-
Seeds Mafia is running a TURBO contest with great prizes! You can check it here.
Symbol Evolution
- Thread starter Thread starter pjlive
- Start date Start date
what does the bottom one signify? never seen it before...
pjlive
Active member
That's the Biohazard symbol. I was a little irritated at the time I posted this. Just a personal vent with nothing else attached to it. I didnt' want to take it out on others, so I posted here to depressurize myself without involving anyone else.what does the bottom one signify? never seen it before...
Speaking of irritation, the morphing of the antifa symbol comes to mind! 
pjlive
Active member
Oh, definitely. Or like the old Anarchist symbol from the 70s. I wish I'd thought of either of those symbols in the moment. I like them a little better. But as it was, at the time, the Biohazard symbol was being red-hot iron branded onto my prefrontal cortex. So I did what any reasonable lunatic would do and just fired it off. I'm like that sometimes.Speaking of irritation, the morphing of the antifa symbol comes to mind!
anarchists had a symbol? isn't that like the Nonconformity Club issuing uniforms & ballcaps, and meeting every Friday night? 
?
?
pjlive
Active member
They sure did. In a nutshell (which it was, really) Anarchist philosophy is in direct opposition to any established form of Authority. They'd rather live standing alone in fragmented chaos than on their knees at the mercy of a ruler. Unfortunately, I played a part in that shit at one time in my life when I was very young and very angry. I'm not like that anymore.anarchists had a symbol? isn't that like the Nonconformity Club issuing uniforms & ballcaps, and meeting every Friday night?
i understand the philosophy, and agree with them to a degree RE "rulers" and "on their knees". there are limits to everything, obedience included. it just seemed out of character for them to have anything in common (the symbol) considering the randomness of their ideas...
pjlive
Active member
Oh, sure. There are actually many aspects of the anarchistic viewpoint I still sort of agree with too. Especially the one you mention. It's the extreme belief systems to be found as you go deeper into it. Back then there were performance art shows that were very violent with people defecating and fucking underage girls on stage. There were many public displays of self mutilation of every known type and extreme, sometimes even public suicides. All over an idea. A concept. And those are just one small aspect of the churn of the movement. It was, back then, in many ways terrifically violent in nature. Using art at the same time (the band Crass is a great example, maybe early Sex Pistols) made a large attempt to organize the ideas and concepts in a way that was a little more focused on abstract concepts like Organized Religious Theologies, but ultimately failed from the public's ability to understand the concepts they were presenting! Their audiences misunderstood and became even more violent.
It was all a great big mess, really. Historically significant, but socially and culturally harmful.
Last edited:
"public suicides" what do you make of the Buddhist monks using self-immolation as criticism of Chinese interference in their religion?
pjlive
Active member
I strongly feel any form or act of martyrdom is not only unnecessary – but also worthless. Yes, it gets the attention of a few. But how long, exactly, does that attention last? I’d argue that it doesn’t last long at all and never accomplishes the martyrs goal.
In the case of Buddhists, they view their lives or existences differently than a group of kids at a concert. In their cases, life is a process of perfecting to ones best ability, physical death. They all believe in George Harrison’s concept that there is an art and significance to dying. Because, for them, there is no such thing as Death with a capital “D” but rather either a return to physical suffering or total escape through a process of Right activities and self-investigation in order to attain liberation. Death, for them, is understood to be very different than what is common.
I’m certain R. Budd Dwyer (see YouTube for more details) thought his premeditated public suicide would change things for the better. He was right, too. His suicide did change things – for a little while.
pjlive
Active member
Neil, even to this day, is so strongly opinionated. He can get in get in his own way over his personal views and values sometimes. But I love him! He never really did cut his hair.
martyrdom can have a lasting effect, even if the world cannot be sure that the martyr even really existed. yup, i'm dragging Jesus into another situation he wants no part of.
his alleged death at the hands of the Romans (at the behest of jealous Jewish religious zealots) still stirs the faithful . if he had not been (allegedly) willingly crucified, dying for our sins (as the book professes) would we have ever even heard of him? somehow i doubt it...
pjlive
Active member
martyrdom can have a lasting effect, even if the world cannot be sure that the martyr even really existed. yup, i'm dragging Jesus into another situation he wants no part of.
I do appreciate that. I also respect what you've written.
When I was writing my original response Jesus Christ crossed my mind. Yes, I'm a person who doesn't consider Jesus to have been a martyr. I'm a person who believes he was murdered by his own people at the time. He didn't die by choice and he didn't have an out. If he'd had an out, I believe he would have continued to live and spread his philosophy and the world as we know it today might have turned out differently. I don't believe there was any "wlll" on Jesus's part.
But, that's just me! Far, far, be it from me to disrupt or even pretend that I can derail the beliefs of any other human being. That's not the point.
The point is that, in this particular sharing of personal observation, we skew somewhat. You see Jesus as having been a martyr, I see Jesus as having been murdered by his own people at the time. I see Jesus of Nazareth as having lived and died the life of a regular human being.
if you take the Bibles word for it, he HAD an out. his disciples were prepared to defend him in the garden the night the Centurions took him away for trial. but he told them "no"... martyrs are frequently murdered ala Mahatma Gandhi, or Martin Luther King Jr. their manner of death is irrelevant for our purposes. are they remembered and is their example followed is the criteria of martyrdom. did they effect change lasting beyond their life spans...i say "yes". "forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do..."
pjlive
Active member
Well, all right.
But, no. Jesus had no out. There was nothing he or anyone else surrounding him could do to prevent what happened to him. He was silenced, captured, dragged to Pontius Pilot for "justice" for claiming he was King of The Jews and son of god, and severely punished. When his own people were dissatisfied with Pilot's punishment, he was paraded as example and ultimately crucified to avoid total upheaval by the Jews towards the Romans. This was done for his thoughts and voicing of those thoughts. In my book, that's murder. At the very least it's an extreme case of a calculated lynching. What outs did Jesus of Nazareth have? How would any or all of the Apostles have helped him if he were to have replied "yes" instead?
If your emotions bubble over having a discussion over it, I'd politely say don't. The last thing I want to do with you or anyone else is to engage in a flame debate over a Religion or representative thereof. I'm not a religious person. So, for me, that would be a silly thing to do.
However, I do fully repect your believes and values. You have as much right as anyone to defend and support them.
according to the Bible, several of the Apostles had swords & were willing to fight. do you have a historical source that says otherwise? they were warned that the Romans were coming. he could have fled. but he did not try to escape his fate. Pilot did not punish him at all, "washing his hands" ceremonially. where do you see any emotions? is this not a civil discussion ? i took it as one, even as you ignore the only possible source of information RE his capture and subsequent alleged death on the cross. like i said earlier, we don't even know if he truly existed at all. i don't believe the Bible as literal word for word, not by a long shot. but it is the only account there is dating from back then. don't even try to ascribe any beliefs and values to someone you do not know... everyone gets to hold their own opinions, i agree.
pjlive
Active member
Have a look at who and what Jesus was up against. He was facing not only an insurmountable mass of Jews, he was facing the might of the entire Roman Empire. Swords held by a few would do nothing. In fact, less than nothing because they'd soon be dead in devastating ways too, swords used to impale them alive from their rectums after they were tortured. Very likely, even though there's no existing proof to be had, Jesus most likely knew exactly what was going to happen to him after Judas betrayed his position. He most likely wanted to ensure as much protection as he could for his family and key followers. In that sense, you might be able to make an argument for martyrdom (family and followers). But that's not the issue. The issue is if he knew his "choice" would lead to the mass passion we have seen up to modern times with the "He died for our sins" label attached to him. I'm saying that the concept and portrayal of Jesus being a martyr was created by people long after the fact. The Vatican in particular would want this information to propagate. People attached and embellished his story to fit their beliefs and "missions." That's my belief.
Pilot punished the living shit out of Jesus. He attempted to follow or adhere the wishes of his wife, but in the end he sent orders to "...severely punish, but not kill" him hoping it would be enough to satisfy the Jewish "King" and clan. What happened? Roman soldiers fixed him with a thorn crown, flogged the shit out of him with various tools of the trade including cat-o-nine tails, until he was thoroughly mutilated. He wasn't going to easily survive that alone in those days -- not by a long shot. But no, it wasn't good enough. So, the torture continued up until his crucifixion. An event I'm almost positive he embraced with relish if those events actually transpired as documented.
And what I'm saying about the debate is, this is not my debate. Somehow this has come about from the idea of an Anarchist symbol. My original vent has nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth or his unnecessary and untimely demise. Jesus was a special human thinker. Very likely he was a prized student of the Adepts who learned from the ancient Egyptian Masters. There have been others since, but he somehow has been made "special" by those who could leverage what he did and what happened to him for their purposes.
Last edited:
I always thought he just made a mistake/miscalculation going back there, expecting another miracle when that's just not how it works.
