 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
It is only a contradiction if you wish to label destruction as bad and creation as good. I do not see these distinctions. Destruction is not bad, it is only destruction...does not the blossom die to bring forth the fruit? Does not the fruit die to bring forth the seed? Does not the seed die to bring forth the tree?
I am speaking about the last plant on earth being willfully snuffed out, and every other living thing gone, because that is the intent of that mutated life form, to destroy. You are speaking about a cyclic process that goes on and on, which sounds to me like the definition of life.
I can condense what I mean as being the battle between entropy and ectropy, where the winner disassembles everything until there is nothing at all, or the winner wins because the game continues forever.
So we may be far apart from reaching agreement, which to me is a much more competitive thing to do than to agree to disagree, because one way is cooperative and productive, in a living sense, to me, and the other way is uncooperative and destructive in a relative sense, meaning life goes on or is snuffed out completely.
I can offer a quote from my copy of Eric Fromm's The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness on one of the possible angles of view that may help if we both want to reach some semblance of understanding, finding agreement, or at least finding exactly where we do not agree.
First a repeat:
"Destruction is not bad, it is only destruction...does not the blossom die to bring forth the fruit?"
Part of my thinking has to do with me being a hydrogen atom for some time before I, as a perceptive being, start thinking good thoughts worth remembering. I do not know what death is, exactly, and I have a hard time gaining any accurate information from those who do know exactly what death is, or is not.
If a plant dies and the matter left from that death of that plant nurtures another plant, then that is a simple form of life processing itself, relatively speaking, unless plants can think better than humans can, whereby plants have a better way to continue surviving against all powers that work to end plant life, including how plants have figured out how to colonize other planets at will.
Plant One of Plant species One can't do it alone, but Plant 1 came up with the bright idea to get off this planet in time to colonize another planet, just in case this one planet stops supporting life, and the other plants agreed, and so that is what they did, cooperatively. 1 Plant started the idea, and eventually plants colonized Mars, for the first step off Earth.
Here is Fromm quoting Marx:
For Marx, capital and labor were not merely two economic categories. Capital for him was the manifestation of the past, of labor transformed and amassed into things; labor was the manifestation of life, of human energy applied to nature in the process of transforming it. The choice between capitalism and socialism (as he understood it) amounted to this: Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)? What is dead over what is alive, or what is alive over what is dead? (Cf. E. Fromm, 1961, 1968)
To me there is thinking that goes deeper, along similar lines, having to do with human perception of time. If you have this perception of death being finite, as in death being an end of your perception, then that may be true, and if true you may think in those terms of death being a one way ticket out of all that exists forever. I don't think you really think that, when you tax your brain, because I've talked to you about this stuff before.
We may be speaking about the same thing, a process, a living process, which is life, perpetuating, here and there, this way and that way, and life may have always been at play, forever, eternity, absolute cyclic continuation of life, without end or beginning.
I think, now, as I type, that destructive people may be driven by this concept of that one way ticket out, so as to reach that goal sooner, the end of all life, and they are going to take as much with them, as they can.
If I am going to go, the thinking may be, then everyone goes with me.
You don't do that, and so my thinking is that we are merely failing to find an agreement that exists, and words are stumbling blocks.
Back to a point of divergence:
It is only a contradiction if you wish to label destruction as bad and creation as good. I do not see these distinctions.
If there existed a button before you, and pushing that button ends all life anywhere, everywhere, there is no life after you push that button, none, in an absolute sense, there is no life, and there will never be anymore life, ever, anywhere, after you push that button, and there won't be anything, no power whatsoever, to restart life, none, nothing, forever, if you push the button.
I am saying it is a bad button, and if it ever exists, and a willful power pushes it, then that is a bad willful power, and if you can't agree with that, then I can proceed knowing the truth about you, that you can't agree with the pushing the button ending all life forever scenario, and we can agree to disagree, and I can keep trying to stop people from making that button, and pushing it, while I suppose, what you are doing is letting those thing happen, relatively speaking, since those things are not bad things, as far as you are concerned, and as far as I an concerned those things, going in that direction, are bad things, and it is good to do something, even if the something done is just thinking about ways to avoid being a part of such bad things, and we can proceed apart from this fence.
Neither bad nor good, no more life, that is fine, no problem, no need for a solution?
Am I confusing your words still?
you cannot even grasp what I mean. Is everything either good or bad in your perception? Is everything one side or another of a duality? Because to me everything is part of a spectrum of one thing..love.
I don't know why you come up with that idea, an idea that I cannot even grasp what you mean.
Why do you arrive at that question, asked of me as if my viewpoint is loveless.
Everything is good, everything, things, static objects, matter, light, power, atoms, gravity, as it exists in its place, until some power of will chooses to destroy everything and then does so, and does so willfully.
How does my viewpoint of a willful power to destroy life, all life, become everything is either bad or good?
Bad is a willful power to destroy all life, on purpose, according to that willful power, as that willful power decides to destroy all life, and works relentlessly toward that goal, and there is much in the way of proof that proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that that willful power, with a human name, that individual, is making progress toward that goal.
My focus of attention is on scientific study (competitive study, better is better than worse study) of life, and I find, in that study, people who willfully choose to destroy life, and the only explanation I have, so far, for such choices, in those individuals, is a love for destruction, for the pure joy, apparently, of destroying things, and you take me to task for claiming that those people are bad for those willful choices chosen in those willful ways?
From my viewpoint of what bad is, precisely, you claim that I think everything is cut in half as a bad thing and a good thing as if I have two bins?
The Sun goes in the bad or good bin?
Gravity goes in the bad or good bin?
You think I am guilty, such a bad thinker, of such thoughts?
You base your poor estimate (bad estimate) of my thinking on which things I've written, or said, or supposedly thought? What did I write where my writing confesses this bad thinking, according to you?
Is everything either good or bad in your perception? Is everything one side or another of a duality?
So, you ask, at least you do not claim to know, but my question is why are you asking me such questions? Who thinks in those terms? Let them raise their hand.
Joe is the loveless purveyor of ill (badly) conceived false notions, with his either or good or bad simplistic dogma?
Mike is good, or not good, but better, or not better, or more accurate, so long as more accurate is not good, with his love perspective, since Joe is so, well, loveless, which is not bad, but none-the-less without love?
So while you and I are finding just how opposite we are in our souls, there are these few people who just so happen to be pushing these well made buttons that do so much stuff, that is neither good nor bad, since arms that come off of children can help, not that help is any good mind you, but help feed the plants!
I would ask, what is Lon's intent?
I'm not Lon. Lon is good at what he does, sniping. My guess is that he is paid well. What would be the point of asking, no good could come of it, there is no good, and therefore what would be your intent behind asking, since you are right there, and since Lon is too busy getting paid so well for what he does better, not that it is good or bad, but better than less better people at what he has proven to be able to do better, not better in a good sense, but better in a not accurate sense, not that accuracy is good, but failing to hit the target probably doesn't pay so good, or bad, or as much in quantity of power.
We are getting far off my opening move on my chess board, and I may be doing a poor job, not that it is a bad job, of helping reach my goal, which is assumed to be your goal, of knowing, more accurately, what you think, so as to help, not that it is good or bad, but to help me think more accurately, not that that is better, but just more accurately, by accident, I suppose, an accident of birth, a drive to know more accurately pushing me into these actions, geared toward knowing more accurately.
I suppose.
Or am I being silly to compare hot and cold to life and death? I contradict myself intentionally to create emphasis.
I think that we love each other and from this stuff, not good or bad, but from this stuff I think I have already made progress.
Before just now, this moment, as far as I can remember, I did not make the connection between suicide, as a means of ending everything, for the individual, and evil, or bad, which you may never understand from my viewpoint, since you don't share my viewpoint, but now, after connecting to you, and borrowing your brain, so to speak, I think that connections makes a lot more sense to me.
Evil people are probably driven by a need to take all life with them, since they are convinced that their perception will end completely, and so they love to destroy everything along with them. The power of envy or jealously or hatred carried to the obvious extreme. Not that words can be the actual power, but there is a power working and that power working toward destruction is effective, the power driving destruction is effective, as proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, by all the destruction done by that power. Call it whatever, in English, evil, envy, jealousy, hatred, the word is not the cause, the word is merely symbols meant, willfully meant, to convey that which is being perceived.
If that is not a newly invented theory, since I can't remember well enough to bookmark where I've read it before, then it works for me at the moment, works better for me, more accurately for me, at the moment. The power driving destruction does so, proven by the results, for the love of it.
The difference between you and I is that you believe you perceive reality whereas I believe I perceive an illusion.
That to me is incomprehensible for you to say, with a straight face, since I've already reported to you my belief begins after proving that perception exists, and I can confess until I am blue in the face, that even that poof is subject to review.
Yet, despite my reports, and confessions, it is as if nothing I can say will adjust your perception of what I actually do think?
Does the word belief work in a case where I believe my eyes will burn out if I stare at the sun all day on a cloudless summer day here in the illusory Mojave desert?
I think the word belief may be slightly less accurate than know, where I can willfully choose the word know, as a stronger word, in an exemplary case, which may help, if I am speaking to my children, saying to them, I know you will risk destruction if you run across the street chasing that ball while that massive car is traveling one that illusory collision course.
Help avoid an illusory dead child, which is neither good or bad?
For you life exists, and therefore death exists because of perception and one is better than the other. For me there is neither life nor death, only my perceived illusion of it.
Perceptions of dead kids exists, and as bad as that is to me, I can still face it, but for how much longer I do not know.
You can claim to know what I think, based upon what I say, but so far there seems to be a level of miscommunication, a demonstrable, measurable, failure to reach an illusory goal, and I can keep working at it, not that it is better, but because my intent is to gain more illusions that appear to me as powerful perceptions, productive perceptions, so as to reach the goals I aim to reach, such as the illustration of helping a child avoid contact with high velocity massive objects.
Accidents and Lon the well paid sniper illusions inclusive in the illusion of illusory goodness - to me.
Risks abound, perceived risks, as illusory as they may be, whereupon I can move up on the sniper's list of things to do, on the torturers list of things to do, for pay, or just for fun, as they work down the list, even threatening, by my willful actions, in an illusory way, my family, as I think, delusions, illusions, that my efforts may preserve life, make it better, for longer, despite the risks perceived.
If I am disappeared some day, you can pretend it is a magic trick?
If Lon has me on his list, and he is accurate, and it pays well, some day, that is neither good or bad to you, but to me, if the opposite occurs, you step on the wrong toes, like that time we were throwing stones at the windows in the old building, and I ran, wondering why you were not running, and the owner, or security volunteer, tested the sharpness of your braces, with his fist, I'll think that to be bad, and my failure is bad, in not making the right, better, choice, which might have avoided the situation, not that it was bad, but that it could have been less bloody.
I don't know where someone is willing to discuss political economy with me, but I do find people who have arrived at very similar perspectives as me, so in that, I have reinforcement of a positive nature, not good, but positive.
So far, in each case, the negative reinforcement, as if to say that my perspective is inaccurate, has been of an entirely different nature, not a political and economic nature, but of a spiritual nature instead.
I get the part where my perspective is lacking in insight concerning spiritual things.
I think my political and economic perspectives are accurate, because there are no refutations of it, so far.
That may not be good, but to me that lack of negation supports a perception of accuracy, like spending forever trying to cram a square peg into a round hole on the one hand, and on the other hand the round peg easily fits into the round hole.
What is the point?
My point has to do with a whole lot of destruction being willfully orchestrated and the idea that all of that destruction can be avoided and instead of all that destruction there can be people vacationing on Mars, one small step, and then other larger steps from that one small one.
We can toss around ideas all we want about political economics, and I will continue to do so as long as I believe it can help me alleviate suffering in those who cannot let go of their desires, but unless you let go of the idea that your perception is reality and is in some way unable to be disproved we will never be a team.
From my view I am right here, and I being right here, a perceptive entity, finding these things to perceive, where another perceptive entity, this you perception, this perception called Mike, has me targeted as a false perception, something completely illusory, having nothing to do with me at all.
I don't know who this person is, where this person can't let go of the idea that their perception is reality, and is in some way unable to disprove something, because that makes no sense to me.
Where is this perception that you see, because it is not me?
You, apparently, are creating an illusion, and then you are attaching your illusion to me, as if I were your illusion, and I am not your illusion, I am me.
I know I am me, and if you think you can wish me away, then go ahead, have at it, yet I am still me.
By power, in this instance, you mean what? Energy? Electricity? Manpower? this power word is awfully vague.
Electricity works well, very well, a Kilowatt/hour of electricity is not vague, even if it is an illusion, it is not a vague illusion, it is a precise illusion, a kilowatt/hour of electricity is the same each time it is produced and used to accomplish something.
Power can be measured in calories too.
I mean power that is productive power, power used to accomplish specific things, like move mass, create light, or produce light, create heat, or produce heat, so forth, in economic terms the word commonly used is equity.
I don't know why, it seems wrong to me, but equity is commonly used in Economics to mean the power that I mean in my Political Economy Sentence.
The stuff that is used to accomplish productive work is the power meant in that sentence.
It is meant to be precisely specific, as opposed to something that may be meant to be ambiguous, which is how I take your question, as if you are challenging my intent.
I do not intend to deceive through the use of ambiguity.
Joe's law is certainly true if power means slaves.
If you ignore the costs paid by the slaves, then I think your perception of how that would work out is measurable in that way.
Slaves produced into abundance reduces the price of slaves while purchasing power increases (for the masters, not for the slaves) because slaves reduce the cost of production (for the masters, not the slaves).
If there were robot slaves, not human slaves, then how does that work out in your way of perceiving the illusions?
By the phrase: while purchasing power increases. Do you mean while more people are buying power or while the amount of goods or services that can be purchased with a unit of currency increases? The phrase can be interpreted either way. I assume you mean the latter but I want to be certain.
The sentence does not work, it makes no sense, if you interpret the phrase as meaning more people are purchasing (buying) more power, while the sentence works when the phrase is interpreted in the later, economic sense, whereby a unit of purchasing power is a fixed unit, fixed as in total quantity, and there are then more things, more economic power, to buy with the same unit of purchasing power, as in the same money chasing around more things, and other such phrases common in the vernacular of Political Economy.
The reason why the sentence was constructed, as it is constructed, has to do with modern English speaking common practices concerning political economy, involving many concepts and ideas, often contradictory, swimming around, contradicting each against the other, seemingly going on forever in perpetual conflict, so I decided to nail all that conflict down into a working sentence.
I can add a lot more words, I can't take any more out, as far as I can tell up to this point in time.
We appear to be at that parting point again. I may be imagining, or believing in an inaccurate measure of what is before me, in view, but my guess, at this point, is that we have reached the fence. I'll be here, this is what I do.