Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
The Revolution of Consciusness
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
Wakanyugi wrote: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. I agree that the most die hard renegade gives up control sometimes, but ,,,, Control to what and to who? Some controls are untenable - like being an imbiber of methanol, or oneness etc - and our renegade has no problem maintaining resistance indefinitely.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
tycho wrote: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. Yes. But influence does not fulfill control. I agree with influence.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel wrote:tycho wrote: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. Yes. But influence does not fulfill control. I agree with influence. It does. That's what the argument above proves. So the idea, is to disprove.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel wrote:Wakanyugi wrote: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. I agree that the most die hard renegade gives up control sometimes, but ,,,, Control to what and to who? Some controls are untenable - like being an imbiber of methanol, or oneness etc - and our renegade has no problem maintaining resistance indefinitely. Why are some controls 'untenable'?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
tycho wrote:@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?
Formula?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
tycho wrote: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'. The relative is dependent on the absolute.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote: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. Yes. But influence does not fulfill control. I agree with influence. It does. That's what the argument above proves. So the idea, is to disprove. It doesn't.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote: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. Yes. But influence does not fulfill control. I agree with influence. It does. That's what the argument above proves. So the idea, is to disprove. It doesn't. Lol. The issue here isn't to simply assert. You need to disprove. That's the control of a logical conversation. Or will you renege on this one?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
symbols wrote:tycho wrote: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'. The relative is dependent on the absolute. Prove this is true, and that it excludes other alternatives.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote: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. Yes. But influence does not fulfill control. I agree with influence. It does. That's what the argument above proves. So the idea, is to disprove. It doesn't. Lol. The issue here isn't to simply assert. You need to disprove. That's the control of a logical conversation. Or will you renege on this one? See? Has control latitude for negotiation?
|
|
|
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.
|