saugb
New Member
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
|
Post by saugb on Sept 2, 2020 21:28:49 GMT
Reality can be thought to work like a functioning machine, in the sense that all individual parts are important for the functioning of the whole. Like in a machine, one part going into dysfunction, the whole machine goes into dysfunction. This is why nullification [or complete dysfunction] of any part of reality, including the self thought of as a part, is not a productive ideal. Having said that, when one part is nullified in the proper way, the other parts have a chance to express themselves, as if the fundamental parts of reality were strings, and losing one string allowed the space for other strings to vibrate more freely, thereby enhancing the vitality of the machine. This properly done nullification is what sacrifice in some religions might stand for--to sacrifice one part of a machine is to let other parts the space to function with more 'expression' and thrive, ie, to vibrate with more freedom. I think this might be a plausible theory for sacrifice from a functionalist angle, in the sense that all real, religious sacrifices could be a metaphoric representation of this model. However, the actual way sacrifice is practiced, and the actual things that are sacrificed, are still up for ethical and moral consideration and evaluation, of course.
So sacrificing any one part allows other parts to 'vibrate,' or, if the vibration metaphor is kind of problematic, function better, or, at the least, 'breathe.' But this theory can also account for the self. If the sacrifice by a self is of something meaningless, then clearly it might not even be thought of as sacrifice. But when the sacrifice is of an object to which oneself is attached, or loves, or which has meaning to oneself, then, since it is close to one, the sacrifice allows oneself the chance to function better, in much the same way that, when in bed, pushing the blanket away from one's body allows one the chance to stretch one's limbs. Therefore, sacrificing the closest thing to oneself offers the opportunity to be a true subjective agent in reality.
Sacrifices further away might also be useful of course, but less than this sacrifice of an object of attachment.
|
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 2, 2020 21:51:08 GMT
Reality can be thought to work like a functioning machine, in the sense that all individual parts are important for the functioning of the whole. Like in a machine, one part going into dysfunction, the whole machine goes into dysfunction. This is why nullification [or complete dysfunction] of any part of reality, including the self thought of as a part, is not a productive ideal. Having said that, when one part is nullified in the proper way, the other parts have a chance to express themselves, as if the fundamental parts of reality were strings, and losing one string allowed the space for other strings to vibrate more freely, thereby enhancing the vitality of the machine. This properly done nullification is what sacrifice in some religions might stand for--to sacrifice one part of a machine is to let other parts the space to function with more 'expression' and thrive, ie, to vibrate with more freedom. I think this might be a plausible theory for sacrifice from a functionalist angle, in the sense that all real, religious sacrifices could be a metaphoric representation of this model. However, the actual way sacrifice is practiced, and the actual things that are sacrificed, are still up for ethical and moral consideration and evaluation, of course. So sacrificing any one part allows other parts to 'vibrate,' or, if the vibration metaphor is kind of problematic, function better, or, at the least, 'breathe.' But this theory can also account for the self. If the sacrifice by a self is of something meaningless, then clearly it might not even be thought of as sacrifice. But when the sacrifice is of an object to which oneself is attached, or loves, or which has meaning to oneself, then, since it is close to one, the sacrifice allows oneself the chance to function better, in much the same way that, when in bed, pushing the blanket away from one's body allows one the chance to stretch one's limbs. Therefore, sacrificing the closest thing to oneself offers the opportunity to be a true subjective agent in reality. Sacrifices further away might also be useful of course, but less than this sacrifice of an object of attachment. . |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 2, 2020 22:07:01 GMT
Wow. Nice post. Made me think of many things that this works in like music, religion, etc. So you argree that a sacrifice is needed?
|
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 2, 2020 22:12:55 GMT
Wow. Nice post. Made me think of many things that this works in like music, religion, etc. So you argree that a sacrifice is needed? , That Is Why This Person Gets A Short Response From Me, Out Of Respect Of Them Making Enough Sense On Their Own. It's Like Bubbles In The Ocean, They Are Pockets Of Sacrifice, Where The Whole Ocean Is Separated By Air Pockets, And Both The Air Pockets, As Well As The Whole Ocean Exist For Each Other. Also, Did You Ever Notice How Perfectly Geometrical Air Pockets Are? Perfect Circles, Showing Intelligent Design. |
|
|
|
Post by timefuljoe on Sept 2, 2020 22:26:00 GMT
What do we think about the potential personal loss of refusing to occupy an open space, thus preserving the current freeness but losing the opportunities present to that place? For example, not having another kid so that you can focus on the family you already have? Not a perfect analogy, but I hope it illustrates well enough.
|
|
saugb
New Member
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
|
Post by saugb on Sept 2, 2020 22:36:10 GMT
Wow. Nice post. Made me think of many things that this works in like music, religion, etc. So you argree that a sacrifice is needed? I think a sacrifice can be productive for increasing subjective agency. But it is never done right in reality, since all the tools used for a sacrifice [eg, a sacrificial fire] are not convincing enough since they leave 'leftovers' from the sacrifice and also because the sacrifice ritual using such tools itself takes energy and is inefficient if not done right. So, we only ever 'represent' sacrifice in reality; it is never accurate and perfect. But on the topic of the sacrificial tools we have, maybe the fires of desire are more perfect sacrificial tools? What would one sacrifice in the fires of desire....maybe one's ego...? Maybe that is the best way a subject becomes an actor? |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 2, 2020 23:19:29 GMT
What do we think about the potential personal loss of refusing to occupy an open space, thus preserving the current freeness but losing the opportunities present to that place? For example, not having another kid so that you can focus on the family you already have? Not a perfect analogy, but I hope it illustrates well enough. Well, are you using having another kid as taking up space in the world (overpopulation) or being a distraction from your current family? Or both? |
|
|
|
Post by timefuljoe on Sept 2, 2020 23:25:52 GMT
What do we think about the potential personal loss of refusing to occupy an open space, thus preserving the current freeness but losing the opportunities present to that place? For example, not having another kid so that you can focus on the family you already have? Not a perfect analogy, but I hope it illustrates well enough. Well, are you using having another kid as taking up space in the world (overpopulation) or being a distraction from your current family? Or both? I guess both. I don't want to pull too much attention away from the OP's point, though. I think I'm trying to ask if potential loss is the same as or equivalent to present sacrifice, probably a separate topic. |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 2, 2020 23:29:53 GMT
Wow. Nice post. Made me think of many things that this works in like music, religion, etc. So you argree that a sacrifice is needed? I think a sacrifice can be productive for increasing subjective agency. But it is never done right in reality, since all the tools used for a sacrifice [eg, a sacrificial fire] are not convincing enough since they leave 'leftovers' from the sacrifice and also because the sacrifice ritual using such tools itself takes energy and is inefficient if not done right. So, we only ever 'represent' sacrifice in reality; it is never accurate and perfect. But on the topic of the sacrificial tools we have, maybe the fires of desire are more perfect sacrificial tools? What would one sacrifice in the fires of desire....maybe one's ego...? Maybe that is the best way a subject becomes an actor? That's true that with a fire sacrifice there will be these "leftoevers" so malkng it seem not perfect since the leftovers exist. But the main definition of sacrifice is to let go of something basically. It doesn't necessarily specify how that's done as long is whatever medium used let's you let go. Ancient people did use fire a lot or just a form of death like animal sacrifice killing in religion for example. But what if sacrifices are done by other means like just throwing something out of your life like a CD that gets tossed in the trash and disappears from your life forever. You never see it again any left overs. Would that be a perfect sacrifice with no leftoevers? Or do left overs actually make the sacrifice more noticeable of the result of your sacrifice being destroyed based on your determination? If we use Jesus in Christianity. He did a bloody sacrifice on the cross and bible constantly talks about it being the perfect sacrifice. So what is perfect? |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 2, 2020 23:45:55 GMT
Well, are you using having another kid as taking up space in the world (overpopulation) or being a distraction from your current family? Or both? I guess both. I don't want to pull too much attention away from the OP's point, though. I think I'm trying to ask if potential loss is the same as or equivalent to present sacrifice, probably a separate topic. Personally, in terms of population they should have a child. The reason is because the world is designed to work by reproduction to continue existing. If everything stopped reproducing then things will die out and Earth will be an abandoned planet. Space shouldn't be too much of a concern since world removes people from life constantly. Millions are currently on their last year of life already. So, I don't think sacrificing having a child in this situation is good but maybe selfish. I say this because (I think it's North Korea) but they have more elderly than babies and they've got a problem now since the elderly will die out soon. China has a problem marrying their sons because they didn't want daughters. So with that then there's problems for everyone if people think about space/population. But the part about focusing on your family can depend on the family I think. Some can't really even afford to support more kids. So if there's a reason to not have a child then I think it's fine but those in North Korea should start having kids since too many chose not to in the past for no good reason so they need to make up for that. And China is trying to encourage more babies to be born. So overall best to have kids unless there's really a serious reason not to. Just my opinion of course since looking at the world there's a greater loss not to have kids than to have kids.  Edit: correction it's actually Japan not North Korea. I made a mistake above! |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 3, 2020 0:17:14 GMT
I think a sacrifice can be productive for increasing subjective agency. But it is never done right in reality, since all the tools used for a sacrifice [eg, a sacrificial fire] are not convincing enough since they leave 'leftovers' from the sacrifice and also because the sacrifice ritual using such tools itself takes energy and is inefficient if not done right. So, we only ever 'represent' sacrifice in reality; it is never accurate and perfect. But on the topic of the sacrificial tools we have, maybe the fires of desire are more perfect sacrificial tools? What would one sacrifice in the fires of desire....maybe one's ego...? Maybe that is the best way a subject becomes an actor? If we use Jesus in Christianity. He did a bloody sacrifice on the cross and bible constantly talks about it being the perfect sacrifice. So what is perfect?  172 x 34 = 5848,
5848th Prime # = 57727,
57727th Prime # = 715727.
I Was Born 715727 Days After The Crucifixion, From 4 / 3 / 33 A.D ~ 11 / 04 / 1992.
The Better Statement Is, Sacrifices Only Matter If You Are Doing What Is Right, Doing It For Others, Like Neo In The Matrix, That's A Sacrifice, The "Neo" Story Is Based On The Jesus Crucifixion, Which Is Why Neo Makes A "Crucifixion" Position While Destroying The Smith (Sin) Of The Matrix. |
|
saugb
New Member
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
|
Post by saugb on Sept 3, 2020 0:19:24 GMT
Well, are you using having another kid as taking up space in the world (overpopulation) or being a distraction from your current family? Or both? I guess both. I don't want to pull too much attention away from the OP's point, though. I think I'm trying to ask if potential loss is the same as or equivalent to present sacrifice, probably a separate topic. Although it is difficult to see 'potential loss' as a sacrifice, since one does not have the object to be sacrificed present in a palpable way, I think that eventually one sacrifices the thought and planning behind the 'potential kid,' and so, there is a sacrifice of a wide range of thoughts and feelings that were present even though a concrete kid was not present. I do think that something has to be present or 'actual' in some form, even if in a thought or a plan. Only that which is null from the beginning is a non-issue here. Another answer might be to say that in the world or 'machine' of your mental life, the sacrifice of a potential kid, as an object of thought in there, is quite palpable, for it causes other objects of thought to enter and thrive, ideally. I also would not think of any sacrifice as a big and momentous event, rather it is something we have to do time and again as a part of life and as beings in reality, and this constant repetition could make the sacrifice of something potential and something actual relatively interchangeable. There is of course more suffering caused by some sacrifices than others, but I think the greatest suffering is to be completely passive and just let the reality-machine take a normal course, or worse, be witness to the nullification of some part in that reality-machine and watch the whole of it go into dysfunction. In the case you raised, maybe the question is what is one sacrificing the potential kid for? The choice between a potential kid and a smoothly functioning reality-machine has one winner, for me, and that is the smooth functioning of the reality-machine. Sacrifice for a smaller result or fruit may have to be debated, but I think there can be no debates when a sacrifice has to be made in order to 'breathe more air,' or bring more vitality, to the reality-machine as a whole. The choice between a potential kid and the 'mental-life machine' might not be as straightforward, however. That makes me say that, in my post, I was pointing to the ideal structure and rationale of sacrifice, when something about the reality-machine itself is at stake, and in the real world there are likely lots of complications, such as people trying to sacrifice something in order to acquire something else that might not be all that beneficial [like a better 'mental-life machine']. Hope this somehow addresses your questions and thoughts! |
|
