resistance]

Since when is a real-man all angsty about love?

[Ieyfura]

Since when is a real-man all angsty about love?

 

Maybe he just wants to be in a relationship? I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Nexaduro]

Speaking of which... Turns out the girl I said I liked a while back likes me too. It's a difficult relationship, I think, but an honest and strong one.

[Resistance]

Since when is a real-man all angsty about love?

 

Maybe he just wants to be in a relationship? I don't see anything wrong with that.

Yes, but it also implies that men who aren't in relationships aren't real men. I mean, is Oscar Wilde not a real man?

 

Ghandi?

Issac Newton?

Tesla?

 

And I'm sure there are more people.

 

--

 

Even so, the label of a 'real man' being in a relationship is just stupid and its even more stupid to imply that 'real men' are angsty teenagers who wear black and wear skinny jeans because those are the only other people who discuss love in such a serious and commercialised way. To classify a real man would be impossible because its subjective but sometimes things are so far from the truth that they're just untrue in the way a person could easily argue that bread is the worlds favourite food but would never be able to back it up, a person could never claim mud was most enjoyed by people because they just know its not true.

Love is just a human construct which is frankly quite stupid, and the way you talk about it is even more stupid. People can love one another but you speak of it as if its a magical bond in which one person shares their humanity with another being and rainbows appear and birds sing, a human construct isn't like that so it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Nobody really loves each other absoloutely and people need to learn to get a grip on reality and realise that its better to get into a relationship with somebody who you know you will have a secure, steady and beneficial relationship with instead of just because of this mad crazy love that causes you to choose people who frankly are stupid to choose, unless of course you fall in love with a perfectly sane doctor with rich parents - but like thats going to happen.

[Leiana]

I'm in my final relationship, so I can't say much to anyone about relationships but to try, try and try again. It'll happen eventually

[Resistance]

final

 

What do you mean by final?

[Leiana]

As in if my current relationship goes wrong, I'll not date anymore. But, due to everything that's been happining in my current relationship, my current relationship will last longer than my 3 previous ones. Much Much longer.

 

-points at my sig and avatar- There's your proof.

[Alg]

Love is just a human construct

Well of course it is. Unless one of you is hiding something from us, we're all humans here, so it makes sense. :mrgreen:

 

not that there are any robot spies on this board or that I would know anything about that.

[Nexaduro]

Since when is a real-man all angsty about love?

 

Maybe he just wants to be in a relationship? I don't see anything wrong with that.

Yes, but it also implies that men who aren't in relationships aren't real men. I mean, is Oscar Wilde not a real man?

 

Ghandi?

Issac Newton?

Tesla?

 

And I'm sure there are more people.

 

--

 

Even so, the label of a 'real man' being in a relationship is just stupid and its even more stupid to imply that 'real men' are angsty teenagers who wear black and wear skinny jeans because those are the only other people who discuss love in such a serious and commercialised way. To classify a real man would be impossible because its subjective but sometimes things are so far from the truth that they're just untrue in the way a person could easily argue that bread is the worlds favourite food but would never be able to back it up, a person could never claim mud was most enjoyed by people because they just know its not true.

Love is just a human construct which is frankly quite stupid, and the way you talk about it is even more stupid. People can love one another but you speak of it as if its a magical bond in which one person shares their humanity with another being and rainbows appear and birds sing, a human construct isn't like that so it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Nobody really loves each other absoloutely and people need to learn to get a grip on reality and realise that its better to get into a relationship with somebody who you know you will have a secure, steady and beneficial relationship with instead of just because of this mad crazy love that causes you to choose people who frankly are stupid to choose, unless of course you fall in love with a perfectly sane doctor with rich parents - but like thats going to happen.

Ghandi tupped his wife when his father was dying, as I recall. I did an amateur biography on him for English a while ago.

 

Not that it matters much.

[Jehosaphat]

not that there are any robot spies on this board or that I would know anything about that.

T R A I T O R

 

E X T E R M I N A T E

 

But in all srsness, I tend not to have too much luck in the relationship department anyways. Mostly because the majority of the women I encounter are significantly older than myself.

[archimage_a]

Ok. So. (Because this argument makes no sense)

To summerise:

 

Neferast says "What Mather believes is a socially constructed fiction, based strongly on the profiteering of the capitalist system."

Mather says "No, I really do believe it and its not just a socially constructed fiction, its a real thing. Oh, and by the way, I question your validity as a real man because you don't believe in true love."

Neferast "If you were a real man then you wouldn't believe all the socially constructed fiction, you would just accept the world as it really is, and if you did that then you would not be Angst-Ridden. As such I question your validity as a real man because you believe in true love."

Iey "Some people just want to be in relationships. I don't see him as less, or more, of a real man because of that."

Neferast "Yes, but he challanged my validity as a real man because I am not in a relationship so I had to challange his validity as a real man. Also, here is some slander to prove me right."

 

Aside from being a prelude to some sort of manliness contest, the argument serves no purpose.

 

 

Analytically...Neferast dismisses social constructs far too early on. Money is, for instance, a social construct. This does not invalidate its ability to influence people into certain modes of thinking, or into making certain decisions which they would not otherwise make.

IF true love is a societial construct, and not inbuilt to reality, then Mather's belief in the social construct gives the construct substance because, whether it exists or does not exist, the effects of it do exist.

IF it is inbuilt into reality, then the idea that it does not exist is a societial construct, possibly spawned from nihilism, which, as Mather correctly argues, would make his life more difficult - since the social construct's effects obscure reality, in much the same way as if true love is the social construct.

 

Personally both theories are inaccurate. What I believe is that all love is inherantly true---

[hide]

(Though if you want to seperate it from lust then you could probably make that distinction...though we would then be left with the love between a man and a dog, or between a man and a fine bottle of Bourbon. Thus we then have to seperate it from love of inanimate objects and of animals which are not human, typically further confined to members of the opposite sex. Though this is inherant prejudice since it nominally negates the possibility of same sex true love, or, indeed, true love for animals...Which one could make a very strong argument for given the amount of love some children invest in pet rabbits and what not.)

[/hide]

---and love is something that is both fleeting and static, in much the same way as a river. This means that while we may 'love' someone for our whole lives, what 'love' actually means to us changes more or less constantly. We can make the rather simple assessment that even the most besotted couple will, on occassion, think about other things, or will be angry or annoyed with the other person. This, of course, doesn't mean that they do not 'love' the other person for certain durations, it merely means that the 'love' they feel is different. We could couple 'love' with 'regret', for instance, if someone died/left before you had the chance to set things right.

While the idea of 'Someone who is forever yours, and will always be thinking about you, and will never be annoyed with you, and you never annoyed with them' is an ideal situation, and certainly something to aspire towards, as opposed to going 'its impossible, we should ignore it', I do thinking that finding someone who you will be able to forgive, and to be able to forget about the things that annoyed you, and to think about them when you have cause to, is doable.

In that sense 'True Love' exists.

 

 

Ultimately, though, no matter which way you look at it there are assumptions made about the fundermental make up of the universe which are built almost exclusively on our own personal experiances and our own personal thought processes. While we can debate and allow the thought processes a chance to reproduce themselves within each other's minds, we should not become annoyed that other people are unable to accept and agree with our assessments of the universe.