The Fish Bowl Society

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Miekka Kuoleman

Suicidesoldier#1

And what exactly do you expect me to say?

Any sort of explanation really.

Suicidesoldier#1

That people aren't living their lives mindlessly and DO actually think about things becuase they aren't fish-brained morons who can think more than 3 seconds into the future and try at things, think about things, care about things and deeply understand the spiritual connections of the world?

I never said people don't think, feel or understand. I said their perspective may be limited and potentially forced to be limited do to how society is set up.

Suicidesoldier#1

That you and five other people aren't the only thinking persons in the world and that other people understand the environment their in and seek, endlessly it seems, to better their situation?

You know, I wasn't attacking you or placing myself above any one I don't see why you feel the need to attack. I'm simply inquiring more of an explanation than you seem willing to give.

Further more, I never said I was above the fish bowl society concept or the stereotypical individual. I'm simply arguing Treader's view because I feel I have a decent understand of it and I'm curious why you disagree but once more, you focus your attack directly at me as opposed to the topic which utterly defeats the purpose of this conversation.

Suicidesoldier#1

What am I going to do exactly; show you a thought bubble of someone else?

Not necessarily but I would like to see how you feel other individuals think because something tells me you put a lot more faith in others than I do.

Suicidesoldier#1

Magically give you empathy so you'd understand?

Now you're just being crude and pointlessly lashing out over the fact that I disagree with you.

Suicidesoldier#1

Or simply point out that the fish bowl society concept is inane and inadequate for providing any reasonable accurate analogy for society due to it's massive lack of an analogous comparison?

Here we are, something decently arguable.

The OP did seem a tad weak in the compare and contrast portion but ideally, when not taken too literally it does make sense.

People do interact in the sense that they are forced to be around others but how much interaction is there really in comparison to relations developed between individuals? It's like a Venn diagram where the circles are constantly moving and colliding. In that moment of collision there is interaction but how often do these collisions end with a real relation or simply deflecting both circles into different directions?

There is also much to do with the life style that leaves people in offices day in and day out. Treader explained to me that she posted this in response to having to sit in an office for a large portion of her Saturday. And I quote her directly, "Though there was a comfortable couch and windows revealing the outside, within thirty minutes the windows became tools of a taunting menace, reminding me that I'm stuck in this small room while there's a world out side that I've been missing out on because I'm forced to sit in this putrid office, waiting for father to finish his desk work. Why would any one allow their life to force them to endure with such an oppressing fate?" Here is where the narrow mindedness is in play or the misery for those who are aware the concept.

If you felt assaulted by the words or derived some sort of inane implication from them other than what I obviously stated it is simply you coming to those conclusions.

"It's like a Venn diagram where the circles are constantly moving and colliding. In that moment of collision there is interaction but how often do these collisions end with a real relation or simply deflecting both circles into different directions?"


Oh, so no-one makes real relationships these days?

It's all fake; no, I don't really believe that.


People feel trapped inside of a cubicle all day when they want to be outside playing; cool, alright.

Sounds more like a wild beast in a cage then a fish in a fishbowl; fish don't give a s**t.


But it's nothing like that.

It's like being a workhorse slaving away to a system kept inside of a dimly lit cage; a fishbowl society implies free food, no work, all play, which is what they long for.

[Miekka Kuoleman]

Suicidesoldier#1

If you felt assa...

Fair enough, I'll assume any seemingly sarcastic or crude phrases weren't intended to be so.

I never said the venn diagram of moving circles means there are never real relations but in proportion to those who do pick set people to create real relations with as opposed to those who hang around with who ever life throws at them and doesn't take much time to miss those life has separated from them, true developed relations aren't every where. Now to clarify what I mean by relations, I mean logically unconditional. This means, they can state their opinion that you don't agree with and still get along with them. They can dress the way they want and you still be their friend.

In my English class we have this game we play called "Philosophical Chairs." The way it works is there is a side of the class room called "agree," and the other side that is "disagree," and when the teacher reads out a statement, each student is to stand on the side of the class room that represents his/her position on that statement. (I.E. should one agree they stand on the "agree" side.) Then we argue our points. One common notion most of the students in my class make is the,"I feel" observation. Though it can be a good way to create a topic, this tactic does not support an argument. One example of this being, once the statement was "People wear clothing that makes them look worse." (All the statements are left open to interpretation when there is no scenario given.) A girl in my class stood on the disagree and argued that she dresses herself in what she feels looks best on her but did not account for any one else. My point being that an argument doesn't always accomplish what is intended to be accomplished and if you make an observation that you accept as the ultimate truth, you are taking a chance that you have missed an aspect that which you have not experienced yet. Make sense?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Miekka Kuoleman

Suicidesoldier#1

If you felt assa...

Fair enough, I'll assume any seemingly sarcastic or crude phrases weren't intended to be so.

I never said the venn diagram of moving circles means there are never real relations but in proportion to those who do pick set people to create real relations with as opposed to those who hang around with who ever life throws at them and doesn't take much time to miss those life has separated from them, true developed relations aren't every where. Now to clarify what I mean by relations, I mean logically unconditional. This means, they can state their opinion that you don't agree with and still get along with them. They can dress the way they want and you still be their friend.

In my English class we have this game we play called "Philosophical Chairs." The way it works is there is a side of the class room called "agree," and the other side that is "disagree," and when the teacher reads out a statement, each student is to stand on the side of the class room that represents his/her position on that statement. (I.E. should one agree they stand on the "agree" side.) Then we argue our points. One common notion most of the students in my class make is the,"I feel" observation. Though it can be a good way to create a topic, this tactic does not support an argument. One example of this being, once the statement was "People wear clothing that makes them look worse." (All the statements are left open to interpretation when there is no scenario given.) A girl in my class stood on the disagree and argued that she dresses herself in what she feels looks best on her but did not account for any one else. My point being that an argument doesn't always accomplish what is intended to be accomplished and if you make an observation that you accept as the ultimate truth, you are taking a chance that you have missed an aspect that which you have not experienced yet. Make sense?

Obviously, why I didn't assert anything back.

You're post has no more basis to it than mine so it's worthless, which is why I didn't really post anything back and merely asserted than any potential random thing I could have asserted would have been irrelevant.


The entire conversation to what I did up to here would have been pointless and it was.

Interesting though.


More or less however.

Why do you feel that people don't make "real" or adequate relationships with each other on a regular basis?

[Miekka Kuoleman]

Suicidesoldier#1

Why do you feel that people don't make "real" or adequate relationships with each other on a regular basis?

Just a note, I use the world relations not relationships for a reason. That reason being connotation.

High school drama, the quick to judge basis nearly every one I've ever seen has in combination to the quick to reject most of the said people have, God, politics, humans, irrelevancy, value, perception, high divorce rates, the common reason for divorce being money, children hating their parents, parents giving their children reason to hate them and denying it... the list goes on. It all leads around, how often do we really have a good reason to walk away from some one in comparison to the times we have walked away from some one. I don't have actual statistics but should I have to make an assumption, that would make a table with few reasons and many rejections.

Why do you think they do make real relations?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Miekka Kuoleman

Suicidesoldier#1

Why do you feel that people don't make "real" or adequate relationships with each other on a regular basis?

Just a note, I use the world relations not relationships for a reason. That reason being connotation.

High school drama, the quick to judge basis nearly every one I've ever seen has in combination to the quick to reject most of the said people have, God, politics, humans, irrelevancy, value, perception, high divorce rates, the common reason for divorce being money, children hating their parents, parents giving their children reason to hate them and denying it... the list goes on. It all leads around, how often do we really have a good reason to walk away from some one in comparison to the times we have walked away from some one. I don't have actual statistics but should I have to make an assumption, that would make a table with few reasons and many rejections.

Why do you think they do make real relations?

Because they are human beings, with a conscious, living, thinking, breathing animals that without real connection couldn't cooperate. Family members, loved ones, friends, the things they feel and the things they think of, the people they care about, it wouldn't exist if no real connection was there.

And high divorce rates are fine, but you have to remember that the other half is still together and that many individuals who get divorced get divorced more than once; staying together forever can only happen once while divorce can happen many times, and considering that it's yet only about 50% of all "marriages" I'd say people are getting along just fine.


I mean, maybe it's the real connection they had that lead to the divorce; it doesn't always have to result in positive benefits when you truly understand someone.

And children will hate their parents so long as their parents are imperfect and even then, they think they are wrong or would rather them be right regardless; so that doesn't imply a lack of a connection, just a difficult one to deal with.


I don't think you can say that the relations are all fake based on said criteria.

It's jumping to conclusions without considering the other side of situation.

[Miekka Kuoleman]

Suicidesoldier#1

Miekka Kuoleman

Suicidesoldier#1

Why do you feel that people don't make "real" or adequate relationships with each other on a regular basis?

Just a note, I use the world relations not relationships for a reason. That reason being connotation.

High school drama, the quick to judge basis nearly every one I've ever seen has in combination to the quick to reject most of the said people have, God, politics, humans, irrelevancy, value, perception, high divorce rates, the common reason for divorce being money, children hating their parents, parents giving their children reason to hate them and denying it... the list goes on. It all leads around, how often do we really have a good reason to walk away from some one in comparison to the times we have walked away from some one. I don't have actual statistics but should I have to make an assumption, that would make a table with few reasons and many rejections.

Why do you think they do make real relations?

Because they are human beings, with a conscious, living, thinking, breathing animals that without real connection couldn't cooperate. Family members, loved ones, friends, the things they feel and the things they think of, the people they care about, it wouldn't exist if no real connection was there.

And high divorce rates are fine, but you have to remember that the other half is still together and that many individuals who get divorced get divorced more than once; staying together forever can only happen once while divorce can happen many times, and considering that it's yet only about 50% of all "marriages" I'd say people are getting along just fine.


I mean, maybe it's the real connection they had that lead to the divorce; it doesn't always have to result in positive benefits when you truly understand someone.

And children will hate their parents so long as their parents are imperfect and even then, they think they are wrong or would rather them be right regardless; so that doesn't imply a lack of a connection, just a difficult one to deal with.


I don't think you can say that the relations are all fake based on said criteria.

It's jumping to conclusions without considering the other side of situation.

I see. Well, I've grown bored now. It was nice talking to you, hopefully I'll catch you in another thread. (My attention span died is all.)

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Miekka Kuoleman

Suicidesoldier#1

Miekka Kuoleman

Suicidesoldier#1

Why do you feel that people don't make "real" or adequate relationships with each other on a regular basis?

Just a note, I use the world relations not relationships for a reason. That reason being connotation.

High school drama, the quick to judge basis nearly every one I've ever seen has in combination to the quick to reject most of the said people have, God, politics, humans, irrelevancy, value, perception, high divorce rates, the common reason for divorce being money, children hating their parents, parents giving their children reason to hate them and denying it... the list goes on. It all leads around, how often do we really have a good reason to walk away from some one in comparison to the times we have walked away from some one. I don't have actual statistics but should I have to make an assumption, that would make a table with few reasons and many rejections.

Why do you think they do make real relations?

Because they are human beings, with a conscious, living, thinking, breathing animals that without real connection couldn't cooperate. Family members, loved ones, friends, the things they feel and the things they think of, the people they care about, it wouldn't exist if no real connection was there.

And high divorce rates are fine, but you have to remember that the other half is still together and that many individuals who get divorced get divorced more than once; staying together forever can only happen once while divorce can happen many times, and considering that it's yet only about 50% of all "marriages" I'd say people are getting along just fine.


I mean, maybe it's the real connection they had that lead to the divorce; it doesn't always have to result in positive benefits when you truly understand someone.

And children will hate their parents so long as their parents are imperfect and even then, they think they are wrong or would rather them be right regardless; so that doesn't imply a lack of a connection, just a difficult one to deal with.


I don't think you can say that the relations are all fake based on said criteria.

It's jumping to conclusions without considering the other side of situation.

I see. Well, I've grown bored now. It was nice talking to you, hopefully I'll catch you in another thread. (My attention span died is all.)

lol xp

[Sneaker Pimps]

Explain fish bowl society?

[Miekka Kuoleman]

Sneaker Pimps

Explain fish bowl society?

The edit has been there since the thread reached two pages...

cogito ergo sum treader

edit
The Fish Bowl society is composed of the unaware. A mass of those who are forever sleeping and mindlessly bumbling through their days never gaining or losing anything. These people aren't happy with what they have but they move nowhere no matter the pace they run. This is the concept of being valueless but not caring. Ideally, the Fish Bowl Society is composed of a majority who chose to be like the cells in their own body. Merely completing tasks then to die off. With this said, it means that one cell is replaceable but masses of cells are not. I am, however, looking through a microscope focused on one cell and that cell right now represents you, the reader. I address you individually not as a whole, because the concept runs that as a whole, the push a society that is structured on office jobs and manufacturing, etc. it is the whole that is important, not the individual.

[Sneaker Pimps]

Miekka Kuoleman

Sneaker Pimps

Explain fish bowl society?

The edit has been there since the thread reached two pages...

cogito ergo sum treader

edit
The Fish Bowl society is composed of the unaware. A mass of those who are forever sleeping and mindlessly bumbling through their days never gaining or losing anything. These people aren't happy with what they have but they move nowhere no matter the pace they run. This is the concept of being valueless but not caring. Ideally, the Fish Bowl Society is composed of a majority who chose to be like the cells in their own body. Merely completing tasks then to die off. With this said, it means that one cell is replaceable but masses of cells are not. I am, however, looking through a microscope focused on one cell and that cell right now represents you, the reader. I address you individually not as a whole, because the concept runs that as a whole, the push a society that is structured on office jobs and manufacturing, etc. it is the whole that is important, not the individual.

I see thank you.

It is hard to imagine life in the "fish bowl society" being anything less then what you described.

[Miekka Kuoleman]

Sneaker Pimps

Miekka Kuoleman

Sneaker Pimps

Explain fish bowl society?

The edit has been there since the thread reached two pages...

cogito ergo sum treader

edit
The Fish Bowl society is composed of the unaware. A mass of those who are forever sleeping and mindlessly bumbling through their days never gaining or losing anything. These people aren't happy with what they have but they move nowhere no matter the pace they run. This is the concept of being valueless but not caring. Ideally, the Fish Bowl Society is composed of a majority who chose to be like the cells in their own body. Merely completing tasks then to die off. With this said, it means that one cell is replaceable but masses of cells are not. I am, however, looking through a microscope focused on one cell and that cell right now represents you, the reader. I address you individually not as a whole, because the concept runs that as a whole, the push a society that is structured on office jobs and manufacturing, etc. it is the whole that is important, not the individual.

I see thank you.

It is hard to imagine life in the "fish bowl society" being anything less then what you described.

It seems to me like she's coined the name of the thread as only one aspect of the over all life style she's portraying...

[Sneaker Pimps]

Miekka Kuoleman

Sneaker Pimps

Miekka Kuoleman

Sneaker Pimps

Explain fish bowl society?

The edit has been there since the thread reached two pages...

cogito ergo sum treader

edit
The Fish Bowl society is composed of the unaware. A mass of those who are forever sleeping and mindlessly bumbling through their days never gaining or losing anything. These people aren't happy with what they have but they move nowhere no matter the pace they run. This is the concept of being valueless but not caring. Ideally, the Fish Bowl Society is composed of a majority who chose to be like the cells in their own body. Merely completing tasks then to die off. With this said, it means that one cell is replaceable but masses of cells are not. I am, however, looking through a microscope focused on one cell and that cell right now represents you, the reader. I address you individually not as a whole, because the concept runs that as a whole, the push a society that is structured on office jobs and manufacturing, etc. it is the whole that is important, not the individual.

I see thank you.

It is hard to imagine life in the "fish bowl society" being anything less then what you described.

It seems to me like she's coined the name of the thread as only one aspect of the over all life style she's portraying...

Agreed.

[The Stories Never Told]

If one were to talk about the individual, then yes. A Fish Bowl society is indeed a threat to one's self, especially for this generation.

However, if the perspective were changed into humanity itself, then it would not be an escapable task. Let's face it; humanity is currently meant to be born, live, feed, and die. It's a grim outlook, yes. But these minuscule things like money and relationships, what do they compare to with the goings of the universe? They don't.

Unless humanity has a major revelation of sorts, then we'll be confined to this for quite a while.