All people really want to be is Slaves or be the Enslavers.

reply to post by skalla

Hi Athlon, i've only read up to here so far but from the off, i was wondering which you would class yourself as. does the above statement make you an enslaver of sorts?

Dont know depends if you think im right and arpgme is wrong. If enough people side with a certain opinion then that becomes a focal point for controlling the weaker. Outside of this thread i try and practice of not confronting force head on but going with its momentum. Therefore i sometimes will be in control but control to me is not a permanent thing its transitory.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Here is a conundrum. If i want to exorcise self control. Does that make me the slave or the enslaved?

reply to post by ThePhysicalExperience


It makes you enslaved by belief systems/ideology, otherwise you would just be FREE to do what you'd like. The only "self-control" we need is to respect the free-will of others, then there is balance.

reply to post by ThePhysicalExperience

Here is a conundrum. If i want to exorcise self control. Does that make me the slave or the enslaved?

If you excercise control then your are the enslaver. The point i was making is that a person who is enslaved may have accepted it on their free will. A classic example of this is the domimatrix submissive relationships which is a perfectly balanced and happy system of participants where one is in complete control and the other a slave.

Sometimes an enslaved wont accept it on their free will but its also good. Take for example a child being forced t have a splinter on their arm cause they broke it, but doesnt want it. Control is not evil.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by ThePhysicalExperience

 

It makes you enslaved by belief systems/ideology, otherwise you would just be FREE to do what you'd like. The only "self-control" we need is to respect the free-will of others, then there is balance.

That is what i was referring to. For example i like to have sex but i cant run around raping people because it breaches the "free will". There is no dogma or beliefs here but it still represents a control factor. So from this perspective nature is satisfied and everyone wins.

reply to post by ThePhysicalExperience

That is what i was referring to. For example i like to have sex but i cant run around raping people because it breaches the "free will". There is no dogma or beliefs here but it still represents a control factor. So from this perspective nature is satisfied and everyone wins.

The sex example is not the good one because we live in a world of laws. You break the law you go to jail.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


while i see things i agree with in both of your points, i lean more towards what arpgme has posted... a mixture of eating lunch and fathering prevents me from deeper involvement at pres (a happy enslavement? is such a thing possible?) but what he/she posted re the use of heirarchy and it's being a social construct rang particularly true for me.
when seeing your thread title, the first thought i had was "what about us who seek to co-operate?"... i also feel that LL's suggestion that we are all control freaks is innaccurate from my own POV - we all seek control in certain ways ofc, that is the nature of ego and the need to provide for ourselves, though the "freak" element for me implies that it has gone to an extreme, beit by difficulty in securing neccessary resources, being greedy w/e etc..

someone also mentioned consenual sexual dominance/submission - however this misses the concept of "topping from the bottom" as such, ie: the percieved sub being in as much "control" as the dom, or arguably more so.

it's a fascinating question you pose, and i feel that we can really only answer from our own perspectives - i dont see an absolute answer to this due to the complexity of motivations and relationships.

also, i dont think my view on whether i agree more with yourself or another poster changes my question as to which you are, it's your opinion i asked, not my own

overall for me, i'd like to see myself as outside of that equation in general relationship terms, though i will exert my will within certain bounds, judged individually. i will also concede points where i wanted a particular outcome and would have otherwise resisted - for reasons of personal relationships and my care for other's needs...
i feel that this makes me co-operative rather than enslaved on an issue. the dualistic approach is over simplifying a lot of issues i reckon..

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by ThePhysicalExperience

 

That is what i was referring to. For example i like to have sex but i cant run around raping people because it breaches the "free will". There is no dogma or beliefs here but it still represents a control factor. So from this perspective nature is satisfied and everyone wins.

The sex example is not the good one because we live in a world of laws. You break the law you go to jail.

Why is not a "good example"? Because you cant comprehend what i have said or it doesn't fit in your current belief system. Personally i can think of no better example because it relates to what you are talking about from a completely personal level with no external factors involved. What about a tribe of people who have no contact with the outside world and don't follow societies laws?

Originally posted by ThePhysicalExperience

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by ThePhysicalExperience

 

That is what i was referring to. For example i like to have sex but i cant run around raping people because it breaches the "free will". There is no dogma or beliefs here but it still represents a control factor. So from this perspective nature is satisfied and everyone wins.

The sex example is not the good one because we live in a world of laws. You break the law you go to jail.

Why is not a "good example"? Because you cant comprehend what i have said or it doesn't fit in your current belief system. Personally i can think of no better example because it relates to what you are talking about from a completely personal level with no external factors involved. What about a tribe of people who have no contact with the outside world and don't follow societies laws?

each society has different laws/acceptable behaviours, isolated tribes would be no different in possessing morals/rules/methods of their own etc

reply to post by ThePhysicalExperience


At some point we need to apply our belief systems to the real world we are forced to live in. This world places through enforced laws caveats on our freedoms. The question of is it right to control or allowed to be controlled was directed at exploring the inner mechanism of the social constructs we live in bounded by the laws. Even with laws theres still a lot of control and enslavement that goes on and thats what i was really interested in exploring.

reply to post by skalla


So it sounds like the very act of respecting free will is a self imposed control mechanism. So that would make one both the slave and en-slaver. This is pretty cool because it says a lot about the subjective nature of reality.

reply to post by ThePhysicalExperience

So it sounds like the very act of respecting free will is a self imposed control mechanism. So that would make one both the slave and en-slaver. This is pretty cool because it says a lot about the subjective nature of reality.

Yes you really brought a inner truth here. The idea of having total free world can only ever be a idealism fanatasy.

It could be argued true freedom is not holding back a person at all. Isnt this closer to Natural law since no law is constraining the person. Therefore control must be the truest expression of Nature!

to me freedom is relative, as soon as my freedom starts to limit someone else, they will start to limit mine to regain their own.... unless they are entirely passive, which would only last untill they are totally fed up and fight back as such.
i think freedom is an over used concept in debates etc - it's a personal notion and outsiders may view others as being totally deluded in their estimation of how free they are - it's all just perception, we create our own realities and often make the mistake that others share them with us.

reply to post by skalla

to me freedom is relative, as soon as my freedom starts to limit someone else, they will start to limit mine to regain their own.... unless they are entirely passive, which would only last untill they are totally fed up and fight back as such.
i think freedom is an over used concept in debates etc - it's a personal notion and outsiders may view others as being totally deluded in their estimation of how free they are - it's all just perception, we create our own realities and often make the mistake that others share them with us.

I agree your definition is most true applied to the average human being on the planet. For human beings however who seek to synergise with Mother earths energy on the road to enlightenment freedom is NOT doing being restrained by caveats of laws or restricting decisions that comprising others freedom, its is doing exactly what the person wants.

reply to post by skalla


The best slaves are those who do not know they are in chains. Teach them to think like the free people, and they may actually start to believe it.

reply to post by arpgme

The best slaves are those who do not know they are in chains. Teach them to think like the free people, and they may actually start to believe it.

The moment you start talking about teaching you are introducing what you think is best for them. The Dark energy of Isis has always been about control. Shes sells freedom to the human race but its subterfuge freedom like fools gold.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by skalla

 

The best slaves are those who do not know they are in chains. Teach them to think like the free people, and they may actually start to believe it.

i'm not sure i agree, but i think that discussion on that may derail the thread - may go into that later if it seems appropriate

reply to post by skalla


it will only be appropriate if arpgme wants to reveal their underlying true belief on the nature of freedom. I would say it would not be in arpgme interest to go down this path as i can already see where it ends, in the seat of a person who secretly desires full control.

reply to post by skalla


Didn't you say freedom is relative and it is all about perception? Then why do you disagree that a slave will start to believe they are free if they are taught to think like free people?

My point was, you can believe things but that doesn't make it so. If I am a bird in a cage, I can believe I am free, but am I really? No. Somebody put me in there, if I were free I'd be able to fly around like a bird naturally does...

reply to post by arpgme


if a slave thinks like a free person, or does not know that they are a slave, are they indeed truly a slave? who ever owns a slave would surely want them to know who is in control, what the ramifications of that are and so forth... i think that using the term slave otherwise really ignores the deeper meaning of slavery.
i think people really mean "manipulated" not "slave"