Thread: Why is dreamviews more liberal than society at large?

You have to take out the violent leaders somehow. What do anarchist philosophers encourage? An overthrow by force. Which creates violence. And another corrupt leader would just use the anarchists to take power for himself. Look what happened in the french revolution. No leader for years cause chaos, and then someone worse took over. Not to mention the amounts of death that occured.

I am sorry about this dreamviews. I truly love this website as it has given me the ability to lucid dream which is amazing. I will now terminate my part in this conversation as I just needed to vent for a little while. I apologize to all I offended and I will try to only talk about dreams here from now on. I regret clicking this thread.

Originally Posted by flipsyde

You have to take out the violent leaders somehow. What do anarchist philosophers encourage? An overthrow by force.

Ah, see you're thinking of anarcho-socialists. Not the same thing. Not true anarchists, for the reason you just said. They're violent.

Originally Posted by flipsyde

Which creates violence. And another corrupt leader would just use the anarchists to take power for himself. Look what happened in the french revolution. No leader for years cause chaos, and then someone worse took over. Not to mention the amounts of death that occured.

I'm talking about a peaceful transition to freedom, not some violent overthrow.

lol you silly guys anarchy isn't about violence. that's a stereotype.

Originally Posted by cmind

Not true anarchists, for the reason you just said. They're violent.

Huh?

Omnis - all you had to do was put an arrow pointing to your avatar!!!

Liberals are concerned for everyone's rights - they want to make sure everyone is treated fairly. Conservatives are concerned mostly for their own rights, at the expense of others.

Originally Posted by flipsyde

You have to take out the violent leaders somehow. What do anarchist philosophers encourage? An overthrow by force. Which creates violence. And another corrupt leader would just use the anarchists to take power for himself. Look what happened in the french revolution. No leader for years cause chaos, and then someone worse took over. Not to mention the amounts of death that occured.

Conflates stereotypical view of all anarchist philosophy with all anarchist philosophies when some of which don't condone violence.

Back on topic, and using the term liberal to mean one open ideas, I have no idea why there are so many here. It could be the nature of the community. There are those who are really into things that go beyond dreaming (and into completely nonsensical topics IMO) which probably doesn't sit well with those who support "traditional" values, whatever those may be. But if we take liberal to mean one who is open to various ideas, it's no wonder this site is filled with them.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

But being open minded means being willing to consider any perspective without prejudice. Back a few years ago I was a liberal, and through Dreamviews, discovering the website Stormfront, and listening to their memebrs with an open mind, that I actually converted to Nationalism.

"Be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out."

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Omnis - all you had to do was put an arrow pointing to your avatar!!!

Liberals are concerned for everyone's rights - they want to make sure everyone is treated fairly. Conservatives are concerned mostly for their own rights, at the expense of others.

One of the United States fundamental values is that prosperity comes from allowing men to achieve their own definition of success. The conservative base in this country is rooted in tradition. They hold onto these core traditions because they make up the nation's core identity. In any nation, the conservatives will hold onto the core traditions of the ancestors that prospered there. It's simple evolution. The preferable method is a balance between Self-Preservation and Mutation, tradition and discovery.

The economic issue got glombed onto this basic dynamic because of the way it has been presented to the American people. Honestly they're right to be hesitant in adopting an outright socialist agenda as we've observed this mutation amount to one vicious ruling class replacing the other. In response to these foreign values, our nation's conservatives adopted very anti-socialist values as a means to preserve their organism. While our liberals continue to explore concepts where the state can work to benefit the people, they're still anchored by the a free market conservative function.

The media tries to pretend that we exist on a spectrum of leftwing socialist values vs rightwing capitalist values. This is nonsense. Liberals don't have base values, they exist to progress the society forward.

“The problem with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and putting things in it.”

You lose pretty much awesomeness of this world, if you don't keep open mind. You have to keep your soul enclosed, though, so you stay uncorrupted by all this information that is invading your brain. About traditions and conservative behavior, it is fine as long as you are constantly re-evaluating and doubting the methods you are preserving. Conservatism for sake of safe keeping is one of the worst things in world, in my opinion. Many religions do that. Many cultures do that.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

But being open minded means being willing to consider any perspective without prejudice.

What is wrong with an intent to see world without stained classes? I am ready to consider everything, but it doesn't mean I am ready to accept it personally. I try to understand it always, however.

What is with you people getting this all political? Is it because of your parties are so tied with conservatism and liberalism? The thought of politics never crossed my mind untill I read the post about it. :/

What is see as best about "liberal" ( I don't know how to use that world, honestly. It seems to have too much electricity in it in English ) atmosphere here is that we can discuss all kinds of things with relative ease. In a way, most of us are studying spirtuality and journeying into their own minds here. If you don't keep open mind on that, you'll never get in.

Getting back on track, I think nationalism is a ridiculous naivety. Why be proud of living in a geographical locality?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Getting back on track, I think nationalism is a ridiculous naivety. Why be proud of living in a geographical locality?

For the preservation of that locality and the culture existing within it. It's not about the geography, it's about the society. Each society has its own philosophy on the way life should be lived. This philosophy is encoded into the society with Tradition, making it Society's version of DNA. Whether or not a society is special or pretty there's one rule in nature: it must be capable of defending and sustaining itself.

The liberal mindset is about the Global Village - thinking about everyone as one large group of people who should all help each other. The conservative mindset is basically different - it's more about "us" vs "them". And as Invader already mentioned. these aren't just political lines - a person is pretty much hardwired one way or the other and it's reflected in every aspect of their personality.

So, the conservative mindset goes something like this - my race is the best - my country is the best - my city is the best - my neighborhood is the best - my family is the best - and finally I am the best. You'll find yourself an insider to some of his thoughts - because you're a member of his race or live in his city or whatever, but then you'll always reach a point where his sense of brotherhood closes down to exclude you. It's a reductionist perspective and essentially selfish.

The liberal perspective goes the other way - we're all in this together so we need to try to get along. Liberals always try to put themselves in other people's shoes and sympathize with them. They try to understand things from an external, objective viewpoint.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

One of the United States fundamental values is that prosperity comes from allowing men to achieve their own definition of success. The conservative base in this country is rooted in tradition. They hold onto these core traditions because they make up the nation's core identity. In any nation, the conservatives will hold onto the core traditions of the ancestors that prospered there. It's simple evolution. The preferable method is a balance between Self-Preservation and Mutation, tradition and discovery.

When has this "fundamental value" presented itself in American history? What other traditions have you conspired that "make up the nation's core identity?"

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The economic issue got glombed onto this basic dynamic because of the way it has been presented to the American people. Honestly they're right to be hesitant in adopting an outright socialist agenda as we've observed this mutation amount to one vicious ruling class replacing the other. In response to these foreign values, our nation's conservatives adopted very anti-socialist values as a means to preserve their organism. While our liberals continue to explore concepts where the state can work to benefit the people, they're still anchored by the a free market conservative function.

Carrying out a global revolution to change society is anti-socialist? Really? And our government is "anchored" by free markets?...When has that been?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The media tries to pretend that we exist on a spectrum of leftwing socialist values vs rightwing capitalist values. This is nonsense. Liberals don't have base values, they exist to progress the society forward.

How society progresses is the conflict. Classical liberals see laissez-faire, Progressive Liberals employ conservative (ancien regime) means to achieve progress.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

For the preservation of that locality and the culture existing within it. It's not about the geography, it's about the society. Each society has its own philosophy on the way life should be lived. This philosophy is encoded into the society with Tradition, making it Society's version of DNA. Whether or not a society is special or pretty there's one rule in nature: it must be capable of defending and sustaining itself.

Cultures/Societies are never hegemonic. The United States itself is so diverse that it is foolish to think that one culture rules its destiny. I mean its not even a tangible thing, it's an abstraction.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Cultures/Societies are never hegemonic. The United States itself is so diverse that it is foolish to think that one culture rules its destiny. I mean its not even a tangible thing, it's an abstraction.

Um. The United States definitely is a hegemony. But it doesn't sound like you know what the word means. It sounds like you think it means one ruling culture, a Hegemony is when one state controls all the others, The US controlling the Americas is a hegemony. Within the US borders, however, its a cultural warzone. Traditions that can't continue to prove their value over time are slowly being lost to more valuable ones. Just as our genes have junk DNA, our society has a lot of traditions, values and cultural diversity that are simply ignored by the controlling factors of the state. But they're still present and can have leverage in the right atmosphere. It's not a perfect metaphor. The point is our system is working on our behalf, and we're working on its behalf. This relationship is what allows this organism to continue to exist and not get destroyed by cancer or invasion.

Also I do not respond to people that break my posts apart. Find a cohesive means to respond to me.

I think the linkage between society and nation is completely contrived. It's arbitrary at best, special (read: elite) interest serving at worst.

Communities are organic extensions of humans... we're a social species (a simple and obvious fact that is often misunderstood). Nations don't merit the same benefit as communities of being organic and inevitable (people will just form communities without coercion, but not nations).

Communities can link together to form a larger society, I don't question that. But the level of the nation is an arbitrary cut-off point. This notion of society is only viable if it is considered to be a global phenomenon. This has not always been true historical, but it is so now because of globalization.

That's just my intuitive grasp. Whaddyathink?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

The liberal mindset is about the Global Village - thinking about everyone as one large group of people who should all help each other. The conservative mindset is basically different - it's more about "us" vs "them". And as Invader already mentioned. these aren't just political lines - a person is pretty much hardwired one way or the other and it's reflected in every aspect of their personality.

So, the conservative mindset goes something like this - my race is the best - my country is the best - my city is the best - my neighborhood is the best - my family is the best - and finally I am the best. You'll find yourself an insider to some of his thoughts - because you're a member of his race or live in his city or whatever, but then you'll always reach a point where his sense of brotherhood closes down to exclude you. It's a reductionist perspective and essentially selfish.

The liberal perspective goes the other way - we're all in this together so we need to try to get along. Liberals always try to put themselves in other people's shoes and sympathize with them. They try to understand things from an external, objective viewpoint.

I think Darkmatters hit the nail right on the head. Slave owners were conservatives...abolitionists were liberal 'nuff said

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

The liberal mindset is about the Global Village - thinking about everyone as one large group of people who should all help each other. The conservative mindset is basically different - it's more about "us" vs "them". And as Invader already mentioned. these aren't just political lines - a person is pretty much hardwired one way or the other and it's reflected in every aspect of their personality.

So, the conservative mindset goes something like this - my race is the best - my country is the best - my city is the best - my neighborhood is the best - my family is the best - and finally I am the best. You'll find yourself an insider to some of his thoughts - because you're a member of his race or live in his city or whatever, but then you'll always reach a point where his sense of brotherhood closes down to exclude you. It's a reductionist perspective and essentially selfish.

The liberal perspective goes the other way - we're all in this together so we need to try to get along. Liberals always try to put themselves in other people's shoes and sympathize with them. They try to understand things from an external, objective viewpoint.

But this ideology is incomplete. If you're too open and do not work toward some selfish ends then you're vulnerable to something that does. Until we reach the point we can merge these diverse organisms we've got to play the game this present stage of evolution has presented us with. People without strong self-interests get destroyed. I know liberals don't lack this value, but because they're so diverse they lack the core devotional attitude that anchors societies to their philosophies.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

I think the linkage between society and nation is completely contrived. It's arbitrary at best, special (read: elite) interest serving at worst.

Communities are organic extensions of humans... we're a social species (a simple and obvious fact that is often misunderstood). Nations don't merit the same benefit as communities of being organic and inevitable (people will just form communities without coercion, but not nations).

Communities can link together to form a larger society, I don't question that. But the level of the nation is an arbitrary cut-off point. This notion of society is only viable if it is considered to be a global phenomenon. This has not always been true historical, but it is so now because of globalization.

That's just my intuitive grasp. Whaddyathink?

That's because your mind is already in the next paradigm. Then reality of the way the world works now is that people are still very much divided, more by philosophy than national borders. Social Movements are the next stage, we're not going to jump right into a harmonious world society. There are still a lot of fundamentalists, people not content with applying their traditions to themselves but have to apply them to everybody else as well (or instead).

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

But this ideology is incomplete. If you're too open and do not work toward some selfish ends then you're vulnerable to something that does. Until we reach the point we can merge these diverse organisms we've got to play the game this present stage of evolution has presented us with. People without strong self-interests get destroyed. I know liberals don't lack this value, but because they're so diverse they lack the core devotional attitude that anchors societies to their philosophies.

Well, I'm not saying that full-on extremist liberalism is the cure-all for everything. Not at all.


I'm simply explaining, at its most basic, the difference between liberal and conservative values. And for my example, for clarity's sake, I presented each at its most extreme.


I used to think of it as 2 different levels of maturity - imagine two children representing these two core belief systems. Basically it's "mine mine mine" vs "we can all share". But more recently I'm seeing conservative values in a somewhat different light - not so much "mine mine mine" as "everybody fend for themselves". Which if you happen to belong to the white upper middle class in America boils down to "mine mine mine". But assuming a level playing field where no minority group is persecuted or oppressed, then I suppose "everybody fend for themselves" is a valid outlook. Unfortunately we don't live in that ideal world.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Well, I'm not saying that full-on extremist liberalism is the cure-all for everything. Not at all.


I'm simply explaining, at its most basic, the difference between liberal and conservative values. And for my example, for clarity's sake, I presented each at its most extreme.


I used to think of it as 2 different levels of maturity - imagine two children representing these two core belief systems. Basically it's "mine mine mine" vs "we can all share". But more recently I'm seeing conservative values in a somewhat different light - not so much "mine mine mine" as "everybody fend for themselves". Which if you happen to belong to the white upper middle class in America boils down to "mine mine mine". But assuming a level playing field where no minority group is persecuted or oppressed, then I suppose "everybody fend for themselves" is a valid outlook. Unfortunately we don't live in that ideal world.

When you present it like that it makes it seem like liberals are simply more evolved. This may be true, but I think of it like any ecosystem, different parts for different duties. And we all have a little selfish and a little empathy in each of us. Besides, empathy evolved as a necessity for self preservation. Me vs You, I'll lose if you're bigger. Us vs You gives me the advantage. This is the basic model single celled organisms became multicellular with. If we unite our purpose, we stand a chance against the divided. The cells in our bodies are working for the entire body so the entire body can protect the individual cells. Even if Anarchy were to emerge in our society, it would still follow this basic path it would just lose the system of regulation for better and worse.

Well I mostly agree with you. It's Yin and Yang - and as you said, we each have some of both warring in us all the time. It's the interplay between these forces that makes things interesting.

I think the conservative values were necessary when we were small tribal groups striving to survive and gain a secure foothold in the wilderness constantly threatening to swallow us up. When there were plenty of resources for all. But now that human civilization has reached global status and resources are dwindling I think more liberal values are necessary.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Well I mostly agree with you. It's Yin and Yang - and as you said, we each have some of both warring in us all the time. It's the interplay between these forces that makes thing interesting.
I think the conservative values were necessary when we were small tribal groups striving to survive and gain a secure foothold in the wilderness constantly threatening to swallow us up. But now that human civilization has reached global status I think liberal values are necessary.

Yeah we definitely are unbalanced in favor of conservative values.

But you also have to keep in mind your model is specific to the anti-communist West. In China the Nationalists are very pro-state. It depends on the values adopted by the nationalist majority, the controlling mob. Truthfully, liberals cannot play this game of us vs them that conservatives set up. They can't unite into a mob because their values are so various. They are essentially everyone who thinks outside of the box, everyone outside the mainstream system. The closest thing they really have to unity is Burning Man but there you see a different kind of model for self-preservation emerge that is much more tolerable (though just as sustainable.)

Well, again (for like the 12th time) - when I use the terms liberal and conservative I'm not talking about political parties - but about basic hardwired human mindsets. Everyone leans more one way or the other, it doesn't matter what your party platform is.

Example - many black or hispanic people in the US vote democratic because democrats are liberal and defend the rights of minorities, but at the same time, those same people can be very conservative in their core values - preserving their own cultural heritage and not concerned with letting outsiders in to their neighborhoods or homes.

I think people who follow the in-group selfish strategy are just confused by moral appeals to expand their sphere of consideration. The assumption that moral impulses will always incline a person to expand their sphere is false, and a mistake made very often by global-minded altruists. People who are in-group selfish do feel moral impulses, very strongly in fact. That's why moral appeals to expand feel like deception to them

This perceived attempt at deception causes people like Ayn Rand to say things like, "the creed of sacrifice is a morality for the immoral" (and damn near everything else she ever said.) This response confuses altruists. So, the confusion is now a 2-way street.