What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.













............................................................










.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Yet, if we stick to the evolutionary science, it would seem that such a denial of symbiosis that would detroy us is that element of fear that will make us excel as an adapted specie. Whatever the general idea of fear is present for the era, I am not speaking of individual cultures. Or the individual. It seems contrary to the evidence of history that we would detroy ourselves. No entire group of humans has ever died, but their susrvivors have contributed to the adaptive attibutes which allow for the survival of the specie. To posit that now we have come to a pivotal point in history for our ultimate survival merely makes my point.

It only makes your point if we survive it, which is yet to be seen!

Obviously I'm here to rally people in sacrificing their selfish desires thus helping to potentially bring about the change required to save the day and make your point. Sitting on ones ass and believing, "everything's OK, man shall fix it," is the lethargy that has brought us to the brink.

Coming upon a burning house one can do one of three things with respect to it's existence:
1) throw fuel on it so your hotdog can cook to completion
2) pass on by without a blink of an eye
3) throw water on it to put it out

I am of option 3. Most of the people on the planet are of either 1 or 2 which is why we're here, at the brink in the first place.

I do not think most are of the opt 1or 2. Many are just naïve and ignorant, but that does not mean they are contributing to our demise.
Yes it does! You can say they do it unwittingly, but you can't say that their ignorant actions are not contributing to our demise, at least not in truth.
Indeed, you are a part of our species.
So you believe!
You are that adaptive element. But there is no total ethic, you yourself have said that we cannot know what is actually true, we can only act on what we think is true. Everyone is doing this.
But some are wrong, and for some of those it is denial not ignorance, that fuels their rhetoric.
The respective manifestations of ethics together reveal the actual ethical situation of our species.
Who's denying that? You speak of reality, I speak ideally, what we have to work towards.
It is not either/or, it is not 'do this or we all die', it is 'we do what we do and think what we think because that is the nature of our adapted consciousness as an organism that has been selected naturally.
Not at all, many have $ blinders on, if they took them off and examined scientific evidence and considered it before the $, there would be no problem. Make no mistake, big money (capitalism) sets the pace and the course. The promise of a pretty gold rock, sheesh, we're talking a pre neanderthal mentality.

That is, if you believe in natural selection then there is no room for a choice that is gained from a segregate, priviledged position upon the actual universe.
It would seem that your definitions require updating, to meet with reality.
There cannot be an organism of the universe that is sufficiently separate from the universe to know what is actually going on as the universe.
Why do you choose to exaggerate the arena, we're talking only about earth, which man has a handle on, which is the problem, it would seem.
Only if we are separate from the universe can we know we are destroying ourselves as an actual fact.
This is to say, the fact that we think we may destroy ourselves if that ethical component of our being human which arrives due to the situation of existance that includes what is not ethical.
So this then, would seem to be either denial in the face of desire or ignorance.
There is no 'actual' ethics occurring here, only what is innate as humans are naturally selected to behave in such a way as to allow a consciousness of ethics that posits we may destroy ourselves as part of our existential position which ironically evidences our situation that we will not destory ourselves, but we may destory that which we consider 'civilized'. But this has happened at least a few times.
Some do use this type of logic to satisfy their desires, it would seem that they require taking off their blinders and examining themselves from a third person perspective so that their true nature shall be apparent, blaming human nature is a cop out. I'd say that natural selection, historically has had more to do with physicalities than with mentalities. Modern day mans mentalities have been held hostage by a pretty gold rock, there's nothing natural about it. We need to cut the umbilical from material and attach it to intellect. Human nature is forged by those weighing, examining and changing it, first in their own minds and then disseminated to/as the populace, historically it's been governed by the material, it needs to be governed by the intellect. You've forgotten of the Roman means of control that has prevailed. Think what could be done if instead of material, intellect was the essence of, television commercials, for instance. The essence of humanities mentality is currently bought and sold. There's the essence of natural mentality selection. We need to change it, I vote for intellect!

And, in that I may be asserting that you are part of a much larger ethics than you care to admit evidences that indeed we are separate from the universe, or at least are capable of behaving as if we are separate and have no further reprecussions that an internal debate on the matter which really amounts to a discussion about what Kind of world do we want to live in; the 'we are going to die' rhetoric is a strategy of one voice of the former debate.

First, speak for yourself as you are the only one you can actually speak for. Second, "much larger" is ambiguous, whereas "most" indicates 51% or higher, so were you thinking "much larger" than 49%?

In 2 years I have only filled up my automobiles gas tank 3 times and I have done no partial fills, it gets 35 MPG highway and 30 MPG city, how about you? My bike gets 40 MPG and I drive it as much as I can, funny how you can fit 3 individual bikes on the same footprint as one car, some bikes get 60+ MPG, unfortunately mine's been down for repairs. I recycle all man made's, compost organic and feed animal remains to neighborhood scavengers. I'm working on becoming a vegetarian, my wife already has. Finances permitting, my next auto will be at least a hybrid but preferably all electric. The southern facade of my roof will be adorned completely with photovoltaic panels and a solar water heater. A radiant floor heating system connected to geothermal will replace the forced air gas furnace. Rain barrels will collect roof gutter water for the garden. I plan on increasing my attics insulation to at least r37. What's your carbon footprint?

Somehow I knew you'd go there. I do what I can, what I am able; I agree with such sustainable practices, but my life and my self is not situated to be able to do Everything that I would. That is what we should expect from everyone. Yes I recycle and compost and what is actually trash is minimal. But I drive a 77 lebaron. It is a perfect engine. It passes emission way below the standard but it gets maybe 10mi/ gal. But fortunately I only have to drive about 20 mi a week. Now if you are saying that somehow I am unethical or willfully contributing to our human demise I would have to call you a fanatic. We (humans) do what we can.
Speak for yourself, as you truthfully can't speak otherwise!
If you want to buy me another more fuel efficient car then thank you. To say the fact that I cannot afford to get a nnew car is unethical is rediculous (no words in my mouth, please.)(besides that 'they say' that it now is more ecologically sound to keep whatever car you have than it is to buy a new one).
Did you buy it before or after you knew of global warming and the significance of a carbon footprint? What was your justification for buying such a 'boat' of a car in the first place?
It is smallminded to think that everyone should (No not 'should,' but rather you mean 'is')be aware of our human demise and do what they Should for the planet.
No they should do what they should do, knowing dictates the value of should.

Everyone doesd what they can where they can
Who says?
and This is what you see the problem as - a general complaint about the human situation. As if 'someone' has to take responsibilty.
Yes some 'one,' humankind!
I live in one of the most liberal and ecologically conscious communities in the world (probably).
Justification for your status.
And it is only those who are in a financial position to haver to great fuel cars and the biking to work and the great schools so their kids can be educated and etc.
There's that nasty, 'material trumps intellect' again, I absolutely hate it!
It is smnall minded to think everone Must;
No, everyone must!
it is real to see that everyone just does what they can.
No it's real to see that everyone does what they 'want.' That is their $ that they hold at the end of the week and they shall decide what it's used for, no one else!
Great for being the activist. I commend you.
Thanks for the complement, this is why I see you as a good man! You can give even with adversity staring you in the face. Bravo, I should take this lesson from you and be more vocal about my giving where giving is due, thank you kind sir!
But I love my car. .
Do you equally love the breathing of your little girl?
Further, I do not agree with sustsinable practices because I think we are going to kill humanity, but that I am making a choice of how I want to live.
I've chosen both, which is of a greater sight.

Perhaps I am making a claim on continuing to live in a clean environment has more to do with not living in 19th century industrial england conditions.
Clean is relative, with respect to clean, I wish I was born long before the industrial revolution.

PEACE, my friend!

[lancek4]

I maintain that our present worry or concern about our destroying the world and ourselves, the perception thereof that informs the 'of paramount' imperative, is no more true in the actual scheme of the world and universe that that same idea and concern that the Maya or Aztecs or Zuni had about the world coming to and end becaus of their 'sins'. Ours now is only more true or has a quality as from a ' better understanding' or more comprehensive perspective exactly because it is Our idea, it has come out of Our mythology that informs Us, its constituents, as to what is True. We have no purchase upon what is 'actually' happening to an 'actual' world, only Our world which is the Truth of our World. It is only our perception, a necessary operation of our adapted brain to construct meaning out of the objects before us. It has only truth in the sense that it is our consciousness establishing itself in A world, its own world of meaning. But the meaning is not 'really' attached to any True object 'out there'.
The universe just does what it does; we are not separate from it.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I maintain that our present worry or concern about our destroying the world and ourselves, the perception thereof that informs the 'of paramount' imperative, is no more true in the actual scheme of the world and universe that that same idea and concern that the Maya or Aztecs or Zuni had about the world coming to and end becaus of their 'sins'. Ours now is only more true or has a quality as from a ' better understanding' or more comprehensive perspective exactly because it is Our idea, it has come out of Our mythology that informs Us, its constituents, as to what is True. We have no purchase upon what is 'actually' happening to an 'actual' world, only Our world which is the Truth of our World. It is only our perception, a necessary operation of our adapted brain to construct meaning out of the objects before us. It has only truth in the sense that it is our consciousness establishing itself in A world, its own world of meaning. But the meaning is not 'really' attached to any True object 'out there'.
The universe just does what it does; we are not separate from it.

I see a convoluted explanation, that you believe is clever, which seems to be how you place all your responsibility (fear), for your contributions or lack thereof, in the same basket as your denial, and the hope that the world is without end; that 7 billion strong with no end in sight, is not more than the archaic predictions of old, and may in fact be the inkling of truth, that they actually caught a glimpse of, (I mean, at what point shall the cup overflow anyway?), and in the face of global warming, is not indicative of ecosystem imbalance, such that you have to worry about the lives of your progeny; and that your careless whimsical concerns, when considering today's environmental indicators, in their relative blanket of individual comfort, is actually the main part of the problem.

You wield no logic, as you deny the evidence of facts that are right before your eyes, and instead build a thought process of faith, to negate your fears and/or feed your desires!

You man of faith, you!

"The big shots try to hold it back, fools try to wish it away. The hopeful depend on a world without end, what ever the hopeless may say." -Peart-


P.S. I truly wonder how many are here just to hone their skills at argument, however illogical, and how many actually care about the truth, in the facts, that lie before them.

I believe that most relativists are here just for argument, no matter how absurd, because of fear, and that most absolutists are here for 'the' truth, no matter how painful, despite the fear.

[lancek4]

I maintain that our present worry or concern about our destroying the world and ourselves, the perception thereof that informs the 'of paramount' imperative, is no more true in the actual scheme of the world and universe that that same idea and concern that the Maya or Aztecs or Zuni had about the world coming to and end becaus of their 'sins'. Ours now is only more true or has a quality as from a ' better understanding' or more comprehensive perspective exactly because it is Our idea, it has come out of Our mythology that informs Us, its constituents, as to what is True. We have no purchase upon what is 'actually' happening to an 'actual' world, only Our world which is the Truth of our World. It is only our perception, a necessary operation of our adapted brain to construct meaning out of the objects before us. It has only truth in the sense that it is our consciousness establishing itself in A world, its own world of meaning. But the meaning is not 'really' attached to any True object 'out there'.
The universe just does what it does; we are not separate from it.

I see a convoluted explanation, that you believe is clever, which seems to be how you place all your responsibility (fear), for your contributions or lack thereof, in the same basket as your denial, and the hope that the world is without end; that 7 billion strong with no end in sight, is not more than the archaic predictions of old, and may in fact be the inkling of truth, that they actually caught a glimpse of, (I mean, at what point shall the cup overflow anyway?), and in the face of global warming, is not indicative of ecosystem imbalance, such that you have to worry about the lives of your progeny; and that your careless whimsical concerns, when considering today's environmental indicators, in their relative blanket of individual comfort, is actually the main part of the problem.

You wield no logic, as you deny the evidence of facts that are right before your eyes, and instead build a thought process of faith, to negate your fears and/or feed your desires!

You man of faith, you!

"The big shots try to hold it back, fools try to wish it away. The hopeful depend on a world without end, what ever the hopeless may say." -Peart-


P.S. I truly wonder how many are here just to hone their skills at argument, however illogical, and how many actually care about the truth, in the facts, that lie before them.

I believe that most relativists are here just for argument, no matter how absurd, because of fear, and that most absolutists are here for 'the' truth, no matter how painful, despite the fear.

Indeed; I do not deny my part of fear and denial. Every human being's truth stated can be reduced upon an argument that identifies fear, denial and faith.
I do not claim that I do not function in this world with the same mativations to do what is best for humanity and my childeren and nieghbors: this is the containment arena in which I have myself: I cannot marally Do anything else. I have to work, I have to have concern for others, I have to try despite my fears, I have toi try to identify where I may lack and overcome my liimitations.
To me, that much as to everyday living is only philosophy colloquially. I do not deny nor have I ever denied that I understand what you are saying, and indeed we only disagree upon some particular items as would have any debate of how to best procede in activity.
I am not arguing how to address such concerns. I am not arguing ethics. It is more ontology.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I maintain that our present worry or concern about our destroying the world and ourselves, the perception thereof that informs the 'of paramount' imperative, is no more true in the actual scheme of the world and universe that that same idea and concern that the Maya or Aztecs or Zuni had about the world coming to and end becaus of their 'sins'. Ours now is only more true or has a quality as from a ' better understanding' or more comprehensive perspective exactly because it is Our idea, it has come out of Our mythology that informs Us, its constituents, as to what is True. We have no purchase upon what is 'actually' happening to an 'actual' world, only Our world which is the Truth of our World. It is only our perception, a necessary operation of our adapted brain to construct meaning out of the objects before us. It has only truth in the sense that it is our consciousness establishing itself in A world, its own world of meaning. But the meaning is not 'really' attached to any True object 'out there'.
The universe just does what it does; we are not separate from it.

I see a convoluted explanation, that you believe is clever, which seems to be how you place all your responsibility (fear), for your contributions or lack thereof, in the same basket as your denial, and the hope that the world is without end; that 7 billion strong with no end in sight, is not more than the archaic predictions of old, and may in fact be the inkling of truth, that they actually caught a glimpse of, (I mean, at what point shall the cup overflow anyway?), and in the face of global warming, is not indicative of ecosystem imbalance, such that you have to worry about the lives of your progeny; and that your careless whimsical concerns, when considering today's environmental indicators, in their relative blanket of individual comfort, is actually the main part of the problem.

You wield no logic, as you deny the evidence of facts that are right before your eyes, and instead build a thought process of faith, to negate your fears and/or feed your desires!

You man of faith, you!

"The big shots try to hold it back, fools try to wish it away. The hopeful depend on a world without end, what ever the hopeless may say." -Peart-


P.S. I truly wonder how many are here just to hone their skills at argument, however illogical, and how many actually care about the truth, in the facts, that lie before them.

I believe that most relativists are here just for argument, no matter how absurd, because of fear, and that most absolutists are here for 'the' truth, no matter how painful, despite the fear.

First, I'd like to say that it's a pleasure to argue with you, because you seem, for the most part, to be an honest man. I can be an SOB, but be assured that I'll always give credit where credit is due, and you deserve credit for the honesty displayed in your following message below, subsequent to my previous pointed commentary. This is one thing I need to learn from you. I seriously applaud you! Bravo!

Indeed; I do not deny my part of fear and denial. Every human being's truth stated can be reduced upon an argument that identifies fear, denial and faith.
I do not claim that I do not function in this world with the same mativations to do what is best for humanity and my childeren and nieghbors: this is the containment arena in which I have myself: I cannot marally Do anything else. I have to work, I have to have concern for others, I have to try despite my fears, I have toi try to identify where I may lack and overcome my liimitations.
To me, that much as to everyday living is only philosophy colloquially. I do not deny nor have I ever denied that I understand what you are saying, and indeed we only disagree upon some particular items as would have any debate of how to best procede in activity.
I am not arguing how to address such concerns. I am not arguing ethics. It is more ontology.

OK, I'll bite, please explain how ontology, the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality as such, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations; that which deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences, has anything to do with your stance of us not killing ourselves off, because I believe that has been our current topic of discussion.

The existence of global warming at human hands ontologically exists, as well as mass destruction via nuclear weapons, both having the potential to wipe out mankind, there is no ontological doubt. Sight ontological facts that support your belief that we are immune from our foolishness. But please don't ignore the facts of global warming, ecosystems (symbiosis) crumbling, the almost total depletion of fish in our oceans, the death of coral reefs, the 40% decline in phytoplankton since 1950, which is responsible for 50% of our atmosphere's oxygen, the depletion of the magnetosphere which keeps our atmosphere and water from blowing past the outer reaches of our solar system, etc.

All ontological facts, as in they truthfully exist, and that they are a result of mankind's incapability of seeing the big picture and addressing it in the face of his selfish desires. These truths are increasing/decreasing extremely fast and I see no comparable movement of mankind to curb his activities that are responsible.

Ontologically, my case is all but proven via the scientific method!

If you're wondering why I've included the reduction of the magnetosphere as a problem of man, the fact that the earths core along with the mantle acts like a dynamo thus creating our magnetosphere, combined with the fact that the crude oil that we've been extracting from the earths crust and burning to create CO2 and CO is saturated with ions of V, Ni, Fe and Cu such that I see the potential of it playing a part in the earths dynamo effect, especially in the face of headlines that state that scientists don't know why the magnetosphere's being depleted. I also see mining operations as being a potential contributor. Any ferrous metal brought near, removed from, or manipulated within a magnetic field alters it's shape, size and intensity. This was one understanding used by the USN to locate and track Soviet submarines carrying ICBM's during the cold war.

I bet no consideration of this fact, was acknowledged prior to capitalists jumping on the oil money train, in the early days of the industrial revolution. I for one, shall laugh my ass off, if in fact it has had something to do with it. You can't fix that one, you 'so called glorified' monkey! But you have your gold colored rock, so I guess it's worth it, huh monkey boys?

[chaz wyman]

The existence of global warming at human hands ontologically exists, as well as mass destruction via nuclear weapons, both having the potential to wipe out mankind, there is no ontological doubt. Sight ontological facts that support your belief that we are immune from our foolishness. But please don't ignore the facts of global warming, ecosystems (symbiosis) crumbling, the almost total depletion of fish in our oceans, the death of coral reefs, the 40% decline in phytoplankton since 1950, which is responsible for 50% of our atmosphere's oxygen, the depletion of the magnetosphere which keeps our atmosphere and water from blowing past the outer reaches of our solar system, etc.

All ontological facts, as in they truthfully exist, and that they are a result of mankind's incapability of seeing the big picture and addressing it in the face of his selfish desires. These truths are increasing/decreasing extremely fast and I see no comparable movement of mankind to curb his activities that are responsible.

Ontologically, my case is all but proven via the scientific method![/color]

Can't have it both ways. Increases in CO2 have led to a marginal increase in phytoplankton, which can be verified by the stability of oxygen.
The change in the magnetosphere has got bugger al to do with humans, and is not related to GW. It is controlled by the earth's core which we have no effect on at all, as we only exist on the tiny thin crust on the extreme edge of the world.
This tirade is nothing more than hysterical ranting.

[lancek4]

To answer enigmatically: I can still fight the battle with all my heart, nobility and pride regardless of whether or not I know how the war will turn out.

I do not have to have a hope or yearning that my side will win the war to make me whole heartedly be the warrior.

[SpheresOfBalance]

To answer enigmatically: I can still fight the battle with all my heart, nobility and pride regardless of whether or not I know how the war will turn out.

I do not have to have a hope or yearning that my side will win the war to make me whole heartedly be the warrior.

I don't find this perplexing, but I like it!
But of course, I hope you're ever only speaking of the war of words.

[Mark Question]

You man of faith, you!

how many actually care about the truth, in the facts, that lie before them.

I believe..

you too?

what is the difference if one man likes to argue and the other likes to find out the truth? "The Meaning of ‘Meaning’", in philosophy now articles section, rewritten here "the truth of truth" and "arguing the arguing"? do you see the joke? do you see man doing what ever for the sake of gods, even crying? you ask why oh why? "god is god"? do you see the joke now? and the logic inside it too? if you need only to believe then you need only to believe? as logical as the others logical ideas like yours? inner logic is the case in every truths and truth systems like religions? and strong feelings also of course? truth lies in those feelings? so what is the the truth of feelings, a joke too?

[SpheresOfBalance]

You man of faith, you!

how many actually care about the truth, in the facts, that lie before them.

I believe..

you too?

what is the difference if one man likes to argue and the other likes to find out the truth? "The Meaning of ‘Meaning’", in philosophy now articles section, rewritten here "the truth of truth" and "arguing the arguing"? do you see the joke? do you see man doing what ever for the sake of gods, even crying? you ask why oh why? "god is god"? do you see the joke now? and the logic inside it too? if you need only to believe then you need only to believe? as logical as the others logical ideas like yours? inner logic is the case in every truths and truth systems like religions? and strong feelings also of course? truth lies in those feelings? so what is the the truth of feelings, a joke too?

I assume this would only make sense to a jokster. So joke on until the day you die!

While I'll not claim to be a Philosopher as much as I'll not claim to be a Man, I am here for Philosophy's sake, and not to flex my muscles of argument, likened to the powers of deception. Only fools play that game, and in the cyber-world, well, it's the cowardice epitome, as in a friendly bout, in the flesh, all things being equal, face to face, hand to hand, is where the real survival of the fittest/natural selection resides, and in the face of this truth the jester fades into obscurity.

Argument for the sake of argument, is all about the ego's of small minds, in the face of truth.

[Mark Question]

I assume this would only make sense to a jokster.

where the real survival of the fittest/natural selection resides, and in the face of this truth the jester fades into obscurity.

Argument for the sake of argument, is all about the ego's of small minds, in the face of truth.

do you assume a lot - in the face of truth?

have you considered the possibility if your truths are based to your assuming: "i assume this..where the..face of this truth"? your stories may be logical stories, whole, integrated, watertight structures but do they hang from your assuming? like the gods believers hang from their assumed gods own words and stories? sorry my english.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I assume this would only make sense to a jokster.

where the real survival of the fittest/natural selection resides, and in the face of this truth the jester fades into obscurity.

Argument for the sake of argument, is all about the ego's of small minds, in the face of truth.

do you assume a lot - in the face of truth?

have you considered the possibility if your truths are based to your assuming: "i assume this..where the..face of this truth"? your stories may be logical stories, whole, integrated, watertight structures but do they hang from your assuming? like the gods believers hang from their assumed gods own words and stories? sorry my english.

You see Mark, for some reason you like to take me on as if I'm 100% right or that I think I'm 100% right. And I kind of laugh because you're incapable, or so it would seem, to understand the significance of the words I use. I make a habit to use words such as: assume, believe, think, seems, feel, appears, could, etc. to show that it's just me and my minds eye. It lends to the fact that I know that NO ONE knows, unlike those that are always making declarative statements, in the face of this fact, as if they actually know. I try and convey the fact that they are not necessarily wrong.

It's true that sometimes in the heat of the moment I fail to offer enough benefit of doubt through the usage of such words as I've mentioned above, but I sure do it more than most if not all the PNF users that try and make a point via statements. I guess I could use the questioning technique used by some. But I don't believe one has to play Jeopardy to make a point that gives the benefit of doubt.

So what was it you said you were assuming?

Edit: Typo

[SpheresOfBalance]

I assume this would only make sense to a jokster.

where the real survival of the fittest/natural selection resides, and in the face of this truth the jester fades into obscurity.

Argument for the sake of argument, is all about the ego's of small minds, in the face of truth.

do you assume a lot - in the face of truth?

have you considered the possibility if your truths are based to your assuming: "i assume this..where the..face of this truth"? your stories may be logical stories, whole, integrated, watertight structures but do they hang from your assuming? like the gods believers hang from their assumed gods own words and stories? sorry my english.

But to specifically address your question, Mark, NO!

I believe that my perspective is pure, because it is born of nature, the absolute truth, as well as equality and fairness for all. My thoughts are not selfish, and are in fact selfless, so NO! Most emphatically NO! My gain shall be the worlds salvation.

[lancek4]

...And one ring to bind them.