Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
The Revolution of Consciusness
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
Control requires omnipresence. Hence the striving and desire of intelligence agencies to observe all things.
Wazua is not omnipresent.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel wrote:Control requires omnipresence. Hence the striving and desire of intelligence agencies to observe all things.
Wazua is not omnipresent. It depends on how the omnipresence is defined. For example, right now, looking at the threads under discussion you'll realize wazua is everywhere. Like this thread alone is in the past, present and future. Another is in Machakos county, and the like. It's more of a mathematical formula that covers all events at all times and an algorithm of engagement. Even in the cafe.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
tycho wrote: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. I understand now. Then I could say what we need is not a new language but new knowledge (if such a thing exists) to understand the evolving morality. In a reality where we recognize all things to be conscious we have to define a completely new way of relating to life. This will be a wrenching change, something akin to Galileo's overthrow of accepted reality when he postulated the Heliocentric model. For instance, can we argue vegetarianism as a moral choice (to protect poor animals) if plants have life, feelings and hence similar rights to animals? If we can't eat plants or animals with a clear conscience where does that leave us? Does this not lead us to the implication that life, of itself, (including human life) has no intrinsic value or special regard, all depends on utility? At least I can see us learning from hunter gatherer societies who believe everything has a spirit and honor animals even as they kill them for food. Interesting times indeed. "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:Control requires omnipresence. Hence the striving and desire of intelligence agencies to observe all things.
Wazua is not omnipresent. On the other hand, true control requires the acquiescence of the controlled. Then the controller does not even have to be there as the controlled will do the job for him. Religious leaders figured this out a long time ago. "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: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
Wakanyugi wrote: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 destroyers would have destruction as one of their highest values.Where would those who care come from and how would they save the rest if it's in their nature? The destroyers will destroy and they will face self-destruction either by directly killing each other or indirectly by the consequences of their actions.Self-defeating. Those who care would be trying to defeat a beast without becoming it.They,like the earth, would probably become collateral damage.I would place my bets on the earth surviving destroyers.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
Where is the science to prove morality? Moral relativism cuts both ways.Anything goes.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
symbols wrote:Where is the science to prove morality? Moral relativism cuts both ways.Anything goes. Mhhhmmmm...interesting question. I have never thought of morality as a science question. More as a philosophical take on the implications of science, and other things, to human life. But I am sure Tycho and Muriel have a different take on this.  As for moral relativism, if you mean this as the opposite of moral absolutes, I fear you are on a very slippery slope here. There are no absolutes in our neck of the Universe. "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: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 destroyers would have destruction as one of their highest values.Where would those who care come from and how would they save the rest if it's in their nature? The destroyers will destroy and they will face self-destruction either by directly killing each other or indirectly by the consequences of their actions.Self-defeating. Those who care would be trying to defeat a beast without becoming it.They,like the earth, would probably become collateral damage.I would place my bets on the earth surviving destroyers. The behavior of most human beings towards the Earth is destructive. With population growth the effects of such behavior are compounded to the point now where we threaten everything else. If all the species that we have caused to become extinct had a voice, what would they say about us? Scientists warn that if we don't change we might destroy ourselves. From the point of view of the life we threaten such an event would be a good thing, no? After all, morality is partly about the sanctity of life. It just doesn't say whose life. This is the moral earthquake that I believe will soon hit us. Human life is just one among equals. We have all borrowed this Earth and have no more right to exist than any other life. "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: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Where is the science to prove morality? Moral relativism cuts both ways.Anything goes. Mhhhmmmm...interesting question. I have never thought of morality as a science question. More as a philosophical take on the implications of science, and other things, to human life. But I am sure Tycho and Muriel have a different take on this. As for moral relativism, if you mean this as the opposite of moral absolutes, I fear you are on a very slippery slope here. There are no absolutes in our neck of the Universe. Are you absolutely sure? It is a philosophical aspect that puts us in a very interesting position.It can even go further,what is the purpose of perception?What is the purpose of our ability to assign or omit meaning and how can we reach an objective conclusion without assigning or omitting meaning?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
symbols wrote:Where is the science to prove morality? Moral relativism cuts both ways.Anything goes. There's such a science. It's mathematics. Relativism isn't a problem, neither is absolutism alone a necessity. Or has mathematics ever been disturbed by relativism? Does 'anything go' in mathematics? No.
|
|
|
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.
|