Karl

This is also true, but that does not in anyway argue for or against the ethics of killing. We are creatures able to think tehically about out choices and some would say that gives us responisbilities that are far greater that that of the wild animals. None the less, because someone else does something we consider wrong does not in any way justify us to do the same thing, and this applies to the behaviour of animals aswell.

 

De is the Dao.

You need to study economics.

Many countries and geographies are unsuitable for large scale agriculture. Mountainous areas with poor weather struggle to grow much more than grass/scrub. Humans can't eat grass and scrub but animals can. They are also a source of wool/leather/glue and provide milk, eggs, iron rich meat. Where it is easy to grow crops then that's what will generally be grown. It's important to understand how the world actually works rather than an idealist view of it. Animals are reared at a cost. If it's less expensive and more economically viable then crops will be grown instead. Do we write of all land that is unsuitable for crops and the people who live there ? In the places where there is poor crop growth other resources and different production occurs.

Some people chose to value violence and opression.

 

Surely we need to educate people aswell. Which is in fact a way of saying that we need a new value system, because today violence and opression is part of our value system.

'we need to educate people'

'We need a new value system'

Implicit in those statements is the use of force. I've discovered that these sort of edicts generally indicate the proposes need for the state to make this happen. They believe people must be forced to see the error of their ways and be forced to adopt a value system that the state decrees is the right one. People must be educated by the state to ensure they accept this ideology without question.

Oops. That's exactly what we have today. If this is what you mean, then you are parroting the same old hierarchical systems -democratic, collectivist, totalitarian, tyrannical, communist, fascist, Royal-that have existed for over 5000 years. If you always do what you always did, then you will always get what you always had.

Even Nazism began with the ideology of nature conservation, no animal cruelty, vegetarianism, shared wealth, ending the supposed greed of capitalism, mutual respect, sexual equality, preventing religious extremism, bodily purity and health.

"Why do you rob banks"?

"Because that's where all the money is"

Or as Jeff Goldlum correctly observed in the film Jurrasic Park "nature will find a way"

The new value system (as a society) would be like, people value physical health, family, friends, environment, ethics more than possessions/ materialism. That being intelligent, thoughtful/ ethical etc is cooler than driving a Lamborghini etc That being physically healthy is cooler than a 500$ suit etc. Hm more about who we are than what we own etc.

Why not let people choose what they value ? That is the way of peace, freedom and love. Imposing values on others is the way of violent oppression and hatred.

Everyone else around me seems to be running towards marriage....

Rule 3 then :-)

Do something you enjoy doing.

Get married and work at it.

When everyone else runs in one direction, walk the other way.

Don't rush and notice all the mundane things.

Challenge yourself constantly.

Eat well

Walk a lot

Read.

Learn to play an instrument.

Never stop learning.

Sing or dance.

Mmm crackling.

 

At least you've got some fruit in there.

Everything in balance

You're always safe to think Noone is in there but you and your thoughts

That video is sponsored by the who's who of the human genome, human biochipping mafia. The Alfred P Sloan foundation is the brainchild of the Rockerfeller foundation and had its name changed from the eugenics society and its Darwinism. It's full of corporates posing as 'educational'.

The video was chock full of NLP anchors and hypnotic suggestion. One of the common trance techniques I used during sessions was to get the client to walk down a staircase and at the bottom to discover two corridors and a doorway of some unusual design. Inside would be a pleasant, safe, relaxing place to spend some time.

I love the 'where past, present and future are no longer distinct' and 'game changer'. It's not particularly the science, it's the metaphor of a 'new reality' what you believe is now redundant. Follow us to a land of exciting bars, pretty girls, snooker balls in a space that looks remareably similar to any computer game players environment.

It would make a cracking propaganda 101 piece. I haven't reviewed it all.

Y'all keep this secret , Okay?  FmAm isn't really a nihilist.  He is just searching for meaning.  Of course, that's a waste of time too but there are many who think they have found the answer.

I know, but eventually it's boring. Someone tefusing to get in the ring stands there saying how he is beating you to a pulp with virtual punches and invisible jabs. I want to tell him to start hitting for real. Sure he will get a few blows but it's not like it causes any real pain. It's colourful, exciting and self affirming.

@Kubba

Your final words say it all really. It is a craving for emotional entertainment. It's exactly like a drunken partygoer who does not like the idea of life without alcohol. It's an addiction. Something got you hooked. I would suggest you get off it and break the addiction. I already know that is an unwelcome suggestion, but what the heck, it needs saying.

Boring as a feeling is something that doesn't have to be assumed. It's real. (Although it's probably a mixture of angry and sad.)

No, just bored with your nihilist conversation.

Just when you thought it was safe to think.

In comes mental piracy.

That really is blatent.

Karl,

Thats just logic of discursive thinking, if A then B. But honestly speaking these energetic qualities of mother and other kind of Shakti like Kali, Bhairavi, Sundari, are things that are presented to you in different stages of spiritual evolution. You just see it in the world around you. Its not some religious wongabonga but just traditional language that can be use to describe these manifestations That you simply see as you see your hands. And language itself is also this manifestation.

In the moment when you notice for the first time in your life the food on your plate - how it is alive and how it was delivered to you through the divine mother you will just have tears in your eyes (how stupid I was thinking that it is differently, yet she was always here, feeding me, even if I did not believed in her, even treating her badly), and you will be just thankfull. After that realisation you will never again doubdt in it, and hearing someone telling that it is different than that you will just stay sillent, biting your lips, or you will say it out loud.

You will never again throw any trash on the street, perhaps you will even grab some trash from the street and put it wher it should be putten.

A child cries and says bad things to you, but as a parent you just do what needs to be done, discriminating and ignoring any kind of ignorance.

You will preceive that there is something else that talks to you through other people's Mouth. The same way you will see our planet.

I know that it can sound strange or stupid for someone, but thats how I see it and it is not free interpretation of scripts.

I remember myself trying to define the world by some constant, elegant logic as you try to do. And I really believed in it and tried to convince others, but then it just went astray after a few events, and now this way of thinking just pisses me off, and it apears harmfull.

As long as it's how you see it then that's fine by me. I don't happen to agree with you. To me you sound like a born again mystic that believes in a religious deity you refer to as 'mother'. Christians refer to a deity called God in much the same way.

Where you went wrong the first time was 'believing' in logic instead of seeing it merely as a tool with no special properties. If you got stuck on a deified version of logic then any other deity is going to appeal.

An axiom isn't proof. It's an assumption.

Assume bored.

It can be overwhelming at times Ell. It is a crazy, crazy system...  behind the curtain, a whole other world going on that people in general haven't the faintest idea about. I'd recommend the Ringing Cedars of Russia as a bright vision/ inspiration for creating a new beautiful world/ true civilization. We have to get away from these economic models, taxation, exploitation etc creating a new value system that doesn't give itself to this insanity but to higher expressions/ wisdom/ understanding, self reliance and harmony with Nature.

That's called the non aggression principle. Essentially don't hurt people and don't take their stuff. The right to defend your own property and to voluntarily associate freely and peacefully with whoever you wish. It's not really a new value system we need, just get rid of the idea we need rulers.

Axioms are something that can't be proven.

That you agree there cannot be proof of proof is sufficient.

My statements are just as ridiculous as yours. Smile when the circus comes to town.

I don't think I said they were ridiculous statements. I asked how you could believe something that neither human senses nor science has been able to prove ?

The proofs that you accept are insufficient as proof for me, circus or not. I don't discount the possibility except from a logical perspective. The media and scientific papers are not full of stories of people rising from the dead, or reanimated human corpses.

I have a room in my house for all the things I've argued against. There's a few gods, a spaghetti monster, Starship Enterprise, just to name a few. Today I was thinking about arguing against 100 pounds of chocolate.

As long as you are arguing then you are proving the axiom.

Heh, I think you're not mother

So, everything is not mother as you first proposed. As I am a male, then it's fair to assume that the entire male species is excluded from your original premise. With no male species there can be no female species so now we have no complex life at all.

 You seem to wish many different things to me: death, happiness and now agreeing (you are being quite authoritarian).  What would mathematics be without assumed truths, axioms? Math reflects and summarises the patterns of thought, the ways thought classifies the experience. Without Peano axioms, there can be no counting. Number one (1) is "the ultimate axiom" (it was Peano's original number, instead of 0). Assuming number 1 basically means that there's something, a thing, something countable - and someone (a thing, a soul, a self) is counting here. These axioms are questionable even in the light of the modern physics. I'm just staying in the position of no axioms at all. I have no need to deny anything.

You are already proving the axioms by trying to argue there are no axioms.

Ah!  Living off only the morning's dew.  I've heard those stories.

I'll have my morning dew washed down with a lamb shank, fillet steak and a leg of pork with crackling and apple sauce. Other types of meat are available and will be eaten with relish....mmmmmm chicken.

The one with no words?

In the literal sense it could be said not to have words as it denies existence of them.

Well, it did stun but it missed acceptance.

You did well even to attempt it. Once the basic premises are revealed that underpin the philosophy it's time to decide if there is further sense in reading something like that. I like the condensed version, the executive summary. Kant harks back to the primacy of consciousness so he can be safely ignored and his book consigned to the hearth.

Where you get the food from? Mother feeds you - when you are 1 year old, and when you're 30.

All is mother, not only the planet earth.

Did you know that your brain structure depands on the solar system structure at the day of your birth?

I feed myself. If everything is mother, then I would be mother and therefore self contained.

You are effectively taking part in a religion. People believe it's God that is Father and provider.

Actually... not. And it wasn't even stolen concept fallacy. (Are you Randian Objectivist?)

I see you agree with me which is excellent.

I don't give myself labels. Objectivism has a lot of merit. I can't say I agree with all of it, just as I couldn't say I agree with everything Aristotle believed, or contradict everything that Plato thought, or even Hegel and Kant. It's best to start with ones own reasoning and develop ones own philosophy by questioning everything.