Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
The Revolution of Consciusness
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
Muriel wrote: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. Isorait. "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: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Wakanyugi wrote: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? Morality is, and has always been about cognition, identity, cognitive desire, and politics. And the range of possibility runs to eternity. And from eternity. 'Singularity'. Then the diversity of worlds. Quantum levels, and topologies. Each being connected to the other in 'singularity' can only optimize its welfare under 'mutualism'.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
@Muriel, ever since life 'began', to the present, and deep into the future that's the past, there has always been many worlds, many governments; that's also one world, one government. So please allay your fears.
Then: A good way of looking at your argument is considering an equivalent argument. An equivalent argument runs like this;
'In wazua, Muriel is separate from symbols, swenani, but collaborates now and then. Therefore there's no one wazua control, or admin. Wazua identity.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
@Wakanyugi, if 'destroy' is a word, then it entails knowledge, under any given definition.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote: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? Morality is, and has always been about cognition, identity, cognitive desire, and politics. And the range of possibility runs to eternity. And from eternity. 'Singularity'. Then the diversity of worlds. Quantum levels, and topologies. Each being connected to the other in 'singularity' can only optimize its welfare under 'mutualism'. Tycho, you lost me. Can you say that again? In English please. "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:@Muriel, ever since life 'began', to the present, and deep into the future that's the past, there has always been many worlds, many governments; that's also one world, one government. So please allay your fears.
Then: A good way of looking at your argument is considering an equivalent argument. An equivalent argument runs like this;
'In wazua, Muriel is separate from symbols, swenani,
Small correction 'In Wazua, Muriel APPEARS separate from..." The only reason we perceive space, separation if you like, is through the order that objects take in relation to each other, often three dimensional. Similarly we perceive time through the order that events take in relationship with each other, which is often sequential. Space and time are therefore not real, any more than gravity is. They only seem real when perceived through this lens, the explicate order of reality. If the Universe contained a single object (say you) - or a singularity as you say - there would be no space and no time, because a single object existing without relation to any other can not generate such effects. This 'singularity' is the implicate order. It is the true reality - what I call Unity. The explicate order is illusion. Here is David Bohm:
"In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders (Bohm 1980, p. xv).""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:@Wakanyugi, if 'destroy' is a word, then it entails knowledge, under any given definition. I think we can agree that destroy is a word. What I have a problem with is the connotation of a moral absolute, that destroying is always bad. Taken to an extreme - would destroying an alien species that threatened the Earth and all that is in it be bad? That alien species is us. "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
|
tycho wrote:@Muriel, ever since life 'began', to the present, and deep into the future that's the past, there has always been many worlds, many governments; that's also one world, one government. So please allay your fears.
Then: A good way of looking at your argument is considering an equivalent argument. An equivalent argument runs like this;
'In wazua, Muriel is separate from symbols, swenani, but collaborates now and then. Therefore there's no one wazua control, or admin. Wazua identity.
Not exactly. More like this: In Wazua, Muriel is separate from Symbols, Swenani but collaborates now and then. This collaboration can be carried on elsewhere (a separate rendezvous) therefore there's no one Wasua "control", or admin that can exercise control over them. Wazua control exercises vain control that is not even control to speak of.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:@Muriel, ever since life 'began', to the present, and deep into the future that's the past, there has always been many worlds, many governments; that's also one world, one government. So please allay your fears.
Then: A good way of looking at your argument is considering an equivalent argument. An equivalent argument runs like this;
'In wazua, Muriel is separate from symbols, swenani, but collaborates now and then. Therefore there's no one wazua control, or admin. Wazua identity.
Not exactly. More like this: In Wazua, Muriel is separate from Symbols, Swenani but collaborates now and then. This collaboration can be carried on elsewhere (a separate rendezvous) therefore there's no one Wasua "control", or admin that can exercise control over them. Wazua control exercises vain control that is not even control to speak of. Wazua control involves such things like joining, loging in and out, editing, knowing and relating and the like. So getting to meet in a cafe, involves extending wazua to 'new' space. Like pollen and the seed that germinated. It doesn't matter how you experience or judge the controls.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:@Wakanyugi, if 'destroy' is a word, then it entails knowledge, under any given definition. I think we can agree that destroy is a word. What I have a problem with is the connotation of a moral absolute, that destroying is always bad. Taken to an extreme - would destroying an alien species that threatened the Earth and all that is in it be bad? That alien species is us. No, I do not imply that destroying is absolutely bad. Good and bad are in dialectic. That's morality. Am only saying morality entails knowledge. And that all words are about morality.
|
|
|
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.
|