|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 28, 2023 18:08:32 GMT
It is – how to make people live in peace and harmony; to support each other, not to set against each other.
All the history of mankind this problem is still a problem without a tiniest step closer.
If atoms were studied, the galaxies, and the universe have been explored very well. Not that riddle – it is as unsolved as thousands years ago.
No solutions are available?
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 5, 2023 20:25:48 GMT
Imperfect peace/harmony is simultaneously both peace/harmony and not peace/harmony. It is a contradiction. Dually perfect peace/harmony contrasts against imperfect/peace harmony thus is also dependent upon contradiction. So what? This time you're chasing the wild geese. If all unicorns have one horn, and a horn is solid, therefore unicorns have solid horns - that's an absurd. You cannot entail from this something indeed healthy. I was talking about that each of us exist, and that was a gift. Peace and harmony may have gradations. Sun beams can shine you more or less intensive, doesn't it? Considering peace and harmony is subjective in meaning any logical argument about peace and harmony can have a multitude of meanings which contradict even thought the same logic is used. For example the statement; the fulfillment of desire leads to peace and harmony. For one man this fulfillment is to have friends. For another man this fulfillment is to not have his friends. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 6, 2023 18:28:20 GMT
So what? This time you're chasing the wild geese. If all unicorns have one horn, and a horn is solid, therefore unicorns have solid horns - that's an absurd. You cannot entail from this something indeed healthy. I was talking about that each of us exist, and that was a gift. Peace and harmony may have gradations. Sun beams can shine you more or less intensive, doesn't it? Considering peace and harmony is subjective in meaning any logical argument about peace and harmony can have a multitude of meanings which contradict even thought the same logic is used. For example the statement; the fulfillment of desire leads to peace and harmony. For one man this fulfillment is to have friends. For another man this fulfillment is to not have his friends. What do you think the next about happiness: is it possible if for a person to be happy is to reach something, let's say, a certain S, but if a person doesn't reach that point he's still able to feel happiness or to review his previous expectations? I think that this is possible, because sometimes we're not clear about having a certain experience of happiness. We think that as soon as we've got something we're happy, but it might be wrong, since being happy is to be in another condition /to have something new; new feature, new ability, etc/. By the way, yes, this really must be it - that peace & harmony are subjective. And if this is true, then it only magnifies my topic conclusion that this condition is hardly to be reached. |
|
|
|
Post by joustos on May 6, 2023 19:22:21 GMT
nothing more valuable than existence? imagine existing in hell forever/ a baby's smile in a one-day existence is preferable to me....
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 6, 2023 20:37:52 GMT
nothing more valuable than existence? imagine existing in hell forever/ a baby's smile in a one-day existence is preferable to me.... Imagine existence and complete non-existence. I know that trick you've said, and heard it before, but it doesn't work very well, because not having existence means having zero experience in anything, so there's even nothing to compare. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 6, 2023 20:42:13 GMT
nothing more valuable than existence? imagine existing in hell forever/ a baby's smile in a one-day existence is preferable to me.... Actually, what you've said about the baby's smile was exactly to what I refer. One thing made me thought again that existence. I walked in the morning along the wall that was near the Zoo. The wall was almost blanked, but there was written something. It was sorta "You think you live?" (I don't remember exactly the text). So I thought that even being a worm or even living for a day would be nice anyway. I guess you got me wrong, thinking that I was talking about some kind of an external existence. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 17, 2023 17:25:20 GMT
Considering peace and harmony is subjective in meaning any logical argument about peace and harmony can have a multitude of meanings which contradict even thought the same logic is used. For example the statement; the fulfillment of desire leads to peace and harmony. For one man this fulfillment is to have friends. For another man this fulfillment is to not have his friends. What do you think the next about happiness: is it possible if for a person to be happy is to reach something, let's say, a certain S, but if a person doesn't reach that point he's still able to feel happiness or to review his previous expectations? I think that this is possible, because sometimes we're not clear about having a certain experience of happiness. We think that as soon as we've got something we're happy, but it might be wrong, since being happy is to be in another condition /to have something new; new feature, new ability, etc/. By the way, yes, this really must be it - that peace & harmony are subjective. And if this is true, then it only magnifies my topic conclusion that this condition is hardly to be reached. Happiness is relative. I will have to elaborate on this point because it is vague...relativity is vague. So let us say a person will be happy if they reach S, however they do not. The person may reinterpret what it means to reach S and in some respects still meet the goal of the new interpretation even though they did not in the old interpretation. For example if I say to myself "I will be happy if I win X". I don't win X. Then I say to myself "I still tried an gave it my all, so even though I did not reach X it was meant for me not to reach X thus I am still happy as X may not have been meant for me." Happiness is relative as it is subject to interpretation. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 17, 2023 19:25:33 GMT
What do you think the next about happiness: is it possible if for a person to be happy is to reach something, let's say, a certain S, but if a person doesn't reach that point he's still able to feel happiness or to review his previous expectations? I think that this is possible, because sometimes we're not clear about having a certain experience of happiness. We think that as soon as we've got something we're happy, but it might be wrong, since being happy is to be in another condition /to have something new; new feature, new ability, etc/. By the way, yes, this really must be it - that peace & harmony are subjective. And if this is true, then it only magnifies my topic conclusion that this condition is hardly to be reached. Happiness is relative. I will have to elaborate on this point because it is vague...relativity is vague. So let us say a person will be happy if they reach S, however they do not. The person may reinterpret what it means to reach S and in some respects still meet the goal of the new interpretation even though they did not in the old interpretation. For example if I say to myself "I will be happy if I win X". I don't win X. Then I say to myself "I still tried an gave it my all, so even though I did not reach X it was meant for me not to reach X thus I am still happy as X may not have been meant for me." Happiness is relative as it is subject to interpretation. To wish to be happy and to be happy isn't the same. When I am dreaming of happiness I am already happy by dreaming about it. Approaching it ruins the previous condition to a new one. That another mode makes me be not the previous one. I guess I can explain it. Our words are nothing. I can call a dog a wolf or a snorkel – nothing changes. Or the party may have a name eht ytrap', or no names are needed. Actually using words is just another fictional reality we create. The process of communication is fictional. It's been made by the Egyptian or Babylon priests to make us think that we think. People don't need any languages. Fishes or dinasaurs were fine without any need in words. The same about symbols, etc. Here's an example: A talks to B: A: fhebdjfbd B: ekdbrjfkf A: mememe B: u u op jdd We may think there's no sense, but we can't prove there's no any of such. Our signal system is broken, and we only guess what a person reports to us. It looks like this: A: tells B meaning C B: hears B' meaning this is D There's no way to be certain about B=B, because any communication has gaps – they don't share the same brains. So, to be happy we have to forget any language. This is the first and the last requirement. And this requirement works perfectly, because it can even the test from Plato's Euthyphro. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 17, 2023 21:49:20 GMT
Happiness is relative. I will have to elaborate on this point because it is vague...relativity is vague. So let us say a person will be happy if they reach S, however they do not. The person may reinterpret what it means to reach S and in some respects still meet the goal of the new interpretation even though they did not in the old interpretation. For example if I say to myself "I will be happy if I win X". I don't win X. Then I say to myself "I still tried an gave it my all, so even though I did not reach X it was meant for me not to reach X thus I am still happy as X may not have been meant for me." Happiness is relative as it is subject to interpretation. To wish to be happy and to be happy isn't the same. When I am dreaming of happiness I am already happy by dreaming about it. Approaching it ruins the previous condition to a new one. That another mode makes me be not the previous one. I guess I can explain it. Our words are nothing. I can call a dog a wolf or a snorkel – nothing changes. Or the party may have a name eht ytrap', or no names are needed. Actually using words is just another fictional reality we create. The process of communication is fictional. It's been made by the Egyptian or Babylon priests to make us think that we think. People don't need any languages. Fishes or dinasaurs were fine without any need in words. The same about symbols, etc. Here's an example: A talks to B: A: fhebdjfbd B: ekdbrjfkf A: mememe B: u u op jdd We may think there's no sense, but we can't prove there's no any of such. Our signal system is broken, and we only guess what a person reports to us. It looks like this: A: tells B meaning C B: hears B' meaning this is D There's no way to be certain about B=B, because any communication has gaps – they don't share the same brains. So, to be happy we have to forget any language. This is the first and the last requirement. And this requirement works perfectly, because it can even the test from Plato's Euthyphro. If language is fictional then your whole argument, which is language, is fictional. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 18, 2023 9:12:39 GMT
To wish to be happy and to be happy isn't the same. When I am dreaming of happiness I am already happy by dreaming about it. Approaching it ruins the previous condition to a new one. That another mode makes me be not the previous one. I guess I can explain it. Our words are nothing. I can call a dog a wolf or a snorkel – nothing changes. Or the party may have a name eht ytrap', or no names are needed. Actually using words is just another fictional reality we create. The process of communication is fictional. It's been made by the Egyptian or Babylon priests to make us think that we think. People don't need any languages. Fishes or dinasaurs were fine without any need in words. The same about symbols, etc. Here's an example: A talks to B: A: fhebdjfbd B: ekdbrjfkf A: mememe B: u u op jdd We may think there's no sense, but we can't prove there's no any of such. Our signal system is broken, and we only guess what a person reports to us. It looks like this: A: tells B meaning C B: hears B' meaning this is D There's no way to be certain about B=B, because any communication has gaps – they don't share the same brains. So, to be happy we have to forget any language. This is the first and the last requirement. And this requirement works perfectly, because it can even the test from Plato's Euthyphro. If language is fictional then your whole argument, which is language, is fictional. And this your addition is fictional too. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2023 19:17:13 GMT
If language is fictional then your whole argument, which is language, is fictional. And this your addition is fictional too. If language is fictional, according to you (I don't share the same opinion), then 'it is a fiction' that 'my addition is a fiction' as you are using language to say my addition is a fiction. Your statements self-negate...which is fine if that is what you are going towards but if not is an issue in your logic and I am assuming you are not pointing to issues in logic but take it as self-evidently fine. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jun 6, 2023 2:20:03 GMT
That doesn't sound like a riddle at all that sounds more like a rhetorical statement
|
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jun 6, 2023 2:25:04 GMT
Happiness is relative. I will have to elaborate on this point because it is vague...relativity is vague. So let us say a person will be happy if they reach S, however they do not. The person may reinterpret what it means to reach S and in some respects still meet the goal of the new interpretation even though they did not in the old interpretation. For example if I say to myself "I will be happy if I win X". I don't win X. Then I say to myself "I still tried an gave it my all, so even though I did not reach X it was meant for me not to reach X thus I am still happy as X may not have been meant for me." Happiness is relative as it is subject to interpretation. To wish to be happy and to be happy isn't the same. When I am dreaming of happiness I am already happy by dreaming about it. Approaching it ruins the previous condition to a new one. That another mode makes me be not the previous one. I guess I can explain it. Our words are nothing. I can call a dog a wolf or a snorkel – nothing changes. Or the party may have a name eht ytrap', or no names are needed. Actually using words is just another fictional reality we create. The process of communication is fictional. It's been made by the Egyptian or Babylon priests to make us think that we think. People don't need any languages. Fishes or dinasaurs were fine without any need in words. The same about symbols, etc. Here's an example: A talks to B: A: fhebdjfbd B: ekdbrjfkf A: mememe B: u u op jdd We may think there's no sense, but we can't prove there's no any of such. Our signal system is broken, and we only guess what a person reports to us. It looks like this: A: tells B meaning C B: hears B' meaning this is D There's no way to be certain about B=B, because any communication has gaps – they don't share the same brains. So, to be happy we have to forget any language. This is the first and the last requirement. And this requirement works perfectly, because it can even the test from Plato's Euthyphro. I could not agree more about to be happy we must get rid of language because language is the web that keeps this Matrix alive it's the reason that we're not really living but instead are playing this game called Society which is glued together with words |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 23, 2023 19:08:13 GMT
To wish to be happy and to be happy isn't the same. When I am dreaming of happiness I am already happy by dreaming about it. Approaching it ruins the previous condition to a new one. That another mode makes me be not the previous one. I guess I can explain it. Our words are nothing. I can call a dog a wolf or a snorkel – nothing changes. Or the party may have a name eht ytrap', or no names are needed. Actually using words is just another fictional reality we create. The process of communication is fictional. It's been made by the Egyptian or Babylon priests to make us think that we think. People don't need any languages. Fishes or dinasaurs were fine without any need in words. The same about symbols, etc. Here's an example: A talks to B: A: fhebdjfbd B: ekdbrjfkf A: mememe B: u u op jdd We may think there's no sense, but we can't prove there's no any of such. Our signal system is broken, and we only guess what a person reports to us. It looks like this: A: tells B meaning C B: hears B' meaning this is D There's no way to be certain about B=B, because any communication has gaps – they don't share the same brains. So, to be happy we have to forget any language. This is the first and the last requirement. And this requirement works perfectly, because it can even the test from Plato's Euthyphro. I could not agree more about to be happy we must get rid of language because language is the web that keeps this Matrix alive it's the reason that we're not really living but instead are playing this game called Society which is glued together with words And that is language. |
|
lamburk
Full Member
Posts: 227
Likes: 80
|
Post by lamburk on Jun 26, 2023 6:23:30 GMT
It is – how to make people live in peace and harmony; to support each other, not to set against each other. All the history of mankind this problem is still a problem without a tiniest step closer. If atoms were studied, the galaxies, and the universe have been explored very well. Not that riddle – it is as unsolved as thousands years ago. No solutions are available? Peace is what lies within us. But, sometimes, to bring peace, you need to turn aggressive. That's the only way. However, peace is always what is within us. |
|
