Analysis of Concietism - Poetry,Philosopjy, Human Nature

[Lardlad95]

"So I'm on the wing of the clock that time wants nothing to do with. And he tell me where to go. I just nod my head, cause I can't see it, but he tell me it's there. It was larger he say, but to deep for me to notice. I stare ahead, and I make out what I can see is a fabrication of what he told me it wasn't. And he look at me and say "any questions?"-Aaron Rodriguez

There is a specific meaning to this Pseudo Poem.

THe man doesn't understand what time is telling him, but he keps nodding his head, pretending to understand, pretending to get it, he doesn't though. And despite the fact that he can't learn what he is being told he lies and nods his head.

Humans are like this, we lie to our selves, we believe we understand, we believe we accomplish, but we don't.

And we see ourselves as such great things even though we really can't see what we are.


THe image of a human is a fabrication that we have made up.

Just like in the poem the man makes up what he can't see in his head.

So what he sees isn't really what it is, just a fabrication of what he has been told it is.



Humans tell ourselves that we meet ourstandards, that we live up to our morals but we don't.

And we can't see this.


iNnevitably we fail to achieve what we believe we have accomplished.

In essence it seems we say these things to make ourselves feel better.

Humans are civilized, we have eradicated animals, our brothers, forced our brothers into slavery, and destroyed our own people.


Humans are intellegent, by who's standards?


By the standards we ourselves invented, by the same token a dog could believe it is the most advanced species because no other species can do what dog can.

We are concieted failures.



We never see the big picture because we are to busy trying to make it up for ourselves

but innevitably we shall fail.





Note form lardlad: Since they wont give me a philosophy forum here is a philosophy thread

[Sasafrás]

I love you, baby... :)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from La Rainbeaux on 1:20 am on June 11, 2003
I love you, baby... :)

love you too

now can someone please talk with my philosophically

especially since thye wont give me a philosophy forum

[Lardlad95]

No comments?

[anti machine]

Interesting poem, interesting analysis. You have broken down, to an extent, the origin of intelligence. Man is intelligent, he assumes, because he possesses power over not only his own species but over the world/nature as well.

So the most intelligent man, by man's own standards, is he who posesses the most power...specifically power of communication. With the power of communication, the power of words, man finds a channel to exude a higher level of power over other things. Therefore, it can be summarized that intelligence, BY MAN'S DEFINITION, is power.

Then let us take nature. Nature and mankind have been in a constant state of conflict and competition throughout history. Man strikes his blows with cures for disease and pollution, nature fights back with mutations of diseases and natural disasters.

So can nature be categorized as intelligent? I suppose that is for man to decide, but certainly not by the definition man has given intelligence. I do agree, that man shall ulitmately fail. As Sartre said, "man is a useless passion". Man does not know where to focus his "intelligence" and so he fights the most prevelant threatening force: nature.

But one day, either man will destroy himself or nature will destroy man. Man needs nature, nature does not need man.

I know this discussion kind of escalated to a subject not exactly what you were hinting at, but a good subject to be addressed nonetheless.

I agree, a philosophy forum would be a grand ole' thing. Until then I guess we can keep this up. :)

[anti machine]

THe poem can also be interpreted as this: Man accepts the explanations of the world because he has no alternative. (or so he thinks) He listens to theories and justifications and formulations describing reality, but there is that still small voice inside that says "By your definition, not mine." He then comes to discover, by his own independent realization, that reality isn't exactly what was described to him: "I make out what I can see is a fabrication of what he told me it wasn't."

But then his mind is pulled back to time's voice, as the voice asks "any questions." And of course he cannot vocalize the question that he feels needs answering, 'i don't see what you described to me at all-I don't understand-why can't i see what you claim to see,' because he does not want to appear incompetent or insane. He is afraid of expressing that what time says is there is different for time than it is for the narrator.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from anti machine on 1:36 am on June 14, 2003
Interesting poem, interesting analysis. You have broken down, to an extent, the origin of intelligence. Man is intelligent, he assumes, because he possesses power over not only his own species but over the world/nature as well.

So the most intelligent man, by man's own standards, is he who posesses the most power...specifically power of communication. With the power of communication, the power of words, man finds a channel to exude a higher level of power over other things. Therefore, it can be summarized that intelligence, BY MAN'S DEFINITION, is power.

Then let us take nature. Nature and mankind have been in a constant state of conflict and competition throughout history. Man strikes his blows with cures for disease and pollution, nature fights back with mutations of diseases and natural disasters.

So can nature be categorized as intelligent? I suppose that is for man to decide, but certainly not by the definition man has given intelligence. I do agree, that man shall ulitmately fail. As Sartre said, "man is a useless passion". Man does not know where to focus his "intelligence" and so he fights the most prevelant threatening force: nature.

But one day, either man will destroy himself or nature will destroy man. Man needs nature, nature does not need man.

I know this discussion kind of escalated to a subject not exactly what you were hinting at, but a good subject to be addressed nonetheless.

I agree, a philosophy forum would be a grand ole' thing. Until then I guess we can keep this up. :)


Ok but how can Nature be intellegent when the intellegent must be consious of their own intellegence.


However how can someone ever know that they are truly concious.

I may be concious that I am capable of walking, but that doesn't mean I'm concious of my true potential.


10% of our brain is all that we use, so we could be more intellegent than we are.


So if does that mean that I am aware of the fact that I'm not intellegent?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from anti machine on 1:50 am on June 14, 2003
THe poem can also be interpreted as this: Man accepts the explanations of the world because he has no alternative. (or so he thinks) He listens to theories and justifications and formulations describing reality, but there is that still small voice inside that says "By your definition, not mine." He then comes to discover, by his own independent realization, that reality isn't exactly what was described to him: "I make out what I can see is a fabrication of what he told me it wasn't."

But then his mind is pulled back to time's voice, as the voice asks "any questions." And of course he cannot vocalize the question that he feels needs answering, 'i don't see what you described to me at all-I don't understand-why can't i see what you claim to see,' because he does not want to appear incompetent or insane. He is afraid of expressing that what time says is there is different for time than it is for the narrator.



I love your explanation of that poem.


Because he has been told about what he can't see he can not have al alternative to what the other guy said it was. But since he can't understand that he is left with nothing to imagine

[anti machine]

Ok but how can Nature be intellegent when the intellegent must be consious of their own intellegence.

Perhaps it can be explained away by stating that man is only concious of what he is capable of being concious OF. Meaning that, in man's mind, there are certain strict boundaries, as you mentioned when saying that man only uses 10% of his brain, that restrict him from comprehending the conciousness of things which appear to be incapable of thought or inanimate.

Sartre uses the definitions "being FOR itself" (to describe beings capable of concious thought) and "being OF itself" (to describe inanimate objects and objects which do not have the capability of rational thought)

But these analyses are from the perspective of man, and man assumes that he is the supreme "being for itself" and casts all else aside, such as a tree or a rock, as being existant only because man deems them so. This presents a problem, in that man has defined the world by his own parameters and discounts possiblities, absurd as they may seem to our western minds, that the tree and the rock may be factors inside of a mind more powerful than man's: the mind of nature.

We perceive that nature doesn't have a conciousness because it does not function in the way that we, the only concious beings we have as a comparison, function. Man has placed himself in the center of the universe as the single greatest being-for-itself, ignoring the possibility that the beings-of-themselves may possess intelligence on a far different level than we.

Perhaps THEY are the ones using more than 10% of their potential. Nature obviously has the ultimate power over man. Are we to assume that this force is simply inanimate? Not capable of thought or intelligence as we understand the concepts?

Just a little thought to chew on. We must explore the absurdist of possiblities.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from anti machine on 12:44 am on June 17, 2003
Ok but how can Nature be intellegent when the intellegent must be consious of their own intellegence.

Perhaps it can be explained away by stating that man is only concious of what he is capable of being concious OF. Meaning that, in man's mind, there are certain strict boundaries, as you mentioned when saying that man only uses 10% of his brain, that restrict him from comprehending the conciousness of things which appear to be incapable of thought or inanimate.

Sartre uses the definitions "being FOR itself" (to describe beings capable of concious thought) and "being OF itself" (to describe inanimate objects and objects which do not have the capability of rational thought)

But these analyses are from the perspective of man, and man assumes that he is the supreme "being for itself" and casts all else aside, such as a tree or a rock, as being existant only because man deems them so. This presents a problem, in that man has defined the world by his own parameters and discounts possiblities, absurd as they may seem to our western minds, that the tree and the rock may be factors inside of a mind more powerful than man's: the mind of nature.

We perceive that nature doesn't have a conciousness because it does not function in the way that we, the only concious beings we have as a comparison, function. Man has placed himself in the center of the universe as the single greatest being-for-itself, ignoring the possibility that the beings-of-themselves may possess intelligence on a far different level than we.

Perhaps THEY are the ones using more than 10% of their potential. Nature obviously has the ultimate power over man. Are we to assume that this force is simply inanimate? Not capable of thought or intelligence as we understand the concepts?

Just a little thought to chew on. We must explore the absurdist of possiblities.


OK since man is only concious of the scope of his existence than let us look at man from the perspective of a diety.

A diety would view man as one who can not comprehend that which does not readily effect him, like all animals.

Every thought a man has pertains to what he sees around him, so to a diety this must appear as if man is acting on instinct.

Because instincts are reactions caused by learned behavior.

So through learned behavior we think, basically by association.

Kind of like word association the first thing that pops into your head.

If say the word beach a person thinks of ocean. So humans run basically on an evolved form of instinct.

So to a diety looking down humans wouldn't appear to be intellegent or concious because like all other animals his thoughts pertain to that which effects him at that moment.


So you are correct man is only concious of what he can be concious of, because we only are aware of what pertains to us.

Perspective is our captor.

[anti machine]

that is, if the deity is in any way similar to man, which of course man expects him to be. ;)

Perspective IS our captor. Man cannot place himself in the perspective of anything other than himself, and rarely even another man. Man acts on what he KNOWS, which can be interpreted as instinct. From the knowledge man supposes he has, he categorizes the rest of the world as he sees fit.

I agree that man may appear to a deitic observer as not concious. But not necessarily because he acts on instinct. We associate beach with ocean based on a learned pattern which becomes our instinct, but yet you have become concious that you do this. Once the existence of an instinct is realized, it can be changed. For instance, we as socialists/communists (i know you're a socialist :) ) are aware that it is man's instinct to want. We believe that this is a learned instinct, just as word/concept association is not inherent within us but a result of launguage. We have concluded that we can CHANGE man's greed by the abolition of private property. We are concious of our conditioned sub-conciousness, and so it becomes concious.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from anti machine on 1:16 am on June 17, 2003
that is, if the deity is in any way similar to man, which of course man expects him to be. ;)

Perspective IS our captor. Man cannot place himself in the perspective of anything other than himself, and rarely even another man. Man acts on what he KNOWS, which can be interpreted as instinct. From the knowledge man supposes he has, he categorizes the rest of the world as he sees fit.

I agree that man may appear to a deitic observer as not concious. But not necessarily because he acts on instinct. We associate beach with ocean based on a learned pattern which becomes our instinct, but yet you have become concious that you do this. Once the existence of an instinct is realized, it can be changed. For instance, we as socialists/communists (i know you're a socialist :) ) are aware that it is man's instinct to want. We believe that this is a learned instinct, just as word/concept association is not inherent within us but a result of launguage. We have concluded that we can CHANGE man's greed by the abolition of private property. We are concious of our conditioned sub-conciousness, and so it becomes concious.




But we still act on instinct. the only difference is we unlike animals can change our instincts to the pattern by which we live, which gives us basically an Instinctual Adaptability.

LEarned behavior can be changed through stimuli in most animals however we can change it our selves which is a wonderful ability which is made possible because we are concious of that.


Now who is to say an observing diety wouldn't act like humans?


I've actually wondered if humans are the least evolved animals and here is why.


Animals and plants live life for the sake of existence.

Humans on the other hand feel the need to create our own purpose. We have to make up things to live for.


So if an animal doesn't need to fabricate his existence isn't the animal more evolved?


Look at the christian god...always was always is. because of this god exists simply to exist.

If he had a begining or end he would need to serve a purpose suited for the time he existed.

So man's conciousness devolves him to a state of fabricated meanings in existence

[anti machine]

"Look at the christian god...always was always is. because of this god exists simply to exist.

If he had a begining or end he would need to serve a purpose suited for the time he existed."

Not quite, in fact not at all. THe Christian God had a definite agenda. That is why WE exist. That is why there is a final judgement. that is why life was "created"-a test for mankind to judge who is deserving of living with Him. He has a purpose all right. A frighteningly evil purpose if you ask me...

I would say that man's desire to make excuses for existing stems from that quality which separates man from animal: intellectual capacity. But, ironically, we have explored the possibility that animal and nature is only incapable of intellectual capacity because man has deemed it so.

So...where do we go from here? Return to nature, as Rouseauu proposed? I dunno. Act on that instinct that we possess and rise to our self-created potential for power, as Nietszche proposed? I dunno. This is the beauty of philosophy: choice. Absolute choice which exists no where else in the realm of the universe-as according to man of course.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from anti machine on 1:57 am on June 17, 2003
"Look at the christian god...always was always is. because of this god exists simply to exist.

If he had a begining or end he would need to serve a purpose suited for the time he existed."

Not quite, in fact not at all. THe Christian God had a definite agenda. That is why WE exist. That is why there is a final judgement. that is why life was "created"-a test for mankind to judge who is deserving of living with Him. He has a purpose all right. A frighteningly evil purpose if you ask me...

I would say that man's desire to make excuses for existing stems from that quality which separates man from animal: intellectual capacity. But, ironically, we have explored the possibility that animal and nature is only incapable of intellectual capacity because man has deemed it so.

So...where do we go from here? Return to nature, as Rouseauu proposed? I dunno. Act on that instinct that we possess and rise to our self-created potential for power, as Nietszche proposed? I dunno. This is the beauty of philosophy: choice. Absolute choice which exists no where else in the realm of the universe-as according to man of course.


But think if God truly were a God he didn't have to create if he didn't want to.


In Christian religion god created the earth twice.


The first was preadamite, he made animal like men savage, with no souls and set lucifer incharge of it.

But these men were savage...much like cave men.

Lucifer corrupted these men and they destroyed themselves

Then God created the second earth with adam(not to many people especially christians are aware of the preadmaite earth)

So it seems god created existence because he had nothing else to do.

So he never existed for a purpose, relating to humans he has a purpose

but to himself he exists to exist


BUt simplicity is perfection, so intellectual capacity only makes things more complex and thus less perfect.


Look at a circle, simple, but a perfect 360 degrees.


Now draw a decagon, much more complex and harder to draw, thus harder to make perfect.

Now draw a picture of a tree, damn near impossible to make perfect.




So simplicity equals perfection.

So the more complex man's thoughts get, the harder it is to return to perfection.

The more we think the more problems we realize are there

[anti machine]

what christian "preadamite" creation are you referring to? Certainly not one from the Bible. But even if this were legend, the agenda of God is even more apparent. He sought to recreate perfection without the corruption of Satan.

Ok-God created man because he was bored. I simply cannot and will not buy this. If we are judging God by, in this case, Christianity, it is more than apparent that god's agenda is farther reaching than "boredom".

a circle just as difficult to draw as a decagon. A perfect representation of a tree is more difficult than either, near impossible, because it is natural and everchanging depending upon our perception. This is demonstrated best in the intro. to Russel's "the problems of philosophy" where he uses the analogy of a table.

I do agree that thought, which only grows more complicated the more we use it, only makes more apparent the problems life. THis is the curse of the artist, the intellectual, the philosopher...

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from anti machine on 2:36 am on June 17, 2003
what christian "preadamite" creation are you referring to? Certainly not one from the Bible. But even if this were legend, the agenda of God is even more apparent. He sought to recreate perfection without the corruption of Satan.

Ok-God created man because he was bored. I simply cannot and will not buy this. If we are judging God by, in this case, Christianity, it is more than apparent that god's agenda is farther reaching than "boredom".

a circle just as difficult to draw as a decagon. A perfect representation of a tree is more difficult than either, near impossible, because it is natural and everchanging depending upon our perception. This is demonstrated best in the intro. to Russel's "the problems of philosophy" where he uses the analogy of a table.

I do agree that thought, which only grows more complicated the more we use it, only makes more apparent the problems life. THis is the curse of the artist, the intellectual, the philosopher...



Read the dispensational truth.

It talks about the arguement for a preadmaite earth, and give passages from the bible proving the point


also God being bored was an over simplification I'm aware a diety wouldn't be bored. It was just simplifying the fact that God had no motives to create existence




But this so called curse come with the benefiet of being able to anylyze the rest of existence and to think....but it comes at the price of seeing the problems

And even worse we see that we are far from perfect.


So which outweighs the other? The benifiets or the drawbacks

[anti machine]

which outwieghs the other? I dunno...would you choose ignorance or enlightenment?

I suppose the benifits and drawbacks might reach some sort of dialectical equilibrium.

Or: the individual's perspective determines which outweighs the other. Ultimately, it's all a matter of perspective...optimism or pessimism? THe choice is up to us. As members of the far left, we see a world of pessimism from which can be born the extremest of optimism. This is our "world view". Our view is far different from that of a capitalist, a stoic, a muslim, etc.

As to god, perhaps the motive of loneliness and the desire for power, which God seems to have had in the old testament, was the factor behind "creation". Of course this is hypothetical, and we're giving God the benefit of the doubt. I don't exactly want to stray to far into religion here...

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from anti machine on 4:57 am on June 17, 2003
which outwieghs the other? I dunno...would you choose ignorance or enlightenment?

I suppose the benifits and drawbacks might reach some sort of dialectical equilibrium.

Or: the individual's perspective determines which outweighs the other. Ultimately, it's all a matter of perspective...optimism or pessimism? THe choice is up to us. As members of the far left, we see a world of pessimism from which can be born the extremest of optimism. This is our "world view". Our view is far different from that of a capitalist, a stoic, a muslim, etc.

As to god, perhaps the motive of loneliness and the desire for power, which God seems to have had in the old testament, was the factor behind "creation". Of course this is hypothetical, and we're giving God the benefit of the doubt. I don't exactly want to stray to far into religion here...




Well I suppose if you were God in a desolate universe you would create something to watch over also.



But who is to say what is ignorance and what is enlightenment.

Doaism and Buddhism both teach withdraw and simplicity yet they strive for enlightenment.


So if we grow more complex are we really being enlightened?

If simplicity equals enlightenment perhapes that being which is not concious is truly enlightenment.

Buddha taught that Nirvana is the end of the cycle of redeath(people in his time saw reincarnation as redeath not relife)And that during teh cycle we must withdraw from desire because desire leads to pain.


THe more complex we become the more there is to desire the more pain we have.

Simplicity is perfection

[Lardlad95]

odd it said paris posted

[anti machine]

The Tao and Buddha are fine-but they approach enlightenment from an individual perspective. Stoicism likewise. These are products of a reality of mental conformity. They strive to abandon the collective mindset and focus on the present, of drowning out the consensus and separating from pain. Their simplicity of the mind yeilds enlightenment...for them. THey bestow the power upon the individual.

If simplicity equals enlightenment perhapes that being which is not concious is truly enlightenment.

Interesting thought...but wouldn't a being need to be concious of his enlightenment in order to know that he is enlightened? Does an ignorant person need to be concious of their ignorance to know they are ignorant? Yes. Unless, of course, if once true enlightenment is achieved, the mental processes function at a different level of conciousness that we cannot comprehend.

Desire does lead to pain. Agreed. But do we expect that pain will completely dissapear the simpler we become?

My big beef with Buddha is his glorification of happiness. It is not possible for everyone to become happy. If every individual was happy, without pain to compare their happinness to, happiness would cease to exist. IT wold become the norm, and the cycle to search for a different form of happiness would begin. This is why it is only possible for an individual to be "happy" in the face of a painful world where the majority of beings are in desire.

Simplicity is perfection? I suppose we must define perfection before we continue further.

:)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from anti machine on 5:45 pm on June 17, 2003
The Tao and Buddha are fine-but they approach enlightenment from an individual perspective. Stoicism likewise. These are products of a reality of mental conformity. They strive to abandon the collective mindset and focus on the present, of drowning out the consensus and separating from pain. Their simplicity of the mind yeilds enlightenment...for them. THey bestow the power upon the individual.

If simplicity equals enlightenment perhapes that being which is not concious is truly enlightenment.

Interesting thought...but wouldn't a being need to be concious of his enlightenment in order to know that he is enlightened? Does an ignorant person need to be concious of their ignorance to know they are ignorant? Yes. Unless, of course, if once true enlightenment is achieved, the mental processes function at a different level of conciousness that we cannot comprehend.

Desire does lead to pain. Agreed. But do we expect that pain will completely dissapear the simpler we become?

My big beef with Buddha is his glorification of happiness. It is not possible for everyone to become happy. If every individual was happy, without pain to compare their happinness to, happiness would cease to exist. IT wold become the norm, and the cycle to search for a different form of happiness would begin. This is why it is only possible for an individual to be "happy" in the face of a painful world where the majority of beings are in desire.

Simplicity is perfection? I suppose we must define perfection before we continue further.

:)



Perfection means without flaw. The more intellegent we become the more we are able to see that flaws exist.

If you are unaware you are in an ignorant bliss so you are oblivious to imperfection there fore imperfection might as well not exist.

Therefore simplicity is perfection


but that ignorant person would not know they were ignorant unless someone else who wasn't told them so.


So we could all very well be ignorant without knowing it because no one is there to tell us other wise.



Also I think Buddha meant happiness in the form of Joy, Joy is eternal, happiness is fleeting

[anti machine]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 5:39 pm on June 17, 2003
odd it said paris posted


yeah...i noticed that too...the phantom paris resides among us...

Therefore simplicity is perfection


but that ignorant person would not know they were ignorant unless someone else who wasn't told them so.

THis is exactly the point. Perfection likewise cannot exist unless there is a subject for comparison. Should everyone live simple, and, according to your estimation, perfect lives, a new norm would be established.

If everyone had the disease, it would cease to be a disease. When anything is practiced or existent on a collective level, it becomes no different than the existence which was previously the norm.

Perfection means without flaw. The more intellegent we become the more we are able to see that flaws exist.

Flaw...a morality-based flaw no doubt. So the intelligent man can know the flaws of imperfection, whilst he is himself of the utmost imperfect, and thusly understand the nature of such flaws. It is therefore the intellectual man who can save his brothers from imperfection.

But, as we seem to have agreed, flawlessness only occurs when man is simple...how simple? Stupidly simple? Ignorantly simple, to the max? Animalisticly simple?

So here we are caught between a rock and a hard place: return humanity to a natural, simple existence OR allow flaws to continue and save intellectuality, philosophy, and all fields of communication and learning.

Perhaps a happy medium can be established. Equilibrium in almost all aspects of life yields "happiness", regulation, and contentedness. Get too extreme, and you ultimately lose.
But this is a compromise. As I tend to believe, a compromise is a cop-out, and stunts any progress that would have existed with the latter of the two extremes above.

So...whatta we do?

So we could all very well be ignorant without knowing it because no one is there to tell us other wise.

Indeed. And we must always assume this if we want any sort of evolution at all. As Socrates said "the key to wisdom is to admit that I know nothing." I am ignorant. Only with this mindset can I pursue further knowledge.

This is, perhaps, next to impossible for us humans with our inflated heads.

[anti machine]

by the way, I'm really enjoying this discussion. Thank you for beginning this.

Perhaps we can use this thread if we appeal for a philosophy forum...

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from anti machine on 1:16 am on June 18, 2003

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 5:39 pm on June 17, 2003
odd it said paris posted


yeah...i noticed that too...the phantom paris resides among us...

Therefore simplicity is perfection


but that ignorant person would not know they were ignorant unless someone else who wasn't told them so.

THis is exactly the point. Perfection likewise cannot exist unless there is a subject for comparison. Should everyone live simple, and, according to your estimation, perfect lives, a new norm would be established.

If everyone had the disease, it would cease to be a disease. When anything is practiced or existent on a collective level, it becomes no different than the existence which was previously the norm.

Perfection means without flaw. The more intellegent we become the more we are able to see that flaws exist.

Flaw...a morality-based flaw no doubt. So the intelligent man can know the flaws of imperfection, whilst he is himself of the utmost imperfect, and thusly understand the nature of such flaws. It is therefore the intellectual man who can save his brothers from imperfection.

But, as we seem to have agreed, flawlessness only occurs when man is simple...how simple? Stupidly simple? Ignorantly simple, to the max? Animalisticly simple?

So here we are caught between a rock and a hard place: return humanity to a natural, simple existence OR allow flaws to continue and save intellectuality, philosophy, and all fields of communication and learning.

Perhaps a happy medium can be established. Equilibrium in almost all aspects of life yields "happiness", regulation, and contentedness. Get too extreme, and you ultimately lose.
But this is a compromise. As I tend to believe, a compromise is a cop-out, and stunts any progress that would have existed with the latter of the two extremes above.

So...whatta we do?

So we could all very well be ignorant without knowing it because no one is there to tell us other wise.

Indeed. And we must always assume this if we want any sort of evolution at all. As Socrates said "the key to wisdom is to admit that I know nothing." I am ignorant. Only with this mindset can I pursue further knowledge.

This is, perhaps, next to impossible for us humans with our inflated heads.





Sorry I haven't replied in a few days, now back to buisness



But if simplicity equals perfection then there would be no need to compare it to something else. THe idea of normalcy would be far from our minds because we live in perfection.

Lets say perfection is the garden of Eden. Man was ignorant of all else, but he was happy in perfection. Nothing troubled him, so this idea of normalcy was irrelevant


The ultimate perfect would be without knowledge of problems, I know I said ignorant but I don't mean ignorant ni a abd way, problems would not exist and we would have no knowledge of them.


Of course we can't totally see how perfection would play our because we live in a world of pain.

So invision a world where people don't get sick, people don't kill, etc.

You see? Even if we can imagine we can't feel it with our senses because we can't live in it.

At the back of our mind we still know what these pains are.

We would know nothing of such things.


But like the poem we can't see what is being described because we haven't experienced it



And socrates was right, socrates is one of my favorite philosophers and it's true

We can only be wise we we realize how little we know

[anti machine]

I agree with you to an extent. However:

But if simplicity equals perfection then there would be no need to compare it to something else.

Jesus was perfect, according to the Biblical representation. Why? Because he did not submit to temptations that all other men did. This model of perfection could not have been regarded as perfect, even today, if there was no majoritan example to compare it to.

We see simplicity as perfection because of the reality that we acknowledge exists today. A world you described as painful. Suppose pain, as we know it, did not exist? imagine a child that grows up in this utopian simplicity. This is his norm, HIS reality. Yet the child cannot acknowledge his world as perfect because there is nothing with which he can compare it to. Reality is all he can call it.


Lets say perfection is the garden of Eden. Man was ignorant of all else, but he was happy in perfection. Nothing troubled him, so this idea of normalcy was irrelevant

obviously not, for once the prospect of change was introduced to them, they partook of the fruit. The prospect of KNOWLEDGE. We may therefore conclude that knowledge is evil, that god wished to protect us from its fangs, but man desired it nonetheless. This parable seems to convey that, no matter how perfect man's life seems to be, he always desires to know more.

So invision a world where people don't get sick

do you wish to exclude the inevitability of death? Or perhaps you mean, contrary to RAM's idiotic thoughts on nature, that sickness and death should not be regarded as evil or painful. In the latter, I would agree. Humanity's instinctual desire to live forever leaves him no choice but to consider any force which impels death upon him as evil. The collective agreement should be the opinion held by a half-hearted few: sickness, death, natural "disaster", and the like, are not evil, but "the shit that happens." Nature is not the enemy here-we have only made it out to be so.

You seem to be calling for a removal of the problems which plague man by reverting (or elevating, depending upon one's perception) into a state of perfect simplicity. I call for that same thing, but through a different manner than you seem to propose. Humanity as a whole must begin viewing those things which he now regards as "evil" as simply existent, a part of life. And as for those evil truths that man has created such as poverty and politics, oppression and slavery on all levels-they should be removed, as they are within OUR power to be annhialated.

p.s. props on using "normalcy". Great word-a Harding-ism.

EDIT: wow, I accidentally attributed "normalcy" to Hoover instead of Harding. My mistake, all better.

(Edited by anti machine at 6:13 am on June 24, 2003)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from anti machine on 10:02 pm on June 20, 2003
I agree with you to an extent. However:

But if simplicity equals perfection then there would be no need to compare it to something else.

Jesus was perfect, according to the Biblical representation. Why? Because he did not submit to temptations that all other men did. This model of perfection could not have been regarded as perfect, even today, if there was no majoritan example to compare it to.

We see simplicity as perfection because of the reality that we acknowledge exists today. A world you described as painful. Suppose pain, as we know it, did not exist? imagine a child that grows up in this utopian simplicity. This is his norm, HIS reality. Yet the child cannot acknowledge his world as perfect because there is nothing with which he can compare it to. Reality is all he can call it.


Lets say perfection is the garden of Eden. Man was ignorant of all else, but he was happy in perfection. Nothing troubled him, so this idea of normalcy was irrelevant

obviously not, for once the prospect of change was introduced to them, they partook of the fruit. The prospect of KNOWLEDGE. We may therefore conclude that knowledge is evil, that god wished to protect us from its fangs, but man desired it nonetheless. This parable seems to convey that, no matter how perfect man's life seems to be, he always desires to know more.

So invision a world where people don't get sick

do you wish to exclude the inevitability of death? Or perhaps you mean, contrary to RAM's idiotic thoughts on nature, that sickness and death should not be regarded as evil or painful. In the latter, I would agree. Humanity's instinctual desire to live forever leaves him no choice but to consider any force which impels death upon him as evil. The collective agreement should be the opinion held by a half-hearted few: sickness, death, natural "disaster", and the like, are not evil, but "the shit that happens." Nature is not the enemy here-we have only made it out to be so.

You seem to be calling for a removal of the problems which plague man by reverting (or elevating, depending upon one's perception) into a state of perfect simplicity. I call for that same thing, but through a different manner than you seem to propose. Humanity as a whole must begin viewing those things which he now regards as "evil" as simply existent, a part of life. And as for those evil truths that man has created such as poverty and politics, oppression and slavery on all levels-they should be removed, as they are within OUR power to be annhialated.

p.s. props on using "normalcy". Great word-a Hooverism.



Fine then can we atleast agree that death and disease are problems? Niether good nor bad?


In perfection there are no problems, thus these things would be non existent.

And if they did they wouldn't be viewed as problems. Ignorance of that which could be deemed bad would equal a perfect bliss.


Now I don't understand why you continue to think that you need to be aware of perfection

please elaborate on this

[anti machine]

Fine then can we atleast agree that death and disease are problems? Niether good nor bad?


In perfection there are no problems, thus these things would be non existent.

death and disease are "facts of life". I think you corrected yourself with your next statement, that they wouldn't be viewed as problems in a perfect blissful frame of mind. I think you've hit it on the nose there-man can become perfect NOT when factors that plauge him are annhialated, but when he regards these factors as neutral necessities, niether of a good or bad nature. So man's liberation, as we have defined it so far as being perfection, depends upon perception. Perception is key, indeed, the very force, which drives mankind and the source that needs adjusting if there is ever to exist a collective, even global, perfect state.

I only say that perfection is not possible because we are defining perfection using terminology and reasoning derived from what we regard as today's imperfect state.
Supposing that what we call perfect now becomes a reality. In such a perfect state, the people can have no knowledge of the problems which plague man today.

Their perfection will be perfect only in the eyes of those who once knew imperfection.

Moreover, they will begin to call the state of things not as "perfect" but as "reality". It is the nature of man to search out a problem. Conflict is what drives us. Man will create his own conflict, somehow.

And if he does not, which is what you seem to propose, philosophy dies.

I advocate that there should be a removal of all OUTWARD sources of oppression and suffering, and even a mental maliation so that man begins to regard nature as simply existent. Death and disease will be known not as evil but inevitable factors that incorporate us with nature, where both of our wills collide.

But man should never become so perfect that internal conflict, without which philosophy cannot survive, becomes nonexistent. Man should never surrender reasoning and ideas for the sake of an ignorant "bliss".

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from anti machine on 5:16 pm on June 23, 2003
Fine then can we atleast agree that death and disease are problems? Niether good nor bad?


In perfection there are no problems, thus these things would be non existent.

death and disease are "facts of life". I think you corrected yourself with your next statement, that they wouldn't be viewed as problems in a perfect blissful frame of mind. I think you've hit it on the nose there-man can become perfect NOT when factors that plauge him are annhialated, but when he regards these factors as neutral necessities, niether of a good or bad nature. So man's liberation, as we have defined it so far as being perfection, depends upon perception. Perception is key, indeed, the very force, which drives mankind and the source that needs adjusting if there is ever to exist a collective, even global, perfect state.

I only say that perfection is not possible because we are defining perfection using terminology and reasoning derived from what we regard as today's imperfect state.
Supposing that what we call perfect now becomes a reality. In such a perfect state, the people can have no knowledge of the problems which plague man today.

Their perfection will be perfect only in the eyes of those who once knew imperfection.

Moreover, they will begin to call the state of things not as "perfect" but as "reality". It is the nature of man to search out a problem. Conflict is what drives us. Man will create his own conflict, somehow.

And if he does not, which is what you seem to propose, philosophy dies.

I advocate that there should be a removal of all OUTWARD sources of oppression and suffering, and even a mental maliation so that man begins to regard nature as simply existent. Death and disease will be known not as evil but inevitable factors that incorporate us with nature, where both of our wills collide.

But man should never become so perfect that internal conflict, without which philosophy cannot survive, becomes nonexistent. Man should never surrender reasoning and ideas for the sake of an ignorant "bliss".




In perfection what need would we have for perspective?

So when I say death and diesease would be nuetral occurences, they would be so because we don't view them from either side because sides don't exist.


Granted it sounds like facism, but one way would be perfection.

Provided all perception was eliminated and we lived harmonaly.

So perfection is a state of mind not a physical thing.


You need to look at it as a way of thinking as opposed to something tangible


sorry it's so short but I'm tired

[anti machine]

I didn't mention tangibility. I mentioned perception of tangible entities and forces.

It's not fascism. Look at it from a different perspective, one of an enlightened observer who wishes to save man from pain. THen waht you call "fascism" is justified, to liberate man from his own doings and returning him to a natural, perfect state. Brain-washing in reverse, if you will.

My beef with what we have defined as perfectionism is the lack of conflict. Abolish conflict and you kill art, music, philosophy, literature, etc.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: alleviate all external oppression, that of man imprisoning man. But thou shalt not touch man's internal conflict, from which springs the purest communication and the greatest questions of life.

I do believe we are seeing eye to eye in that we both hold truth to perception being the key to existence.