Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
The Revolution of Consciusness
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
Muriel wrote:symbols wrote:Muriel wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:
Have we agreed to disagree?
Wrong question if there's no unity. Then what could be the right question? You can't ask me a question if there's no unity. You can't even exist.   Laugh Laugh Laugh Touche! Control has no latitude for negotiation. Welcome back to existence Symbols, Thank you. I love existence. You should understand without questions if you love existence.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
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. A wise woman said recently "control is an illusion." To which I added "some illusions are given more importance than others." You are welcome  It is basically all control, whether the end result is to imbibe methanol or transcendental philosophy. All control; all illusion. "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
|
symbols wrote:Muriel wrote:symbols wrote:Muriel wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:
Have we agreed to disagree?
Wrong question if there's no unity. Then what could be the right question? You can't ask me a question if there's no unity. You can't even exist. Laugh Laugh Laugh Touche! Control has no latitude for negotiation. Welcome back to existence Symbols, Thank you. I love existence. You should understand without questions if you love existence. You can't question without understanding.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:The moment you say, 'the ball', you relativize an absolute.
But 'yes'. The ball. 'Yes',all meaning is true going by 'oneness'. Were you 'relativizing' it when you were using it as an example? The question still remains the same,is relativism absolute? No. I was absolutizing the ball. That is, my intention in the argument. But doing one thing, or focusing on one thing doesn't imply other events are not happening. There are intelligent points even outside the ball. That is, it's a combination of 'relatives' and 'absolutes'. I also think you should present the proof that I requested up there. The one you claim to have offered. Are you focusing on one thing? Your argument is you were 'absolutizing' a ball to show co-existence of 'absolutes' and 'relatives'.Without the ball,can there be relativity? You are also arguing for 'oneness'.Isn't that an absolute which facilitates the relativity? The question is simple,is relativism absolute? Even without the ball there's relativity. Yes an absolute relativizes, and vice versa. Everything is both absolute and relative. Or the correct question is; is the relative exclusive of the absolute? Is relativity dependent on the absolute?
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:The moment you say, 'the ball', you relativize an absolute.
But 'yes'. The ball. 'Yes',all meaning is true going by 'oneness'. Were you 'relativizing' it when you were using it as an example? The question still remains the same,is relativism absolute? No. I was absolutizing the ball. That is, my intention in the argument. But doing one thing, or focusing on one thing doesn't imply other events are not happening. There are intelligent points even outside the ball. That is, it's a combination of 'relatives' and 'absolutes'. I also think you should present the proof that I requested up there. The one you claim to have offered. Are you focusing on one thing? Your argument is you were 'absolutizing' a ball to show co-existence of 'absolutes' and 'relatives'.Without the ball,can there be relativity? You are also arguing for 'oneness'.Isn't that an absolute which facilitates the relativity? The question is simple,is relativism absolute? Even without the ball there's relativity. Yes an absolute relativizes, and vice versa. Everything is both absolute and relative. Or the correct question is; is the relative exclusive of the absolute? Is relativity dependent on the absolute? Please remember that relativity is not the opposite of absolute. The opposite of relativity is fixed. "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:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:The moment you say, 'the ball', you relativize an absolute.
But 'yes'. The ball. 'Yes',all meaning is true going by 'oneness'. Were you 'relativizing' it when you were using it as an example? The question still remains the same,is relativism absolute? No. I was absolutizing the ball. That is, my intention in the argument. But doing one thing, or focusing on one thing doesn't imply other events are not happening. There are intelligent points even outside the ball. That is, it's a combination of 'relatives' and 'absolutes'. I also think you should present the proof that I requested up there. The one you claim to have offered. Are you focusing on one thing? Your argument is you were 'absolutizing' a ball to show co-existence of 'absolutes' and 'relatives'.Without the ball,can there be relativity? You are also arguing for 'oneness'.Isn't that an absolute which facilitates the relativity? The question is simple,is relativism absolute? Even without the ball there's relativity. Yes an absolute relativizes, and vice versa. Everything is both absolute and relative. Or the correct question is; is the relative exclusive of the absolute? Is relativity dependent on the absolute? Please remember that relativity is not the opposite of absolute. The opposite of relativity is fixed. Is relativity independent of the 'one'?
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:The moment you say, 'the ball', you relativize an absolute.
But 'yes'. The ball. 'Yes',all meaning is true going by 'oneness'. Were you 'relativizing' it when you were using it as an example? The question still remains the same,is relativism absolute? No. I was absolutizing the ball. That is, my intention in the argument. But doing one thing, or focusing on one thing doesn't imply other events are not happening. There are intelligent points even outside the ball. That is, it's a combination of 'relatives' and 'absolutes'. I also think you should present the proof that I requested up there. The one you claim to have offered. Are you focusing on one thing? Your argument is you were 'absolutizing' a ball to show co-existence of 'absolutes' and 'relatives'.Without the ball,can there be relativity? You are also arguing for 'oneness'.Isn't that an absolute which facilitates the relativity? The question is simple,is relativism absolute? Even without the ball there's relativity. Yes an absolute relativizes, and vice versa. Everything is both absolute and relative. Or the correct question is; is the relative exclusive of the absolute? Is relativity dependent on the absolute? Please remember that relativity is not the opposite of absolute. The opposite of relativity is fixed. Is relativity independent of the 'one'? No it is not. How can it be? The 'One' aka 'All that is' aka 'God' aka 'Universe' aka 'Singularity' aka 'Unity' includes all. "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:symbols wrote:Muriel wrote:symbols wrote:Muriel wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:
Have we agreed to disagree?
Wrong question if there's no unity. Then what could be the right question? You can't ask me a question if there's no unity. You can't even exist. Laugh Laugh Laugh Touche! Control has no latitude for negotiation. Welcome back to existence Symbols, Thank you. I love existence. You should understand without questions if you love existence. You can't question without understanding. There goes my existence. Again.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:The moment you say, 'the ball', you relativize an absolute.
But 'yes'. The ball. 'Yes',all meaning is true going by 'oneness'. Were you 'relativizing' it when you were using it as an example? The question still remains the same,is relativism absolute? No. I was absolutizing the ball. That is, my intention in the argument. But doing one thing, or focusing on one thing doesn't imply other events are not happening. There are intelligent points even outside the ball. That is, it's a combination of 'relatives' and 'absolutes'. I also think you should present the proof that I requested up there. The one you claim to have offered. Are you focusing on one thing? Your argument is you were 'absolutizing' a ball to show co-existence of 'absolutes' and 'relatives'.Without the ball,can there be relativity? You are also arguing for 'oneness'.Isn't that an absolute which facilitates the relativity? The question is simple,is relativism absolute? Even without the ball there's relativity. Yes an absolute relativizes, and vice versa. Everything is both absolute and relative. Or the correct question is; is the relative exclusive of the absolute? Is relativity dependent on the absolute? If the two are mutually exclusive then they are independent. If they aren't, then they are co-dependent.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:Muriel wrote:symbols wrote:Muriel wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:
Have we agreed to disagree?
Wrong question if there's no unity. Then what could be the right question? You can't ask me a question if there's no unity. You can't even exist. Laugh Laugh Laugh Touche! Control has no latitude for negotiation. Welcome back to existence Symbols, Thank you. I love existence. You should understand without questions if you love existence. You can't question without understanding. There goes my existence. Again.
|
|
|
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.
|