Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
The Revolution of Consciusness
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Improbability is also a probability. Balance of paradox. Yes it is. In fact the parallel Universes theory posits that there is an infinite number of Universes and anything that could ever happen has already happened in at least one of them. Still no absolutes, my friend. Sorry. The truth is there is no truth.Is that statement true or false? For me it is true...until it can be proved false. Which you have not done, yet. wrote:
Context.If parallel universes exist,they are just that parallel universes.Something happening in a parallel universe doesn't mean it has happened in this universe.
I didn't say it has happened in this Universe, necessarily. Just that it has happened 'somewhere/when' meaning that an observer has probably perceived it (otherwise how would it have happened?) So if anything can happen has happened, where does that leave your absolute?  It hasn't happened here. That's the absolute. Maybe it has. You just haven't perceived it yet. In fact, if I was a Scientist, this is the the way I would push the parallel Universes theory: 'We all exist each in their own Universe, which is why no two realities are the same. However, every so often, we peak out of our particular Universe and, together with others, try to create a consensus Universe.' This partly explains why relationships are so hard. Existence is interesting.At least that's how I see it Exactly. I have many young friends on FB. It seems their most common whine is 'I am bored.' I find it really hard to understand how one can find life boring. "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: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. Yes. Acquiescence of the controlled. Agreement to be controlled. Disagreement to be controlled beats the control. That is why renegades are not controlled and cannot be controlled. Many times the agreement is given subconsciously. For instance when you fall in love or have a child, you are overtly or covertly agreeing to give up some control. Therefore, unless you have never been in love, or even had friends, you can not describe yourself as a 'renegade who can not be controlled.' Everyone is controlled. "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: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. Yes. Acquiescence of the controlled. Agreement to be controlled. Disagreement to be controlled beats the control. That is why renegades are not controlled and cannot be controlled. Many times the agreement is given subconsciously. For instance when you fall in love or have a child, you are overtly or covertly agreeing to give up some control. Therefore, unless you have never been in love, or even had friends, you can not describe yourself as a 'renegade who can not be controlled.' Everyone is controlled. At some point the agreement has to be evaluated. It is then brought to the frontal lobe from the subconscious. Rejection or affirmation then is done. Disagreement to control being an option can be exercised. At that point a renegade is conceived.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
Muriel wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:Muriel wrote:Wakanyugi wrote: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. Yes. Acquiescence of the controlled. Agreement to be controlled. Disagreement to be controlled beats the control. That is why renegades are not controlled and cannot be controlled. Many times the agreement is given subconsciously. For instance when you fall in love or have a child, you are overtly or covertly agreeing to give up some control. Therefore, unless you have never been in love, or even had friends, you can not describe yourself as a 'renegade who can not be controlled.' Everyone is controlled. At some point the agreement has to be evaluated. It is then brought to the frontal lobe from the subconscious. Rejection or affirmation then is done. Disagreement to control being an option can be exercised. At that point a renegade is conceived. Acquiescence, my dear Muriel. Even the most die hard renegade wants to give up control sometimes. Otherwise you would never go to a doctor, ride a bus or eat a meal at a restaurant. You would never want to form a family or join a chama or even be a member of Wazua. "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: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. All I can say, is that you are putting new wine in old wine skins. The Jains and Buddhists, and all world views have to be transformed. The dream time, and the spirits are neither spared. Before the plant bears customized fruit, the farmer will have negotiated with it on mutual terms. Tycho my brother. Thanks for the laugh. I can just see you dialoguing with a banana plant. "Listen old fellow. I promise to feed you and water you. In return you must promise to let me eat your children when they are of age." Jokes aside, you are evading my questions. Where would our morality construct fit in such a scenario? What will it take for us to accept such disruptive change? What is 'our' morality? Is the same as, 'what's our relationship?' What will make 'us' change? The experience of our relationships, and growth in knowledge. But change is a must. The most important question is how to optimize on the change.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
@symbols, isn't mathematics about the derivation of meaning?
What about tracing energy? Isn't that meaning? Or energy transmuting, isn't that deriving meaning? Is there a science that's not about meaning?
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote: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. All I can say, is that you are putting new wine in old wine skins. The Jains and Buddhists, and all world views have to be transformed. The dream time, and the spirits are neither spared. Before the plant bears customized fruit, the farmer will have negotiated with it on mutual terms. Tycho my brother. Thanks for the laugh. I can just see you dialoguing with a banana plant. "Listen old fellow. I promise to feed you and water you. In return you must promise to let me eat your children when they are of age." Jokes aside, you are evading my questions. Where would our morality construct fit in such a scenario? What will it take for us to accept such disruptive change? What is 'our' morality? Is the same as, 'what's our relationship?' What will make 'us' change? The experience of our relationships, and growth in knowledge. But change is a must. The most important question is how to optimize on the change. A few pillars of our morality, as I understand them: 1. Life on Earth is a hierarchy with humans at the top 2. Species near the top, (like animals and plants) enjoy more 'rights' than those at the bottom (like rocks and marbles) 3. Life is sacred and the primary motivation for human beings is to preserve life (mhhh...) Your earlier argument about a new world order in which all reality is conspicuous clearly would throw these morality pillars out of the window. Where to, now? "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
|
Muriel, all influence must imply control.
If a influences b, and vice versa, then the two must have a general rule that forms the basis of influence.
If no such conditions exist, then influence is impossible.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Wakanyugi, notice that you've described an ordered system determined by a given level of understanding.
But understanding is changing, and relations are being redefined. It should be smooth.
But problem is our psychological make up and growth in knowledge don't get along. There's a lag. So we need therapies of some kind. It's all about 'the Judgment' as therapy.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
symbols wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote: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? Tell me one absolute. Even the laws of physics are not absolute. They have simply not been disproven, yet. This always ends with,is relativism absolute? I think the rules that construct our Universe make it impossible for any absolute to exist. The basic premise is that, as long as the possibility exists that something can be falsified, it can not be an absolute. I am not aware of any belief system, theory or even perception that can not be falsified. Are you? Even relativism can possibly be falsified, as you are trying to do. An absolute can expand. That is, an absolute can 'relativize'. Like the boundary conditions of a ball from deflation to inflation. The ball and its capacity to inflate or deflate are considered to be the absolutes.The changed is based on the absolutes. 'The change' is 'relativity'. That is, relativity and absolutism 'co-existing'.
|
|
|
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.
|