Monday, April 6, 2009

You're insatiable! Me too!

It was only just recently that I became familiar with Jacques Fresco. And yes, I know that Les Visible pointed us all at him way back when, but what with me using an internet cafe wherein heavy downloads are a frowned upon no-no, I was unable to view the movie links he provided. But a lovely fellow who sits out the back of the cafe with me, gave me Zeitgeist Addendum straight from his hard drive. Finally I catch up.

And there it all was. The beauty of technology as a means of freeing us of want. With limitless energy providing limitless food, shelter, clothing, and transport, whole fields of unproductive un-endeavour would disappear. Without want, we'd see the end of crime and it's concomitant allopathic responses by way of the police, judiciary, and prisons. We'd have no need of the military. With money being unnecessary so would the industries dealing with it - banking, insurance, the stock market, all gone. Advertising too! Hurray! I'll bring the beers.

Sure enough, I'm down with all of the above. But as is my wont, I just had to pick at this thing. It occurred to me that it was less a case of, 'Here are the problems and now what is the answer?' than it was, 'Here is the answer and what problems may we solve with it?' The answer is technology sure enough. And clearly technology can solve many, many problems. And in doing so will, more or less, address the big picture. But it looks to me that the big picture view we have here has been assembled from lots of little pictures. Dig it, it's like a David Hockney photo montage.

But like a Hockney snapshot, what with the gaps in the pictures, the smooth flow of my mental eye stuttered. For mine, what Fresco's picture lacked was a coherency, a unifying overall philosophy. It seemed not to have anything to tie it together. I wondered about Fresco's world. If something were to pop up, some blemish on the perfection of it all, I had the impression that the response would be, 'What technology is there to throw at this?'

Hmm... maybe that'll work. Or maybe not. I'm thinking 'not'.


There are only two 'philosophers' (not the right word, but never mind) that I consider to be bullet-proof in their entirety. They are Charles Darwin and the Buddha. Me putting words in Darwin's mouth - food and protection from the elements are not the fundamental human drive. They are merely responses to what is the fundamental drive - the need to pass on one's genes. Or to put this more simply, any entity that exists must (wittingly or unwittingly, it really doesn't matter) seek to continue its existence. This is ipso-facto territory. Any entity that lacks this drive will cease to be an entity. Any entity that exists will have it. That's all there is to it.

The simple truth of existentialism - 'why am I here?' - is that there isn't one. Not beyond, 'a thing is'. The flipside of this is, 'a thing that isn't isn't'. Bloody genius, me. I've just done away with the whole field of existentialism. A fig for Descartes!

But forget such abstractions. Let's just view them as a basis for understanding the far more visceral phrase 'the sex drive'. Believe it or not, this 'drive' is existential in nature, not that that ever occurs to us. What does occur is something like 'Phwooar, look at that arse! You could bounce twenty cent coins off that!' Or is that just me? Anyway, every thirty seconds folks - you, me, the lot of us - a thought like this jolts our brain.

Believe it or not, such thoughts (by way of what drives them) are more fundamental in terms of the human condition than the basic needs of food and shelter. Sure, we need food and shelter to survive but we need to survive because of our 'without-it-we-wouldn't-be-here-to-begin-with' sex drive.

Back to Darwin now. Darwin says that there are various means of dealing with how to get it on with members of the opposite sex. Nature presents more variations on this theme than there are stars in the sky. Mates are chosen because they are: fat and sleek; good at fighting; have shiny feathers; sing well; dance well; build a better home; have superior artistic taste; on and on. Funny how humans barely differ from animals, birds, and fish isn't it? That's one of the beauties of Darwin. He says that anyone who thinks they're special is fooling themselves.

But that's only half the picture. All of the above responses are appeals by those hoping to be selected to those who'll be selecting. Those who select are after quality. For those being selected, quality is neither here nor there. They're after quantity. There's no point condemning this. Like any creature with a sex drive is going to stop with one partner. Honestly. Any creature that gets laid might be shagged out momentarily, but the sex drive doesn't take long to reassert. It only has one message and it says, 'Get Rooting!' Nor should any women out there feel smug. Nature is replete with examples of species which appear to be monogamous but are actually no such thing. Philandering abounds, females included.

So what was my point exactly? The point is that food and shelter cannot be divorced from our fundamental Darwinian sex drive. Even with all things provided for us we will still seek to find better partners and more of them. And we will do this by differentiating ourselves from our neighbours. Whoever has the biggest house, the best clothes, the shiniest car will get laid more often. Getting circular now - this need to one-up our neighbours must exist because we exist. And whatever Jacques Fresco promises us, it won't put a dent in it.


What a load of crap! We all know perfectly well that people who have nothing but generosity of spirit can get laid too. What about that huh?

I thank that imagined individual for segueing me into the Buddha. The Buddha acknowledges all that Darwin says, with his dictum 'life is suffering'. And suffering of course is desire. Of course, the Buddha doesn't dwell solely on the desire to get laid like Darwin does. He goes beyond Darwin to view things in terms of the 'self'. So what's the difference?

Hopefully I've done enough fleshing out above to save us yet more circuitousness and thus allow me to declare that there isn't one. Darwin's addressing of the necessity of 'being' and Buddha's view of the self as desire, are (if you cock your head and squint) the same thing. Our existence predicates the furthering of our existence and this necessarily places the self front-and-centre, first-and-foremost, the thing without which we are nothing.

The Buddha goes very very far in these thoughts. Too far for this discussion. Let's just stick to the Buddha as an answer to Darwin's imperatives. The Buddha has no beef with Darwin. He acknowledges the self but says that to view it as a thing separate to that-which-is-not-the-self is a mistake. Selflessness is not so much a rejection of yourself, ahem, but rather a means of viewing yourself in context.

Side note - Anyone who imagines a selfless person as being some idiot giving all their food to others and starving to death as a result, is being silly. Not only would this break Darwin's dictum but would also be a statement of separation of the self against that-not-the-self which is contrary to everything Buddha is on about. And yes, I can imagine a situation where such things would occur and still be described as 'right', but we shouldn't confuse extreme anomalies with the truth of the whole. In statistics, such extremities on the bell curve are discarded (2.1 standard deviations, blah blah, blah) and quite right too. Anomalies do not speak of a system but of its tolerances, a whole separate subject.

Anyway, with this selflessness as a lens, or a mindset, or a guiding principle perhaps, all of Darwin's dictums can be fulfilled. The world will function just fine. We'll all be fed, clothed, and sheltered and yes, even laid. Whilst it's no perfect 'Just one quick spray and it's gone!' antidote to Darwin's inevitable need to get laid more often, nor is it about anything else.


So hopefully you should have that mess of pottage above sitting in your head as a coherent perfect thought. Yes? Excellent. Now you understand the hole in Jacques Fresco's model of providing all that we need. He's got the cart before the horse. I don't know if anyone has ever actually tried to do this but I expect that with enough fiddling, it could be made to work. But not very well and not for very long. Likewise, Fresco's wish to sate our desires is one way of quenching the fires but not a very good one. The truth is desires cannot be sated. Like the TV show said - the nature of monkey is irrepressible. Subsequently any resemblance between Fresco's envisioned world and selflessness is merely a well-meaning coincidence.

Even viewed in solely practical terms the whole thing will be doomed to fail. In spite us of having all things in abundance, if the nature of the self is left unaddressed, those of a monstrous ego (pyschopaths if you prefer) will inevitably sacrifice all on the altar of their own regard. And frankly there seems to be nothing in Fresco's model to stop them.

In the big dreamy picture that is Jacques Fresco's brave new world, something big is lacking. There seems to be no coherent sense of 'This is who we are'. Or in negative terms, there is no 'When all else fails see rule 1'. Me, I reckon a continuum of selflessness provides a sense of 'who we are', a 'rule 1'. It does so as a stripped-down go-cart, a bare-bones lean-machine, a wonder tool good for any eventuality. It cannot be slurred or impeached since it favours none. It's as right as a thing can be.

Even if Fresco's plans were fully realised, it would eventually fail and we'd be back to where we started. On the other hand, if we could explode some kind of gigantic world-affecting Buddha-bomb and fill everyone's head with the truth of selflessness, the world that would result would pretty much resemble Fresco's vision anyway. And have a basis to it that made sense.

Brilliant! This and a thousand other mad dreams of a Buddhist dictator. What are the odds on Fresco's dreams seeing reality? Given that it threatens to replace insanely powerful and greedy institutions, who would rather fight to the death than let it live, it would have to be the bookie's dream. A buck will get you a million. Selflessness on the other hand is a personal trip. You can do it all on your own, and no maglev trains required.


Franz said...

God this one is great.

Thanks, this reminded me of the first book I read about Viktor Schauburger... what a SHORT all night read THAT was.

There was a Nation where the Amazon River flows now, and they invented soil that self-rejuvenates and yields crops in multiples of what even the best ordinary soil can grow. THERE WERE GIANTS IN THOSE DAYS. Now we got corporations, CORPS, as in CORPSE, that make seeds that die after one harvest.

Total technological inversion from then to now. From life tech to death tech, no way to figure why it turned that way either.

paul said...

who maintains all the technology, is it a rota system?

Anonymous said...

A disappointing post... how can you fall for such nonsense? The "Darwinian sex drive" is an reductionist slander against nature. Plus, Darwinist ideology is one of the main ways the Powers enslave people's minds by suppressing and ridiculing the Search for Quality. Why bother to strive for excellence in life or politics if all we are is evolved animals? I have no brief against Buddhism, but it seems to me somewhat escapist in terms of the religious traditions of the West and where we are now in history.

su said...

A few things come to mind:
If there is no hunger, how will anyone be satisfied.
If there is no ugliness, how will we recognise beauty.

A desire fulfilled simply leads to another desire.

The being we take to be self is actually an object.
The Subject is universal.

And on that note, I am going to make quince jam which I am not going to share with anyone, unless I need a favour.

(verification word - scons) to go with the quince jam.
Oops then forgot my code and the next veriword is foodove.

su said...

Senator Syvret - whistle blower of the Jersey home has been arrested.
I feel sick.

nobody said...

Hey Folks,

Frank, yep. The absence of philosophy aside, I do wonder on that basis. Every step towards technology is a step away from us as humans as part of the earth. If and when we do arrive at this technological heaven, we'll have to include me out. I just want to grow bananas and papayas with chickens scratching around in the dirt. Hell, I'll join 'em.

Paul, beats me mate.

Caryl, Finally someone declaring their disappointment! I've been wondering what was taking so long. But sorry mate, the actual cause of your disappointment seems destined to come crashing up against my rock hard certainty of the rightness of Darwin and Buddha. Otherwise, would I be right in thinking you're confusing Darwin with Social Darwinism? Here are my thoughts on that particular matter. And a slander against nature? Dear oh dear. This is Charles Darwin your talking about?

Oh wait - Caryl. Now I remember, you popped in before quoting the bible at me. Mate, without wishing to be rude, perhaps this is the wrong blog for you? Honestly, if you didn't care for this piece, you ain't seen nothin' yet! Wait till I start swearing!
Fucking hell, there's no end to it!

Hey Susana. Yum. And when making Quince Jam, it's crucial you have the right music.

And off to check your link. If it's any consolation, at least the fellow has a high profile. Fingers crossed there'll be a big public stink.

nobody said...

I just popped into Stuart Syvret's blog. He's out on bail and promises to write more soon.

Anonymous said...

With human nature as it is utopias cannot survive.
Say we culled all psychopaths; what would happen?
Say we all became psychopaths; what would happen?
Say we go on as we are; 'life is suffering'.
All human philosophies, theories and idiosyncratic governing systems aside, or not, there is a plan for all things and that plan will play out.
The plan is finished; we're just operating within its parameters.

annemarie said...

Ok, first things first:

the word verification is, you're not gonna' believe this...


I kid you not! And it's sooo fitting given "You're insatiable! me too!" hahahaa Yupper, readhot it is.

Hallo nobody :)

I don't grok Fresco's vision. Read it a while back and it felt very cold and sterile to me. Besides I'm convinced that technology is not the answer. Rather I think that L-o-v-e is . love=selflessness that's all imo.

Furthermore, any educated fool knows that all that we are is naked apes, human animals. With a dash of alien dna of course. muhahaha.

No, seriously. That's what I think we are. Naked ape+alien thingamagiggy.

Jesusmaryandjoseph, only anal retentives or uber sexual repressives protest that vigorously. Much of it due to religion or monstrously unhealthy ego, imo.

Am not really focussed at the moment, mind elsewhere. And it's late here to boot. Just wanted to pop in and say "hallo"

g'nite mite ;)

p.s. I have the answer to that burning question: "What's it all about Alfie?" A little buddha whispered it in my ear a few Xmas seasons past. He said, "It's all about a life."

That's it. A life.

get it? haha
ok, gnite now

the Silverfish said...

A disappointing post... how can you fall for such nonsense?

Gee perhaps her batterys died in her B.O.B, or perhaps not, no matter.

Darwinian sex drive all the way for me, WhooHoo.
Got to remember to git me some tonight, damn that Skye, she been holding out on that good ole darwinian stuff again, jes gotta have a talk wit dat woman.

nobody said...

Yay, Tony and Annemarie. The original two! Tone - nothing to add apart from, 'So we may as well be nice to each other as we go.' AM - Of course I get it. I'm the crossword guy. I spot anagrams like Steve Irwin crash-tackles critters. Um... except for that last one...

And Silv. You know something mate? With you and Skye, I don't know that there's any two people more deserving of the phrase, 'Oh, you kids...!'

Bloody teenagers!

Miraculix (Doug) said...

Fresco's is simply Gene Roddenberry reincarnated and still selling the same techno-Utopian song & dance in his soul's latest digs, or so his vision would have me believe.

Coming from a perspective of one who has fixed (and fixes) things -- and who's true measure of the "quality" of an object includes the maintenance factor -- the best question asked thus far was "who will maintain the machines?"

Why, the technical class, of course. And due to the indispensable nature of their work and the ever-increasing dependence we humans are demonstrating towards our prosthetics, they will be yet another priestly class (ala "Temples of Syrinx", perhaps?) wielding their control of the machines much as we would expect. Or similar.

As for Darwin, I stopped mentioning him about twenty years ago, as the only reading of his work anyone is allowed in the public mental space revolves around the now-iconic "survival of the fittest" adage. Which you have already dealt with quite effectively Mr. N.

In fact, it was one the most important items which kept your bookmark floating to the surface of my archives. Someone else with a bloody clue! Another who spends most of his time harrying the wizards behind their curtains. Huzzah!

Meanwhile, there remains little more to our meaty human existence lives than the "three F's":

Feed, Fight, F**k.

The latter two hingeing entirely on acquiring the former, as you so rightly state. You're a dangerous one mate, full of far too much perspective to be tolerated in the next phase of civilization. Cheers.

Mike said...

Your last two or three posts have been great (all the others were crap, but what he hell - joke! joke!).

Your a little oasis of inspiration in a world of negativity.

Well, that or a complete arsehole. And as the world's leading arsehole-ologist I know an arse hole when I see one.

You don't do request posts do you? Like: "How to survive on a planet of six billion lunatics that is run by a bunch of psychotics of selfishness for whom mass murder is a favourite past time."

I guess not. I will just have to keep trying to figure that one out for myself.

Keep up the good work and ignore old misery guts Caryl.

Jeez, I don't believe it. Me, the worlds biggest misanthropist calling someone else a misery guts.

I have to go lie down in a dark room for a while. Later.alaldc

nobody said...

Thanks Mir, you continue to fill in more gaps.

And thanks Mike, compliments are tolerated here as long as their back-handed. Put in the right terms, nothing pleases me more than being called an arsehole. This on account of the fact that I AM and arsehole.


nobody said...

Oh, fair warning - in spite of preferring to leave an article up for three days (any faster and the comments get disjointed), I am currently in a hell-bent frame of mind and will post a new thing shortly.

After the last time, you'd have thought I'd have learnt my lesson but obviously I didn't. Up soon - true nastiness!

annemarie said...

"Wanting everything is not the problem. Always getting what we want is."

Isn't that a beaut! Just came across it here

and wanted to share it since it's germane.


Penny said...

nobody, I gotta be honest, I was just lost on this one, so I need to go back and read it again, perhaps to much wondering about??

Miraculix (Doug) said...

First, a fix. I mangled the "Three F's" closure on the previous comment. As it's crucial to the whole point, a little repair is necessary. And how massively ironic that an idea, cast in only the most amorphous and ethereal of tangible forms (digital text!), is broken and needs repair. Who will fix things indeed.

The correct order of course, should have been: F**k, Feed, Fight.

Upon further consideration, "Fight" also needs to be rendered as the wholly interchangeable "Fight/Flee", preserving the semantic value of the alliterative pattern and better reflecting the range of actual choice available. There. I feel much better now. Meanwhile, a cross-referential thought wandered into view yesterday, as I was walking away from the laptop having just hastily posted "Gene Roddenberry & the Three F's":

As a memetic entity, the Matrix films were yet another stone in the grand facade (in the Blazing Saddles sense) of techno-shamanistic and -utopian ideas constructed largely over the last three centuries of human industrial expansion. What was Mary Shelley on about in Frankenstein? Just add a few bells, whistles and a wireless connection and here we are.

In the big (anti)climax, as Neo was subsumed into the machine (or was the machine subsumed into Neo?), I sensed the distinctly electrical odor of Kurzweil's "singularity". A flashy billboard alongside the mass media freeway selling us the "Man-Machine". A vast, multi-million-dollar commercial enterprise operating under the guise of "serious" entertainment by way of selling us the idea that we are inextricably linked to and dependent on machines. Which we not-so-arguably are. We are tool-makers after all; we just can't help ourselves in this respect. Show me the proper stone and I'll show you a hammer, a spear and an anvil.

This is the "90%" truism which provides ample cover for the more repellent "10%" aspects of the larger ideas in play. Where does it lead us? Nano-technology? RFID, biometrics and remotely-monitored and managed networks? Cyber-humanity? Without civilization-scale technologies we are doomed, they would have us believe. It was interesting to observe the major hinge points of the argument in the film, sitting there in plain sight.

The biggest, ugliest and most obvious lie is the one they always sell the hardest: the never-ending drumbeat that the system CAN be effectively "changed" from within. We must "stay the course". Blah f**king blah f**king blah. Those Monarch-candidates the Wachowski brothers didn't get a budget like that selling love and hippie beads.

Let's observe our protgaonist Neo. He went from complete and utter dependence on technology, living life as a limp organic battery in a tank full of bio-electric goo and riddled with tubes, to... complete and utter dependence on technology as his limp form was hoisted from the sewers of Duracell City by an equally all-encompassing technological nightmare populated by sadly overmatched humans -- full of "Zion" and not yet truly merged with their machines.

Which is what the techno-utopians realize in the shiny chrome and glass panoramas that populate their wet dreams. In the end, only when Man "merges" with Machine will there be hope. Only then will the harsh rationality be tempered with conscience.

To which, I say -- quite literally -- horses**t. As in, who shovels the shit in the romantic country stables in Captain Jean-Luc Piccard's Star Trek world? Man or machine? Is it considered demeaning work? You'll find very little of this sort of discussion in most techno-utopias. They're far more concerned with inverted panopticons that will as surely as I'm now breathing feature two-way transmission.

And what becomes of "man" when his very temple has become little more than an animated bundle of valves and wires and sensors? Why, he will now "worship" the machine directly, of course... now completely and utterly dependent on technology for his very existence, no longer attached to the fragile vagaries of biological flesh. And they call this is "evolution"?

I have only one last question: will our future cyborg ancestors still have sex? If the answer is "no", how is that any different than the "human fields" in the film? Not only am I not signing up, I would like to register a complaint!

(This may sound a wee bit sadistic, but it actually gladdens my heart to hear you've got a fire burning away under your creative arse Mr. N. Your thoughts are among the few I actually look forward to seeing/hearing these days. I'll keep putzing & spackling at the edges as I can. G'day Bruce!)

I dodged saying so yesterday, but I still can't help but feel something akin to pity for all the poor Caryl's out there, still all caught up in pre-packaged definitions of what "is" and unaware of how badly Darwin's ideas had to be reduced/simplified/compromised by the "scientific" establishment -- so they could then be used exactly as she describes. And then (likely without even realizing), she places the whole mess in context relative to the "western religious" construct and places all her chips on current "contemporary" history. In one fell swoop simply giving away the farm to two key control mechanisms of institutional power. Oops.

As far as I'm concerned, the "religious traditions of the west" are part and parcel, alongside every other power-aggregating top-down organization in history. The institutional imperative, that which creates and sustains what we think of today as "bureaucracy", is at least as old as the Sumerian priesthood (probably MUCH older) and as "new & improved" as the "viral" marketing used today to circumvent human bulls**t filters in relation to the "Big Lie" business of advertising, which is to say the media.

What's so effective about films like the Matrix, at least in it's semi-tantalizing opening act, is their leaning so hard on those "90%" truisms. By acknowledging the obvious existence of our own "matrix" and giving it such a highly iconic (and carefully chosen) name, they effectively sieze control of not just the discussion but now control the valid terms therein -- clearing the way to then steer their memetic vessel into the "10%" swamps of their choosing. Think V for Vendetta. Same same. That's Hollyweird's real game. Defining the boundaries and then fertilizing the appropriate "niche markets". "Personalized" mass media. Goebbel's would be proud.

None but the iconoclasts call it for what it is. And no one ever takes them seriously anyway, since they don't live within the safe confines of the "hive mind" of the media hyper-state and are therefore oficially "other". Effectively (and again ironically) marginalized by that which frees them, they serve as little more than Cassandra's distant cousins, playing out an ever-expanding and circular fable of modern industrial proportions. They are those statistical anomalies on the bell curve. Transformed from human being to systemic deviation with little more than a number two pencil.

I always experience serious personal irony right about here, as that is exactly where my dots all landed when I was squeezed through the rigorous forms of standardized testing during the 1970's & '80's. Does this render me "smarter" than most everyone? Maybe, maybe not. I never cared much for the distinction. There are many different kinds of "smart". For what it's worth, I have definitely always seen the world far differently than the vast majority within the "brotherhood of the bell".

And "escapist"? No kidding. Who do you know that embraces the system with both arms? From the career bureaucrats performing their atomized evil upon an unsuspecting public to the dark spectres that are the board of directors upstairs, it is all repellent to me. My escape (and that is exactly what it was) to the countryside was performed in late 2002, and included a continental venue change. I fail to see anything at all that is negative or irresponsible about such an escape. Quite the contrary, actually, for more reasons than I care (or need) to list.

However, in our errant visitors view, "escape" is apparently a perjorative term. Of course, how that additional semantic baggage the term schleps around these days got there is the real question here, and recognizing it reveals a key control point in the "great game". As any real terrorist knows, when effectively disabling any system you must strike at it's control points.

I've said it before and it bears repeating: pre-packaged industrial ideas are no better for your intellectual health than pre-packaged industrial foods are for your body.

# # #

nobody said...

Mir, that was a cracker. Sure enough your angle on the Matrix is different to mine. Well I have two actually and so far I've failed to reconcile them. For mine, there's also the problem of the Wachowskis, whom it seems everyone is convinced is Jewish, but me, I wonder. I couldn't find any Jewish Wachowskis at all. So what does that mean in terms of Zion and all those Jewish aspects of the film? Aargh, ground to a halt...

Miraculix (Doug) said...

As for my view on the Wachowski mess being "different" than yours, I ask: how could it not be?

I'm not concerned whether or not the Brothers W are members of the Levantines or not. It would take a lifetime to count all the goyim who've served the paymasters in the interest of their own narrow slice of the filthy lucre.

When it comes to the unquestionable presence of Rothschild and company atop the world, I tend not to use the word "Jewish" bare naked, as it appears that most of the folks we goyim would call "Jews" are just as expendable as we are. My tendency these days, on those rare occasions when I actually speak about such matters, I tend toward the term "Ashkenazi", both to test the listener's depth and to avoid the direct reference. Keep in mind, I do reside in Germany, where one can still be prosecuted and incarcerated for speaking ill of Judaism.

My dropping the above thoughts here had much to do with the subject matter of the post. What most folks never wrap their head around is that the "utopia/dystopia" subject is monolithic ("two sides of the same coin" is a little to Hegelian for my liking). One person's version of utopia is often another's dystopia.

Here's a thought, if it doesn't rn counter to your preferred writing methodologies or similar: post the two views "side by side" in the cinema blog, then we'll hash out the synthesis in the comments?

I'll certainly "volunteer" here and now to aid you in the weighing and winnowing process.

You could think of it as conducting a virtual writing and analysis workshop with international participation... =)

nobody said...

Ha ha ha, most excellent. That very thought had run through my mind. So I'll make it one, I'll make it two, but whatever I do there will always be another angle and the more people who pile in the better.

Just to erase any ambiguity, I thought yours was spot on. I really liked the completeness of the circle you described. The temptation on my part was to declare that I no longer needed to write anything since yours was so good. Ha! King of the easy way out, me.

In the meantime non-Matrix lines of thought continue streaming through my head, each leading to the next. Hopefully they'll peter out and I can get back to the cinema. Sooner rather than later, sure enough.

Freddamedgjedda said...

I am familiar with Fresco's work. I felt that he shows it is possible technologically to have a "utopian world". So people see that it is only our thinking that needs to change. That puts the focus inwards.. To me it works as a vision, ponder with it if you want, maybe even support it, or leave it...
But it would need the right "mind set" to work of course.

Matrix and V for Vendetta is to me (same) same, visions. I enjoy all of these and I feel they have all had positive influenses on me, but who am I? Not even nobody..

nobody said...

Be very, very careful Freddamedgjedda! Declare yourself less significant than me will you! Bloody rudeness! I bang the table and loudly demand that I be given the least attention. I've clocked up a lot of hours here insisting that people pay no attention to me, and I'm not about to let some jumped-up johnny muscle his way into the obscurity I so rightly deserve.

To hell with you Freddamedgjedda - you've fired me up now. I won't rest here until the entire world remarks upon how unremarkable I am. To be the least deserving is the least I deserve.

Freddamedgjedda said...

My deepest apologies! I did not intend to fire you up. It was only a way to say I'm not important, in a funny way I thought. But I was wrong and I'm sorry.