|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 9, 2020 18:44:57 GMT
What if in our minds have got some unfixes, bugs, flaws, or they are not set for the proper work, and all that is misleading and misguiding us is the thing, a spot, that we can call "red herring".
When something is barrier our sight we can't see the picture wholly and fully, and we're trying to fix the image by taking that spot away. The same is for our else senses: if there's a bug in our ear, to put it out is the way to make us hear again.
Why not to think that the mind works as well as senses, plus to this, our brains (the most probable location for our mind) have been built on C-system, i.e. central nervous system? It seems to be obviously that minds have typical to senses work. Eating fat food or make ration to be uncompleted, or any other ration spoiling might make our brains work really bad. Are we not it what do we eat?
Moreover, "arriving" to this life we don't have the full "equipment", our bodies are needed in water, sleep, food, etc. Without the environment we're as good as dead. It's easy to say that we're all "the Earth addicts", without its goods there's no life.
So, all what we need to do is to get rid of that spots or to make them work well. And as soon as it's done (spots are taken out) everything will be fine, and the life will turn into the pure heaven.
Are there any spots like these? What are these spots? Maybe our food is fulfilled with herrings, and this leads our minds to the darkest sides of its abyss?
|
|
|
Post by karl on Sept 9, 2020 20:58:52 GMT
What if in our minds have got some unfixes, bugs, flaws, or they are not set for the proper work, and all that is misleading and misguiding us is the thing, a spot, that we can call "red herring". When something is barrier our sight we can't see the picture wholly and fully, and we're trying to fix the image by taking that spot away. The same is for our else senses: if there's a bug in our ear, to put it out is the way to make us hear again. Why not to think that the mind works as well as senses, plus to this, our brains (the most probable location for our mind) have been built on C-system, i.e. central nervous system? It seems to be obviously that minds have typical to senses work. Eating fat food or make ration to be uncompleted, or any other ration spoiling might make our brains work really bad. Are we not it what do we eat? Moreover, "arriving" to this life we don't have the full "equipment", our bodies are needed in water, sleep, food, etc. Without the environment we're as good as dead. It's easy to say that we're all "the Earth addicts", without its goods there's no life. So, all what we need to do is to get rid of that spots or to make them work well. And as soon as it's done (spots are taken out) everything will be fine, and the life will turn into the pure heaven. Are there any spots like these? What are these spots? Maybe our food is fulfilled with herrings, and this leads our minds to the darkest sides of its abyss?
The biggest flaw of all would be to set a narrow standard for perfection, and then weed out everything that doesn't fit in. It's like creating a perfect little room with nice decoration, and ignore the vastness of the world outside. In fact, that reminds me of the beginning of this video:
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 9, 2020 22:49:36 GMT
karlWhat do you think about the ancient oath (proverb or an anthem?) that "as above so below"? They say the words belong to Hermes Trismegistus. The sequence that leads to this unexpected question is: arranging environment or surrounding is merely an architect; architecture is kinda design; design is a series of compromises (I read it one architect magazine); the series of compromises bases on language games; the last ones ground on culture specials; and again, the last one are making yourself plus making the your friends, colleagues, neighbors, etc. - Summary, inner "I" and outer "I" which are "the below" and "the above".
|
|
|
Post by karl on Sept 10, 2020 1:03:50 GMT
karl What do you think about the ancient oath (proverb or an anthem?) that "as above so below"? They say the words belong to Hermes Trismegistus. The sequence that leads to this unexpected question is: arranging environment or surrounding is merely an architect; architecture is kinda design; design is a series of compromises (I read it one architect magazine); the series of compromises bases on language games; the last ones ground on culture specials; and again, the last one are making yourself plus making the your friends, colleagues, neighbors, etc. - Summary, inner "I" and outer "I" which are "the below" and "the above".
It depends on how one interprets this quote. For what I'd like to add is that even though, yes, what happens in the larger picture certainly affects your individual life, you still have free will to make your own choices, if ever so limited. You have a core that's you, and that core isn't merely a reflection of what's happening in the grand scheme of things.
You have inner self as well as a social persona. And one strategy to prevent oneself from internalising the toxicity of society, is to let there be a distinction between the two. You have to adapt to society to survive, but you do not have to let its toxicity become part of your identity.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 10, 2020 9:41:21 GMT
karl What do you think about the ancient oath (proverb or an anthem?) that "as above so below"? They say the words belong to Hermes Trismegistus. The sequence that leads to this unexpected question is: arranging environment or surrounding is merely an architect; architecture is kinda design; design is a series of compromises (I read it one architect magazine); the series of compromises bases on language games; the last ones ground on culture specials; and again, the last one are making yourself plus making the your friends, colleagues, neighbors, etc. - Summary, inner "I" and outer "I" which are "the below" and "the above". It depends on how one interprets this quote. For what I'd like to add is that even though, yes, what happens in the larger picture certainly affects your individual life, you still have free will to make your own choices, if ever so limited. You have a core that's you, and that core isn't merely a reflection of what's happening in the grand scheme of things.
You have inner self as well as a social persona. And one strategy to prevent oneself from internalising the toxicity of society, is to let there be a distinction between the two. You have to adapt to society to survive, but you do not have to let its toxicity become part of your identity.
Huh, if there were no all those toxic persons. (I don't know why they've been called so. I guess"plague" suits them as wellas "toxical".) (And by the way, trying to get rid of social "evil" snooping or any other social disasterities I'm always alert at using new phrases, or adjectives like that one.)
|
|
|
Post by karl on Sept 10, 2020 20:20:35 GMT
It depends on how one interprets this quote. For what I'd like to add is that even though, yes, what happens in the larger picture certainly affects your individual life, you still have free will to make your own choices, if ever so limited. You have a core that's you, and that core isn't merely a reflection of what's happening in the grand scheme of things.
You have inner self as well as a social persona. And one strategy to prevent oneself from internalising the toxicity of society, is to let there be a distinction between the two. You have to adapt to society to survive, but you do not have to let its toxicity become part of your identity.
Huh, if there were no all those toxic persons. (I don't know why they've been called so. I guess"plague" suits them as wellas "toxical".) (And by the way, trying to get rid of social "evil" snooping or any other social disasterities I'm always alert at using new phrases, or adjectives like that one.)
I didn't understand what you meant. Could you elaborate?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 10, 2020 21:10:26 GMT
Huh, if there were no all those toxic persons. (I don't know why they've been called so. I guess"plague" suits them as wellas "toxical".) (And by the way, trying to get rid of social "evil" snooping or any other social disasterities I'm always alert at using new phrases, or adjectives like that one.)
I didn't understand what you meant. Could you elaborate?
1. Well, I'm sick of the toxic persons. 2. I don't think that "toxic" is the most truly name for such persons. 3. What I'd like to elaborate and tell more about it is the theme that I touched at the end of my post. Yes, this theme I like, because its mine to the bones. I mean I have always been such a person - the one who doesn't love any new terms, or jargon lexicon. But why? What makes me feel disgusting about that? Why do I hate to start using new words, new lexicon? - I think that such stereotypes - to wear what is fashioned now, to use words that are over-shared now, to watch those videos which are trend ones - because it's a weird behaviour. Maybe I'm wrong, but girls do it much more often, than boys. Girls seem to be lean to new clothes, toys, cars, etc. I feel that to loose own personality when to do it is when one is using such words, speaking on such a jargon, wearing fashioned wear, etc. Surely, there's nothing wrong in the clothes or designers who construct such modern clothes, but when it becomes fashioned it becomes to be dangerous as well. I can't explain it in details, because my knowledge of it bases on intuituion. To try to illustrate my thought I can use an example like this: what if starting to use one new word, I then add more and more news words? - then all the new words will replace all the old ones. The same with clothes and daily style. The same with culture too. Swallowing up the culture does too slow to be noticed; I think I notice such tiny things. I started noticing such changes when I was much more yonger, and I think I am able to notice them now. The tiny and non-obvious rearrengements are what is going on, and with what I try to struggle. Yes, it's hardly to say which changes are positive, and which are not. I'm not a calculus master, but intuitively I feel the difference. And the words - is an example of how these changes may come into our lives making us to transform. So, all I try to do is to resist by not using such words, or use it differently. Here's another example of Jacque Derrida (it's not exactly his, but anyway, it's in his style): science change our lives not because of discoveries, but because it changes our optics by using common, daily things at some other angle, and by doing it seriously it makes us believe that such daily common things are not what they are. This example can be said in other way: trying to study religion from mere science angles we would ruing it even more, than military atheists could do. And the same is about culture, medicine and so on. For instance, lgbt educations have come to schools as a naїve element, but the Trojan Horse did the same. I guess such things could erase us from the inside like DNA is being replaced by RNA.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Sept 11, 2020 1:41:55 GMT
I didn't understand what you meant. Could you elaborate?
1. Well, I'm sick of the toxic persons. 2. I don't think that "toxic" is the most truly name for such persons. 3. What I'd like to elaborate and tell more about it is the theme that I touched at the end of my post. Yes, this theme I like, because its mine to the bones. I mean I have always been such a person - the one who doesn't love any new terms, or jargon lexicon. But why? What makes me feel disgusting about that? Why do I hate to start using new words, new lexicon? - I think that such stereotypes - to wear what is fashioned now, to use words that are over-shared now, to watch those videos which are trend ones - because it's a weird behaviour. Maybe I'm wrong, but girls do it much more often, than boys. Girls seem to be lean to new clothes, toys, cars, etc. I feel that to loose own personality when to do it is when one is using such words, speaking on such a jargon, wearing fashioned wear, etc. Surely, there's nothing wrong in the clothes or designers who construct such modern clothes, but when it becomes fashioned it becomes to be dangerous as well. I can't explain it in details, because my knowledge of it bases on intuituion. To try to illustrate my thought I can use an example like this: what if starting to use one new word, I then add more and more news words? - then all the new words will replace all the old ones. The same with clothes and daily style. The same with culture too. Swallowing up the culture does too slow to be noticed; I think I notice such tiny things. I started noticing such changes when I was much more yonger, and I think I am able to notice them now. The tiny and non-obvious rearrengements are what is going on, and with what I try to struggle. Yes, it's hardly to say which changes are positive, and which are not. I'm not a calculus master, but intuitively I feel the difference. And the words - is an example of how these changes may come into our lives making us to transform. So, all I try to do is to resist by not using such words, or use it differently. Here's another example of Jacque Derrida (it's not exactly his, but anyway, it's in his style): science change our lives not because of discoveries, but because it changes our optics by using common, daily things at some other angle, and by doing it seriously it makes us believe that such daily common things are not what they are. This example can be said in other way: trying to study religion from mere science angles we would ruing it even more, than military atheists could do. And the same is about culture, medicine and so on. For instance, lgbt educations have come to schools as a naїve element, but the Trojan Horse did the same. I guess such things could erase us from the inside like DNA is being replaced by RNA.
Going from one trend to another, whether it's cultural or linguistical, breaks continuity of development. In order to acquire insight, one needs to methodically, over time, build an internal framework for interpreting reality. Once a concept is clarified, it becomes a tool for both reasoning and for expressing one thoughts. But trends are for those who have no interest in developing an inner framework. They just adapt to and internalise whatever is the external framework; The inter-subjectivity of society. And this framework isn't in a continuous development, but rather shifts from one mindset to another. And those who fight it out politically, are those who want to decide what the next trend will be.
Science has not only changed how people view objects, but how people view themselves. Humans are to regard themselves as biological computers with flawed software. Existential questions are treated as if they don't exist. The individual's purpose in life is to adapt to society. There is no basis for a faith in anything.
So all we got are trends, which gives the superficial human a temporary sense of purpose, until it's replaced by another trend and another purpose. For the person who needs depth and an inner sense of continuity, internalising this would feel as a fragmentation the soul.
|
|
iaminyou
Junior Member
The eternal is yet to come after the temporary has passed.
Posts: 58
Likes: 17
|
Post by iaminyou on Sept 11, 2020 12:02:53 GMT
What if in our minds have got some unfixes, bugs, flaws, or they are not set for the proper work, and all that is misleading and misguiding us is the thing, a spot, that we can call "red herring". When something is barrier our sight we can't see the picture wholly and fully, and we're trying to fix the image by taking that spot away. The same is for our else senses: if there's a bug in our ear, to put it out is the way to make us hear again. Why not to think that the mind works as well as senses, plus to this, our brains (the most probable location for our mind) have been built on C-system, i.e. central nervous system? It seems to be obviously that minds have typical to senses work. Eating fat food or make ration to be uncompleted, or any other ration spoiling might make our brains work really bad. Are we not it what do we eat? Moreover, "arriving" to this life we don't have the full "equipment", our bodies are needed in water, sleep, food, etc. Without the environment we're as good as dead. It's easy to say that we're all "the Earth addicts", without its goods there's no life. So, all what we need to do is to get rid of that spots or to make them work well. And as soon as it's done (spots are taken out) everything will be fine, and the life will turn into the pure heaven. Are there any spots like these? What are these spots? Maybe our food is fulfilled with herrings, and this leads our minds to the darkest sides of its abyss? Don't worry. All created minds will be cleared of the strong delusion on the day of the Lord.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 12, 2020 9:20:55 GMT
1. Well, I'm sick of the toxic persons. 2. I don't think that "toxic" is the most truly name for such persons. 3. What I'd like to elaborate and tell more about it is the theme that I touched at the end of my post. Yes, this theme I like, because its mine to the bones. I mean I have always been such a person - the one who doesn't love any new terms, or jargon lexicon. But why? What makes me feel disgusting about that? Why do I hate to start using new words, new lexicon? - I think that such stereotypes - to wear what is fashioned now, to use words that are over-shared now, to watch those videos which are trend ones - because it's a weird behaviour. Maybe I'm wrong, but girls do it much more often, than boys. Girls seem to be lean to new clothes, toys, cars, etc. I feel that to loose own personality when to do it is when one is using such words, speaking on such a jargon, wearing fashioned wear, etc. Surely, there's nothing wrong in the clothes or designers who construct such modern clothes, but when it becomes fashioned it becomes to be dangerous as well. I can't explain it in details, because my knowledge of it bases on intuituion. To try to illustrate my thought I can use an example like this: what if starting to use one new word, I then add more and more news words? - then all the new words will replace all the old ones. The same with clothes and daily style. The same with culture too. Swallowing up the culture does too slow to be noticed; I think I notice such tiny things. I started noticing such changes when I was much more yonger, and I think I am able to notice them now. The tiny and non-obvious rearrengements are what is going on, and with what I try to struggle. Yes, it's hardly to say which changes are positive, and which are not. I'm not a calculus master, but intuitively I feel the difference. And the words - is an example of how these changes may come into our lives making us to transform. So, all I try to do is to resist by not using such words, or use it differently. Here's another example of Jacque Derrida (it's not exactly his, but anyway, it's in his style): science change our lives not because of discoveries, but because it changes our optics by using common, daily things at some other angle, and by doing it seriously it makes us believe that such daily common things are not what they are. This example can be said in other way: trying to study religion from mere science angles we would ruing it even more, than military atheists could do. And the same is about culture, medicine and so on. For instance, lgbt educations have come to schools as a naїve element, but the Trojan Horse did the same. I guess such things could erase us from the inside like DNA is being replaced by RNA.
Going from one trend to another, whether it's cultural or linguistical, breaks continuity of development. In order to acquire insight, one needs to methodically, over time, build an internal framework for interpreting reality. Once a concept is clarified, it becomes a tool for both reasoning and for expressing one thoughts. But trends are for those who have no interest in developing an inner framework. They just adapt to and internalise whatever is the external framework; The inter-subjectivity of society. And this framework isn't in a continuous development, but rather shifts from one mindset to another. And those who fight it out politically, are those who want to decide what the next trend will be.
Science has not only changed how people view objects, but how people view themselves. Humans are to regard themselves as biological computers with flawed software. Existential questions are treated as if they don't exist. The individual's purpose in life is to adapt to society. There is no basis for a faith in anything.
So all we got are trends, which gives the superficial human a temporary sense of purpose, until it's replaced by another trend and another purpose. For the person who needs depth and an inner sense of continuity, internalising this would feel as a fragmentation the soul.
I must say that for last three or more months you've been saying many thoughts like one of the great philosophers. I am deadly serious. Maybe it looks not so obvious at the first sight to notice it, but stylishly, and a deep of thoughts, and impressions of them are what make anyone to confirm it. So, every next time it becomes a little harder to understand you (not in a worse sense of this word, but as one requires to be pretty skilled to get to these thoughts; I mean one needs to think deeper if one wants to understand). And your thoughts are actually, yeah, are what I cannot to disagree with. Something like that is what's really going on 'round here with almost everyone. Even to rub the wrong way the reality - or what we think the reality is (=our ontology; or the statistical sum of our visions of ontology) also might be important, and the tone (intonation) of our speeches, the colours of we use, the order of our messages, and on, and on are what do matters. We might not notice it all the time, but it matters. It's like a girlfriend who asks her boyfriend to be gentle or tender with her. Whisper(-ing) words, grades, shapes - are not less necessary than the rest stable, monolith, grounded things. Maybe the reality looks like this:
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 12, 2020 9:38:00 GMT
What if in our minds have got some unfixes, bugs, flaws, or they are not set for the proper work, and all that is misleading and misguiding us is the thing, a spot, that we can call "red herring". When something is barrier our sight we can't see the picture wholly and fully, and we're trying to fix the image by taking that spot away. The same is for our else senses: if there's a bug in our ear, to put it out is the way to make us hear again. Why not to think that the mind works as well as senses, plus to this, our brains (the most probable location for our mind) have been built on C-system, i.e. central nervous system? It seems to be obviously that minds have typical to senses work. Eating fat food or make ration to be uncompleted, or any other ration spoiling might make our brains work really bad. Are we not it what do we eat? Moreover, "arriving" to this life we don't have the full "equipment", our bodies are needed in water, sleep, food, etc. Without the environment we're as good as dead. It's easy to say that we're all "the Earth addicts", without its goods there's no life. So, all what we need to do is to get rid of that spots or to make them work well. And as soon as it's done (spots are taken out) everything will be fine, and the life will turn into the pure heaven. Are there any spots like these? What are these spots? Maybe our food is fulfilled with herrings, and this leads our minds to the darkest sides of its abyss? Don't worry. All created minds will be cleared of the strong delusion on the day of the Lord. Take your time, your time your time Everybody know you will never be like this Don't be worried worried worried Everybody know you will never be like thisIt's my tribute to a master of his art I think he was the one there's no many of his kind Danger pictures, darkside pictures Bad behaviors and a vision of the future.
|
|
iaminyou
Junior Member
The eternal is yet to come after the temporary has passed.
Posts: 58
Likes: 17
|
Post by iaminyou on Sept 12, 2020 15:27:13 GMT
I will pass on the video. I have plenty to do elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 12, 2020 15:53:07 GMT
I will pass on the video. I have plenty to do elsewhere. NB: If you want to notify that you've posted a comment, you can either "quote" it pushing the relevant button, or to add the forum-name of the one: the fifth icon in the bar with @ sign. It's a song, but nevermind.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Sept 12, 2020 19:22:57 GMT
Going from one trend to another, whether it's cultural or linguistical, breaks continuity of development. In order to acquire insight, one needs to methodically, over time, build an internal framework for interpreting reality. Once a concept is clarified, it becomes a tool for both reasoning and for expressing one thoughts. But trends are for those who have no interest in developing an inner framework. They just adapt to and internalise whatever is the external framework; The inter-subjectivity of society. And this framework isn't in a continuous development, but rather shifts from one mindset to another. And those who fight it out politically, are those who want to decide what the next trend will be.
Science has not only changed how people view objects, but how people view themselves. Humans are to regard themselves as biological computers with flawed software. Existential questions are treated as if they don't exist. The individual's purpose in life is to adapt to society. There is no basis for a faith in anything.
So all we got are trends, which gives the superficial human a temporary sense of purpose, until it's replaced by another trend and another purpose. For the person who needs depth and an inner sense of continuity, internalising this would feel as a fragmentation the soul.
I must say that for last three or more months you've been saying many thoughts like one of the great philosophers. I am deadly serious. Maybe it looks not so obvious at the first sight to notice it, but stylishly, and a deep of thoughts, and impressions of them are what make anyone to confirm it. So, every next time it becomes a little harder to understand you (not in a worse sense of this word, but as one requires to be pretty skilled to get to these thoughts; I mean one needs to think deeper if one wants to understand). And your thoughts are actually, yeah, are what I cannot to disagree with. Something like that is what's really going on 'round here with almost everyone. Even to rub the wrong way the reality - or what we think the reality is (=our ontology; or the statistical sum of our visions of ontology) also might be important, and the tone (intonation) of our speeches, the colours of we use, the order of our messages, and on, and on are what do matters. We might not notice it all the time, but it matters. It's like a girlfriend who asks her boyfriend to be gentle or tender with her. Whisper(-ing) words, grades, shapes - are not less necessary than the rest stable, monolith, grounded things. Maybe the reality looks like this:
Thank you. The biggest threat to the human soul is conformity. But in Western societies over the past 50 years, conformity has not openly pushed on the individual. If it had been, it would have been easy to organise a rebellion against it. Instead, society has pretended as if it embraces non-conformity, diversity, and equality. But by defining in a simplistic way what diversity means, by narrowing it down to specific categories, like religion, body type, or whatever, the most important diversity, the diversity of thought, has been ignored.
I remember as a kid we were made to sing a song to praise the equality of races. Now that's by itself a good cause, but the lyrics stated: "On the outside we're different, but on the inside we're the same." And I realised that this is actually highly intolerant. If equality depends on that we're all the same on the inside, then there is no equality for those who genuinely do not think and feel according to the normality standard.
One positive thing about the time we're living in now, is that there is more diversity of thought than there ever has been for as long as I've lived. But this is highly unintentional, and largely due to how the Internet has become a medium for destroying consensus. There is no clear societal framework of thought anymore, so each individual is left in a void, having to build one for him/herself. -Which is a monumental task. People are thrown off the deep end, and I'd say it's the best thing that has happened for as long as I've lived.
I've seen the video before, and it does present well how the power structure of society treats the individual as having two purposes; Production and reproduction.
|
|
iaminyou
Junior Member
The eternal is yet to come after the temporary has passed.
Posts: 58
Likes: 17
|
Post by iaminyou on Sept 12, 2020 19:54:44 GMT
I will pass on the video. I have plenty to do elsewhere. NB: If you want to notify that you've posted a comment, you can either "quote" it pushing the relevant button, or to add the forum-name of the one: the fifth icon in the bar with @ sign. It's a song, but nevermind. Ok, thank you Eugene. I will listen to the song now because I have some time.
|
|