Post II: What humans need to do?

[Euler080]

Post I: What humans need to do?

@Eodnhoj7 , @Celebritydiscodave2 and everyone: Sorry for not replying there back before. I saw that I was in need of knowing more data, and needed to stabilize (checking optimal action by comparison, etc.) my past data with all the new data. I will reply their to the end posts, but this is a new post, from all the data and stabilization I have made till now. I am posting here again, for the utility of knowing on whether the below conformations would be optimal for us humans or not. If not, to know the conformations which you all might think as optimal.

We seem to be not knowing all the data, it may be possible that death itself could be optimal for us, or it may be possible that death could not be optimal for us, depending on what exists (if anything exists) after death, or depending on any other unknown conformations. What determines optimal conformation (structure)? Optimal structure/conformation might depend on what we would be composed of, after death, on what might make us feel to not to be in a particular state.

Eodnhoj7 seems to have before said on there as to be nothing after death, as we what we all are composed of, seems to be known to get decomposed. But, do we know completely on how we work? Do we know completly on how our brain works? I am asking these, as we seem to be still not able to apply particle physics to know the working of humans. If we don't know completly on how we work, can we say as to be only made of matter which we see as to be decomposing? And as said before, we seem to be not knowing all the data, then could there be any unknown conformation/data, which might later make us be there in any of the state.

What do we do then? Would it be optimal to know more data? Can we know all the data within our lifespan? Then, would it be optimal to increase lifespan and know more data, to know ourself, and to have a stable conformation later? Increasing lifespan seems to allow even to die later.

It may also be possible that death could itself be optimal. There seems to be a chance nature here, from not knowing all the data, we may not be able to know on what would be optimal.

In the past post, I seem to have had notion of increasing lifespan itself as to be optimal, and thought no other action or conformation as to be optimal. Before, I saw attainment of longevity and knowing more data as a need. But now to me, it seems that we can't say on what is optimal, from not knowing all the data. As we need to do any of the action, I am now making actions to increase lifespan, to know more data, and to later make decision. It may or my not be optimal, but it seems to have option of dying later too. What do you all think, what will you do?

Miscellaneous on making optimal action with incomplete data: Though there could be data which we may not be knowing, but the probability of conformations or structures being not as we have thought, might express we not knowing conformations properly; if all the conformations or structures, are as known to us, within our interaction domain, it seems that at least we would be knowing conformations within our interaction domain.

[Eodnhoj7]

Post I: What humans need to do?

@Eodnhoj7 , @Celebritydiscodave2 and everyone: Sorry for not replying there back before. I saw that I was in need of knowing more data, and needed to stabilize (checking optimal action by comparison, etc.) my past data with all the new data. I will reply their to the end posts, but this is a new post, from all the data and stabilization I have made till now. I am posting here again, for the utility of knowing on whether the below conformations would be optimal for us humans or not. If not, to know the conformations which you all might think as optimal.

We seem to be not knowing all the data, it may be possible that death itself could be optimal for us, or it may be possible that death could not be optimal for us, depending on what exists (if anything exists) after death, or depending on any other unknown conformations. What determines optimal conformation (structure)? Optimal structure/conformation might depend on what we would be composed of, after death, on what might make us feel to not to be in a particular state.

Eodnhoj7 seems to have before said on there as to be nothing after death, as we what we all are composed of, seems to be known to get decomposed.

If I worded it where it was "implied" in such a manner I said such a thing, then the fault is mine. While what composes us may be subject to change, and hence "death", the soul is immortal as the soul is based on a capacity to measure by applying limits with us existing through these limits and in turn forming us.

For example I may apply a point, line or circle to a piece of material to form it. This material in turn forms me through the very same measurement I applied to it. So while I may form the measurement the measurement forms me, and the measurement premised on the application of these base limits observes these base limits inherent within my consciousness and existing as inseperable. Due to the infinite nature of these limits, and myself existing through these limits, I will be infinite because of the source through which I exist which are these infinite limits.

I may apply these abstract limits of the point line and circle (which is reflected further in the Yin Yang or "Cross as the synthesis of limits as a universal within many of the worlds religions) in basic human interaction as well where I both measure and am measured.

I may "project" (line) an emotion or thought to someone through my interaction in linear time.
I may receive this same emotion or thought (circularity).
I may reflect on my own actions (directed myself to myself to form myself as a form of circularity which maintains myself).
I may "originate" an action, such as a thought, word, deed, through choice (point).

I may have to elaborate further on the above, for clarity, because I am low on time.

But in simpler terms, because we exist through these "limits" which are infinite, we are infinite as well with all consciousness being a complex set of limits that are composed of these limits and move back to them.

The soul as the capacity to measure and give form and function to both the interior and exterior nature of reality is strictly an extension of one true measurement/measurer and in these respects is immortal. Death is a point of inversion and disunity.

A simple example of consciousness as a point, can be observed in the point of white light an individual is merged with in a near death experience.




But, do we know completely on how we work? Do we know completly on how our brain works? I am asking these, as we seem to be still not able to apply particle physics to know the working of humans. If we don't know completly on how we work, can we say as to be only made of matter which we see as to be decomposing? And as said before, we seem to be not knowing all the data, then could there be any unknown conformation/data, which might later make us be there in any of the state.

What do we do then? Would it be optimal to know more data? Can we know all the data within our lifespan? Then, would it be optimal to increase lifespan and know more data, to know ourself, and to have a stable conformation later? Increasing lifespan seems to allow even to die later.

It may also be possible that death could itself be optimal. There seems to be a chance nature here, from not knowing all the data, we may not be able to know on what would be optimal.

In the past post, I seem to have had notion of increasing lifespan itself as to be optimal, and thought no other action or conformation as to be optimal. Before, I saw attainment of longevity and knowing more data as a need. But now to me, it seems that we can't say on what is optimal, from not knowing all the data. As we need to do any of the action, I am now making actions to increase lifespan, to know more data, and to later make decision. It may or my not be optimal, but it seems to have option of dying later too. What do you all think, what will you do?

Miscellaneous on making optimal action with incomplete data: Though there could be data which we may not be knowing, but the probability of conformations or structures being not as we have thought, might express we not knowing conformations properly; if all the conformations or structures, are as known to us, within our interaction domain, it seems that at least we would be knowing conformations within our interaction domain.

[Euler080]

Thank you for the reply.

While what composes us may be subject to change, and hence "death", the soul is immortal as the soul is based on a capacity to measure by applying limits with us existing through these limits and in turn forming us.

Precise definition of soul? Proof to say on such soul as to be existing?

For example I may apply a point, line or circle to a piece of material to form it. This material in turn forms me through the very same measurement I applied to it. So while I may form the measurement the measurement forms me, and the measurement premised on the application of these base limits observes these base limits inherent within my consciousness and existing as inseperable. Due to the infinite nature of these limits, and myself existing through these limits, I will be infinite because of the source through which I exist which are these infinite limits.

I may apply these abstract limits of the point line and circle (which is reflected further in the Yin Yang or "Cross as the synthesis of limits as a universal within many of the worlds religions) in basic human interaction as well where I both measure and am measured.

I may "project" (line) an emotion or thought to someone through my interaction in linear time.
I may receive this same emotion or thought (circularity).
I may reflect on my own actions (directed myself to myself to form myself as a form of circularity which maintains myself).
I may "originate" an action, such as a thought, word, deed, through choice (point).

I may have to elaborate further on the above, for clarity, because I am low on time.

But in simpler terms, because we exist through these "limits" which are infinite, we are infinite as well with all consciousness being a complex set of limits that are composed of these limits and move back to them.

The soul as the capacity to measure and give form and function to both the interior and exterior nature of reality is strictly an extension of one true measurement/measurer and in these respects is immortal. Death is a point of inversion and disunity.

A simple example of consciousness as a point, can be observed in the point of white light an individual is merged with in a near death experience.

I didn't understand precisely on what you are expressing here. It might take lot of time to get clarification for each and every sentence here; can you suggest any of the source (book, article, etc.), to understand you. Thank you again.

[Eodnhoj7]

Thank you for the reply.

While what composes us may be subject to change, and hence "death", the soul is immortal as the soul is based on a capacity to measure by applying limits with us existing through these limits and in turn forming us.

Precise definition of soul? Proof to say on such soul as to be existing?

For example I may apply a point, line or circle to a piece of material to form it. This material in turn forms me through the very same measurement I applied to it. So while I may form the measurement the measurement forms me, and the measurement premised on the application of these base limits observes these base limits inherent within my consciousness and existing as inseperable. Due to the infinite nature of these limits, and myself existing through these limits, I will be infinite because of the source through which I exist which are these infinite limits.

I may apply these abstract limits of the point line and circle (which is reflected further in the Yin Yang or "Cross as the synthesis of limits as a universal within many of the worlds religions) in basic human interaction as well where I both measure and am measured.

I may "project" (line) an emotion or thought to someone through my interaction in linear time.
I may receive this same emotion or thought (circularity).
I may reflect on my own actions (directed myself to myself to form myself as a form of circularity which maintains myself).
I may "originate" an action, such as a thought, word, deed, through choice (point).

I may have to elaborate further on the above, for clarity, because I am low on time.

But in simpler terms, because we exist through these "limits" which are infinite, we are infinite as well with all consciousness being a complex set of limits that are composed of these limits and move back to them.

The soul as the capacity to measure and give form and function to both the interior and exterior nature of reality is strictly an extension of one true measurement/measurer and in these respects is immortal. Death is a point of inversion and disunity.

A simple example of consciousness as a point, can be observed in the point of white light an individual is merged with in a near death experience.

I didn't understand precisely on what you are expressing here. It might take lot of time to get clarification for each and every sentence here; can you suggest any of the source (book, article, etc.), to understand you. Thank you again.

Definition of a soul? That which reflects.

In regards to clarification pick any one to three sentences and I will elaborate until you are satisfied.

[Euler080]

Thank you for the reply.

Definition of a soul? That which reflects.

Reflects what?
Or did you mean the one who reflects to the one who "think deeply or carefully about"[from google dictionary]?

In regards to clarification pick any one to three sentences and I will elaborate until you are satisfied.

Let us have clarification of the above now, we can later get into next paragraph.

[Eodnhoj7]

Thank you for the reply.

Definition of a soul? That which reflects.

Reflects what?
Or did you mean the one who reflects to the one who "think deeply or carefully about"[from google dictionary]?

In regards to clarification pick any one to three sentences and I will elaborate until you are satisfied.

Let us have clarification of the above now, we can later get into next paragraph.

Reflection is the replication of movement through self direction resulting in symmetry as structure.

1. A replicates to (A,A) B where A directed to itself results in B. B is directed towards A as C and B is directed towards itself as D. All of this occurs through A as an extension of A. A occurs through A.

2. A cell directed towards another cell, where a cell as cell, is directed towards itself results in a further cell as cell which continues this direction to further cells as "cell". The cell continues through its replication as self direction. All cells are extensions of eachother. Cell occurs through Cell.

3. A thought directed to its itself results into another thought, which is directed towards itself and the original thought as an extension of the original thought. Thought occurs through thought.


The soul as reflective in nature is pure movement reflecting further movement and is the foundation for consciousness based upon this reflective nature that can be observed in all phenomenon.

[Greta]

What they need to do is follow their passions and aptitudes. For instance, the scientist should not be pressured, coerced or shamed into trying to be a mystic, nor vice versa.

Those in despair and desperation seek respite. Those who are lonely will seek company. Those who want to leave the cycle of life seek rapid self improvement techniques. Those who are romantics will seek mysticism. Those who are curious will seek more information, and so forth.

[Eodnhoj7]

What they need to do is follow their passions and aptitudes. For instance, the scientist should not be pressured, coerced or shamed into trying to be a mystic, nor vice versa.

Those in despair and desperation seek respite. Those who are lonely will seek company. Those who want to leave the cycle of life seek rapid self improvement techniques. Those who are romantics will seek mysticism. Those who are curious will seek more information, and so forth.

And what if a man or woman is all of these things?

[Greta]

What they need to do is follow their passions and aptitudes. For instance, the scientist should not be pressured, coerced or shamed into trying to be a mystic, nor vice versa.

Those in despair and desperation seek respite. Those who are lonely will seek company. Those who want to leave the cycle of life seek rapid self improvement techniques. Those who are romantics will seek mysticism. Those who are curious will seek more information, and so forth.

And what if a man or woman is all of these things?

Then they will be busy

Note the "so forth"at the end too - there are plenty of angles and aptitudes that won't apply to you. My point is that there is no one path but various paths that individuals are best suited to taking at various times of their lives.

[Eodnhoj7]

What they need to do is follow their passions and aptitudes. For instance, the scientist should not be pressured, coerced or shamed into trying to be a mystic, nor vice versa.

Those in despair and desperation seek respite. Those who are lonely will seek company. Those who want to leave the cycle of life seek rapid self improvement techniques. Those who are romantics will seek mysticism. Those who are curious will seek more information, and so forth.

And what if a man or woman is all of these things?

Then they will be busy

Note the "so forth"at the end too - there are plenty of angles and aptitudes that won't apply to you. My point is that there is no one path but various paths that individuals are best suited to taking at various times of their lives.

Rofl...work is good...lol.

[Greta]

And what if a man or woman is all of these things?

Then they will be busy

Note the "so forth"at the end too - there are plenty of angles and aptitudes that won't apply to you. My point is that there is no one path but various paths that individuals are best suited to taking at various times of their lives.

Rofl...work is good...lol.

I was doing one of those loopy thought experiments that crazy buggers on philosophy forums like us do, where I was trying to see if I was truly alone or if I was part of a broader community of like-minded people whom I simply don't know personally.

It seemed to me that I was part of a community, which I dubbed "the curiosity community". The really smart ones become scientists and technical experts exploring the nature of reality (incl. humanity). The next smartest write and teach non fiction about that nature of reality. The next smartest write credible, detailed and meticulously-researched fiction about it, and dipshits like me can only manage speculative fiction and online babbling

However, most of these subgroups of curious people have this in common - they want to infuse others the the same enthusiasm as they enjoy. Not for political influence, but in the hope that they can enjoy and appreciate the wonder that they have experienced in their observations. It's like recommending to someone a song you think they'd enjoy.

Less curious types have a different approach, preferring stability and results over potentials and ideas. There is more overt intensity in them as regards survival, which precludes wasting time with ostensibly impractical "pointless" activities. So they prefer the tried-and-tested, not so given to experimentation or breaking taboos. My father was a great example - a true old school "steady as she goes" conservative (rather than the extremists and oddities posing as conservatives nowadays).

Never mind, the strength of humanity (so much so that we are being threatened by our own empowerment) is in its diversity. All types are needed. If I want innovation and ideas then I need curious types but if I've fallen into a raging torrent, I bet my rescuer will be some bloke who can hardly string three words together but simply acted in unthinking goodness.

Even today's rabid quasi-fascist crazies are important. They are a symptom and a sign that our current systems are unsustainable and the growing army of unreasonable crazies are basically entropic change agents. Reasonable people do not bring change to long established systems. Crazies create change but they are acting out of emotionality and have no direction or vision. So others (with different goals and aptitudes) will direct that change.

Everyone has a small role in this collective act of destruction and creation, knowingly or not working with compatible aspects of the Zeitgeist.

[Eodnhoj7]

Then they will be busy

Note the "so forth"at the end too - there are plenty of angles and aptitudes that won't apply to you. My point is that there is no one path but various paths that individuals are best suited to taking at various times of their lives.

Rofl...work is good...lol.

I was doing one of those loopy thought experiments that crazy buggers on philosophy forums like us do, where I was trying to see if I was truly alone or if I was part of a broader community of like-minded people whom I simply don't know personally.

It seemed to me that I was part of a community, which I dubbed "the curiosity community". The really smart ones become scientists and technical experts exploring the nature of reality (incl. humanity). The next smartest write and teach non fiction about that nature of reality. The next smartest write credible, detailed and meticulously-researched fiction about it, and dipshits like me can only manage speculative fiction and online babbling

However, most of these subgroups of curious people have this in common - they want to infuse others the the same enthusiasm as they enjoy. Not for political influence, but in the hope that they can enjoy and appreciate the wonder that they have experienced in their observations. It's like recommending to someone a song you think they'd enjoy.

Less curious types have a different approach, preferring stability and results over potentials and ideas. There is more overt intensity in them as regards survival, which precludes wasting time with ostensibly impractical "pointless" activities. So they prefer the tried-and-tested, not so given to experimentation or breaking taboos. My father was a great example - a true old school "steady as she goes" conservative (rather than the extremists and oddities posing as conservatives nowadays).

Never mind, the strength of humanity (so much so that we are being threatened by our own empowerment) is in its diversity. All types are needed. If I want innovation and ideas then I need curious types but if I've fallen into a raging torrent, I bet my rescuer will be some bloke who can hardly string three words together but simply acted in unthinking goodness.

Even today's rabid quasi-fascist crazies are important. They are a symptom and a sign that our current systems are unsustainable and the growing army of unreasonable crazies are basically entropic change agents. Reasonable people do not bring change to long established systems. Crazies create change but they are acting out of emotionality and have no direction or vision. So others (with different goals and aptitudes) will direct that change.

Everyone has a small role in this collective act of destruction and creation, knowingly or not working with compatible aspects of the Zeitgeist.

Well...reason in a world of the irrational people is the craziest thing one can do...crazy people always win because of there passion and fury...and they have interesting lives...at least that is what the voices in there head tell them .

Cutting and molding ignorance requires the hard work of an old fashion lumberjack and the acceptance of complete annihilation like a warrior...maybe these examples are overly masculine but you get the point. Reason strictly is an art meant form something out of nothing

Thoughtless into thought

Apathy into empathy

Laying around into a long journey

...even if it is a simple thought like "what is the nature of a rose?" I am not sure one can escape reason or purpose.


The system is always changing, those who bring change fail to keep it...after all that hard work they get a statue teenagers use as a spot to buy weed.

People trying to bring change are always changing as well. One minute they are on top of the world, the next they no nothing about the tragedy that just happened and go through there lives trying to answer the question of what just happened.

Then you have people that change so much, going from this to that, that they suffer the tragedy of never really changing at all.



Me? I know if I stare into a dark room, quiet and alone and stare into empty space... I am aware of it. I think that is the real beginning of all thought, feeling and action...just an empty point, yet everything is in it...pure and true with no judgement but itself.

I can see no simpler or primitive example of true thought, feeling or movement..."existence" is the foundational light of all philosophy.

Pythagoras did this, as well as buddha...both brilliant and wise men. Both born around the same time. And both rumored to allocate.

So I have high aspirations as a student of philosophy...naturally because I am competive . Until I can billocate, heal the sick with a few words and rain down lighting on those who want to be my enemies...followed by a "yeah this is how I roll", I dont think I will ever know that much.

Joking aside, or not...

This is why modern philosophy is in a rut...they fail to take into account in arguing that in proving someone wrong that someone must first have some semblance of truth in there statement. If one is going to say "this is true" they must also admit some degree of truth in there "perceived enemies" as well.

People are afraid to think because they are afraid of being wrong because they believe if they are wrong more struggle will follow. But being afraid of being wrong still brings on that same struggle...but what does it really mean to be wrong? Or right? The questions exist, therefore right and wrong exist...so is everyone right and wrong considering everyone struggles? What is struggle then? Being wrong? Being right? It appears to me that the only struggle is one for advantage and that advantage is to be alive,

to be original as an origin

To experience clearly as a that which clarifies

To exist as constantly being


I can get all of this just by...existing. If it exists it has some element of truth in it, philosophy will have to remember this again because it is the only field in the human condition which "just is".

[Greta]

Rofl...work is good...lol.

I was doing one of those loopy thought experiments that crazy buggers on philosophy forums like us do, where I was trying to see if I was truly alone or if I was part of a broader community of like-minded people whom I simply don't know personally.

It seemed to me that I was part of a community, which I dubbed "the curiosity community". The really smart ones become scientists and technical experts exploring the nature of reality (incl. humanity). The next smartest write and teach non fiction about that nature of reality. The next smartest write credible, detailed and meticulously-researched fiction about it, and dipshits like me can only manage speculative fiction and online babbling

However, most of these subgroups of curious people have this in common - they want to infuse others the the same enthusiasm as they enjoy. Not for political influence, but in the hope that they can enjoy and appreciate the wonder that they have experienced in their observations. It's like recommending to someone a song you think they'd enjoy.

Less curious types have a different approach, preferring stability and results over potentials and ideas. There is more overt intensity in them as regards survival, which precludes wasting time with ostensibly impractical "pointless" activities. So they prefer the tried-and-tested, not so given to experimentation or breaking taboos. My father was a great example - a true old school "steady as she goes" conservative (rather than the extremists and oddities posing as conservatives nowadays).

Never mind, the strength of humanity (so much so that we are being threatened by our own empowerment) is in its diversity. All types are needed. If I want innovation and ideas then I need curious types but if I've fallen into a raging torrent, I bet my rescuer will be some bloke who can hardly string three words together but simply acted in unthinking goodness.

Even today's rabid quasi-fascist crazies are important. They are a symptom and a sign that our current systems are unsustainable and the growing army of unreasonable crazies are basically entropic change agents. Reasonable people do not bring change to long established systems. Crazies create change but they are acting out of emotionality and have no direction or vision. So others (with different goals and aptitudes) will direct that change.

Everyone has a small role in this collective act of destruction and creation, knowingly or not working with compatible aspects of the Zeitgeist.

Well...reason in a world of the irrational people is the craziest thing one can do...crazy people always win because of there passion and fury...and they have interesting lives...at least that is what the voices in there head tell them .

Cutting and molding ignorance requires the hard work of an old fashion lumberjack and the acceptance of complete annihilation like a warrior...maybe these examples are overly masculine but you get the point. Reason strictly is an art meant form something out of nothing

Thoughtless into thought

Apathy into empathy

Laying around into a long journey

...even if it is a simple thought like "what is the nature of a rose?" I am not sure one can escape reason or purpose.


The system is always changing, those who bring change fail to keep it...after all that hard work they get a statue teenagers use as a spot to buy weed.

People trying to bring change are always changing as well. One minute they are on top of the world, the next they no nothing about the tragedy that just happened and go through there lives trying to answer the question of what just happened.

Then you have people that change so much, going from this to that, that they suffer the tragedy of never really changing at all.



Me? I know if I stare into a dark room, quiet and alone and stare into empty space... I am aware of it. I think that is the real beginning of all thought, feeling and action...just an empty point, yet everything is in it...pure and true with no judgement but itself.

I can see no simpler or primitive example of true thought, feeling or movement..."existence" is the foundational light of all philosophy.

Pythagoras did this, as well as buddha...both brilliant and wise men. Both born around the same time. And both rumored to allocate.

So I have high aspirations as a student of philosophy...naturally because I am competive . Until I can billocate, heal the sick with a few words and rain down lighting on those who want to be my enemies...followed by a "yeah this is how I roll", I dont think I will ever know that much.

Joking aside, or not...

This is why modern philosophy is in a rut...they fail to take into account in arguing that in proving someone wrong that someone must first have some semblance of truth in there statement. If one is going to say "this is true" they must also admit some degree of truth in there "perceived enemies" as well.

People are afraid to think because they are afraid of being wrong because they believe if they are wrong more struggle will follow. But being afraid of being wrong still brings on that same struggle...but what does it really mean to be wrong? Or right? The questions exist, therefore right and wrong exist...so is everyone right and wrong considering everyone struggles? What is struggle then? Being wrong? Being right? It appears to me that the only struggle is one for advantage and that advantage is to be alive,

to be original as an origin

To experience clearly as a that which clarifies

To exist as constantly being

I can get all of this just by...existing. If it exists it has some element of truth in it, philosophy will have to remember this again because it is the only field in the human condition which "just is".

True about the short term futility of reason amongst the unreasonable.

I personally hold on to reason because the alternative is unpleasant. Being uneducated, I spent much of my life being unreasonable, too often unthinkingly using emotion and strategy rather than logic to influence events. It's been a slow journey to escape what was, in hindsight, a bit of a nightmare of confusion. So I'm not going to abandon all that just because the Zeitgeist favours unreason and feverishness. It just means that I and others who won't abandon reason are pushed into the role of ballast.

I wonder if this sense of being a self within blackness (as in a sensory deprivation tank or suchlike) is so fundamental. As far as I can see in nature there's a whole lot of ways of being and most seemingly lack what we'd think of as a sense of self. The "self" as we know it emerges through what I think of as humans' superior "temporal senses" as compared with other animals. That is, adults can perceive and conceive the flow of time to an extent that other living things can't, so the self is constructed of past and present impressions.

Rather, that fundamental base of consciousness would seem to be the mindless atavistic sense of being of simple organisms. Our relatively sophisticated sense of self is one of a number of interim layers of consciousness, which is reflected in the structure of the brain.

[Eodnhoj7]

I was doing one of those loopy thought experiments that crazy buggers on philosophy forums like us do, where I was trying to see if I was truly alone or if I was part of a broader community of like-minded people whom I simply don't know personally.

It seemed to me that I was part of a community, which I dubbed "the curiosity community". The really smart ones become scientists and technical experts exploring the nature of reality (incl. humanity). The next smartest write and teach non fiction about that nature of reality. The next smartest write credible, detailed and meticulously-researched fiction about it, and dipshits like me can only manage speculative fiction and online babbling

However, most of these subgroups of curious people have this in common - they want to infuse others the the same enthusiasm as they enjoy. Not for political influence, but in the hope that they can enjoy and appreciate the wonder that they have experienced in their observations. It's like recommending to someone a song you think they'd enjoy.

Less curious types have a different approach, preferring stability and results over potentials and ideas. There is more overt intensity in them as regards survival, which precludes wasting time with ostensibly impractical "pointless" activities. So they prefer the tried-and-tested, not so given to experimentation or breaking taboos. My father was a great example - a true old school "steady as she goes" conservative (rather than the extremists and oddities posing as conservatives nowadays).

Never mind, the strength of humanity (so much so that we are being threatened by our own empowerment) is in its diversity. All types are needed. If I want innovation and ideas then I need curious types but if I've fallen into a raging torrent, I bet my rescuer will be some bloke who can hardly string three words together but simply acted in unthinking goodness.

Even today's rabid quasi-fascist crazies are important. They are a symptom and a sign that our current systems are unsustainable and the growing army of unreasonable crazies are basically entropic change agents. Reasonable people do not bring change to long established systems. Crazies create change but they are acting out of emotionality and have no direction or vision. So others (with different goals and aptitudes) will direct that change.

Everyone has a small role in this collective act of destruction and creation, knowingly or not working with compatible aspects of the Zeitgeist.

Well...reason in a world of the irrational people is the craziest thing one can do...crazy people always win because of there passion and fury...and they have interesting lives...at least that is what the voices in there head tell them .

Cutting and molding ignorance requires the hard work of an old fashion lumberjack and the acceptance of complete annihilation like a warrior...maybe these examples are overly masculine but you get the point. Reason strictly is an art meant form something out of nothing

Thoughtless into thought

Apathy into empathy

Laying around into a long journey

...even if it is a simple thought like "what is the nature of a rose?" I am not sure one can escape reason or purpose.


The system is always changing, those who bring change fail to keep it...after all that hard work they get a statue teenagers use as a spot to buy weed.

People trying to bring change are always changing as well. One minute they are on top of the world, the next they no nothing about the tragedy that just happened and go through there lives trying to answer the question of what just happened.

Then you have people that change so much, going from this to that, that they suffer the tragedy of never really changing at all.



Me? I know if I stare into a dark room, quiet and alone and stare into empty space... I am aware of it. I think that is the real beginning of all thought, feeling and action...just an empty point, yet everything is in it...pure and true with no judgement but itself.

I can see no simpler or primitive example of true thought, feeling or movement..."existence" is the foundational light of all philosophy.

Pythagoras did this, as well as buddha...both brilliant and wise men. Both born around the same time. And both rumored to allocate.

So I have high aspirations as a student of philosophy...naturally because I am competive . Until I can billocate, heal the sick with a few words and rain down lighting on those who want to be my enemies...followed by a "yeah this is how I roll", I dont think I will ever know that much.

Joking aside, or not...

This is why modern philosophy is in a rut...they fail to take into account in arguing that in proving someone wrong that someone must first have some semblance of truth in there statement. If one is going to say "this is true" they must also admit some degree of truth in there "perceived enemies" as well.

People are afraid to think because they are afraid of being wrong because they believe if they are wrong more struggle will follow. But being afraid of being wrong still brings on that same struggle...but what does it really mean to be wrong? Or right? The questions exist, therefore right and wrong exist...so is everyone right and wrong considering everyone struggles? What is struggle then? Being wrong? Being right? It appears to me that the only struggle is one for advantage and that advantage is to be alive,

to be original as an origin

To experience clearly as a that which clarifies

To exist as constantly being

I can get all of this just by...existing. If it exists it has some element of truth in it, philosophy will have to remember this again because it is the only field in the human condition which "just is".

True about the short term futility of reason amongst the unreasonable.

I personally hold on to reason because the alternative is unpleasant. Being uneducated, I spent much of my life being unreasonable, too often unthinkingly using emotion and strategy rather than logic to influence events. It's been a slow journey to escape what was, in hindsight, a bit of a nightmare of confusion. So I'm not going to abandon all that just because the Zeitgeist favours unreason and feverishness. It just means that I and others who won't abandon reason are pushed into the role of ballast.

I wonder if this sense of being a self within blackness (as in a sensory deprivation tank or suchlike) is so fundamental. As far as I can see in nature there's a whole lot of ways of being and most seemingly lack what we'd think of as a sense of self. The "self" as we know it emerges through what I think of as humans' superior "temporal senses" as compared with other animals. That is, adults can perceive and conceive the flow of time to an extent that other living things can't, so the self is constructed of past and present impressions.

Rather, that fundamental base of consciousness would seem to be the mindless atavistic sense of being of simple organisms. Our relatively sophisticated sense of self is one of a number of interim layers of consciousness, which is reflected in the structure of the brain.

Barring job opportunities, I can personally assure you you are not missing much with the education system in light of the advancements on the internet in the past 20 years.

Try sitting on a park bench for 15 minutes. Stare at a point in space and be aware of what you observe with your eyes and in your thoughts.

[Greta]

Well...reason in a world of the irrational people is the craziest thing one can do...crazy people always win because of there passion and fury...and they have interesting lives...at least that is what the voices in there head tell them .

Cutting and molding ignorance requires the hard work of an old fashion lumberjack and the acceptance of complete annihilation like a warrior...maybe these examples are overly masculine but you get the point. Reason strictly is an art meant form something out of nothing

Thoughtless into thought

Apathy into empathy

Laying around into a long journey

...even if it is a simple thought like "what is the nature of a rose?" I am not sure one can escape reason or purpose.


The system is always changing, those who bring change fail to keep it...after all that hard work they get a statue teenagers use as a spot to buy weed.

People trying to bring change are always changing as well. One minute they are on top of the world, the next they no nothing about the tragedy that just happened and go through there lives trying to answer the question of what just happened.

Then you have people that change so much, going from this to that, that they suffer the tragedy of never really changing at all.



Me? I know if I stare into a dark room, quiet and alone and stare into empty space... I am aware of it. I think that is the real beginning of all thought, feeling and action...just an empty point, yet everything is in it...pure and true with no judgement but itself.

I can see no simpler or primitive example of true thought, feeling or movement..."existence" is the foundational light of all philosophy.

Pythagoras did this, as well as buddha...both brilliant and wise men. Both born around the same time. And both rumored to allocate.

So I have high aspirations as a student of philosophy...naturally because I am competive . Until I can billocate, heal the sick with a few words and rain down lighting on those who want to be my enemies...followed by a "yeah this is how I roll", I dont think I will ever know that much.

Joking aside, or not...

This is why modern philosophy is in a rut...they fail to take into account in arguing that in proving someone wrong that someone must first have some semblance of truth in there statement. If one is going to say "this is true" they must also admit some degree of truth in there "perceived enemies" as well.

People are afraid to think because they are afraid of being wrong because they believe if they are wrong more struggle will follow. But being afraid of being wrong still brings on that same struggle...but what does it really mean to be wrong? Or right? The questions exist, therefore right and wrong exist...so is everyone right and wrong considering everyone struggles? What is struggle then? Being wrong? Being right? It appears to me that the only struggle is one for advantage and that advantage is to be alive,

to be original as an origin

To experience clearly as a that which clarifies

To exist as constantly being

I can get all of this just by...existing. If it exists it has some element of truth in it, philosophy will have to remember this again because it is the only field in the human condition which "just is".

True about the short term futility of reason amongst the unreasonable.

I personally hold on to reason because the alternative is unpleasant. Being uneducated, I spent much of my life being unreasonable, too often unthinkingly using emotion and strategy rather than logic to influence events. It's been a slow journey to escape what was, in hindsight, a bit of a nightmare of confusion. So I'm not going to abandon all that just because the Zeitgeist favours unreason and feverishness. It just means that I and others who won't abandon reason are pushed into the role of ballast.

I wonder if this sense of being a self within blackness (as in a sensory deprivation tank or suchlike) is so fundamental. As far as I can see in nature there's a whole lot of ways of being and most seemingly lack what we'd think of as a sense of self. The "self" as we know it emerges through what I think of as humans' superior "temporal senses" as compared with other animals. That is, adults can perceive and conceive the flow of time to an extent that other living things can't, so the self is constructed of past and present impressions.

Rather, that fundamental base of consciousness would seem to be the mindless atavistic sense of being of simple organisms. Our relatively sophisticated sense of self is one of a number of interim layers of consciousness, which is reflected in the structure of the brain.

Barring job opportunities, I can personally assure you you are not missing much with the education system in light of the advancements on the internet in the past 20 years.

Try sitting on a park bench for 15 minutes. Stare at a point in space and be aware of what you observe with your eyes and in your thoughts.

I did get forced by a boss to do a year post grad in management in my late 40s. I learned a fair bit from it too, but was not impressed with the parroting aspect. Substantial work based on real research out of the workplace earned low marks and regurgitation of outdated theoretical course material earned top marks. So it goes. Thus, as with every other part of society, you are taught not to say what you think is true but what you think others want to hear. Fuck 'em, right?

I would have loved to have studied science, though - probably biology because astronomy requires too much physics - but I was bullied out of school back in the days when no one cared about such things and PTSD was misdiagnosed as hysteria or simply weakness. So, instead of gaining an education, I took intoxicants almost every waking hour to numb the pain of being rejected by a few conceited and moronic teenage sadists (absurd in hindsight), but that did mean I spent a lot of time loafing around staring into space. You learn from doing that too, albeit more slowly than in focused education.