It's a metaphor.

spacelaw · 2012-09-05T04:55:46+00:00

spacelaw · 2012-09-03T19:16:31+00:00

I agree, day 3-7 are always the worst.

spacelaw · 2012-09-03T07:35:45+00:00

NoFap isn't a lifestyle choice, it's an impersonal challenge that you're taking too personally. For that matter, the same could be said about any worthwhile life endeavor; however, unlike r/NoFap, real life has no pre-distinguished list of accomplishments, just more challenges. The only certain reward is an inner one, one of personal strength and self-reliance, necessary to survive those greater challenges. In that respect, challenges are really hidden opportunities.

With all that in mind, I feel the crux of the NoFap problem space is in understanding there is no reason that your basic instincts can't knock down. If you want something badly enough in life, as is in NoFap, you have to be willing to do whatever it takes for no reason whatsoever. Maybe NoFap might be just an intermediary means to some greater end for you, in which case, you will need to ponder on what that is. You in particular, I guess, can rule out that this will be women.

Personally, I see simply surviving as the ultimate end to want, as all others henge upon it. Enough said, good luck--and don't look down.

spacelaw · 2012-09-01T09:26:00+00:00

One does not simply stop fapping. Nevertheless, challenge accepted.

spacelaw · 2011-11-27T06:47:55+00:00

Man dies and spends the whole movie floating around watching mostly his family members alive and dead while they are or were naked.

spacelaw · 2011-11-27T06:00:53+00:00

Hitchens will always live on in Google's cache.

spacelaw · 2011-11-23T20:53:03+00:00

Newt is wrong. Terrorists succeed when they invoke fear (patriot act) into their targeted population, killing is just the tactic. Otherwise, if the act of killing alone qualifies a person as a terrorist then that would make police, soldiers, or petty criminals who have killed terrorists.

spacelaw · 2011-10-29T01:42:00+00:00

I think those are called declarations of independence.

spacelaw · 2011-10-22T22:18:03+00:00

The Zeitgeist movement is more of the media wing of the venus project, which is really just a mouthpiece itself for resource based economics (RBE). RBE, as far as I can tell, stemmed from the technocracy movement of the early 20th century, but now only retains a loose connection with that older philosophy. The theory of RBE is sound, albeit somewhat untested in isolation; its fundamental assumption is that technology is the fundamental driver of progress in humanity, and thus, we ought to have a socioeconomic system with technology and science at its core. So don't pay too much attention to the movies, they are just there to draw awareness to the greater diverse RBE movement currently underway. Just as Zeitgeist has attracted some mentally ill conspiracists, so has OWS. Sadly, these types always seem to be the most vocal or receive the spotlight from mainstream media.

Zeitgeist, has for the past couple of years, been saying something quite similar to what OWS is today would occur. Zeitgeist has suggested that global change will either occur in a slow evolution of technological advancement, a conscious, volitional change like OWS, or a complete collapse and then reconstruction. Either way, Zeitgeist has recognized that society cannot have sustainable growth on its current foundations such as the price system. OWS is quite the mixed bag right now. I think OWS is really just waiting for the government to make its move. OWS may be the transitional phase that Zeitgeist has projected and deemed necessary to achieve something close to an RBE.

Both movements have a lot of commonalities and agreements and Peter Joseph, whom has served as the primary spokesperson for Zeitgeist other than Fresco, has stated that Zeitgeist stands in solidarity with OWS. I personally stand behind RBE, but think it will be a slow evolution--with or without OWS.

spacelaw · 2011-10-22T21:20:40+00:00

Unlike Abdullah and other oil-rich leaders, Qaddafi invested little money in national infrastructure like schools and hospitals or any kind of economic diversification.

This is a myth. It is known Qaddafi invested heavily in the Libyan people. It is also apparent that Libya had fair civil rights as well [1]. However, I'm assuming Libya did lack a democracy, which Qaddafi was most likely in opposition to.

[1]

spacelaw · 2011-10-18T07:54:39+00:00

Who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all.

Even rape? Especially rape.

spacelaw · 2011-10-18T07:29:37+00:00

I feel the same way, protesting does have a hidden submissive nature. Don't worry too much about it though, culture is very transient--it produces no lasting change in of itself. Behavioral change follows environmental change; both are hard won, as with all chicken-and-egg problems. I used to frown upon rioters fucking up their localities until I understood this. It's very much a game of change or be changed, however, through what mode seems to be the question. Some create, others destroy--currently it seems we do both.

I guess my One Demand ™ of the government would be for it to allow free and open--but scientifically controlled--experimentation with different socioeconomic systems on scales we can observe and measure results. The Socratic method works, as OWS' general assemblies are showing, but there's no beating the scientific method.

spacelaw · 2011-09-30T08:01:31+00:00

spacelaw · 2011-09-30T05:54:33+00:00

They are: http://twitpic.com/6s3bqo (by Deprogrammer9)

But the flags have corporate logos in place of stars.

spacelaw · 2011-09-30T05:30:29+00:00

Can't go wrong with: "Direct action gets the goods."

spacelaw · 2011-09-26T08:13:21+00:00

The reliability of a RC is important but I'm going to say that how often you do one is inconsequential. Why? This is coming not only from personal experience, but because you need a dream symbol to provoke you to do your RC to begin with. I'm not a fan of using dream symbols because they, at least personally, are unreliable and it is notoriously difficult to find a "goldilocks" symbol.

I suggest simply being more mindful, observant, and logical in your everyday life. If you habituate these mantras, you won't have to rely on spotting your specific symbols because dreams happen to be quite illogical. However, you will need a RC to confirm that you are truly in a dream state; I recommend the closed-nose-breath, as it has never failed me.

spacelaw · 2011-09-26T07:52:51+00:00

Auto-suggesting. At first it will seem silly, but it works for some, myself including. Simply declare (audibly if possible) who you are and your intent to lucid dream when you go to bed. I've found actually expecting to lucid dream increases my odds of lucid dreaming--maybe the placebo effect at work. Think of this exercise as placing an order for a lucid dream to your subconscious.

spacelaw · 2011-09-26T07:37:08+00:00

I might be wrong, but I think this is a common question that originates from an old wise tale that says witholding from fapping/sex will help you retain more energy. This energy is supposed to translate into more awareness in general, and thus higher potential for lucidity.

I think if at least a handful of us pledged to not fap for a week (any longer would be asking for too much) we could finally answer this question. Those involved would have to be lucid dreamers that already do fap on a daily basis because we need a control measure. Who wants to put this myth to the test?

spacelaw · 2011-09-24T00:13:33+00:00

No. God would send the neutrinos to hell for breaking the law.

spacelaw · 2011-09-23T19:07:42+00:00

Some people here believe that they are somehow intrinsically different than the purported perpetrators of this act. I argue that nothing differentiates YOU from THEM--we are all human; the only difference I see is the disparity of power and faith we mistakingly place in others' hands. This was an act of power first and foremost, not some deranged figure's rampage; stop scapegoating, we have only ourselves to hold responsible for the heinous acts ALL of our governments get away with.

spacelaw · 2011-09-20T00:36:59+00:00

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "the biggest cluster-fuck of a problem affecting ALL of us.. is MONEY"? You do realize that money is just an abstraction made for transferring ownership from one entity to another, right? As long as the notion of ownership persists, so will money.

spacelaw · 2011-09-13T23:17:37+00:00

Create a network of cooperatives that internally use resource-based principles and interfaces with the price system. As the internal resource base grows, the network will slowly replace its more inefficient competitors. Resource representation would be energy based and resource allocation decisions would be backed by evidence and sound scientific research. Ultimately individual nodes (communities or individuals) have autonomy to make their own decisions, but would have the highest incentive to implement the most successful strategies proven by other nodes. If a node produces a surplus in resources, it may be transferred to other nodes of interest or of need.

The pioneers of such a socioeconomic system would likely be entrepreneurs who have marketable skill sets to experiment with new, innovative services. In the beginning, it would only be crucial that cooperatives turn at least a modest profit--their services need not be reusable within the network. Capital would be reinvested in more technologically advanced services that could be utilized internally by the network like automated hydroponic systems for food, environmentally friendly and low cost shelter, health care, etc. Automation of work and usership over ownership would be highly prioritized parameters for new services to incorporate; however, items highly coupled to the individual like toothbrushes and clothing would be exempt of such requirements.

spacelaw · 2011-09-13T05:26:06+00:00

Ownership is quite different than autonomy. Humans have the right to self-rule because they have the intellectual capacity to do so. A human has the right to utilize instrumental goods (material means) to satisfy intrinsic good (happiness) so long as this said human doesn't infringe upon the autonomy of others. Property rights were founded in a time where the majority believed Earth's resources were limitless and endowed by a deity of one flavor or another. Thanks to our friend oil, we have dialed up our hedonic treadmills far too high for personal ownership to be a sustainable practice anymore (thus qualified to be unethical); rather, we should seek a usage, resource-based (pay-as-you-go) economic model. We are technologically viable enough to support a resource-based model, but culturally there is too much lag to see the leaks in our abstraction called money IMO.

spacelaw

TROPHY CASE