Creating a New World

[Andrew]

I'd just like to know from other members if this passage from the C's is relevant.

Q: (L) Several books I have read have advised moving to rural areas and forming groups and storing food etc...
A: Disinformation. Get rid of this once and for all. That is 3rd level garbage.

Given the topic of this thread, this seems relevant to me, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding the context in which the question was asked?

It seems that the C's are against the idea, but maybe it was in the context of doing those things when it wasn't a necessity. In which case if there were an economic crash, such things would be necessary thereby altering the context making the scenario not 3rd level garbage?

Anyone?

Well, the reason I down-shifted was because I could see that people were getting all twisted up in philosophies and issues that they had no foundation to really understand and it was necessary to go back to the very basics of the evolution of the human instinctive substratum that Lobaczewski describes. So, how to extract timeless principles? Start at the beginning and re-imagine things, watch them build and grow, observe where it goes, and if it goes astray, trace it back to where the wrong turn was made. Then, in real life, you will have a better foundation.

I think this an exercise in thought/imagination getting us to go back to the very beginning as it were and work our way forward in an attempt to garner knowledge of how an STO society might function. But what Laura seemed to be saying is we were jumping too far ahead in our initial discussions about philosophy without seeing how we would get to that place to begin with - not really an exercise in hey let's prepare and move away from the world.

Ok. Thanks for your help Brenda.

 

[Brenda86]

I was trying to remember a quote from Dune that I really liked... I found this instead and it just struck me in relation to our discussion here.

A beginning is the time for taking the most delicate care that the balances are correct.

 

[gotogo]

NO! One of the principle should be NO VIOLENCE!!!! We each may make mistakes but as a principle this line should be kept no matter what. NO VIOLENCE!!!!

Hi GotoGo, Do you really mean, you would not defend the lives of innocents with violence, if they will die as a result of your inflexible principle?

For clarification, I was thinking of a situation the psychopath was caught and we investigated him/her and concluded he/she is a psychopath and then what do we do to him/her? And what I meant by the NO VIOLENCE principle is not to 'kill/execute' him/her but let him/her live.

OK, then later a worst thing occurred something like he/she got a gun and starts to threaten the whole community and tries to get what he/she wants. Then what do we do? By the way, do we have guns also? Suppose someone had a gun already. Do we use it now to shoot him/her to "defend the lives of innocents"? Or are there any other ways to 'defend' them?

I can think of 4 scenarios by imagining this situation.
scenario 1) We used the gun and killed the psychopath. No innocents are injured or killed.
scenario 2) We used the gun and killed the psychopath. But through this battle some innocents are injured or killed also.
scenario 3) We did not use the gun. And we gave what he/she wanted and he/she ran away. No innocents are injured or killed.
scenario 4) We did not use the gun. And we gave what he/she wanted. But he/she killed some innocents anyway while he/she was running away.

If scenario 1) happened, we are saved and this action was regarded as the 'right' action. So no more NO VIOLENCE principle. We had better to kill him/her at the first place.
If scenario 2) happened, someone will scream why we did not kill him/her at the first place. We should. So again, no more NO VIOLENCE principle.
If scenario 4) is the worst thing to happen but can happen. We can not agree with NO VIOLENCE principle anymore. We should start correct guns from the ghost town near this community and start training ourselves how to use gun.
Even luckily scenario 3) is what occurred. We lost our resources (foods, energy, tools...) and we suffer. Then someone will say we should have killed him/her at the first place... No more NO VIOLENCE principle.

Then what will happen? Now shall we make a new rule stating that if there is a psychopath in our community, we should kill her/him ASAP to avoid bad consequences that may 'possibly' will happen?

Ummm... I still can not give up the NO VIOLENCE principle. Something inside tells me that (referring to giving it up) will be 'wrong'. Are there really no ways to defend ourselves with the NO VIOLENCE principle? Or am I just too "inflexible" here?

One thing in mind is (this can be too 'intellectual') the following part in ISOTM about 'evil forces':
[quote author=Gurldieff in ISOTM p316]
The reason for this consists in the fact that the forces guiding evolution have a more limited choice of means; in other words, they can only make use of certain means and certain methods. The opposing forces are not limited in their choice of means and they are able to make use of every means, even those which only give rise to a temporary success, and in the final result they destroy both evolution and involution at the point in question.
[/quote]
and the following part about 'he esoteric principle of the impossibility of violence':
[quote author=Ouspensky in ISOTM p273]
I began to see people more, to feel my community with them more. And the second thing was that somewhere very deep down inside me I understood the esoteric principle of the impossibility of violence, that is, the uselessness of violent means to attain no matter what. I saw with undoubted clarity, and never afterwards did I wholly lose this feeling, that violent means and methods in anything whatever would unfailingly produce negative results, that is to say, results opposed to those aims for which they were applied. What I arrived at was like Tolstoi's non-resistance in appearance but it was not at all non-resistance because I had reached it not from an ethical but from a practical point of view; not from the standpoint of what is better or what is worse but from the standpoint of what is more effective and expedient.
[/quote]

If we are 'aiming' to build a STO community then we seem to have limited methods and can not apply 'violence' no matter what. Because once we apply it, there are many consequences align to STS...

What will happen to the human psychology of 'executers'? Can not be a 'traumatic' experience to 'execute'?
What if the leaders start using 'executers' to hide their weaknesses in stead of Working on themselves?

I know it is easy to mention the NO VIOLENCE principle but really difficult to act on it.
I am very afraid what I will actually CHOOSE in such situations. I may be the one who shoot him/her... or just run away to save my life... or I will jump onto the psychopath without a gun?

Can we be 'creative' to defend ourselves WITHOUT applying any VIOLENCE methods here?

 

[brainwave]

In the first stages, frustration will be abundant and tempers may flare up... It will be important to help each-other and keep everybody calm.

I agree. I think a common understanding that 'we are all in this together' would be important to have, to overcome potential self-importance

Kris

Remember: External consideration which includes a knowledge of human beings, their traits, needs, etc.

To me it makes sense to have common places and private places but created in function of the families and not in function of the skills.

You are forgetting the situation at hand: one of survival. What to do FIRST, then SECOND, then THIRD, and so forth. Making private spaces for families is NOT at the top of survival priorities.

When I read the first post in this thread I answered in terms of how I would imagine a world however as discussion evolved and Laura pointed out- the situation in a forest with a survival the main concern- that context changes things a bit, I posted just before this one what my understanding of what Laura is asking. Actually though survival situations do tell us something about how society may be ordered as Laura points out.

I think division of labor will occur in a natural way with, finding food, water shelter etc as well as caring for sick and most fragile coming first. Those who have a modicum of skills with healing or procuring food or building would just volunteer and do it. If there are urgent needs but necessary skill is lacking, those with the next closest skill set would step in while one can go out searching for someone with the skill and bring them back to the area try to learn something from the skilled person to bring back. Meanwhile others in the area will do what they can as best as possible to stabilize things.

I think that with the variety of human traits, some people may be more selfish than others but most people will have an instinctive understanding that the situation is desperate and if they fail to take on certain roles no one's gonna survive. There are exceptions like psychopaths but even the garden variety ones I think may chip in just to ensure their own survival if that is at stake. If at least one person in such a group is aware of psychopaths and assumes the responsibility of close monitoring to protect everyone else form their damage during survival mode, once things are more stable the individualized education system and so on that I mentioned previously would come into play and one may give the such selfish individuals incentives to stick around or beat it. That would mean that even at the most desperate, finding a way to not have psychopath ever be in control or to have a non-damaging outlet for their aggressive manipulative tendencies. If they have a necessary skill the group needs for the time being, one would let the demands of situation take precedence over isolating oneself from such types.

Not sure though, that is probably how they got a foothold in society to begin with-during times of chaos they had handy skills but no one made sure they did were not in control when they were relatively out of desperation mode. That's probably why shock doctrine is used so effectively by such types too. It keeps people thinking those psychopathic leaders have some skills to "get us through this mess" how many time I've read something to the effect of "yeah such and such is a psycho but he really does Y well, if anyone can get us through....'.

As been mentioned, people in the forest would have take on roles that are necessary to ensure survival of the group and also be aware of and open to the variety of individual types that may exist within the group. There is I think a natural order to this with specific roles but flexibility in who does what as long as it gets done. Any one individual may fill more than one role and it would shift as needed but the basics that I am thinking of is.

Teachers-in everyone will have this role in some form because they are helping each other learn the ways of survival.

hunters, gatherers, trackers etc-for food and water and other necessitiies.

builders-for warmth and shelter

caretakers- for child care, elder care, making sure everyone is ok, cooking etc etc

healers both psychological and physical

security-another role that everyone would have to fulfill in some form whether it's for protection from dangerous critters or human predators.

artists and artisans-creative types will be needed to get though the desperation stage I think. They can create for mental stimulation, a break from stresses, trading with other groups for things needed, and making things in general that might be handy.

 

[brainwave]

[

Someone has already mentioned The Trap which I haven't seen.

However last week, I saw the movie Defiance which is about a group of Jews who build a camp in the Belarus forest.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034303/

Their priorities were water, food, shelter, health, warmth and defence. Basically anything to stay alive. Food was measured out equally, one of the more psycho Jewish resistance soldiers who was demanding more paid for this with his life.

They has a quasi-alliance with a Russian resistance force who basically used a lot of the Jewish soldiers as a sort of mercenary force. When the chips were down though, the Rusiians were not prepared to defend the Jewish camp.

Other things such as education, music, weddings etc came later as the camp was established.

I agree. Sort of how I imagined the breakdown of society in a survival situation.

I just started viewing the trap in between reading and responding and from the first 3 episodes it reminds me of the book The Battle for Human Nature" which also goes into the so called scientific theories on the economic games and how it is destroying our world. From the blurb on the cover

" Out of the investigations and speculations of contempory science, a challenging view of humana behavior and society has emerged and gained strength. It is a vew that equates "human nature" utterly and unalterably with teh persuit of self-interest. Influenced by this view, people increasingly appeal to naaturala imperatives, instea of moral ones to eplaian and justify their actions and those of others.....

It charts the spread of the doctrine of self-interest within economics, evolutionary biology and psychology. It shows how it ripples out from academia to the real world"

As we have learned repeatedly here, this false doctrine is used as justification for the staus quo. He also suggest that just as these expert's claim to look to nature to explain their view, solutions to the problems can also be found by those with a moral bent by studying natural behavior in multiple situations. I think the context Laura presents is one situation that provides an opportunity to find these natural solutions.

 

[brainwave]

Either survive with the rest of us, by contributing to our efforts. Or try surviving on your own for a while and see how much easier it is to contribute in THIS setting." Then again, maybe an ultimatum isn't the best way to put it! I don't know. Maybe those who do not contribute get to miss out on benefits, like being high on the list for house-living. Maybe they eat last, etc.

This would probably be the most humane way to go. It would be a sort of shunning where the selfish individual realizes what they are losing by failing to do their part when they capable of doing so.

I think similar practices are used in some primitive societies. I've read of cases where a group would even wait for the selfish person to be busy or on an errand then the whole group would pack up and leave while the person is away but this would be after repeated attempts to get the person to see how dangerous their behavior is to everyone.

I also read something once where an anthropologist describes how one of those seemingly primitive groups she was studying, welcomed her and was kind and giving even with their limited resources. Other groups would come by and ask for things and also trade but not always in a balanced way. Even with their own scarcities the group she was in would always help the other group out. She learned to do her part in the community but it was difficult for her to understand their overly kind way with others. The anthropoligist would complain each time some outsider came and asked for things that the group she was in needed for themselves because they would always give.

First when she complained they tried to explain that that is how things were and that they all survived this way. She still did not get it and felt they should horde. After one too many complaints and an actual attempt to prevent sharing, she was quietly shunned. Though still fed and sheltered by the group, the women stopped coming by for chats or inviting her to their huts to share, let off steam and so on. They had very little and companionship was considered a gift. She was soon left alone with the barest minimum in an already barren situation and forced to contemplate until she understood.

So maybe this way will be effective. Dunno if it will work in most cases though. The problem of what to do with such types is a difficult one.

From what I've learned about behavioral syndromes in the animal world, the most aggressive, violent and risk taking and extroverted members (what I would more equate with psychopaths) of a species are valued during times of scarcity. The reason given is they are more likely to engage in the extreme risky behaviors that may increase the chance of finding food and providing protection from predators, while the nurturing types focus on caring for young. The aggressive types often do not last long as they tend to die first. In any case, the balance of types remain more or less the same. A given group within a species may have only two or of the aggressive types during scarcity but once things are more stable they are not tolerated much and members of the social group limit their number to one in the population via various reproductive strategies.

The behavioral syndrome thing and how animals respond to aggressors in their group doesnt' really address the immediate problem but more for when things stabilize.

For the immediate situation after informing everyone of the what they are facing and what is needed, if the person repeatedly fails to do their part what you suggest makes the most sense so far.

 

[gotogo]

A most important aspect! And it was already mentioned that, hopefully, someone has knowledge of pathology. And what about the people who shut down and don't do anything, or don't want to do anything, or think they are prima donnas and don't have to do anything?

Well, after watching The Trap, a few things stand out. For one, there ARE people who are only out for themselves, who are paranoid strategists, and not just psychopaths. I think this is where an example needs to be set, publicly, where the situation is described for everyone. "Here we are, no food, no shelter. None of us WANTS to be here trying to survive. We'd all much rather be in the comfort of our own homes with a supermarket and climate control! But we're not there. We're here, and we need to do certain things in order to survive. Yes, there are those who cannot and SHOULD not, i.e. babies, elderly, and sick. But even the sick and elderly contribute where they can, because they see our situation. If we are going to survive as a group, we need to cooperate as a group. If you can cook, cook. If you can hunt, hunt. If you can build, build. But if you have the ability to contribute and do NOT, you create an imbalance in our survival. So you've got a choice. Either survive with the rest of us, by contributing to our efforts. Or try surviving on your own for a while and see how much easier it is to contribute in THIS setting." Then again, maybe an ultimatum isn't the best way to put it! I don't know. Maybe those who do not contribute get to miss out on benefits, like being high on the list for house-living. Maybe they eat last, etc.

I just had a thought what we are discussing is very smiler to what is happening on the Forum. An obvious connection is Members Only Forums. And moderators who have knowledge of pathology is working consistently on each thread and so on.

And this:

These are all things that have to be thought about and worked through carefully.

You see, my thought is kind of like that movie from way back when where they said "If you build it, they will come." Well, if we can imagine how a society is structured that is ready to be aligned with 4 D STO, then perhaps "it will come." And maybe, to some extent, once we get the principles worked out, some of us can begin living them to some extent.

I think this is something that we might discuss with the Cs, but I want us to do our homework first!

(I may be again jumping - skip steps though... )
It is like ! Laura is 'seriously' thinking the next step! So this is what this thread all about?

Added: I just remembered the following post from anart and 'connected' as well...

What if this learning necessarily has to encompass understanding what it would take, and what it would mean, to create a healthy society in 3D that works as it should according to an STO dynamic? What if this learning encompasses pushing our minds to think in a limitless fashion - limitless thinking and Doing - taking action to Create - and this thread is the first step of such an endeavor? How do these 'what ifs' - these possibilities - affect your self-acknowledged reactive thinking on this topic?

 

[mada85]

I watched parts one and two of The Trap last night. It’s really chilling and a good insight into the way normal human beings have been manipulated to believe that they are self serving machines only out for their own gain. This lie has been perpetrated on humanity since the 1950s. And all the ‘reforms’ of the economy, banking, health services and so on, have forced people to behave in a way that fits this model. So many, many people are now habituated to this way of behaving.

We then have to consider that our 200 people in the forest have come from the society that has been manipulated by proponents of game theory, as described in The Trap. It is probable that not everyone will have subscribed to those beliefs to the same degree. Some people will have been able to maintain their mental hygiene more effectively than others.

So, we have a group of 200 people who, to one degree or another, are suspicious of each other, and who have been programmed to believe that they should look out for themselves alone. They are suddenly faced with a situation in which self-sacrifice leads to survival of the group and care and protection of the individual.

How many of them will be able to make the shift from serving self to serving others?

I would like to think that at least 50% of the people would be able to make the shift, but that is perhaps wishful thinking. Instead, I think that there will be some very hard lessons learned in the first days and weeks of the new colony.

I can imagine that the self-serving types would at some point, and probably quite quickly, be strongly confronted over their behaviour; perhaps they will be given the ultimatum: change or leave the group. As others have mentioned, the early phase, when people are in shock, hungry and cold, and some are probably dying, creates vulnerability to the deceptions of pathologicals. At that time great vigilance is needed.

But what happens if no-one in the group has knowledge of pathologies?

go2 makes some very interesting remarks in this post:

Nothing dethrones the Personality like the sudden appearance of death. Essence steps forward and natural leaders who can do, quickly emerge in survival situations. These people do what has to be done, following a deep instinct for triage and consideration of others. The selfish are recognized immediately when they cannot use economics and bureaucracy to maintain an illusion of authority and competence. The blowhards get pushed aside by those who hunt, fish, cook, farm, build, and fight, in other words; those with practical skills wedded to altruism become the natural leaders. I have lived off the grid in communal situations and in dangerous company, where relationship dynamics quickly sort out those who serve community from those who serve themselves. It is amazing how quickly pathology is recognized when survival itself is in doubt.

go2, thanks for raising these points. I’ve put into bold those that stood out for me. Could you describe these situations in more detail? And give examples of the way these scenarios played out? I think that a description of your experiences would be a very useful learning tool.

 

[obyvatel]

Using the context of survival and 200 people (perhaps not known up front to each other??) in a forest, the first material things to be taken into account are shelter (specially if the weather is not nice and warm), water, fire, food and sanitation needs. The implementation of the plan can get tricky when different mix of people - including the pathological types - are part of the group. The emotional context needs to be evaluated - if there is a traumatic event which has led to this situation, then as mentioned in previous replies, there will be people who are shell-shocked and unable to contribute, people who are able to use their brains and work for personal and collective welfare and those who will be pathological types. Practically, need for leaders will be paramount in such a situation - to soothe nerves and assert a semblance of control early on to keep the group together and work cooperatively towards collective goals. I think this is also where the group is most vulnerable to pathological influence. Pathologicals (esp psychopaths) have certain advantages in this situation - they are not hampered by emotions, they are extremely sure of themselves not suffering from doubts like the rest, and often exude that charm which people fall for - characteristics of a leader. Even if they do not have skills and they definitely do not have best interests of the group in mind, they can easily seize the opportunity to become leaders and use the skills of the group (builders, hunters, doctors etc) to further their own needs and also pay lip service to collective needs for some time. If there are only some people well-trained to recognize psychopathic symptoms in the group, they need to band together, think quickly and do whatever they can to stop such pathologicals from becoming the leaders. I think this is quite an important moment for the future of the group - if the pathologicals do succeed in seizing the initial window of uncertainty that is likely to exist in this situation specially in a group where the majority is naive about pathology ( that is my assumption) , building a STO society will be an uphill task.
Assuming pathologicals have been identified and prevented from becoming leaders, they need to be kept under close watch by pathology experts in the group. It seems a significant amount of time and energy need to be spent in watching these pathological types - time and energy which could be used for other purposes. In an established society working on STO principles, a pathological type perhaps can be accommodated more easily as the normal people (along with the pathology experts) will have the requisite knowledge of dealing properly with them. Steps can be taken to treat them with caution, not let them have a position of authority over others - but still be a somewhat contributing member of the society. However, before that level of awareness is built up in a group, I imagine the presence of a psychopath/pathological type (P's) in a group is likely to be very problematic. The P's are not likely to sit and watch silently when a STO society is being built up - that removes possibilities of feeding and having power over others. So they are likely to make multiple attempts to sabotage the process. This may even lead to a break-up of the group if the P's are able to sway some normal people (ponerize them).

If my thinking is on track here, it seems apart from attending to material needs, the most pressing practical problem in a 3D mixed group of people trying to build up a STO society is to figure out ways and means to protect the nascent society from the ponerizing influence of the pathological types. I may be off base though.

 

[Tigersoap]

These people don't have time to worry about that yet, they are prioritizing to SURVIVE. Why are so many of you just skipping over the lesson here? Imposing your wants and needs from the comfort of your homes on a group of survivors in a forest clearing who, recall, don't have shelter, don't have food, and need to rebuild from scratch?
What "social dynamics" are you talking about?
This is SURVIVAL!

It wasn't clear enough to me what were the ground rules.
Do these people have knowledge of psychopathy and narcissism ? What do they have with them ? what's the area like ?
Otherwise it's only normal that the answers are going to shoot in every directions.

Of course if there is nothing, the first thing is basic survival food,fire,water, attending to the weakest or wounded and basic shelter.
Unless being really lucky or already hardened to such situations, I think most people won't be able to make it (me included).
I can't hunt, build a wooden shelter or mend a broken bone.
Maybe in such situations, those skills will come because the pressure of survival is too big to just let it all go.

 

[pete02]

Wow.. I lost internet for a day and 7 more pages on this thread.

I've been reading a lot of great ideas and input from everyone and I agree that the basics of food, shelter and supplies must take a priority. Same would go for the elderly, women and children as well. The surroundings would equally be as important. We would have to have scouting parties to find food and supplies and it would also give a good idea of whether or not the location is worth building on. The housing issue I thought maybe could be resolved thru something like attaching oversized cubicles together? This way we could just add to existing ones day by day instead of building individual ones. Maybe they would build a little quicker that way and it could strengthen the whole building at the same time.

After the initial needs are taken care of, later in the day I thought that someone teaching a program similar to the E/E might also be a good idea. With some singing or soothing sounds. This might help to get the group to come together more easily and I would think might help filter out some of the pathologicals at the same time? Eventually maybe a group that is similar minded and focused might be able to move on and find a more suitable location and live peacefully. I know there is more strength in numbers but if some of those numbers are problems as it is, I see no loss in leaving them behind. They would already be somewhat setup with what has been built and cultivated. I'm just thinking of the greater good here and not by any means trying to sound cruel or inhumane.

EDIT: After doing meditation myself, I see an error in my thinking. The idea would be to try and help these people and keep the group together so it could grow. Not to abandon them. Apologies for posting impulsively.

Ummm... I still can not give up the NO VIOLENCE principle. Something inside tells me that (referring to giving it up) will be 'wrong'. Are there really no ways to defend ourselves with the NO VIOLENCE principle? Or am I just too "inflexible" here?

Just to touch on this my thinking was that by feeding the group, aren't we already using violence to survive? I guess your speaking more of person to person which by all means I agree, violence would be unacceptable. I've never considered myself a fighter, but I could see myself as the one who dies trying to save someone else. I've never been able to stomach abuse at any level and if someone were to try it in my presence, I would feel compelled to defend the weaker side. So basically what I'm saying is that maybe you wouldn't have to worry about violence yourself. There might be people in the group who would take care of it anyway.

EDIT: Once again.. more thought. There is also disarming and restraining that could be done as well. It doesn't always have to lead to violence.

 

[Oxajil]

I can't hunt, build a wooden shelter or mend a broken bone.
Maybe in such situations, those skills will come because the pressure of survival is too big to just let it all go.

Yes I think so too. People could talk together about how to build a shelter best. Maybe one of them knows how to do it (from seeing it on Discovery Channel haha). And when someone does or when a group finds out how, then they need to collect the tools first so that they can build it. Then people like you or me could help finding all those things that is needed to build a shelter.

So we don't need to know per se how to build one, we could help build one.

Though if you are physically weak or not in capable of doing this, you could perhaps help with taking care of the children. Or maybe try to calm those down who are a bit stressed.

Unless being really lucky or already hardened to such situations, I think most people won't be able to make it (me included).

If you stay positive, calm and objective, I think you could survive it. Maybe even do some pipe breathing? Or teach others how to do so?

(edit: I think this is the first time I see you post, brainwave. But I see you are a member for quite some time. I guess I wasn't paying attention. So Hi..)

 

[Tigersoap]

If you stay positive, calm and objective, I think you could survive it. Maybe even do some pipe breathing? Or teach others how to do so?(edit: I think this is the first time I see you post, brainwave. But I see you are a member for quite some time. I guess I wasn't paying attention. So Hi..)

Yes of course, but it all depends on the conditions around you, if it is freezing below zero, the ground is frozen, animals are rare and there is nothing to eat ?
Unless at that point the EE feeds us directly I am not sure it would be as easy as some might think ;)

 

[Oxajil]

Yes of course, but it all depends on the conditions around you, if it is freezing below zero, the ground is frozen, animals are rare and there is nothing to eat ?

Well I guess if it is freezing, then we still should not lose hope. We should then try to see which direction we should go where the temperature is a bit better. For example the coast. The temperature there is not as low as it is more off the coast. And when we get there, we can try to settle down and try to find some food or at least water.

Yes the road will be hard, but I think you can do it. You have an advantage than all the others there (I think). Because you have been eating healthy before, your immune system should work well for example (I think).

Still, I think Will can take you quite far.

(Btw, I never said it was going to be easy. Surviving is not easy, though it depends on what you understand with ''easy'' and your experiences with surviving. If you have none, like me, it doesn't mean we're gonna die first, what it means is that we have to keep our eyes open and our ears so that we can learn from those who ARE experienced. And just imagine yourself being there with your children (assuming you have them), would you not give All to keep them all living?

And even if there is no one who is experienced, we will figure it out, if we all listen to each other and try to find a solution together.

I know it's hard and difficult, but let's not concentrate on that. Let's concentrate on how to Survive best.

If we're gonna think about how hard it is, before trying anything, then of course there is little hope for us to survive. So again, Will, Hope and Objective thinking and doing can take us all really far! If we show that we are having hope, the children will notice that and they will become hopefull as well, which might help.)

 

[Steve M.]

Apologies I somehow overlooked what Tigersoap just quoted.

Laura wrote:

These people don't have time to worry about that yet, they are prioritizing to SURVIVE. Why are so many of you just skipping over the lesson here? Imposing your wants and needs from the comfort of your homes on a group of survivors in a forest clearing who, recall, don't have shelter, don't have food, and need to rebuild from scratch?
What "social dynamics" are you talking about?
This is SURVIVAL!

What I was trying to get at by taking inventory (previously) was, a person has a pocket knife, another a scarf, keyrings, belts etc.. things that can be utilized to attach one thing to another, shoes strings, a child with a back back perhaps. Just odds and ends things people mind have on their person. The reference to backpacks is just something my family has on hand in hopes of any preparedness. It's not some obsessive ritual thing, I've just pointed such things out.

There are some nifty things a person can get hold of for cheep these days so far as camping gear, misc. equipment. Winding lights/radios, micro med kits.. I don't own a gun but I wouldn't think it unwise, personally, to have a BB-gun for hunting smaller creatures, birds, squirrels even. Sorry if that hurts anyones appetite, but "This is SURVIVAL!" and I intend to eat.

Our needs here in STS, they don't determine our overall appearance, or there wouldn't be the Cassiopaean communications right? I mean, here in our reality, we do have to eat, and if that is or isn't gross, it is still a fact regardless of how animalistic it is/may be. So how we go about DOing anchoring, it is by default, what needs to be DOne right? Hope I expressed that with enough clarity. I'm kind of saying, the C's aren't judgmental of our situation so to speak (with a strong air of), OSIT. I'm just thinking in terms of anchoring.. maybe obsessively.. K, well it's late.. err well early.