These are my next three posts. (mostly written, need editing)
These are my next two video's (mostly conceptualized, not produced).
This is more of a placeholder for me, but also gives you some idea of what's coming...
Things are getting very interesting now..
These opening few paragraphs are with Hive specifically, rather then mid-wittery in general.
While it's all connected - on and off Hive - for all intents and purposes of this platform, Hive IS the ecosystem that we're all ‘living’ in.
This is the forum - the arena.
... it's the free market place of ideas.
As such, it's a 100% ‘opt in’ exercise, as we are all too often reminded about.
No one forces you to type your posts.
No one forces you to put your ideas onto the block chain.
The very act of voluntarily committing your thoughts, philosophies, and ideas into this market place does - by default - open them up for inspection.
This inspection can result in many different responses, from criticism, to praise, or neither...
People can agree and disagree for the whole world to see, look at the information - then think about it , and then draw their own conclusions.
This is the beauty of the free market place of ideas.
It gives people the opportunity to weigh up different perspectives, new angles that are presented by different peoples, and then left free come to their own conclusions.
There is no coercion, only free will.
When ideas, philosophies, values, or perspectives, clash, then disagreement can - and will - follow.
In the arena of a social media - the market place of ideas - it makes the 21st century cyber space equivalent of a duel, or a gladiatorial conflict , but instead of fighting it out with swords, it's done with words.
And other people sit down, grab some popcorn and watch the show..
It's a, 100% - opt in environment.
Only those with weak ego's (the midwit, but not only the midwit) and those who are insecure of their position, fear any inspection of their material.
These accounts would much prefer to post, and never be challenged.
They know that being scrutinized, can lead to exposing the fragility of their positions, you see.
Being ridiculed publicly is a BIG fear of the midwit as the social skills they use so exquisitely well, are made redundant at that point in time.
The midwit loses their social advantage that they've worked so hard to cultivate.
But not only that - it gets worse... They see it as a loss to their credibility in the eyes of their peer groups.
This brings on severe psychological pain and emotional anxiety.
The social skills that work so well in schmoozing up to the powerful, and playing politics for approval, only work if they go unchallenged.
They lose their ' power' in a direct confrontation of words where they are seen to lose. (hence the passive agression strategies so favored by the midwit - and the oblique attempts to undermine , what they see as 'transgressors of their 'privileged right' to say whatever they like and get away with it, untouched....(no matter how stupid),
When the pursuit of truth is the quarry, then ‘being nice’ takes a back seat.
The midwit would prefer conformity over conflict.
They will sacrifice the truth for this 'consensus' paradigm.
Which brings me to boxing…
and growing up.
Accounts , users, and a making the mature intellectual differentiation.
If you’ve have partaken in any boxing (Muay Thai, in my case) with another person – or martial arts, or any kind of ‘aggressive’ contact sport against another human being, you'll already know and understand what I’m going to say.
To those that haven’t participated in such things , listen.
...And listen hard.
When you step into a boxing ring, and see your opponent.
You do not hate him.
There isn’t a personal grievance against the guy on the other side of the ring that you’re about to meet and then try to hurt.
You cannot win the boxing match if you do not hurt your opponent.
It’s not personal.
It’s being a grown up.
'The personal' doesn't enter into it.
Knowing the difference is all.
NOT knowing the difference, is indicative of many malformed psychologically positions - of which some - seem to be very prevalent in the midwit.
As a boxer, your job is go out their and use your skills to defeat your opponent and it's by using those skills that you've honed, over many years, also comes inflicting pain on your adversary.
It's an integral part of a boxing match.
It is not personal, it is about wining the contest.
Let that sink in....
*Like I've just said, anyone that has participated in this kind of activity, will know exactly what it is that I’m talking about.
So, lets grow up, shall we?
Hive is an arena of ideas.
Disagreements over ideas ARE the boxing match.
Boxing matches aren’t personal, and the pain inflicted on oyur opponent is not personal – it’s a bi product of the arena - and game - that you are - 100% - voluntarily opting into.
If you are incapable of differentiating between the difference of taking criticism of your ideas personally and understanding it is boxing match of intellect or opinion....
Maybe - just maybe- you are not cut out to be in this particular boxing ring, in the first place.
If you need your manager, medical staff, and ringside supporters ringside to get inside the ring with you, so as to feel a protected - or in the case of social media case - consensus means I'm right' ....then you are clearly not not mature enough to be inside the ring.
And if you’re an amateur in this market place and ideas - and you think you can get into the ring with the equivalent of Mohamed Ali at his finest – go for it! _It's 100% 'opt in'.
If you think you can do that without getting punch drunk, not only are you deluded – but you’re self image (ego) is beyond twisted out of reality .
The social media arena is cyber space.
The only thing getting that's 'knocked out' in the gladiatorial arena of debate, is your ego.
That's it.
Suck it up, buttercup.
...OR IS IT.....?
NOW….
Think of the midwit.
Think of their childish responses and reactions to being intellectually challenged.
See how very personal they take it.
This is not an intellectual contest to them (psychologically speaking).
This - to them - feels like a very real 'life or death' situation.
And it is (to them).
They could lose all of their credibility in the eyes of their peer group , if found to not to be the intellectual giant that they purported to be ( they know this already of course, it's one of the sources of their constant insecurity).
They could lose credibility in the eyes of those higher up their hierarchy - a very real fear.
They need approval from their authority just like they need oxygen in the air to breathe.
'Manning up' -growing up - isn't actually possible for these individuals. (it has nothing to do with genitals).
Actually - That's a little unfair.
Let me take a minutes detour, regarding this...
I DO think that midwits CAN grow up (thus making them midwits no more).
Unfortunately, as I see it (my subjective opinion), this 'growing up process' can only come from an uncontrolled external event, source, or stimulus.
Losing a job, a relationship breakdown, a death - or something equally seriously traumatic.
I wouldn't wish those kind of events on anyone - no matter how well it could work out for the individual in the long run.
Trauma is very painful, very real, living hell...
In my opinion , it's only these kind of extreme real life events that can 'jolt' the brainwashed mindset out of it's coddled environment, changing it from being a brainwashed sheep, to being your own person.
A genuine grown up.
Unfortunately.
Ok.... back from the detour....
I know a lot of boxers and martial artists.
NONE of them take is as ‘personal’ when they are punched, kicked or thrown to the ground when in a contest.
And that’s because it isn’t.
Only the midwit (and others with weak ego formation) see it in those terms.
To people possessing that psychologically weak internal structure they can see it no other terms.
(I use the word 'structure’ in the loosest possible term - for it is the very lack of mature structure that is the issue).
Hive.
Hive is an online social platform.
Hive IS the arena.
The medium (or arena) ARE the words and images that people post.
There is nothing else.
Ergo, that is where the conflict has to take place.
In the marketplace of ideas.
Anyone scared of the market place of idea, is in the wrong fucking place. (or has disingenuous motives behind the action, and wishes to control what ideas are being expressed...and that, is something else entirely.
In the market place of ideas, the gladiatorial arena are the posts and comments section.
Act accordingly.
Acting like some petulant infant by down voting (not spam or plagiarism) rather than engaging only tells the world that you have no place being in the arena.
Acting like some spoiled child who can only express his feeling of being powerless, by exerting power over others only tells the word of his deep insecurity.
Acting like some petulant child who wants to tell the world what they think, but then has an emotional tantrum when the world talks back, only tells the world you are midwit who's entire world is based on fear and approval of other's.
Don't be midwit, grow up. (preferably without the trauma).
I'm not quite sure how to understand you. What exactly are you intending to do here on Hive?
It is, as far as I know, a centrally controlled blockchain based on crypto tokens. It is technically enabled by Witnesses, who also set the rules and provide the technical requirements and updates. If all witnesses were unanimously of the opinion that certain misbehaviour of a blockchain applied globally by the users is against the rules, the design or the programme would probably have to be changed significantly. They would be of the conviction that they must control themselves instead of others. Also, a government, which is at the same time investor and profiter of an organization or company, has a conflict of interest, no?
The Witnesses form something like a central government. If this central government agrees that the rules should remain as they are now, how should a change in these rules, including the code to be changed, be brought about?
Or do you assume that it has nothing to do with technical feasibility? But rather that the entire user community agrees that voting in circles and buying votes are dishonest and that downvotes are dishonest because of a disagreement of opinions? We have had this conflict here on the blockchain for years and it seems to be insoluble. (I actually could say a lot more about this particular observation, but leave it for now).
I don't really understand what you're getting at. When you talk about conformity and a technocracy, in what exact way are you referring to Hive? Are you saying that technocratic dominance is exercised because of Hive's design? How should I think of this and what are your suggestions? Or is it something else?
Asked all that, I think that the founders and the subsequent dominant players on the blockchain actually don't really agree, but that changing the rules is probably also technically unfeasible in the sense that, for example, nothing can prevent the creation of multiple accounts. One would have to set up such strict barriers, which would in turn deter new users, such as verification by an ID card (which would probably be a super disaster for data protection reasons). Nevertheless, it would not change anything about the multiple accounts of the existing users. I am somewhat at a loss to understand your posting.
All that said, I am absolutely against a technocracy that centrally controls the individual. But the question now is also how much the individual actually feels controlled...? I for one am not an official part of a community here on Hive, I am more of a loner who is in contact with a manageable number of other users here or regularly reads and comments on their posts - but then I do it with much engagement and quality. So for me, that counts.
I've been running a delegation to SteemSTEM, ... and right now I don't even know how to undo that, since I'm no longer accessing Steemworld.org. .... Just as an aside.
The question for me is how many of the users would actually still be around if they couldn't or didn't want to trade cryptos - or consider it a long-term investment. Which leads me to suspect that content is in principle for many, if not most, of a subordinate nature or even completely meaningless and that content provision is basically only significant in terms of quantity and dimension to advance the blockchain. So that content and user numbers actually only seem to have quantitative, but little qualitative significance.
For me personally, the whole thing is not an incentive to make money or trade in cryptos, I'm not sure if it would make a long-term investment, I'd be surprised. I use this purely as a blogging platform, but nothing more. I don't know how many of my kind there are here who don't care much about finances. Since there is not much traffic on this platform, I am already asking myself if blogging outside this sphere would not make more sense because building up a really regular readership containing more than 3 readers would actually make more sense. The one and only reason I remain here is that I got used to it (design, ergonomics, appearance, operating habit, etc.). AND those 7-10 people I care about or am interested in.
It's the hotel California...you can come, but you can never, never leave...now get back to writing! LOL
As Bitcoin continues to thrust its roots into acceptance, other coins benefit from that, too. I think writing your blog here will continue to increase in value (or I wouldn't do it here). I can tell you that when I started in Steemit years ago, I would post my YouTube content there first, then a week later post on YouTube. I also would write my copy for my videos before creating the video. This way, I could earn from my copy, and earn from my video, twice. If you wanted to create a blog elsewhere, I'd suggest writing the same thing there that you write here/vice-versa. Case in point-I've been posting papers I wrote for college a couple years back. Why not earn money for something you paid to make in the first place (I paid a lot for my college tuition, as I'm sure you could imagine)? I like the "Work smarter, not harder" concept. You've already done the work, duplicate it for growth, even if you don't care about money...just a couple opinions from someone you didn't ask...
I like to receive comments, even though I haven't asked you, it's welcomed.
Having a bad mood today. Nevertheless I like to answer with politeness.
You are right, I could blog on a self made website, that's true. I don't know yet. Energy must be split between different things right now.
I consider myself being educated, and I see you do that for yourself, too. Sometimes it's more a pain than a benefit to have informed myself on a broad scale.
Have a good day & greetings
We have had this conflict here on the blockchain for years and it seems to be insoluble.
nothing is insoluble, believe me...
ehm... is that your answer on my questions? Oh well...
That was the pertinent point.(imo)
... Oh ... LOL, my mistake. I thought you were serious.
Other than that. I agree on the issue of conformity. It though concerns me outside the virtual realm a lot more than here in this so called social media platform.
With Vikings currently on the brain of late, I sit wondering how the midwit would have sat in that world, or even if they would ever have had the chance to exist. Indeed, we live in cushy times that we have the luxury of fighting with words and being able to be offended.
It's gone midnight, by the way, so if I'm making no sense I blame the fact that I should be asleep at this point in time.
The midwit infiltrates through social skills and politicking .
Even in Viking culture, I'm sure.
They are the socially accepted cuckoo in the nest.
While never a real problem in societies -they can be hard working, productive - and great at cooperating, it's the imbalance - their amount of influence - that has really screwed things up.
(Marxism in the educational facilities, everyone and his dog going to uni, etc)
If you can't fight with words, the internet isn't for you - unless your intent is propagandizing and controlling.
If you're incapable of the intellectual fight, get out of the ring.
One point: define your terms, especially a term like technocracy that that can have multiple meanings and interpretations and does not have a well-established meaning. This is even more relevant in today's world where we are constantly reinventing the definition of words. If racism, a widely used word has multiple, contradictory definitions then a word like "technocracy" will have different definitions according to different political sub-groups.
“...The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities...”
I see no divergences of definitions regarding technocracy, tbh.
Using the template as above - it's essentially a calorie controlled, central authority planned, that decides for the individual.
(I'll be doing a post about the origins of the 'ideology', soon..)
Cheers!
Oh. I get that. But a "technocracy" can be looked at as control by bankers (globalists) and one-world government for the purpose of enriching a few. It can also be looked as a meritocracy whose goal is to improve the live of all and "save the planet".
It could also be looked at through different "lenses".
Is the technocracy a nefarious cabal of bankers and unelected elites trying to rule the world and manipulating everyone? Is the technocracy a meritocracy? Or is it the "feeling" that we should have scientists and bankers and other experts do more than simply advise elected representatives? That they themselves make the decisions on the economy, etc...
If it's the later then how is this different than Marxism? The Marxist argument, after all, is that experts would establish a proper framework and the society would grow and prosper from there.
ok......lets say...'technocracy is the furthest expression of an oligarchical structure that's gone woefully extreme..(due to the tech).
you might enjoy my next couple of posts...
Madonna? Yeah you know what I would say....
I can't offer any personal insights into her...
...doesn't make the word less meaningful.
You'll be dissing the excellent planning of the Third Reich's motorways next - based on ideology!
There are rumours about Hitler's testicles
if anyone finds out for sure, it'll be you...
It's funny you use a boxing match as an analog. If you cannot make people Manup by debating with them, then there is no point in doing so. Now, if you think you can convince me I am wrong, I hope you will.
I'm not trying to convince you that your wrong - because you ain't.
I'm saying that if you can't handle the intellectual boxing match, stay out of the fucking ring.
They will get hurt.... the psychological pain of 'looking like an idiot' - when you're ego fragile and very 'peer centric' to begin with - it's not a pretty sight.
Calling the weak ego/intellect out now , as pathetic 'wanna be's' is a mercy mocking.
Think of it as an invitation to grow up.
....And when I really go on the offensive (it's coming, trust me) and upset some intellectual cuckoo's - it acts as a great placeholder/ reference point - to point out to others who observe their behaviors when challenged - thus destroying credibility in the eyes of said peers - and thus, strategically - achieving the whole point of the exercise.
You can't bring down a technocratic structure without first bringing down the supporters of that structures (i.e the midwit, in this context).
Hope that helps...!
HIVE!D
please approve my comment or I'll cry and make scene... [ sarcasm ]
Ah, go on then...consider it approved..