PDA

View Full Version : Hooliganism



Awani
12-23-2010, 07:24 AM
Not as common in the US, but in most parts of the world there is violence done by the fans of soccer or ice hockey. The media debates this a lot and so does the police. What to do etc...

To me it is certain proof that nationalism and patriotism is unnatural and produces violence. To be a fan of a team is the same emotion as to be a patriot.

Music fans of a certain band does not form a group and go out and beat up people.

Art is proof that this is the direction we must take, in all areas of society.

:cool:

Andro
12-29-2010, 07:17 PM
Music fans of a certain band does not form a group and go out and beat up people.

Maybe not, but if some music fans dislike a certain band, they sometimes like to put down fans of the band they dislike :)

And what about the cultural phenomenon known as EMO music? I'm aware of instances where bands considered to be EMO were beer-canned at rock festivals.

By the way, what's the most widespread expression of dislike on youtube?

Answer: "That's so gay".

LOL :D

Aleilius
12-29-2010, 08:29 PM
Art is proof that this is the direction we must take, in all areas of society.
I agree. Art requires creativity, passion, and the will to create. This is tough considering the current evolutionary status of many of our "brothers & sisters."

It's much easier to destroy than to create.

Andro
12-30-2010, 05:57 AM
The problem does not lie with good Art, just as it does not lie with good soccer players per se.
The 'problem' lies with the sometimes huge egos of some artists, especially some celebrities, and with the herd mentality of the fans.


It's much easier to destroy than to create.

Oh yeah?

How easy is it to destroy one's ego? One's beliefs? One's comfort zone?

And Destruction is an Act of Creation, by the way :)

Awani
12-30-2010, 06:04 AM
Actually hooliganism, nationalism and patriotism are all part of only one bad human emotion: group hysteria.

:cool:

Aleilius
12-30-2010, 09:12 AM
How easy is it to destroy one's ego? One's beliefs? One's comfort zone?
Oh yeah? You're taking this out of context.

It is not possible to "destroy" an ego. It's only possible to alter it in order to make one think that he/she has "destroyed" their ego.

The ego can be calcined, but not destroyed.

Albion
12-30-2010, 12:19 PM
It is not possible to "destroy" an ego. It's only possible to alter it in order to make one think that he/she has "destroyed" their ego.

The ego can be calcined, but not destroyed.

If a house were to undergo calcination it would seem that the level of order/structure that had once allowed it to be a reliable “home” would be effectually undone. At least that’s the perspective my landlord in Santa Cruz insisted on the morning after the house burned down. Reluctantly, I conceded his point and upgraded my living arrangements to a tent in the hills :).

Yes, “ego” [I] is, at minimal, the sense and system of individuation - not a bad thing in itself. It seems to be the ornate, compounded structures of delusion that we build on it, identify with, and live out of, that become problematic. Loss of perspective due to lack of dialectic with greater context [via heart]?


Not taking an oppositional stance here - just pondering…

Aleilius
12-30-2010, 12:31 PM
Not taking an oppositional stance here - just pondering…
Yeah, no worries. Another way to see this is thus: a salt can be calcined, but it cannot be destroyed. Calcination leaves us with the purest part of the matter.

Albion
12-30-2010, 02:27 PM
Another way to see this is thus: a salt can be calcined, but it cannot be destroyed. Calcination leaves us with the purest part of the matter.

To be followed by dissolution? Is the cycle repeated, ouroboros-like, for further refinings?

http://www.deeptrancenow.com/images/azoth.gif

http://www.thelivingprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/AlchemyTree.jpg

Aleilius
12-30-2010, 02:37 PM
To be followed by dissolution? Is the cycle repeated, ouroboros-like, for further refinings?

http://www.deeptrancenow.com/images/azoth.gif

I'm not sure what you're asking. Dissolution (solvation), yes, but not destruction. The end goal is to obtain the most pure of the pure.

The point being: one does not destroy his/her ego, but reduce & purify it. Sorry, we're going way off topic here though.

Albion
12-30-2010, 03:12 PM
Originally Posted by Alielius

Sorry, we're going way off topic here though.

Okay :)



Actually hooliganism, nationalism and patriotism are all part of only one bad human emotion: group hysteria.

:cool:

I like Soren Kierkegaard's expression: "The crowd is untruth." http://www.kingdomnow.org/dxp/free/Kierke.pdf

I can think of exceptions [the Bolivian water-war protests come to mind http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Bolivia_WaterWarVictory.html ] but I think his observation is almost universally applicable.

Andro
12-31-2010, 12:15 AM
Group hysteria and herd mentality are not 'good' or 'bad'. They're simply a natural phenomenon among animals and many humans as well.

The undead roman empire is continuously devising ways to direct this phenomenon towards channels like gladiator fights at the Colosseum or organized sports or whatever - as long as this phenomenon doesn't turn against the government itself.

And ego can be destroyed, the sense of Self. Here is where our views differ, which is fine with me.

Belief systems and comfort zones can also be destroyed. And it may indeed take a long 'time' to do so.

So, it is not necessarily easier to destroy than to create. Definitely not an axiom. Sometimes the opposite is true.

And if one eventually comes to the point where he doesn't see those two as opposites anymore, one is then beyond this debate.

IMO :)

Seth-Ra
12-31-2010, 08:29 AM
To be on a team, to be in a group, to be apart of the whole - is to act for the good of the whole, the All, allowing each One that makes up the All to work together so that the All acts as a single One.

To be against a team, or group, or the whole, is to be for only self, and selfishly defiant against the All.

But then, you are always on a team - big or small, even if it is the anti-team team. It really comes down to having a Group/Team/Whole Ego, or having a Singular/Individual/Self only Ego. Irony being, even the Whole is concerned with the self good of the Whole. Both Egos are essentially selfish - so is the acts taken by it done so for one, or for many? Does individual charity mean less or more than large scale charity? One takes the jobs one can get, and plays the cards dealt.

I guess my point is that the idea of groups, or anti-groups, any such broad determining and generalizing like that, doesnt serve much of a purpose. Its about what the individual, and group, stands for and does. Art only maters because of those it touches - individuality in art reaches some, those of like mind. Generalized art, or group concepts placed in art reach a lot more as it can relate to more than an individual can. So, helping them that come along your path, one at a time, or becoming part of a group to reach out (yes i know, earlier examples were of sports and teams of that sort, patriotism, etc... still, what does the group, or individual represent - you will pick a side, even the side of no side, which others will share with you. ;) ) - its all the same, Microcosm, Macrocosm, as Above, so Below.

Duality: "United we stand, divided we fall." & "None of us is as dumb as all of us." ;)



~Seth-Ra

Awani
06-10-2012, 02:51 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0mLlFw0aGE&feature=related

Actress Sandra Oh reads the speech given by Anarchist Emma Goldman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman) in San Francisco before the United States entered WWI. Part of a reading from Voices of a People's History of the United States given October 5, 2005 in Los Angeles California (Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove.)

We work for terrorists.

:cool:

zoas23
06-11-2012, 04:46 AM
Group hysteria and herd mentality are not 'good' or 'bad'. They're simply a natural phenomenon among animals and many humans as well.


Hmmm... I don't agree.

I am getting used to your ethical relativism, but I would make an exception with herd mentality... it is certainly "bad" under human circumstances.

As for Nationalism being the "same" than hooliganism... I think it's a good way to explain it, but I don't fully agree. I think nationalism is by far worst!!!

Hooliganism is for very basic and stupid people. I mean, it's a trap for incredibly silly persons.

Whilst Nationalism, being often by far more harmful than Hooliganism, it is a horrible trap that has captured several men who would be otherwise fantastic persons.

i.e, I have a lot of respect for Ernst Jünger, I think he was one of the greatest minds of the XX century... I know that a lot of people who hasn't read his works think that he was a Nazi (anyone who has read his works knows that he hated the Nazis and specially Hitler)... anyway, he would have never been a Hooligan, he absolutely distrusted the "herd mentality".... and, yet, he was a Nationalist.
Reading his works I sometimes feel that I want to tell him: "How is it possible to be so incredibly clever and yet so dumb?".
His case is the one that came to my mind because it is really a paradox that he was a Nationalist when one of the main subjects of his books was always having a point of view that goes against the herd mentality.

MoonQueen
06-12-2012, 01:45 AM
....herd mentality... it is certainly "bad" under human circumstances....

Not necessarily so in all circumstances. "Herd mentality" can be applied to any group that approaches a cause with passion and is most often used as a derogatory label/term.

I see herd mentality rather as a strength and potential that can be either productive or destructive ~ two sides of the same coin. Herd mentality from an evolutionary perspective has brought about the development of our great cities, art, sciences, music, cultures, philosophy..... one could in fact argue that we here on this board are "herding" together. :)

Misdirected herd mentality in it's most destructive form brings about war, death and suffering and even the hoarding of resources at the expense of the wider/global population in the scramble to be "the leader of the pack".

Krisztian
06-12-2012, 01:55 AM
Actually hooliganism, nationalism and patriotism are all part of only one bad human emotion: group hysteria.:cool:

I completely agree with that statement; I'm just surprised that I would see it expressed on a Forum! In the name of nationalism, how many wars have been fought? For what?

zoas23
06-12-2012, 03:15 AM
Not necessarily so in all circumstances. "Herd mentality" can be applied to any group that approaches a cause with passion and is most often used as a derogatory label/term.

I see herd mentality rather as a strength and potential that can be either productive or destructive ~ two sides of the same coin. Herd mentality from an evolutionary perspective has brought about the development of our great cities, art, sciences, music, cultures, philosophy..... one could in fact argue that we here on this board are "herding" together. :)

Misdirected herd mentality in it's most destructive form brings about war, death and suffering and even the hoarding of resources at the expense of the wider/global population in the scramble to be "the leader of the pack".

The opposite of "herd mentality" isn't "psychopath".

Awani
06-12-2012, 08:58 PM
I'm just surprised that I would see it expressed on a Forum!
How so?

Group hysteria is better btw than herd mentality IMO.

:cool:

MoonQueen
06-13-2012, 03:22 AM
The opposite of "herd mentality" isn't "psychopath".
Very true and the opposite of "herd mentality" is also not "sociopath". Again I am thinking that there are always two faces on the one coin and that there are many degrees of difference between psychopath/sociopath and avatar/enlightened master, yet in many respects the basic traits are the same, manifesting/presenting (from a social psychological/psychological view point) in either destructive or productive ways.

I'm kind of taking this off topic further (moderators please delete or move as appropriate): often the root cause is based in ego (as discussed in numerous posts on this board), and I think that the characteristics and traits of that "ego" lies in the energies presenting in the individuals birth chart - there has been much astrological research into psychopaths Hilter being one of the foremost researched historical figures.

Awani
06-13-2012, 01:41 PM
The opposite is the Outsider. The alienated. To the herd this person can seem fucked up.

:cool:

Ghislain
06-13-2012, 03:49 PM
MoonQueen

I can see some benefit in herd mentality...it would be useful in cleaning up the damage from a
hurricane for instance, but I would rather see responsible individualism.

People tend to hide behind a herd....for example football supporters...if you listen to a pair of
opposing football supporters arguing about a match that both of their teams participated in you
would believe they took part in the execution of the match. Just like this you get those in the herd
that do the work and the supporters of the herd that brag about the results they have achieved; the
latter being the majority in many cases IMO.

The herd says, "what can we do with the kids of today", as if the children have a self designed
moratorium on good behaviour until they become adult...I say to the herd, "give them a proper
upbringing, pay them some attention and be the role models of the traits that are expected of them",
but the herd would rather sit in front of the box with their TV dinners ignoring the children.

Another thing about a herd is that the loudest, most aggressive member usually becomes the leader
of such; however I guess it depends on the types that make up the parts of the herd.

Another negative side is that a herd is easier to manipulate than a group of responsible individuals,
such as the Nazi herd...etc.

And as Dev says above, what if you don't fit in the herd?

Ghislain

zoas23
06-13-2012, 10:13 PM
Very true and the opposite of "herd mentality" is also not "sociopath". Again I am thinking that there are always two faces on the one coin and that there are many degrees of difference between psychopath/sociopath and avatar/enlightened master, yet in many respects the basic traits are the same, manifesting/presenting (from a social psychological/psychological view point) in either destructive or productive ways.

I'm kind of taking this off topic further (moderators please delete or move as appropriate): often the root cause is based in ego (as discussed in numerous posts on this board), and I think that the characteristics and traits of that "ego" lies in the energies presenting in the individuals birth chart - there has been much astrological research into psychopaths Hilter being one of the foremost researched historical figures.

I was having in mind the ideas of Louis Claude de Saint-Martin, an interesting mystic. He wrote a lot about the "men of desire" (the true individualist) and the "men of the current" (the herd mentality).
Getting out of the current was, for him, the very first step in a spiritual path.
He was far from being a sociopath or psychopath.... and actually very interested in helping other people (again, this one was also a very important part of his ideal).

MoonQueen
06-14-2012, 02:37 PM
... now I want to track down Louis Claude de Saint-Martin's works. :)

Krisztian
06-14-2012, 06:00 PM
I was having in mind the ideas of Louis Claude de Saint-Martin, an interesting mystic. He wrote a lot about the "men of desire" (the true individualist) and the "men of the current" (the herd mentality). Getting out of the current was, for him, the very first step in a spiritual path. He was far from being a sociopath or psychopath.... and actually very interested in helping other people (again, this one was also a very important part of his ideal).

It's almost impossible, it would seem, that without withdrawal from the social and cultural currents (at least), one can truly find and locate one's thread of spirituality. Even though I'm quite well-known in these neck of the woods, I still remain a recluse (somewhat) where my true personal beliefs and spiritual practice is unknown to majority. I mean, I'm involved in a long-term intimate relationship, have good friends, but my spiritual practice is quite private.

Society-in-general is out of balance in terms of spirituality. I think de Saint-Martin has always shown in his writings that he advocates the spiritual path.