the limitations of ants (1 Viewer)

[narrator]

i'm glad to hear you all find this so amusing, it would seem that d1ngo is in deep thought at the moment about his next move, don't worry, i'll wait

by the way, Johnny G, you helped prove a point i made earlier, it is only if the idea of a single ant is accepted by the colony that the colony can change...

...still, ants are many, but rulers are few...

...ants always have the threat of the magnifying glass hovering just above their insignificant heads

 

[d1ngo]

ants still remain to be funny... (hmm... maybe i should change this... ?)

"Worker bees can leave
Even drones can fly away
The queen is their slave"

The same remains in humanity...
for the "ants" control the "superior"

"You have to consider the possibility that God doesn't like you, he never wanted you. In all probability, He hates you."

"We do your laundry, cook your food and serve you dinner. We guard you while you sleep. We drive your ambulances."


THE ABOVE QUOTES ARE PART OF 'PROJECT MAYHEM'

 

[narrator]

...d1ngo, you perpetually prove my comments, the ability of the ants to have o rely on other ants for survival, oyu couldn't even make up with your own quotes...

...ants are ever confined to the laundry, to serving their superiors...

...the point is that ants are too stupid to realise exactly what potential they could have, it relates to the perpetual cycle of power gained being power lost which i spoke of earlier...

...the species is unale to evolve past their own inferior intellect...

...by the way, if a god hated the ant, the ant would never know, the god would still use and abuse them for all they're worth...

 

[d1ngo]

Originally posted by narrator
if a god hated the ant, the ant would never know, the god would still use and abuse them for all they're worth...

The quote was used to symbolise the image that these "superior beings" have created for themselves... in essence, the fact that the 'superior being' hates the ants, means that the ants are less likely to continue to do the menial tasks for them... the queen IS the slave... not the other way around... it must be considered that in all probability, if the ants decided to revolt, that the 'superior beings' would stand a minimalist chance...

the 'superior beings' have little to no battle experience, while the ants, are battle hardened warriors, made strong by protecting the people that they worship.

Society as a whole is made up of a myriad of people...
There are few elite people, and the rest of civilisation exists only to raise the elite on their shoulders... the ants SUPPORT the elite... without them, there is noone to be superior to... thus making the elite reciprocal and obsolete...
The 'elite' NEED the ants, therefore making the 'elite' the slaves in this relationship.

BOOYAH!!!

 

[d1ngo]

Originally posted by narrator
a narrator can never be silenced

Unless the characters rise up in revolt...

 

[narrator]

Originally posted by d1ngo
The quote was used to symbolise the image that these "superior beings" have created for themselves... in essence, the fact that the 'superior being' hates the ants, means that the ants are less likely to continue to do the menial tasks for them... the queen IS the slave... not the other way around... it must be considered that in all probability, if the ants decided to revolt, that the 'superior beings' would stand a minimalist chance...

the 'superior beings' have little to no battle experience, while the ants, are battle hardened warriors, made strong by protecting the people that they worship.

Society as a whole is made up of a myriad of people...
There are few elite people, and the rest of civilisation exists only to raise the elite on their shoulders... the ants SUPPORT the elite... without them, there is noone to be superior to... thus making the elite reciprocal and obsolete...
The 'elite' NEED the ants, therefore making the 'elite' the slaves in this relationship.

BOOYAH!!!

ants only have battle scars because of wars with other ants...

...the elite rise to the top because they simply realise how they can exploit the sheer ignorance of the ants...

...ants do not revolt, they do not have the capacity, they simply follow a new leader and the ideology of that leader is to revolt...

...they know nothing of what they do and they are designed to know nothing...

...one ants terrorist is another ants freedom fighter...

...your entire logic is based on the assumption that the ants collectivly and PURPOSELY make the social decisions which affest them, but alas, an ant is again but a link in a chain, a chain which can gain or lose links as the situation demands, yet the basic overpowering force, the material binding the chain together, remains constant, not relying on other circumstances...

...the ant is powerless, it relies on it being an ant...

 

[narrator]

Originally posted by d1ngo
Unless the characters rise up in revolt...

but the characters need the narrator to bring them into existence before they can be characters...

...they are the ants of the omnipresent forces driving them, which have the power to create and destroy...

...a nice concept, but that's all that your reasoning could ever be, a narrator tells stories through their ants, the narrator binds them and is the ever unseen god of the characters' worlds...

...what can be created can be destroyed...

 

[AsyLum]

one word folks....COKE FLOOD!!!

wheres your ants now? you ask...well theyre flowing on a tide of ever growing stickyness....

 

[d1ngo]

Originally posted by narrator
but the characters need the narrator to bring them into existence before they can be characters...

The CHARACTERS need not a narrator to be brought into existence... they need a PLAYWRIGHT, meaning that in essence, while a NARRATOR is 'omnipresent' as you say, he is STILL a character created by the playwright, who are not necessarily the same person.

Thus negating your argument about everything, for if u are the narrator, then you become the ant in the entire scheme of the playwright...

once again... BOOYAH!

 

[d1ngo]

Originally posted by AsyLum
one word folks....COKE FLOOD!!!

sorry g00k, but i had to...

"COKE FLOOD" is ONE word?


lol... j/k... what u say goes, for u, though superior, are tolerant of the ants, and respect them...

 

[narrator]

Originally posted by d1ngo
The CHARACTERS need not a narrator to be brought into existence... they need a PLAYWRIGHT, meaning that in essence, while a NARRATOR is 'omnipresent' as you say, he is STILL a character created by the playwright, who are not necessarily the same person.

Thus negating your argument about everything, for if u are the narrator, then you become the ant in the entire scheme of the playwright...

once again... BOOYAH!

do you understand how little sense that made? playwright, narrator, the role of the two are one in the same, as we all know so well, for a playwright has the power of creation, but a narrator has the power to destroy, the cicyl is made complete by the order of higher powers, not by the futility of ants...

...creation, destruction, the pair are forever intertwined, this is inevitability, and it is also inevitable that any ant cannot escape these powers...

...for whether playwright, narrator, queen bee or spider, they all represent the one, that being the ultimates of power, those of birth and death...

...of creation and destruction...

...what one giveth another may taketh away...

...although sometimes they are one in the same...




...the ultimate of ultimates, a god of gods, if you will...

...the ants, the characters, still remain blissfully unaware...

 

[AsyLum]

lol...i forgot to edit that section...

this is really interesting now....basically though if you think about it this way....

...ants are a mere byproduct of the ultimate creation and need to exist as a being within this universal plane and thus their existence becomes nothing more than just that, a mere existence...the narrator therefore gives them this purpose, this almighty direction into which meaning and significance into this life, but as ants undertake the communist ideal of the collective mass and whole their existence merely contradicts their purpose, thus serving them with a life of menial repitition with the ideal of being a radical in their thoughts, but at the same time that thought is suppressed by their constant need to fulfill not only the community's roles but also of the contradictory existence thrust upon them by the narrator...

 

[narrator]

this is another issue AsyLum, d1ngo and i started with the concept of the power of the masses compared to the power of the few, yet you highlight a point i made earlier...

...ants fall into cycles of non-power, other than the cycles of power i have just mentioned...

...thus they remain stagnant and can never have anything more than potentail...

 

[AsyLum]

but who really holds the power then ? for the ants become stagnant and defy the very force and intent with which the narrator is supposedly controlling them, thus in this case they have nullified the narrators power to control, to destroy and ultimately to influence anything on their plane...


...but inversely, the ants therefore lose the power to progress with their very existence but a repititious nothingness which lacks any sense of meaning or purpose, yet it is continued for their power to change, to accept a radical/new ideal has been destroyed by this defiance of their destiny

 

[narrator]

your argument is interesting, but is based on assumptions...

...that power must be held by someone for it to exist...

...that the ants are aware of the existence of power...

...that the ants are aware that they can harness and mould power...

...i am unsure if any of these are true...

...yet i feel in all liklihood, none are...

...ants are nothing but ants, as you say, they are contradictory beings, they do not understand the power they could have, hence they can never have it, the best they can ever do is have potentail, but an eternal potentail in itself is contradictory, for potentail must be just that, thus the ant colony is left with nothing...

...and the single ant even less...

 

[AsyLum]

Originally posted by narrator
your argument is interesting, but is based on assumptions...

...that power must be held by someone for it to exist...

...that the ants are aware of the existence of power...

...that the ants are aware that they can harness and mould power...

...i am unsure if any of these are true...

...yet i feel in all liklihood, none are...

...ants are nothing but ants, as you say, they are contradictory beings, they do not understand the power they could have, hence they can never have it, the best they can ever do is have potentail, but an eternal potentail in itself is contradictory, for potentail must be just that, thus the ant colony is left with nothing...

...and the single ant even less...

it is based not on those assumptions but merely one....

...that the ant itself exists... if it does, then the irrationality of its existence is allowed to play out

 

[narrator]

Originally posted by AsyLum
...that the ant itself exists... if it does, then the irrationality of its existence is allowed to play out

...the point you make is good, if interestingly ironic...

...yet i cannot help but question the fine line between existence and reality...

th terminology you use, "allowed to play out," it suggests what i have been saying all along, the ant must simply accept or reject, but this does not alter the outcome...

...at any rate, we agree on the futility of the ant, whether as a single unit or as an aspect of the colony...

...this raises another question, if the ant fails to recognise it's existence can it truly exist? (i use the term loosly)...

...by the way, d1ngo hasn't replied for a while, maybe the ant has finally come to realise the futility of it's existence, or as we may soon find, lack of...

 

[AsyLum]

we were talking about ants.....

...eeep i was talking about coke :|

 

[d1ngo]

Originally posted by narrator
we agree on the futility of the ant

I always agreed that the ant was a futile being...

the fact is tho, that i was right.

The "narrator" is a construct of the playwright, as are the characters, therefore making the narrator one of the characters, subject to the rule of the playwright. The question that must be asked is:

If you are the narrator, who's controlling you?

The narrator is DESIGNED, and in such a way that he/she/it would ASSUME to be omnipotent, and in control.

Two facts remain:
1. The NARRATOR lives in the same state of delusionment as the ants.
2. When the play ends, so does the rule of the narrator, and the 'real' (or collectively percieved) world returns to existence, where his stage presence (as an actor) is somewhere between slim and non-existent.

 

[narrator]

the point you make is not only irrelevant but also completly disregards everything either of us have said up until this point, exept for the quote you used, which i might add was taken out of context...

...by the way, the narrator is not a construct of the playwright, but rather a neccessary facet of the playwright's existence, for without a narrator, there is no play and without a play, there is no playwright...

...you also assume that narrators only exist in teh realm of the play, but they are much more, so much more...

...ince again the assumptions of the ant have rendered them futile...

...if i am the narrator, then control of myself is not in question, for my ultimate purpose is one as a higher being, but rather the control i command over my ants, my characters, for i am one with my creator as my creator is one with me...

...thus my power exists in the realm of the real and of the unreal...

...if only ants could comprehend, but alas d1ngo, you have proved time and time again that they cannot...