|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 17:13:54 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Aug 31, 2013 17:13:54 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. You just want 'your story' to be 'the' story, the difference is in your beliefs about Life.. Life, manifesting as individuality, wants to "live long and prosper, AND Life manifesting into "diversified expression", is also expressing the purpose of living long and prospering.. each is purposed for perpetuating Life.. Be well.. Humans want to live long and prosper. If Life 'wanted' that, then humans would live longer and prosper more than they do. Life isn't operating under some constraints, so if that were the orientation of Life, then that's what would happen. It's self evident that Life is not doing what you want it to do. Life doesn't care about your story. LOL.. i don't care about 'my' story, either.. Humans are Life happening, your story creates a conceptual separation based on your desire to "live long and prosper", i am bound by no such desire because i am not limiting 'what i am' to this physical experience of my totality.. i am only concerned with the quality of my existence right here and right now, as an individual AND as the collective Whole, quality which is revealed by clarity.. "I am Life", i am doing exactly what Life does, living, and when this physical version of Life ceases "I" will not be diminished by that ceasing.. it is that clarity that liberates me from stories like yours, so that i can actually embrace Life rather than the 'story'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 17:19:17 GMT -5
Post by freejoy on Aug 31, 2013 17:19:17 GMT -5
Greetings.. Humans want to live long and prosper. If Life 'wanted' that, then humans would live longer and prosper more than they do. Life isn't operating under some constraints, so if that were the orientation of Life, then that's what would happen. It's self evident that Life is not doing what you want it to do. Life doesn't care about your story. LOL.. i don't care about 'my' story, either.. Humans are Life happening, your story creates a conceptual separation based on your desire to "live long and prosper", i am bound by no such desire because i am not limiting 'what i am' to this physical experience of my totality.. i am only concerned with the quality of my existence right here and right now, as an individual AND as the collective Whole, quality which is revealed by clarity.. "I am Life", i am doing exactly what Life does, living, and when this physical version of Life ceases "I" will not be diminished by that ceasing.. it is that clarity that liberates me from stories like yours, so that i can actually embrace Life rather than the 'story'.. Be well.. Yeah, make the story an adventure, be sure to have lots of fun.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 17:39:09 GMT -5
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Aug 31, 2013 17:39:09 GMT -5
Humanity is not at war with the earth. There is this stupid view that nature is somehow female, a whole, always harmonious, and we male hoodlums show up and break everything. Actually, as I've said before, there is no "nature", it is not a whole, it is not organized, it is always in turmoil, only rarely are there periods of stability. It feeds on itself, species come and go, the history of nature is full of unimaginable destructions far greater than anything man is capable of. It would be more accurate to say that nature is at war with us. We have responsibility toward nature only insofar as we have responsibility toward our own species, ourselves and our children - and in this view nature is merely a tool, an environment we currently live in. We have to stop with these silly mother-nature wisdoms and accept our role. One central goal should be total understanding and control of our environment (nature), so that we can manipulate everything about it and for as long as possible maintain an equilibrium that is best for our species. That's the plain truth of the matter, obvious once you remove all the sentimentalism. I definitely side with your view more than the rest here who've expressed themselves - to a point...what comes to mind as a very simple explanation is the thing about man and how he's collectively more or less, killing the goose that laid the golden egg. We have to hope that it's not necessarily our nature and that if we organise ourselves correctly we can prevent ourselves from such destructions. For example with capitalism the rules of the game are such that destructive and asocial behaviour is rewarded. Sometimes the newspapers print studies that say that the bankers are psychopaths, but we have to differentiate here. When we reflect upon their actions from outside the capitalism game then they appear as psychopaths. But from within the rules of the capitalism game that they are playing they are being prefectly rational. Capitalism must be replaced with a set of rules in which destructive and asocial behaviour is irrational. Nothing substantial can change unless we perform this adjustment. That's the core of the issue, all the "we-are-one" talk, or the stuff about "mother nature", etc... nobody cares about that, they don't change what is rational behaviour. Action follows money, not heart. The change must arrive at how money itself is gained and lost.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 18:21:29 GMT -5
silver likes this
Post by nowhereman on Aug 31, 2013 18:21:29 GMT -5
I've been wondering about Duty. What do you all think a mans duty is?
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 18:33:22 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2013 18:33:22 GMT -5
Humanity's war with the Earth started when the Earth was, relative to humanity, a much larger place. There's no way for that war to end in victory for humanity. Humanity is not at war with the earth. There is this stupid view that nature is somehow female, a whole, always harmonious, and we male hoodlums show up and break everything. Actually, as I've said before, there is no "nature", it is not a whole, it is not organized, it is always in turmoil, only rarely are there periods of stability. It feeds on itself, species come and go, the history of nature is full of unimaginable destructions far greater than anything man is capable of. It would be more accurate to say that nature is at war with us. Right, I wasn't referring to the damage that humanity has done to the Earth but rather the damage we do to the various facets of the conditions under which we live. The idea of the Earth as somehow always perfectly balanced is just an anthropic projection: we like the way it is because these conditions allowed for our populations and our cultures to advance to the point that they have. We have responsibility toward nature only insofar as we have responsibility toward our own species, ourselves and our children - and in this view nature is merely a tool, an environment we currently live in. We have to stop with these silly mother-nature wisdoms and accept our role. One central goal should be total understanding and control of our environment (nature), so that we can manipulate everything about it and for as long as possible maintain an equilibrium that is best for our species. That's the plain truth of the matter, obvious once you remove all the sentimentalism. Yes, as far as who/what started the war, that's a chegg, and as I've said and I think I heard E' imply, it seems that the war itself was somehow pretty much inevitable. What I mean by the war is the same thing that Christians mean by knowledge of good and evil or the Buddhists by ignorance of true nature: the idea and the feeling and the default mode of operation that we are somehow separate from the Earth rather than extensions of it and that every moment is a struggle for survival against forces that would eradicate us. I perceive more than a bit of humor on your part here but seriously, I wouldn't expect humanity to abandon all mechanisms of environmental control as part of moving toward a mode of operation that would embrace sanity and turn away from self-destruction, and it's not as if I have any expectation or plan for such a movement.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 18:46:51 GMT -5
Post by silver on Aug 31, 2013 18:46:51 GMT -5
Greetings.. You just want 'your story' to be 'the' story, the difference is in your beliefs about Life.. Life, manifesting as individuality, wants to "live long and prosper, AND Life manifesting into "diversified expression", is also expressing the purpose of living long and prospering.. each is purposed for perpetuating Life.. Be well.. Humans want to live long and prosper. If Life 'wanted' that, then humans would live longer and prosper more than they do. Life isn't operating under some constraints, so if that were the orientation of Life, then that's what would happen. It's self evident that Life is not doing what you want it to do. Life doesn't care about your story. That's a totally absurd statement, that 'Life isn't operating under some constraints...' Life isn't an entity, per se, so it can't care about a single, solitary thing. Silly frog.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 18:51:07 GMT -5
Post by silver on Aug 31, 2013 18:51:07 GMT -5
I definitely side with your view more than the rest here who've expressed themselves - to a point...what comes to mind as a very simple explanation is the thing about man and how he's collectively more or less, killing the goose that laid the golden egg. We have to hope that it's not necessarily our nature and that if we organise ourselves correctly we can prevent ourselves from such destructions. For example with capitalism the rules of the game are such that destructive and asocial behaviour is rewarded. Sometimes the newspapers print studies that say that the bankers are psychopaths, but we have to differentiate here. When we reflect upon their actions from outside the capitalism game then they appear as psychopaths. But from within the rules of the capitalism game that they are playing they are being prefectly rational. Capitalism must be replaced with a set of rules in which destructive and asocial behaviour is irrational. Nothing substantial can change unless we perform this adjustment. That's the core of the issue, all the "we-are-one" talk, or the stuff about "mother nature", etc... nobody cares about that, they don't change what is rational behaviour. Action follows money, not heart. The change must arrive at how money itself is gained and lost. Changing the game is what it's all about. I wouldn't be so fast to say that action follows money alone. If all the recent American history with the scandals and powers that be getting away with stuff right in our faces, that we're definitely drowning in - if middle, average, disenfranchised people in this country don't protest big time, and find ways to make the changes some how, it will be a long time before heart comes back to life, so to speak.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 19:08:27 GMT -5
Post by freejoy on Aug 31, 2013 19:08:27 GMT -5
We have to hope that it's not necessarily our nature and that if we organise ourselves correctly we can prevent ourselves from such destructions. For example with capitalism the rules of the game are such that destructive and asocial behaviour is rewarded. Sometimes the newspapers print studies that say that the bankers are psychopaths, but we have to differentiate here. When we reflect upon their actions from outside the capitalism game then they appear as psychopaths. But from within the rules of the capitalism game that they are playing they are being prefectly rational. Capitalism must be replaced with a set of rules in which destructive and asocial behaviour is irrational. Nothing substantial can change unless we perform this adjustment. That's the core of the issue, all the "we-are-one" talk, or the stuff about "mother nature", etc... nobody cares about that, they don't change what is rational behaviour. Action follows money, not heart. The change must arrive at how money itself is gained and lost. Changing the game is what it's all about. I wouldn't be so fast to say that action follows money alone. If all the recent American history with the scandals and powers that be getting away with stuff right in our faces, that we're definitely drowning in - if middle, average, disenfranchised people in this country don't protest big time, and find ways to make the changes some how, it will be a long time before heart comes back to life, so to speak. The Enlightened people have to do it with consciousness?
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 19:11:06 GMT -5
Post by silver on Aug 31, 2013 19:11:06 GMT -5
Changing the game is what it's all about. I wouldn't be so fast to say that action follows money alone. If all the recent American history with the scandals and powers that be getting away with stuff right in our faces, that we're definitely drowning in - if middle, average, disenfranchised people in this country don't protest big time, and find ways to make the changes some how, it will be a long time before heart comes back to life, so to speak. The Enlightened people have to do it with consciousness? I'm unacquainted with anyone who claims to be enlightened. I wouldn't know how to answer your question or what it even means.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 19:15:28 GMT -5
Post by freejoy on Aug 31, 2013 19:15:28 GMT -5
The Enlightened people have to do it with consciousness? I'm unacquainted with anyone who claims to be enlightened. I wouldn't know how to answer your question or what it even means. For me I would define an Enlightened person as one who can be one with all things at will.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 19:17:59 GMT -5
Post by silver on Aug 31, 2013 19:17:59 GMT -5
I'm unacquainted with anyone who claims to be enlightened. I wouldn't know how to answer your question or what it even means. For me I would define an Enlightened person as one who can be one with all things at will. I say that's pretty hard to tell from outward appearances.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 19:20:23 GMT -5
Post by nowhereman on Aug 31, 2013 19:20:23 GMT -5
I'm unacquainted with anyone who claims to be enlightened. I wouldn't know how to answer your question or what it even means. For me I would define an Enlightened person as one who can be one with all things at will. I will go out on the shaky limb and say their is enlightenment but never a person to become enlightenment. It's more like a Self to Self thing, more like a big boo and oh shit you scared me why did you do that! As if Self talks to Self Nowhereman
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 19:28:13 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2013 19:28:13 GMT -5
Humans want to live long and prosper. If Life 'wanted' that, then humans would live longer and prosper more than they do. Life isn't operating under some constraints, so if that were the orientation of Life, then that's what would happen. It's self evident that Life is not doing what you want it to do. Life doesn't care about your story. That's a totally absurd statement, that 'Life isn't operating under some constraints...' Life=Nature=God=Creation. It isn't operating under some kind of constraints. That's why I say it doesn't care what we want.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 19:29:45 GMT -5
Post by freejoy on Aug 31, 2013 19:29:45 GMT -5
For me I would define an Enlightened person as one who can be one with all things at will. I will go out on the shaky limb and say their is enlightenment but never a person to become enlightenment. It's more like a Self to Self thing, more like a big boo and oh nuts you scared me why did you do that! As if Self talks to Self Nowhereman I define the person as the body/mind/thoughts that give the individuated consciousness it's expression.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 19:31:57 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2013 19:31:57 GMT -5
I'm unacquainted with anyone who claims to be enlightened. I wouldn't know how to answer your question or what it even means. For me I would define an Enlightened person as one who can be one with all things at will. That's interesting.
|
|