Jump to content

User:Shanoman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.28.244.122 (talk) at 07:37, 12 December 2012 (→‎Arch-Villian List: added Sam Brownback). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

---the extropist extropian technoprogressive transhumanist cryonic bio-immortalist---

---ALSO: a bright-green antinaturalist omnivore and libertine anthropocentric humanist survivalist mystic & "slow" retro-liberal ("socialist")"---

This user also has designed or evolved his user page in probably the diametrically opposite way that Jimbo Wales and his army of exploited Wikipedian clones recommend or desire, but oh well.

This user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians.

The motto of the AIW is conservata veritate, which translates to "with the preserved truth".
This motto reflects the inclusionist desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result.

AIW


hi! | style="font-size:8pt; padding:4pt; line-height:1.25em; color:darkred;" | Leave a message on my [1] talk page. |}


99%This user supports the Occupy Movement.
RLThis user is on the religious left.
This user identifies as a leftist.


libThis user is a liberal.
This user is a social liberal.
lib This user is a liberal and doesn't understand why Americans have demonised the word.
LibThis user identifies as a liberal.
PROThis user is a progressive.

| |{{User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Unitarian}}

|

This user is a Unitarian Universalist.

|Usage |-


  • NOTE: I wished the "Religious Left" userbox linked to "liberal religion" instead of "Christian Left", because this user does not currently consider himself a Christian in any way, shape, or form. However, despite my staunch dedication to humanism and freedom from religion, I totally LOVE my friends on the Christian Left, at least among fellow Unitarian-Universalists. I wish all Christians could be this good!


MY MISSION

To eradicate, or at least seriously weaken and minimize, the pervasive appeal of the following destructive memes on Wikipedia (and the rest of the internet/culture-at-large):

This user describes himself as a militant antiTheist agnostic nontheist freethinker and non-pseudoskeptical skeptic (zetetic) towards all religious/paranormal claims. If any good gods exist, they are many, pluralist, humanitarian, and do not demand to be worshipped or even acknowledged. Any god which claims to be the only one and demands anything of other conscious beings is evil, but probably would have been talked-down and won-over, ostracized, incarcerated, or otherwise neutralized (neutered?) by the other gods and/or demigods a long time ago so most likely doesn't exist. If any such being should ever exist, it should be opposed, not indulged! |User:Fasten/Userbox/ft

♂♀This user supports gender equality.
AThis user happens to be an atheist but doesn't regard religions as evil.

* (*Note: I wish it said "...but doesn't regard all religions as evil"; I do indeed regard it to be virtually impossible to practice literal-minded Bible or Koran fundamentalism without being TOTALLY EVIL!)|

This user is a hacker, or identifies with and promotes the hacker ethic.
This user enjoys reading the newspaper.
This user is a member of
WikiProject Anatomy.
This user is a history buff.
This user is interested in
ancient civilizations.
This user is interested in space sciences.
This user believes free images should be moved to the Commons.
A, B, and CThis user prefers the serial comma.
theyThis user considers singular they standard English usage.
XThis user is a member of
Generation X.
This user enjoys rock music.
This user knows global warming is a reality we are facing.
PC This user is pro-choice.
This user is heterosexual.
This user is a skeptic.

(*Note: I am NOT a hacker myself, in fact I'm quite inept at the most basic computer using skills, but I think hacking should NOT be illegal).

Anti-religiousity

I am mostly opposed to the basic aims and purposes of all Right-Hand Path (anti-life, anti-sex, anti-pleasure, anti-freedom, anti-self, anti-human, anti-Earth, anti-matter, anti-existence, anti-reality) religions as a threat to the further development of mankind and its long term existence. I also consider it a threat to my personal freedom and survival, and it has caused the mutilation of my mind & spirit.

Nevertheless, despite (or perhaps even more so because of?) being as anti-RHP as I am, I completely support the right of people to practice any religion and to be as religious as they want to be so long as their practice of religion does not infringe upon the rights of others.

Footnotes

  • (*)---Increasingly precautionary in regards to certain survival, environmental, technological, and economic situations, such as: (1) large hadron collider; (2) nanotechnological gray goo scenario; (3) misanthropic AI Singularity; (4) global warming/global superstorm/new ice age; (5) the current global economic recession; (6) downsizing & privatizing in general; (7) genetically modified organisms; (8) release of new substances into ecosystems. For more examples, see: Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth, which this user believes is one of the most important articles on Wikipedia. He is open to conceding, however, that paradoxically, some implementations of the proactive principle may in fact be the best precautionary measures to take in certain situations (but certainly not all)---for instance, developing AI Singularity, though perhaps a grave risk to continued human freedom and survival, may be the only thing that will prevent certain doom from nanotechnology (if developed first w/out AI), ecological collapse, global warming/superstorm, or even crazy economic scenarios such as the current recession/depression. If those other things are going to get us for sure, then we must take our chances with the only thing that can possibly [allow us to] deal with these other risks (or to perhaps deal with them itself instead of us [having to or being able to deal with them]---preferably on our behalf!).
  • (***)---This user basically no longer believes that there is massive, or even significant, "anti-white male", anti-Jewish, anti-heterosexual, or anti-personal freedom sentiment on the Left, but feels compelled to address these paranoid concerns (misconceptions & distortions) that have become increasingly popular among conservatives and other non-liberals (anti-liberals, centrists, populists, apoliticals, and apathetics).

Good things (Stuff I believe in, support, or at least am highly interested in)

  *Integral Theory
  *Waldorfism
  *Theosophy
  *Unity
  *ancient astronauts
  *Raëlism
  *The Occult
  *Church of the SubGenius
  *RAW
  *Art Bell

  *Unitarian-Universalists
  *Religious Left
     *Christian Left

Extremists

I have no tolerance for religious extremists who feel they have the right to legislate their beliefs. No, you don't get to rough up homosexuals and legislate against them (that's bigotry, initiation of force, tyranny, authoritarianism, fascism, "socialism"). No, I'm not going to burn in hell for being an infidel, it's your hell - you burn in it. No, you don't get to keep your religious crap in the United States government - it's against the constitution; if Thomas Jefferson is now rolling over in his grave, it's got one hell of alot more to do with your royalist/theocrat/pharisaist/Ultramontanist machinations than anything our so-called democratic socialists are trying to do with health care, taxing/regulating big corporations to pay for wars/our troops/clean water/clean soil/paved roadways/street signs/public schools, etc.

Christians, Muslims, etc., who work against the extremists of their various religions and promote religious freedom and equality are to be applauded. They need to step up and drown out the extremists. I'll disagree with you, and argue with you, about religion - but it will be on friendly terms.

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice" may be true, but not when the extremism is terrorism (or threats of it) and grossly inaccurate [insurance company & Koch Bro. financed] propaganda (exaggerations, biased projections, groundless equivocations, and outright lies) and the alleged Obama "attack on liberty" is an incremental or even infinitesmal change (or even a restoration of a preexisting state of affairs, say the economy of the United States from the 1930s through the 1970s), adversely affecting only the richest of the rich, who can more than afford it and STILL maintain most of their superior, all-precious "status". Objective reality now is almost 100% the diametrical opposite of what U.S. right-wingers SAY it is. "Progressives", "liberals", "moderates", etc. are the voices closest to reality/sanity/reason; you right-winger absolutists (including most U.S.-style "libertarians") are INSANE. Let's try refocusing our efforts on issues that are in REALITY significant changes, like the erosion of our personal freedoms (smoking, drinking, owning & selling things without "permission", etc.), the monopolization of U.S. finance/commerce/industry, and the increasing rate of outsourcing jobs/ownership of U.S. property to the RED CHINESE!!!! (Stop making a "liberty/tyranny/revolution" mountain out of the healthcare mole-hill!). The Obama "socialism" (growth in government) pales in comparison to that of even Republicans of the past such as Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford. All the corporate cry-babies want is a continuation of the Reagan/Bush I/Clinton/Bush II glory years, and they've hired the best social engineers to manipulate the (largely nationalist-populist) memes of Red state thumpers, red necks and "libertarian" youth of Generations X & Y.

I used to be a U.S.-style "libertarian". Hell, I was a card-carrying member of the U.S. Libertarian Party and actively involved in my state Libertarian Party. All I can say is that it still sounds pretty damn good in theory, but it will never be practical so long as the U.S. is a nation of profoundly stupid, easily manipulated morans who sacrifice their own interests for that of their "superiors" (boss, corporate brass, religious/political leaders), literally dying to protect the economic freedom/prosperity of their "betters" (MASTERS?), while literally KILLING to control, limit, and regulate the freedoms of their neighbors. Laissez-faire will only work to maintain the status quo; we'll NEVER have more personal freedoms if we continue going the CONSERVATIVE direction.

The terms libertarian and libertarianism were coined by European anarcho-socialists (& anarcho-communists?) during the late 1800s. I believe some extreme pro-capitalist individualists in the United States began using the term to describe themselves and their views in the 1930s or '40s, in reaction to the New Deal. Regardless, I believe that all true libertarians are a type of leftist or liberal, with the U.S.-style being classical (capitalist) liberal. To me, "conservative libertarian" is the only morally permissible way to be conservative, where one applies the conservatism on a completely voluntary basis only, and respect for the freedom of all others to be/do anything (that's non-force-initiating) comes first, before your exercise of obediance/subserviance to the things you and others mutually consent to acknowledging, worshipping, feeling obligated to, etc. (and let me tell ya, Glenn Beck and Bob Barr sure as f*** ain't no libertarians, conservative or otherwise!). It is logically impossible to be a "libertarian conservative"; only a "libertarian-ish conservative" makes any kind of sense, and all true total conservatives are fundamentally against ultimate individualism in self-ownership and personal freedom; with conservatives, all sovereignty actually begins and ends with God, and God's extensions in the country (nationalism/militarism) and family (societarianism/moralism). So to real, actual, true conservatism, everything and everybody ultimately belongs to God and must be forced to serve God and God's appointed human ruler of the state (country/nation/tribe/clan/family) and its military. Some idea of freedom!

On medicine, psychology, social services, management, etc.

EBP, if enforced completely, throws the baby out with the bath water. There is more to professionalism than just statistical evidence and "hard proofs"; it is an art where the practicioner brings more to it than they can consciously articulate; we need whole real people---not textbook-style computer programs---to do certain things as well as they can be done.

Other (miscellaneous)

This user has strong interests in life extension, longevity, alternative medicine, conventional medicine, and all things relating to health and survival. He's also concerned with the issues affecting the commons, biosphere, infrastructure, safety net, human overpopulation, and more.

This user believes that Wikipedia---although being one of his favorite pastimes--is nevertheless a largely incongruent (or inconsistently lop-sided) battleground between advocates of fringe viewpoints (both similar to and opposite of his own), random inane vandals, and super-refined (picky) elitist editors, who tend strongly towards being conformists, generalists, deletionists, minimalists and authoritarians. They evidently are embarrassed or ashamed of what Wikipedia was in the early years, and want it to seriously match, meet, or exceed the standards of online versions of first-class "traditional" (in bounded book form) encyclopedias. At first, this seemed like a sort of elitist "over-class" (or a sort of "cartel" of cabals), if you will, of highly refined editors with a pronounced liberal POV, but increasingly, it seems to this user that the US conservatives/populists are gaining the upper hand. Shanoman (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My Favorite Wikipedians (Thus Far)

This User's Favorite Userpages [of other Wikimedia users, most of whom I've borrowed freely from]

totally agree with

  • User:Lostinlodos: absolutely awesome views and some pretty nifty userboxes; I think we are at least 90% of the same opinions; I just
  wish I had about 1/10 of your computer/electronic/math knowledge----then I might actually know enough to be dangerous! (LOL)

                   Harry491 sounds like [s]he's just starting to get their feet wet.
  • User:Stormwatch: a rabid inclusionist (like me!)
  • User:Proxima Centauri: a liberal/progressive sci fi writer
  • User:Kmarinas86: science, logic, etc.
  • User:Richard Myers: for labor movement.
  • User:Jeraphine Gryphon
  • User:Bluejay Young: for interest expressed on the talk page of Death of John Lennon article.
  • User:Kasaalan: ditto (as above, as for User:Bluejay Young); very interesting!
  • User:Snowspinner: similar reaction to what Wikipedia (and can I say the Internet in general?) have become; a decade ago both were populated largely by fairly intelligent, reasonable, and open-minded (curious? liberal?) people; now both are dominated by crude, shallow, stubborn, dogmatic, conformist partisan ideologues & philistines; in short, "Here Comes Everybody"!.
  • User:Kmweber: for being both politically left-wing and philosophically objectivist (I'm not the only one!). Well, I guess I'm not so much of an objectivist now, and I'm not sure I understand your atheist-objectivist-Christian aspects (how does egoism square with Christianity? how does complete, guiltless sexual freedom square with either?), so we probably have some profound differences, but still a highly unusual, paradoxical (if not contradictory?) commonality.
  • User:Ingram: for being a fellow ignostic freethinker and illuminatus fan
  • User:JackofOz: cool user page; but I couldn't tell if we have much in common due to your sparse use of userboxes

Favorite Articles

'Some of this User's Favorite Articles' (and/or/esp. those that are central to understanding the views of this User, including those articles he doesn't think are that good, is seriously critical of, or doesn't even agree with at all [anymore] but nevertheless sees as crucial to understanding him) (or in other words, a summary of a summary, the best of the best/most important keywords) 

* - haven't really explored yet, but have long expected I would find much of interest in.

Idols (role models)

(Some Influential People on This User (*or I think most likely will be if and when I read their works)) 

  myth (and fits in with paganism)

  * - Haven't read yet but I think most likely will be if and when I read their works (what I have done so far is read about them!)
* * - at some point in time, there has been considerable (or even the majority) aspects of their views which I am not in agreement with, but nevertheless find them to be very insightful and/or to have some very good points.

Arch-Villian List

NOTE: I try to eliminate all traces of these figures from my notions of right thought, beliefs, values, conduct, action, morals, politics, economics, etc. So many other Wikipedians have that trite userbox shouting how they seek to eliminate the influence of Karl Marx from all their thinking, etc. Well consider this to be my parallel shunning of all which I hate. Also this: "If you can resurrect Emma Goldman, then I do want to be a part of your Revolution"!

A Section from a Talk Page

Origins: broader philosophical (& political) associations?

I quote from the article:

Consequently, the left hand has often symbolized the rejection of traditional religion, which is most often characterized by the Right-Hand Path. The distinction most likely is that the Right-Hand Path is the path to (or communication with) a different plane of existence, whereas the Left-Hand Path is the path to (or a communication with) this plane of existence. We're considered to be "down here" and divinities are considered to be "up there". (The terms "left" and "right" as applied to politics have a different origin. They are derived from the seating in the French Legislative Assembly in 1791.)

I beg to differ---I say they ARE THE SAME, or at least definitely CONNECTED or RELATED. I know this is extremely over-generalized and vague---and runs the risk of offending many practioners of the LHP, as well as hostile critics who will say it is unsourced or irrelevant---but in a nutshell, all things "Right" throughout history have been associated with masculinity, sky/heaven, spirit, morality, the existing power-structure in society, discipline, self-denial, honor, glory, military, dutiful hard work, in short, with conservatism (traditional authority & authoritarianism), while all things "Left" have been associated (variously) with femininity, ground/earth, body, hedonism, revolutionary/rebel movements, indulgence, self-gratification, dishonor, grossness, intelligentsia, laziness, in short, with progressive liberalism and/or libertarianism. These are the true LHP qualities, and no one need be ashamed of them, but feel proud to reclaim them from centuries of false-guilt and shame heaped upon them by the mostly ascetic, authoritarian, & force-initiating proponents of the RHP. This is also parallel to the historic battle between "Gods and Giants", first noted by Plato, with himself and all the other RHPers (such as Christ, Kant, Hitler, etc.) fighting on the side of the Gods against the LHP Giants (which include Aristotle, Democritus, Epicurus, Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche, Freud, and maybe Rand---this elaboration and extension to historical figures later than Plato/Aristotle was partially put forth (I elaborated upon it) by Antony Flew in his Dictionary of Philosophy). To LHPers who identify with the right-wing of politics, I say: read philosophy. Hell, just look up [some older edits, from like 2005-2007] the Wikipedia article on Fascism and you can see it is inherently a philosophy of restoring and upholding Christian monarchy, aristocracy, and feudalism (and some of what I've learned about some spiritual/traditional satanists makes me think some or all of them are really RHP, if they are willing to totally submit and sacrifice their selves (and others) for/to an alleged "higher" separate, external cause! Silly [right-wing] Satanist, conservatism is for Xians! And silly 2010's US Republican: fascism is RIGHT-wing, and so are you! It matters not that you be a capitalist or a socialist; what matters is your militarism and your authoritarianism; your ideals of an ascetic, Spartan down-sized life and your willingness to legislate religion, morality, and nationalism. Let's face it, economic structures be damned, you are the philosophical and psychological (& spiritual?) soul-mates of Hitler & Stalin and your leaders know it. Wake up to the reality that's in front of your face and stop swallowing whole the virtual reality spin-machine as portrayed by talk radio and Fox News. Come on now, if you really care about life and freedom, stop fighting for the wrong side!).

Update

Now I'm not so sure if "LHP" is really all that I thought it was. It might actually entail a ruthless non-concern for all/most others and a sort of holier-than-thou, self-righteous sort of ultra-competitive "rugged individualism", or maybe even entail a love of war and aggression towards others. If that's so, then maybe I'm not as much for it as I once thought. Mutual aid is the ticket; the route of true (enlightened) egoism (rational self-interest), at least for the vast majority of humankind. Anyway, my "jury" is still out---I'm keeping an open mind!

10/29/12 (29.10.2012): Reconsidering Aristotle; Rand: Well while it should be more than obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with Rand's writings that I have drastically deviated from her philosophy, I am now considering to be even more deviant. I have became increasingly interested in Marxism, positivism, and phenomenalism recently, and was surprised to learn that Locke and Aristotle were advocates of indirect realism, and I am thinking that Ayn Rand may also have been (and is looking more and more like an idealist in other ways too, such as her emphasis on "values" (abstract principles & "laws", such as absolute rights to private property ownership) over flesh and blood (physical) consequences to most humans. If Lenin thought Mach was an idealist, I'm sure he'd call Rand one too (among many other things, I'm sure:) ). I think I am now leaning explicitly towards direct realism. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Symbolism

Shadow of Taipei 101 tower in the late afternoon. The adjoining park (circular feature, bottom) acts as the face of a sundial.

Taipei 101, like all spire structures, participates in the symbolism of a world center where earth and sky meet and the four compass directions join.

The height of 101 floors commemorates the renewal of time: the new century that arrived as the tower was built (100+1) and all the new years that follow (January 1 = 1-01). It symbolizes high ideals by going one better on 100, a traditional number of perfection. The number also evokes the binary numeral system used in digital technology.[1]

The main tower features a series of eight segments of eight floors each. In Chinese-speaking cultures the number eight is associated with abundance, prosperity and good fortune. In cultures that observe a seven-day week the number eight symbolizes a renewal of time (7+1). In cultures where seven is the lucky number, 8 represents 1 better than 'lucky seven'. In digital technology the number eight is associated with the byte, being 8 bits. A bit is the basic (minimal) unit of information.

The repeated segments simultaneously recall the rhythms of an Asian pagoda (a tower linking earth and sky, also evoked in the Petronas Towers), a stalk of bamboo (an icon of learning and growth), and a stack of ancient Chinese ingots or money boxes (a symbol of abundance). The four discs mounted on each face of the building where the pedestal meets the tower represent coins. The emblem placed over entrances shows three gold coins of ancient design with central holes shaped to imply the Arabic numerals 1-0-1.[1]

Ruyi figure over a Taipei 101 entrance

Curled ruyi figures appear throughout the structure as a design motif. The ruyi is an ancient symbol associated with heavenly clouds. It connotes healing, protection and fulfilment. It appears in celebrations of the attainment of new career heights.[2] Each ruyi ornament on the exterior of the Taipei 101 tower stands at least 8 m (26 ft) tall. The sweeping curved roof of the adjoining mall culminates in a colossal ruyi that shades pedestrians. Though the shape of each ruyi at Taipei 101 is traditional, its metallic interpretation is plainly modern.

At night the bright yellow gleam from its pinnacle casts Taipei 101 in the role of a candle or torch upholding the ideals of liberty and welcome. From 6:00 to 10:00 each evening[3] the tower's lights display one of seven colours in the spectrum. The colours coincide with the days of the week:

Day Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
Colour Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Indigo Violet

The cycle through the spectrum connects the tower with the rich symbolism of rainbows as bridges linking earth to sky and earth's peoples to one another.

Millennium Park adjoins Taipei 101 on the east and connects the landmark further with the symbolism of time. The design of the circular park allows it to double as the face of a sundial. The tower itself casts the shadow to indicate afternoon hours for the building's occupants. The park's design is echoed in a clock that stands at its entrance. The clock runs on energy drawn from the building's wind shear.

Feng shui fountain outside Taipei 101

Taipei 101, like many of its neighbours, shows the influence of feng shui philosophy. An example appears in the form of a large granite fountain at the intersection of Songlian Road and Xinyi Road near the tower's east entrance.[4] A ball at the fountain's top spins toward the tower. As a work of public art, the fountain offers a contrast to the tower in texture even as its design echoes the tower's rhythms. Yet the fountain also serves a practical function in feng shui philosophy. A T intersection near the entrance of a building represents a potential drain of positive energy, or ch'i, from a structure and its occupants. Flowing water placed at such spots remedy the situation by generating a positive inward flow of ch'i. The fountain applies a traditional solution to a traditional challenge yet its design remains modern.

Taipei 101 merges ancient motifs and ideas with modern techniques and materials. As a landmark it renews the symbolism of all tall towers as cosmic centers. Its interplaying symbols speak of optimism, abundance, and the ever-renewing cycles of time.

Herman Cain = Clarence Thomas ≈ Dinesh D'Souza

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Floor89PPM was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ http://www.fengshuibestbuy.com/ruyi1.html Feng Shui Bestbuy - Ru Yi
  3. ^ Taipei 101 Official Website - Lights Schedule
  4. ^ "Taipei 101, Bigger is not Better (台北101, 更大不等於更好)". Taiwan Design Center. 2004.09.15. Retrieved 2009-09-17. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Shanoman&oldid=527668986"