Questions on the conundrum of unlimited freedom and the future on man.

[Moonbeam]

Well Hayabusarider, I'm not sure I agree that what is rational for one person isn't for another. I would be inclined to think that one is ration and the other not. Actually I would be inclined to think that both are irrational but I'm not. I've got this sense that rational refers to something real, one of Plato's forms, maybe. That it is a product of a mind that is self transparent, does not rationalize its unconscious urges, etc.

And that brings me to BD2003. I think you generalize from your own state of being to the state of being of everyone else. There is the small matter of the fact that all over the world and throughout time there keeps popping up these weirdoes who say they have found this thingi they describe variously as truth, bliss, heaven, enlightenment, etc. These visitors don't seem to show any of the traits you seem to think are necessary for human progress. But only you could ever explain, if there is an element of self rationalization in your philosophy, why that would be. Don't get the more money, more problems thingi.

Sponge, I caught the motie reference, but haven't read the one you mentioned. Thanks for helping to expose the multidimensionality of our dear Hayabusarider.

Dark, I couldn't agree with you more on our need to evolve spiritually. I don't believe that we are born evil. I believe we are born to be loving beings but that we are damaged by the ongoing cycle of insanity we find all round us. I think our evolution is a matter not of change and addition, but of subtraction and reduction, the elimination of insanity and the recovery of the deeper self through self understanding. I believe this the actual if not the presently assumed goal of all religion.

ELFinix, I do not understand this sentence and wished I did: "so you are taking the argument to a fallacious extreme. actually it may not be falacious becase your lemmas are wrong."

daddy-o, as Hayabusarider said, I'm not talking about unlimited freedom. I was talking or our inalienable rights.

Pastor Don I'm not sure I understand your point. I don't know any bastions; I can see some relative differences. As to whether you or your Grandfather is or was more free, I would want to compare notes between the two of you. The grass is always greener...

I am certainly, as you say Hay, interested in the issues of 'spooky stuff'. They are, I think, most definitely on the way.

 

[ElFenix]

your lemma that we have unlimited freedom is wrong. lemma being an underlying assumption on which an argument is predicated. a dilemma is when you have two of those that are at odds with each other. since we gave up the right to kill and use force and coercion to have others do our bidding we're missing a few freedoms that were gladly given up so that we can enjoy the rest of them to a much fuller extent (or, enjoy them at all).

if we had unlimited freedoms such as the ability to destroy the world on a whim everyone would live in fear and society would break down. man would revert to his "state of nature" as rousseau would put it.

and inalienable rights don't exist.

 

[Moonbeam]

OK, I think I got it. I already explained that I wasn't referring to unlimited rights, but inalienable ones which you claim don't exist. Maybe somebody else will challenge that. Am trying to tie up loose ends so I can get out of town to see my Mom. I don't think they are what maybe most people do, but I think they're real just the same. Rousseau may not have known jack about what a state of nature is, I don't know, but it doesn't sound like it. Unless you understand the origin of our universal mental illness and have healed yourself, you can only speculate what it means to be natural. I happen to think that somebody like Jesus was the natural man, the healed man, so in that sense having Christ's nature is the entitlement to which we have an inalienable right. Buddha nature will do also.

 

[ElFenix]

rousseau's state of nature was one where man was constantly in fear of his life and losing his possesions. he had freedoms but he couldn't enjoy any of them. or was that hobbes?

anyhow, i'm pretty sure social indoctrination kills almost any desire to return to the state of nature. our want to be protected may have sent us on a path that zamyatin predicted. in which case i don't think it can be healed, only held in check, amongst society. the only way to get rid of it is the destruction of society, which, if the state of nature is a dark, violent, and lonely one, i'd rather not be a part of. then again, i don't like zamyatin's vision either. utopia doesn't exist (well... its a town in west texas... they bottle spring water).

EDIT: if God and heaven exist, then one's ability to enter that may be inalienable. but all the others can be forfeited to an honest state or taken by a jealous state.

 

[smp]

I don't see a way to genetically fix what I see as the major problem, the creation of dualism as a consequence of language.

I never had on opinion of you before, but I do now.

 

[wQuay]

Decentralize or Die

Firstly, the obvious solution is for humanity to migrate beyond the dangerous confines of planet earth.

Secondly, you're contemplating the negative aspects of future technology without the positive. For example, an ordinary geek will one day be able to construct a killer nanobot, but most people will have nanobots integrated into their immune system long before then. Such an immune system may even be engineered for the planet as a whole.

Thirdly, most human interactions will take place in the virtual world.

We're talking about information here. Trying to hold back the floodgates is the worst thing possible. Educate yourself and others, prepare as much as possible, and enjoy the future

 

[Fritzo]

What amazes me is that the person that posted this was actually able to use the word "conundrum" in a sentance! I had to hit dictionary.com on that one

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Home-work-home-shop, the American(TM) way. They hate us because we are free.

Sorry. Somehow I think the dangerous confine is our mind, not the planet. Just what exactly are we developing towards with this "freedom" and "personal liberty" that subordinates our very source of sanity itself, nature. As long as man continues to to think he can find fulfilment externally, through innovation, whatever, I think our collective future is grim.

 

[smp]

Originally posted by: EngineNr9
Home-work-home-shop, the American(TM) way. They hate us because we are free. Sorry. Somehow I think the dangerous confine is our mind, not the planet. Just what exactly are we developing towards with this "freedom" and "personal liberty" that subordinates our very source of sanity itself, nature. As long as man continues to to think he can find fulfilment externally, through innovation, whatever, I think our collective future is grim.

Hey did you just read Fast Food Generation or something? Naomi Klien? You goddamned pinkos are all the same :|

 

[PistachioByAzul]

ROFLLOL LOL PIMP. Hahaha, typical KKKonservative. I'm so much better than you.



I've got Fast Food Nation sitting right here, I'll read it when I get through Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hanh.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

You are born.

You try your best to carve a place for yourself you can satisfied with.
Some succeed, most fail.

You die.

I don't care about the world and/or you.
Both of you can disappear completely and I will be the better for it.
If the world disappears than I have too and this 'ride' is over.
If YOU disappear that's yet more oxygen left for the rest of us to split.

 

[linuxboy]

I don't see a way to genetically fix what I see as the major problem, the creation of dualism as a consequence of language.

Dualism is not the sole consequent of language. Even without language the pure emotive state of uptaking one's surroundings accepts the reality of dualism and separation due to evil already existing in the world-at-large. We each then have a choice to use what we have to either effect good or evil. Dualism exists even without language as we would have that choice regarless (unless we posit biological determinism to be the sole explanatory factor for our actions and apparent wills as well as acrasic failures.

Cheers !
Pav

 

[zephyrprime]

anyhow, i'm pretty sure social indoctrination kills almost any desire to return to the state of nature

Rousseau had a naive view of the "state of nature". The fact is, man has been a social animal since before the apes even. Man has always been subject to the laws and customs of others and has never existed in a state where there was pure anarchy.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well some interesting points.

ELFenix, I agree with Zephyr but can't say whether his answer is specific and philosophically connected enough to the frame in which you related your opinion to have much relevance. I personally don't want to argue you view on that level since I'm not sure what Rosseau's point was. I generally find that most people who think we are savages or would revert to that stage released from social consequence are really only projecting their own inner violence onto savages. It is unconscious rage that makes us savages not primitiveness. Check out the gorilla.

smp, for some reason you remind me of the dog who, looking over a bridge into the water below saw a dog with a big bone in his mouth and barked.

wQuay, I like that idea about educating others. I may post on the topic.

Couldn't agree more, EngineNr9, I wonder if we are the pinkos? I think that might have been the dog in the water.

Frances, sorry to hear you thinking you failed.

linuxboy, I'm waiting for Fritzo to report in with what 'acrasic faliures' means. I do not agree that language isn't the source of dualism. I don't, for example see that there would have been evil in the world before language. What would have been the definition of such evil. Who would have contemplated that definition. I disagree also that we have a choice in choosing evil over good. We have to choose evil or we would be killed. No unconscious person can tolerate consciousnessness because it reminds them that they are dead. Only human beings can hate themselves because only human beings can associate something that has no reality (evil) with the self. Evil is the belief in a lie, or more exactly the denial of a belief in a lie. The false self it the pretense of goodness that masks the belief in self worthlessness.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: linuxboy
We each then have a choice to use what we have to either effect good or evil

Without language how do you get a definition of good and evil? Good and evil are arbitrary terms. I don't think that having a universal definition is possible

 

[NeoV]

In the thread about reasonable searches at airports, I posed a riddle that, perhaps in the heat of the particulars of that discussion, went unanswered, but one which is no less germaine. I would like to come back to it in unencombered form here. The cunundrum I posed, is this

This is my last response, ever, to a thread that Moonbeam is in...

Seriously, what kind of an ass writes that kind of garbage? Did you pose a riddle? Germaine? Unencombered? Cunundrum?

Here is my riddle: In a forum of mostly unreasonable babble on the internet, I read a thread, that, perhaps beyond belief, went down to the bottom of the page, but which is that much less important. I would like to forever make a note to myself to just skip over such threads, but, in case I forget, the question that must be answered is this: What happens when someone tries very hard to show everyone how smart they are by using words commonly found on "word of the day" calendars, or "learn a new word each week while you cross off the days of your otherwise trivial life".

Who has discussions on how the freedoms in the constitution are going to inevitably collide with the advent of nano-technology? The stuff you are talking about is about as close to being reality as you and I having light-speed cars, let alone flying cars (which, by the way, are far too expensive to manufacture/sell now, which is the only reason we don't have them).

My next thread is going to be "what will the physcological effects on future space travellers be? They may very well return to earth only to find that everyone they have ever known/loved is dead. Who will be there for them? Will this keep us confined in our own solar system? Should they be eligible to collect their 401k accounts which will be so large that most people will be aghast and agog at the amounts? (did you like my catch-phrase from "learn a new phrase this week"?

STOP IT

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: NeoV
In the thread about reasonable searches at airports, I posed a riddle that, perhaps in the heat of the particulars of that discussion, went unanswered, but one which is no less germaine. I would like to come back to it in unencombered form here. The cunundrum I posed, is this

This is my last response, ever, to a thread that Moonbeam is in...

Seriously, what kind of an ass writes that kind of garbage? Did you pose a riddle? Germaine? Unencombered? Cunundrum?

Here is my riddle: In a forum of mostly unreasonable babble on the internet, I read a thread, that, perhaps beyond belief, went down to the bottom of the page, but which is that much less important. I would like to forever make a note to myself to just skip over such threads, but, in case I forget, the question that must be answered is this: What happens when someone tries very hard to show everyone how smart they are by using words commonly found on "word of the day" calendars, or "learn a new word each week while you cross off the days of your otherwise trivial life".

Who has discussions on how the freedoms in the constitution are going to inevitably collide with the advent of nano-technology? The stuff you are talking about is about as close to being reality as you and I having light-speed cars, let alone flying cars (which, by the way, are far too expensive to manufacture/sell now, which is the only reason we don't have them).

My next thread is going to be "what will the physcological effects on future space travellers be? They may very well return to earth only to find that everyone they have ever known/loved is dead. Who will be there for them? Will this keep us confined in our own solar system? Should they be eligible to collect their 401k accounts which will be so large that most people will be aghast and agog at the amounts? (did you like my catch-phrase from "learn a new phrase this week"?

STOP IT

If you live an unexamined life are you really living at all? Life often apears easier with your head in the sand

 

[Moonbeam]

Not to worry tweakmm, I ran in to NeoV elsewhere. He was somehow intimidated by my impeccable spelling, achieved by a spell checker, and as well, it seems, by my grammar, for which I can think of no one to blame but some old English teachers, and now, I guess also by the appearance of the rather ordinary word, conundrum, at least ordinary to me and which I will have to confess again did actually spring from somewhere out of my own personal linguistic palate. He seems overly impressed with such things, doubtless, I think, because he so much wishes to appear impressive himself. Unfortunately, he won't be posting in any more of my threads, so we won't have a chance to dialogue in a way that I could allow me to convince him of my disinterest in that sort of impressiveness and my actual love of ideas.

Just for example he tried to ridicule my thread by comparing it to the topic of the psychological effects of space flight. I hope he is right because that is a very fascinating topic, one that's at the core of many a science fiction novel. But I should answer his question.

"Seriously, what kind of an ass writes that kind of garbage?"

The kind of ass that rights this garbage is Moonbeam.

If you wish to post similar garbage yourself, Neo, be curious, care about the world, and just say what you see in your own way without regard to what others might think or not think.