Ableton Forum

earthloop wrote:

Funk N. Furter wrote:
...We are how we are, not because it is 'natural', but because we have a capitalist society. That is the 'social relations' he talks about. Change the social relations (capitalism) and the 'essence of man' changes.

Please explain this 'essence of man' you speak of!

I think it's by Hugo Boss.

Steve Ballmer wrote:Actually, all I did was post a quote, and then watch from the sidelines as a bunch of assholes tried and failed to understand my motivation for posting it. I haven't backed myself into a corner, because so far I haven't actually committed to anything other than my appreciation for ants. But please don't let that stop you from commenting on my... er... "strength"?

As for "preschool replies", as a rule I show my "opponents" the same respect and consideration that they show me. I you want me to be nice to you, stop putting words in my mouth and acting like a bottom-feeder.

You titled the thread Lao Tzu Vs Communism. You quote him "nature" etc. There are no 'words put in your mouth', you're simply unwilling to back up your badly chosen quote and have resorted to trolling. Have to say it, you're just asking to be banned, again...

Funk N. Furter wrote:Before the Neolithic, there were no socio-economic classes. 99% of our evolution from our split with chimps was in classless societies.

This is maybe the stupidest thing you've said so far. Pre-neolithic humans lived in nomadic tribes that were so small (20 to 100 individuals) that the idea of "class" would have been completely meaningless. I could also easily say that "human societies from the Paleolithic lived without states and organized governments" to prove that Communism is at odds with our evolution, but again, we're talking about structuring substantial groups of people here, not extended families. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithi ... ganization)

Pre-neolothic social structure was simple: You had one leader per tribe, who made all the decisions and banged all the females. And that's about it. This may actually explain why you have a hard time getting your nut.

HERE...HAVE A TAO SANDWICH, DIPSHIT!

The jury will note that Funk N. has made no attempt to refute the claim that his nuts are infrequent and irregular.

Refute, my arse.

I often wonder what an Eggplant à la King waffle would taste like.

Funk N. Furter wrote:'One leader banged...' - my arse.

Are you sure you don't want to edit that statement ??? Oh too late: it's already been quoted for posterity

Tribal societies aren't the sort of thing that makes for a great example of how to carry out a civilization.
Most tribal societies were as cruel as the animal kingdom; the "in touch, peaceful native" is a myth created by the hippies in the 60's, those were exceptions not the rule.
Nature in general is a bad example for a civilized society. We are, and have been capable of creating societies far beyond the examples nature and tribal civilization provides.

we are apart of nature, everything we do is in the realms of nature. We are also arguably the vanguard of nature, and it's our duty to expand upon it's base instincts.

Machinesworking wrote:Tribal societies aren't the sort of thing that makes for a great example of how to carry out a civilization.
Most tribal societies were as cruel as the animal kingdom; the "in touch, peaceful native" is a myth created by the hippies in the 60's, those were exceptions not the rule.
Nature in general is a bad example for a civilized society. We are, and have been capable of creating societies far beyond the examples nature and tribal civilization provides.

we are apart of nature, everything we do is in the realms of nature. We are also arguably the vanguard of nature, and it's our duty to expand upon it's base instincts.

^ This!


I have studied (among my several degrees) Molecular biology..genetics! I am also an artist and a futurist. I have studied the internet and the www (separate phenomena)...MW...your statement " We are also arguably the vanguard of nature " is the key to this argument about the nature of mankind etc. I want to launch into a presentation about how our genetic foundations really do determine our basic behaviour...socialisation 'moulds' that behaviour, but our DNA....in fact our RNA (look it up) is the fundamental driver of all human activity...more later. Got to go to to bed!

Machinesworking wrote:Tribal societies aren't the sort of thing that makes for a great example of how to carry out a civilization.
Most tribal societies were as cruel as the animal kingdom; the "in touch, peaceful native" is a myth created by the hippies in the 60's, those were exceptions not the rule.
Nature in general is a bad example for a civilized society. We are, and have been capable of creating societies far beyond the examples nature and tribal civilization provides.

we are apart of nature, everything we do is in the realms of nature. We are also arguably the vanguard of nature, and it's our duty to expand upon it's base instincts.

Very well articulated.

Machinesworking wrote:Tribal societies aren't the sort of thing that makes for a great example of how to carry out a civilization.
Most tribal societies were as cruel as the animal kingdom; the "in touch, peaceful native" is a myth created by the hippies in the 60's, those were exceptions not the rule.
Nature in general is a bad example for a civilized society. We are, and have been capable of creating societies far beyond the examples nature and tribal civilization provides.

we are apart of nature, everything we do is in the realms of nature. We are also arguably the vanguard of nature, and it's our duty to expand upon it's base instincts.

I'm still perplexed as to why whenever one says "nature", you hear "base instincts". Do you really believe Taoism is all about cruelty?

Aside from that, I agree with Styles—you are most adept at articulating your confusion.

Steve Ballmer wrote: I'm still perplexed as to why whenever one says "nature", you hear "base instincts". Do you really believe Taoism is all about cruelty?

You're perplexed because it suits you to be.
When people use the term 'nature' to describe human interactions, our politics etc. they make this assumption that mankind should follow nature. Taoism to me in this respect is no less naive than the 60's hippies ideological thought that mankind at that point was going against nature, and that what we see in nature is an example of how we should behave. Watch nature for a bit, look at our closest relatives, even other mammals behave badly. In fact I would go as far as to say that there's not a single animal kingdom society that I would want anything to do with. Animals are the cruelest fascists out there, they would gas every one of us if it meant they would get a special treat. The 'natural world' is in no way anything to emulate and use as an argument for or against a political ideology. Regardless of your fondness for some eastern philosophical mystic huckster living under a king as a house pet.

You're perplexed, but it seems to me you, (or Tzu if you choose to distance yourself from the quote you posted), the one using the term 'nature' to loosely describe some 'one with the universe' etc. ideology instead of actually looking at nature.