Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
The Revolution of Consciusness
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:@symbols, first the common definition involves actions that are judgemental.
Secondly because it's a human action. All action needs extra energy. Desire.
There's a desire to judge in the speaker. A tree can fall and destroy something.It's just a word what it expresses is a matter of perspective. Is 'crushed', or 'broken', a synonym for 'destroy'? Create a statement using the 'destroy', then replace the word with the synonym and show that the two statements are equal. The choice of a word is a moral act. Then use an antonym to see the opposite of the statement.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:@symbols, first the common definition involves actions that are judgemental.
Secondly because it's a human action. All action needs extra energy. Desire.
There's a desire to judge in the speaker. A tree can fall and destroy something.It's just a word what it expresses is a matter of perspective. Is 'crushed', or 'broken', a synonym for 'destroy'? Create a statement using the 'destroy', then replace the word with the synonym and show that the two statements are equal. The choice of a word is a moral act. Can't a tree destroy something by crushing it or breaking it? Where is the morality or judgment in that?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:@symbols, first the common definition involves actions that are judgemental.
Secondly because it's a human action. All action needs extra energy. Desire.
There's a desire to judge in the speaker. A tree can fall and destroy something.It's just a word what it expresses is a matter of perspective. Is 'crushed', or 'broken', a synonym for 'destroy'? Create a statement using the 'destroy', then replace the word with the synonym and show that the two statements are equal. The choice of a word is a moral act. Can't a tree destroy something by crushing it or breaking it? Where is the morality or judgment in that? To destroy you must know. Does the tree know the house? It's the speaker creating values and order. Destroying is ordering.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:@symbols, first the common definition involves actions that are judgemental.
Secondly because it's a human action. All action needs extra energy. Desire.
There's a desire to judge in the speaker. A tree can fall and destroy something. It's just a word what it expresses is a matter of perspective. Is 'crushed', or 'broken', a synonym for 'destroy'? Create a statement using the 'destroy', then replace the word with the synonym and show that the two statements are equal. The choice of a word is a moral act. Can't a tree destroy something by crushing it or breaking it? Where is the morality or judgment in that? To destroy you must know. Does the tree know the house? It's the speaker creating values and order. Destroying is ordering.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:@symbols, first the common definition involves actions that are judgemental.
Secondly because it's a human action. All action needs extra energy. Desire.
There's a desire to judge in the speaker. A tree can fall and destroy something. It's just a word what it expresses is a matter of perspective. Is 'crushed', or 'broken', a synonym for 'destroy'? Create a statement using the 'destroy', then replace the word with the synonym and show that the two statements are equal. The choice of a word is a moral act. Can't a tree destroy something by crushing it or breaking it? Where is the morality or judgment in that? To destroy you must know. Does the tree know the house? It's the speaker creating values and order. Destroying is ordering. Hence morality.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Rock, plastic chair, marbles, humans, robots, corpses, . . . all things are alive, and intelligent. That's the new world order.
The Revolution of consciousness. The demand for a new answer; what's the meaning of humanity? Tycho, don't you think we shall need a new language then to describe this 'new' world order. What does it mean to be alive...do we accord chairs, rocks and marbles the same regard as we would humans and animals? Do all these living things have feelings? Where would morality fit here, if at all? Is it moral to sit on a chair knowing that it is alive? A new world implies a new being. A new being, a new language and definitely a new moral order. Firstly, it's a transformation of human psychology to 'Superman' psychology. God psychology. The chair is made intelligent, and a relationship of mutuality be established. It's a world of cybernetic interelation intensified across the universe. Do we owe a chair the same moral regard as we do a human being? After all they are both 'alive.' In the Superman psychology what are the parameters, if any, of the new morality? "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
Muriel wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:Muriel wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:Muriel wrote:What I know is that there can be no liberty of conscience if all conscience, consiousness is all tethered up together into 'one'.
This Call then is a softening-up of minds to come round to an eventual one world government, a government where free thought, free belief and free conscience will be illegal. Fascism with a universal christ. With chains and bonds for the separate.
I am a renegade.
Liberty! @Muriel: How would you react if I told you that at least 60% of the things you do, think or believe are controlled by someone else? Yet this is a fact and you can prove it by simply examining your thoughts and therefore actions, over a period of time. Society has invented powerful institutions to ensure this 'facisim' as you call it. They are called religion, government, media, advertising, family, peer groups etc, etc. Even at the most basic level, the autonomy you insist on is a myth. Control - is such a big word. Weighty word. Important word. Perhaps there is confusion of "influence" with "control". For example, your response "influenced" me to write this. You may see it as you "controlled" me to write this (a point requires a rebuttal) through the "action and reaction" but I could have chosen not to respond and how good could the "control" be? Choice. Freedom. Liberty. Autonomy. Even murder. Nothing stops me from coming to you and planting a knife deep in your chest after I have found you. Not my brothers, not pastor, not imam, not president not even capital punishment. I can if I want to. But I choose not to. But others have done it to others. "Control" over them obviously failed. Their "automomy" overrode the "control". Hence "control" is not the word for it is not fulfilled - as it means. "Influence" is more appropriate. I agree. Although the line between influence and coercion is often very thin indeed. But the point is there is almost nothing we do that is not 'influenced.' Even you planting a knife in my chest, I would have to be a co participant in that drama for it to happen. Autonomy, freedom, self control...is a myth. I agree. They are a myth - nowadays. I in the "shadows" too am a myth. A renegade. Fugitive from the all seeing eye of oneness. Mist. Free. Unbound. Separate. One last attempt. Separate from who/what? After all the reality that surrounds you is nothing but your 'inner' being projected 'outwards.' Is the sun separate from the light that shines from it? "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Muriel wrote:What I know is that there can be no liberty of conscience if all conscience, consiousness is all tethered up together into 'one'.
This Call then is a softening-up of minds to come round to an eventual one world government, a government where free thought, free belief and free conscience will be illegal. Fascism with a universal christ. With chains and bonds for the separate.
I am a renegade.
Liberty! It's a delicate balance.Governments are built on moral authority with such concepts like good,bad,right and wrong and religions are the the dominant force in that domain. The way I see it,the idea is to question religion without questioning the morals.Cherry picking. To strip religion of moral authority without entering into moral relativism.If we enter moral relativism,being a renegade is a matter of perspective. I don't see how we can avoid questioning morals. I believe we have become comfortable in questioning religion and thus tend to equate this with morals. But morals (having to do with right and wrong) affect even the non religious. To me the big question is the morality of human existence. We are rapidly approaching a point where the existence of the human species will terminally threaten all life on Earth. Is it not more moral then that humans should cease to exist rather than that Earth be destroyed? No it isn't but if all humans are destroyers it is. What if MOST humans are destroyers, which we are? Can a few humans who genuinely care save the rest? Actually this more like a moral dilemma. Assuming a moral premise that all human life has a right to exist, it would follow that the Earth and its biodiversity, has a right to exist too, because we can't live as humans without it. If it is shown that we can't live with each other, which should go first? Us or the Earth? Since, in linear terms, the Earth was here before us, do we even have a right to pose such a question? "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:@symbols, first the common definition involves actions that are judgemental.
Secondly because it's a human action. All action needs extra energy. Desire.
There's a desire to judge in the speaker. A tree can fall and destroy something.It's just a word what it expresses is a matter of perspective. Is 'crushed', or 'broken', a synonym for 'destroy'? Create a statement using the 'destroy', then replace the word with the synonym and show that the two statements are equal. The choice of a word is a moral act. Can't a tree destroy something by crushing it or breaking it? Where is the morality or judgment in that? To destroy you must know. Does the tree know the house? It's the speaker creating values and order. Destroying is ordering. Not so, unless the word destroy has been redefined. For instance the sheer act of breathing is destructive, so is feeding, walking etc. Some Jains recognize this moral dilemma by sweeping their path before the take a step. I just hope they know how futile it is. There is Science fiction story that I read once, I forget who wrote it, that posed this dilemma in a very interesting way. It is the story of the birth of Jesus Christ told by an alien race that observed the event from a lonely ship far out in space. In telling what they saw, the race puts a scientific explanation to the brightly shinning star that marked the glorious event and lit the way for the wise men. The star, it turns out, was a sun around which planets revolved some of which harbored life, including an intelligent civilization. In fact they had started experimenting with space travel, but were still at an early stage. One day their sun exploded, became a super nova, destroying all life in that system. The only survivors were the crew of an experimental craft - when they knew their sun was unstable the race had scrambled to create space craft that could help them escape but, tragically, they were too late. Only a few made it. Far out in space a different race saw the same event, a star that shines unusually bright, as the symbol of the promised arrival of their savior. On the one side destruction; on the other, salvation. Wherein the difference? "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
Wakanyugi wrote:Muriel wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:Muriel wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:Muriel wrote:What I know is that there can be no liberty of conscience if all conscience, consiousness is all tethered up together into 'one'.
This Call then is a softening-up of minds to come round to an eventual one world government, a government where free thought, free belief and free conscience will be illegal. Fascism with a universal christ. With chains and bonds for the separate.
I am a renegade.
Liberty! @Muriel: How would you react if I told you that at least 60% of the things you do, think or believe are controlled by someone else? Yet this is a fact and you can prove it by simply examining your thoughts and therefore actions, over a period of time. Society has invented powerful institutions to ensure this 'facisim' as you call it. They are called religion, government, media, advertising, family, peer groups etc, etc. Even at the most basic level, the autonomy you insist on is a myth. Control - is such a big word. Weighty word. Important word. Perhaps there is confusion of "influence" with "control". For example, your response "influenced" me to write this. You may see it as you "controlled" me to write this (a point requires a rebuttal) through the "action and reaction" but I could have chosen not to respond and how good could the "control" be? Choice. Freedom. Liberty. Autonomy. Even murder. Nothing stops me from coming to you and planting a knife deep in your chest after I have found you. Not my brothers, not pastor, not imam, not president not even capital punishment. I can if I want to. But I choose not to. But others have done it to others. "Control" over them obviously failed. Their "automomy" overrode the "control". Hence "control" is not the word for it is not fulfilled - as it means. "Influence" is more appropriate. I agree. Although the line between influence and coercion is often very thin indeed. But the point is there is almost nothing we do that is not 'influenced.' Even you planting a knife in my chest, I would have to be a co participant in that drama for it to happen. Autonomy, freedom, self control...is a myth. I agree. They are a myth - nowadays. I in the "shadows" too am a myth. A renegade. Fugitive from the all seeing eye of oneness. Mist. Free. Unbound. Separate. One last attempt. Separate from who/what? After all the reality that surrounds you is nothing but your 'inner' being projected 'outwards.' Is the sun separate from the light that shines from it? I still hope not the last attempt to talk and discuss. Both the sun and the moon appear to project light. We obtain the same light from both but both are not one. I am separate from you and from another. You and I can tango yet we can still also go opposite ways - physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually.
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
The Revolution of Consciusness
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|