"Progressive" is not fighting injustice. It is not working out policies that will benefit education, the environment, health organizations, or society in general. "Progressive" is not a concern for mutual cultural understanding, for world peace. It is not a fight for freedom. (The great majority of this website's activity is not "progressive".) "Progressive" is not envisioning a better future. "Progressive" is not looking at the present as a an opportunity for improvement.
None of this is "progressive". These things distract from "progressive". They present endless labyrinths in which masses upon masses, generations upon generations of people get caught up in (and end up wasting away their lives, their empty, empty lives). These things, these projects are flights from the heart of reality. The universe is raw, infinitely wild. Nothing will ever conform neatly to our concepts, ideas, and planning. That is living a dream, an illusion. And to pursue the creation of such a world is doubly illusion (for it is (1) ignorance of "the way things work" and (2) ignorance of meaningful, valuable experience).
To pursue change is to live life like a machine, it is to live as a tool (as a willing slave). It is to live within linear time, it is to experience time's progression as cold-hard cause and effect.
But there is another way of living. There is a life of "ecstasy", of "ex-stasis", a life lived "outside" of time, "beside" it. A life which annihilates any sense of linear time, which causes time (and reason) to explode. A life whose radiance could never be contained in such a straightforward construction (as linear time). When I experience great love or great loss, when I see the ocean for the first time, or realize the mind-shattering vastness of the universe, when I witness a superhuman effort...
The "time-less" life, the life of ecstasy, supersedes any attempt at project. A man who wishes to change the world is a man of ill health- he cannot stand the frenetic blast of real experience. He seeks to transcend it, to escape it, to flee it. He needs salvation from his current state- he is too weak for it.. The man of glowing health, of overflowing strength, however, affirms the present moment, whatever that moment may be. This is a life of immanence (not transcendence), and it means stripping oneself of all hope of being saved from reality.
"Progressive" is not working to change the present situation, BUT STRIVING TO AFFIRM IT. "Amor fati", in the words of Nietzsche... love your fate. Love everything your fate entails, every second if it, every aspect of experience. Whatever the circumstance. To want, to crave, that which IS (don't scorn it for something better). For, indeed, a life of project is a life which is always in contempt for the present moment (and the present moment is all that we really ever have).
The world can go on in project. Everyone can keep spending lifetimes trying to attain better circumstance. But ultimately, the attempts will always be thwarted. War, poverty, injustice- these have existed from the beginning of time... they are not going to end. Instead of reaching a point where you can stop working, and start enjoying the better state you've earned, there will always be something better to work towards- a new project for change... Unless you learn to affirm the life which looks you in the eye RIGHT NOW.
Project, plans and efforts for change: these are nothing but narcotics which deprive life of all its meaningful (real) experience. Quit trying to escape your life. Love your fate. Now.
Then you must be a hipocrite. why would you take your time to write this blog if it was not planned? your intention here is too change another"s perception or why would you post this?
and by exactly saying that " nothing will conform neatly to our concepts, ideas, and planning" you attempted to neatly pack in a concept ,an idea
your abiltiy to read and write was also planned.
you may occupy yourself with this concepts, concepts which can be percieved as an escape and yet another solution to the world's problems
if you were truly in this state of ecuphoria i would doubt you would write this blog.
As far as my intentions, these extend beyond changing another person's perception. I also (probably moreso) write to change my OWN perception. Publishing the post is to enter into open discourse: other people's comments and my having to answer force me to further meditate upon my ideas. Hell, even if no one comments, just my having to get the ideas down in words that others might understand forces me to meditate deeper into my thoughts.
Whether I wrote this for myself or for someone else, the fact is my blog is indeed a project. But it is a project against project, a project to destroy the world of project. My project is a bomb. Bomb's must be planned, built, constructed, put together. But the effect of a bomb is explosion of structure, a blasting apart. Yes a bomb is a "construction", but you would be wrong to say that a bomb doesn't entail violent DEstruction.
(I don't think that projects for change attempt to escape "problems"; what they attempt to escape is IRRITATION (What they POSE is problems). The project that is my blog, on the other hand, is not aimed at avoiding irritation.)
or did you already reach that conclusion?
"I'm more like a fool for soul and passion....
I watch crash, and realize that we all survivors
no religion or race, whatever describe us." -Forever Begins, Common
(1) you're really bad at it
(2) i'm not interested
but the mere fact of having people comment on your "project" rejects the project's truth.
it is just an idea, now.
the fact that you are not sure of it by posting here demostrates you're lack of confidence in the theory.
it is not a truth.
but it is progressive, but that is because it is not a truth. ( but do not believe me)
The project's "truth"? I have no interest in finding a theory that explains reality. "Truth" does not exist. There is only perception.
"Just and idea"? No. It's a force with the potential to alter perception- both my own and others'. And since how I experience the world is the only thing I care about, I'd say my post is pretty damn valuable.
"the fact that you are not sure of it by posting here demostrates you're lack of confidence in the theory."... In some ways it does demonstrate that. In other ways it demonstrates the opposite. So what?
essentially that is what ideas do.
again by saying there is no truth, but only perception. how can you say there is not a truth? ( that is a bit ironic???)
it demostrates that you are not fully experiencing this theory or idea; thus eliminating its legitimacy.
so move on from it.
Lucky for me, not only do I not believe in truth, but also (and, in a sense, hand-in-hand) I see logic itself as having quite limited capabilities, quite limited value. And since it is not all-important to me, I don't have to fret every time I do something about first pounding out the action's logical validity (or "legitimacy").
I don't work for logic; I make logic work for me.
____________________________
"it demostrates that you are not fully experiencing this theory or idea; thus eliminating its legitimacy."
If by "fully experiencing" you mean taking conviction in a belief without ever questioning/ faltering from that conviction then, no, I am not "fully experiencing" it. "Fully experiencing" in that sense should be completely avoided: nothing could be more unhealthy, more dangerous.
And as I said, since I am not a slave to logic, I do not value "legitimacy" in and of itself. I can get along quite fine without it, thank you.
"Fully experiencing" in that sense should be completely avoided: nothing could be more unhealthy, more dangerous. "
that sounds a bit like logic???
and my comment about the truth exposes the paradox behind the statement.
you say "do I not believe in truth" but that in itself is believing in a truth. that is what i meant.
take your head out of the books and realize how they are molding your mind. what logic do you create when none of it is yours?
"take your head out of the books and realize how they are molding your mind. what logic do you create when none of it is yours?"
What are you talking about?
" "Fully experiencing" in that sense should be completely avoided: nothing could be more unhealthy, more dangerous. "
that sounds a bit like logic???"
... Like logic? That statement is pure ethical proposition. There is nothing inherently "logical" about it at all...
Your Nietzsche is showing. Might want to tuck that in.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
haha
"I see logic itself as having quite limited capabilities, quite limited value." I wholeheartedly agree.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
did I miss something?
hope the logic games wasn't aimed at me...but if it was,
that was not my intention and I'd readinly admit I suck at it...
"The heart's memory eliminates the bad and magnifies the good."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Love in the Time of Cholera
"close your eyes, clear your heart..." http://www.progressiveu.org/012450-old-and-gold-times-change-my-immigran...
I completely disagree with you!
------------------------------------------------
It always seems impossible until it is done-Nelson Mandela.
read my signature!
Beautiful post, you possess a beautiful mind. No connection to the film intended.
Keep telling us all how unprogressive we are! Who knows, someone might just progress!
Just out of curiosity, who pissed you off first? In your life, I mean. You can ignore my question if you like, I'm just guessing it was someone who was pretty ugly.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Not too sure I understand your question
So, live only for your own happiness, which should be gained by accepting whatever situation you find yourself in, no matter how shitty.
If humanity existed by this philosophy, we'd have gone extinct long ago. How can a philosophy that scorns the drive for progress (all advances in technology, society, art, etc.) be progressive? What definition of progressive lets you use it to say 'be happy with what is now. Do not change or grow. Do not work to better yourself or others. Just accept what happens to you."
Anyone who truly lived by this philosophy would do absolutely nothing. If you lived by this philosophy, why are you going to college to study english and philosophy?
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
you bring to mind something I read in the Bible once, don't remember where or exactly how it is written, that I say frequently to my psych patients.
We have a choice to be like a leaf blowing in the wind, subject to wherever the wind might take us or to take root in the earth and become a tree with roots that extend into the earth, and branches that extend into the sky.
Note, this is my assimilation, interpretation, not an exact quote.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
There's two types of change, distinct but related. In my post I was referring to the urge to change one's own life. There is also the urge to change others' lives, and seeing as you work with psych patients, this seems to apply to you.
Now my post is intended to reveal the urge for personal change as a symptom of weakness in the face of insecurity. But the urge to change others' lives is not so far off: it is a symptom of the self-same weakness. The difference is that the security (the sense of control) which YOU need out of personal state of weakness is experienced "dramatically", "empathetic-ally". Your patient suffers, and you "help" them: thus the overall event reinforces a sense of control for YOU.
__________________________________
"We have a choice to be like a leaf blowing in the wind, subject to wherever the wind might take us or to take root in the earth and become a tree with roots that extend into the earth, and branches that extend into the sky."
First off, this is a quote from the Christian authoritative text. Christianity is a "transcendental" philosophy in the sense that Christians believe there is a reality which transcends the earthly life we experience (i.e. there's a heaven, i.e. God has a "bigger" plan, i could go on if you please). This belief is (again) a symptom of weakness in the face of present reality... it's an attempt to escape it.
Now I'm not sure of the context of that quote, so I'm not sure of the original intended implications, but it seems to me that the way you used it in this discussion implies that existence like the leaf is despicable while existence like the oak (life with control/ security) is clearly desirable. I think you already know where I'm going with this...
______________________________________
****
There are indeed times when the idea of being the leaf holds infinite more appeal. The oak is stiff, its existence would feel confining. The leaf is free, dances wildly through the wind, it experiences far more (good and bad, the latter being a prerequisite of the former) than the stiff, resisting tree could ever imagine.
I would not say that either type of existence is completely worthless though. I like to think of life as a cycle of expending wildly and then slowing down to "re-charge". As if the re-charging aspect entails solidifying form, cultivating a security, and then discharging and melting away that form through wild, insecure activity. A cycle of play and rest. Being a leaf, until utterly exhausted, and then rehabilitating as an oak. But the movement is always one which is ultimately directed at expenditure...
________________________________
Danger arises when a person PERMANENTLY adopts the mindset of the oak. The Christians, for example, who see their transcendental beliefs as a duty (a duty never to be abandoned); Or the person who is always executing projects to "change" (control) their own (or others') lives; The politician, the government official. Unfortunately, this "oak tree-mindset" is often the only mindset people adopt in our society; far too often we neglect the value of being a leaf. (And after all, existence as an oak tree IS completely worthless if it remains separated and blocked off from the overall cycle of expenditure (letting go) and rehabilitation (taking control).)
when you say:
"Now my post is intended to reveal the urge for personal change as a symptom of weakness in the face of insecurity. But the urge to change others' lives is not so far off: it is a symptom of the self-same weakness."
I am happy to admit my weakness. I am after all only one little humble human in this massive universe.
I do not perceive my motivations for change being a need to control, but rather a need to break free of opposing and controlling forces that have hurt me. I think that is called "survival".
You have assumed incorrectly:
"it seems to me that the way you used it in this discussion implies that existence like the leaf is despicable while existence like the oak (life with control/ security) is clearly desirable"
I do not hold that the life of the leaf is despicable. I think it is beautiful. The life of the tree is longer and extends into multiple layers of existence, and it's life is thus enriched. The tree also gives back to the world, supporting the cycle of life.
"The oak is stiff, its existence would feel confining.:"
That is only true if you limit the tree's existence to it's trunk. The leaf blowing in the wind came from the tree in the first place. Until it broke off, the tree's existence included the leaf's. Also consider the tree's roots.
"Danger arises when a person PERMANENTLY adopts the mindset of the oak."
Permanency of thought or belief is not progressive, nor does it exist.
There is growth or decay, nothing is permanent, nothing is stagnant. Everything is in one of those two states.
Brett Dennon sings "Some people are yearning to fly and some are yearning to die, but I know that all the yearnings are flight."
Obviously you have caught our interest. Do not assume that our discourse is designed to attack you.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
"That is only true if you limit the tree's existence to it's trunk. The leaf blowing in the wind came from the tree in the first place. Until it broke off, the tree's existence included the leaf's. Also consider the tree's roots."
... I adapted your quote to my own purposes (I thought it would help to word things in a different way) so I know the oak tree vs. the leaf is not a perfect fit. That said, I'd like to examine what you said about it... I think our thoughts/ images can possibly be reconciled. A leaf blowing in the wind does come from a tree (and everything that entails), but note that a leaf falling from a tree is in its very essence the "destruction" of that tree. It is the loss of the tree's form. Following my metaphor from before, look at the growth of a healthy tree (leaves still connected and all) as a resting period, a period of hibernation, of rehabilitation, of preservation and building up of energy. When the tree begins to decay (when the leaves begin to fall) this process is a period of expenditure, of wild abandon. The tree no longer works to maintain its form. Instead it releases its grip, releases tension. The "project" of "growing" is over, now the tree gives itself over to destruction.
I agree that the tree contributes to the cycle of life in the sense that each season it rehabilitates a life force (a force which is then squandered away the next fall/ winter).
__________________________
As far as "permanently" adopting the mindset of the oak (the mindset of project), I know that nothing can be absolutely and literally so. However, our culture is for the most part overwhelmingly blind to the value of "the falling/ blowing leaves" (squandering). The majority of our value is placed in our ability to overcome nature's forces, to make things bigger, badder, faster, longer-lasting. We cherish, above all else, the ability to transcend the current moment (the ability to control). We lose sight of the present, of what I think you called "being present", the feeling of vitality, of feeling of being REALLY alive.
and attempting to reconcile it with yours. I also think that I probably agree with a lot of your ideas. Your challenging tone does invite suspicion, but if I look past your angry tone, I can see a lot of truth in your ideas. I don't mean to offend by assuming you believe anything is true, but I can say I think that something you say is true without imposing your own truth onto yourself, can't I?
You said:
"a leaf falling from a tree is in its very essence the "destruction" of that tree. It is the loss of the tree's form"
I say, exactly, and so the life that is the leaf blowing in the wind is the life of destruction, and it has lost it's original form? I wanted to say source of life, but that would be getting a little too transcendental for you, so I won't go that far.
To quote you again:
"look at the growth of a healthy tree (leaves still connected and all) as a resting period, a period of hibernation, of rehabilitation, of preservation and building up of energy. When the tree begins to decay (when the leaves begin to fall) this process is a period of expenditure, of wild abandon."
Actually, trees do all of those things all at once all of the time, well evergreens do anyway. Destruction and rehabilitation are occurring simultaneously in everything. If you are more attracted to the destruction than the rehabilitation, that is your choice, and I see value in that too, you are just limiting your experience in life.
"our culture is for the most part overwhelmingly blind to the value of "the falling/ blowing leaves" (squandering)."
In a way yes, but there is an overwhelming counterculture that has been going on since the 60's that shares your penchant for destruction, and many others who appreciate, value, and see beauty in it. I am one of those.
"The majority of our value is placed in our ability to overcome nature's forces, to make things bigger, badder, faster, longer-lasting"
I challenge you to define who you mean when you say "*our* value." I can't agree or disagree yet, you haven't provided me with enough information.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
"Actually, trees do all of those things all at once all of the time, well evergreens do anyway. Destruction and rehabilitation are occurring simultaneously in everything. If you are more attracted to the destruction than the rehabilitation, that is your choice, and I see value in that too, you are just limiting your experience in life."
I agree destruction/ rehabilitation occur simultaneously in the tree. I'm trying to make a point about human experience, however. More specifically, I'm referring to a current cultural trend (affecting me and everyone else) which de-values, ignores, and attempts to avoid the experience of "destruction". The point is that today's culture is (dangerously) limiting human experience, and that my blog/ meditative exercise works to incite a counter-movement to balance it out (and encourage affirmation of the neglected aspect of the "movement of things", thus working towards an affirmation of BOTH aspects of the movement).
___________________________
"I challenge you to define who you mean when you say "*our* value." I can't agree or disagree yet, you haven't provided me with enough information."
By "our value" I was simply referring to the value widely held in our culture which I just mentioned above (the value that arises from the overwhelming "trend which de-values, ignores, and attempts to avoid the experience of "destruction" ")
___________________________
Glad to hear that you are "one of those"
to your comment:
"I'm referring to a current cultural trend (affecting me and everyone else) which de-values, ignores, and attempts to avoid the experience of "destruction". The point is that today's culture is (dangerously) limiting human experience, and that my blog/ meditative exercise works to incite a counter-movement to balance it out (and encourage affirmation of the neglected aspect of the "movement of things", thus working towards an affirmation of BOTH aspects of the movement)."
i must ask first, What is your goal? What answer have you come to that you wish others to share?
And then, What is the exact problem that you are trying to solve?
it helps us "reasonable" beings if you take time to define certain things.
First, Identify a problem.
Then, offer a solution. In between all of that you can present arguments, counterarguments, prevalence, relevance, rebuttals, all to your heart's content.
Keep in mind that by choosing to expose your thinking to ProU you have agreed to accept challenge by a certain population, one that is pretty stringently focused on human growth, rather than decay and destruction.
You are presenting a very challenging perspective. It has not yet been rejected. We are just asking for more concise solidarity in your presentation.
You are very tangential and disorganized in your presentation of thought. If that is part of your message of destruction, fine. Yet by posting here you belie a desire to be heard and to be reckoned with. So I choose to reckon with you.
If you just want to hate on humanity, go find an anarchist group. Why are you here, trying to convert us? We all love each other, including you. If you want to spit on and throw that away, so be it, and be gone with you.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
"i must ask first, What is your goal? What answer have you come to that you wish others to share?
And then, What is the exact problem that you are trying to solve?
it helps us "reasonable" beings if you take time to define certain things.
First, Identify a problem.
Then, offer a solution."
I'm not sure I feel like doing this with you any further. If you haven't understood the answer to those questions in the extended conversation I've had with you, it's no wonder that you couldn't understand it in the original post. If you seriously don't already see any problem posed in my blog, or any "solution" endorsed, you might be a hopeless case (not too much offense intended).
_______________________
As far as the ProU "population", they certainly do (overwhelmingly often) possess the philosophy that a reader should challenge before he/ she empathizes with a critiqued work. They don't put forth a genuine effort to "see things" as the author does. You'll never come to understand new ideas/ new viewpoints on life without first giving the author the "benefit of the doubt". But many ProU readers, instead of giving the "benefit of the doubt", come out the gates shooting, looking for any manner in which they can attack a blog's validity as a logical proposition (rather than affirm it for themselves). This is called narrow-mindedness, the inability to grow, staying inside one's comfortable little box. (And it is just another reason why ProU is not so "progressive".)
Any idea that ever has been put forward or ever will be put forward is susceptible to infinite "reasonable" arguments that support it's validity and infinite "reasonable" arguments that attack it. If you contain the activity to such "reasoning", you open up a virtually infinite back and forth combat with (potentially) no definite " victor". The counterarguments can go on forever. And even if one side's supporter for whatever reason stops arguing his side, there is no progress that has been made. All that happens then is that people shut their eyes once again into one-sided narrow mindedness.
Unfortunately for ProU, many of the readers on this site only know how to reason (a trick which any fool can pick up). What takes true talent, true effort, and what results in true gain, is being able to look deeper, attempt to look through the author's eyes for oneself, and not get caught up on such a superficial things like logical infallacy.
That is why I laugh to myself about people on here like DarwinsBeagle. If that man/ woman attends to all of his life like he does on this website, he/ she probably hasn't experienced authentic intellectual growth since he/ she was a child. (He seems to have about as much meaningful intellectual experience as a calculator.)
_________________________
"If you just want to hate on humanity, go find an anarchist group. Why are you here, trying to convert us? We all love each other, including you. If you want to spit on and throw that away, so be it, and be gone with you."
(1) I never hated on humanity. How does re-evaluating the the consistency of human "progress" constitute hatred toward humanity? (2) I'm not saying that I am or am not one, but I would like to point out that being an anarchist certainly does not entail hatred of humanity. It entails the exact opposite: a love of humanity. Anarchists think their philosophy is more beneficial to human experience than is non-anarchist philosophy. Endorsing beliefs you consider beneficial to humans is not hatred of humanity. It is love of humanity. (3) The activity of persuading others to folllow one's cause is ALL OVER this website. When you question my attempts at conversion, you sound like a crazy fundamentalist Christian freaking out at the mere hint of alternative thought.
The most offense i took was at this statement:
"When you question my attempts at conversion, you sound like a crazy fundamentalist Christian freaking out at the mere hint of alternative thought."
I do? How does questioning your attempts at making people look deeper and see what you are really trying to say without presenting your ideas in a concise, accessible manner make me sound like a crazy fundamentalist Christian freaking out at the mere hint of an alternative thought?
I have to say your assumption is terribly wrong. I have battled with DB as well, and been just as irritated as you are. However, when I stepped away and decided to stop challenging and just start being honest, I found that DB is an amazing person, with an extensive amount of interesting, valuable information about the world. i had made assumptions about him, that he is a lonely, bitter man because he can't feel love.
I couldn't have been more wrong. i found out he is a father, that he is some kind of researcher, possibly scientist, and has a wealth of knowledge about animal behavior. That is what impressed me the most, I am sure he is even more than what I describe. I have a tendency to believe that atheists lack capacity for love because they can't recognize the divine in people. I found out that DB is a very moral, and probably very compassionate person. His love for animals and humans is great.
If you cared to know who you are arguing with, you could find a lot about people by reading their profiles and blogs, instead of assuming things and alienating people.
The point of blogging for anything is to connect to others. Your approach challenges people and pushes them away, in part because of your disorganized presentation. if your intention is to confuse and cause dissension in order to fuel your personal program of isolation, you are succeeding.
As for alternative thinking, well, I have to claim I am a veteran in that field.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
"Your approach challenges people and pushes them away, in part because of your disorganized presentation."
Challenges people? Yes. Pushes them away? In some ways, yes; in others, no. Because of my disorganized presentation? You are not the first person to respond by making similar claims. Please feel free to go ahead and point out what EXACTLY is "disorganized" in my post's presentation, I would love to hear it...
__________________________________
You said, and I quote: "If you just want to hate on humanity, go find an anarchist group. Why are you here, trying to convert us? We all love each other, including you." That sure makes you sound like you're insinuating that I am trying to convert you from loving humanity to hating humanity (a claim which, as I pointed out, had no support whatsoever...). And that is my experience with many fundamentalist Christians when I suggest alternative philosophies to them; they often respond by accusing me of trying to convert them into evil (apparently if a view opposes their own, it qualifies as "evil"). That is why you sound like one; both of you think I'm trying to convert you to the bad/ evil/ hateful side (and you both think this without any grounds for your reasoning).
_______________________________
As for your comments about DB: what I said about his blogging style had nothing to do with the real man behind the screen name. For all I know the man acts completely opposite in the rest of his life outside of ProU. The point of what I said was that the exercise of blogging on ProU as DB performs it demonstrates a severe inability to experience meaningful intellectual growth. For ANY claim an infinite amount of supporting and opposing arguments can be made. (No argument is ever truly "over" or "won"; someone else can always pick it up again and keep it going.) Unless you make an attempt to supersede the reasoning process of a writer-- an attempt to see/ experience for yourself the spirit out of which that reasoning process grew and was propelled-- then you cannot possibly undergo meaningful intellectual growth. Unfortunately, all DB does (at least in every single comment/ blog of his that I have ever seen) is to critique the written work at hand as if it were an invalid logical proof. He presents counterarguments. Endlessly. Again- no meaningful intellectual growth going on in such an exercise. The experience of performing this exercise is about as valuable as the experience of a calculator as it adds 2 and 2.
You think I find him "irritable"? Haha, maybe his comments are "irritable" in the sense that I wish someone with something a little more meaningful to say had posted in his stead. Other than that, I tend to find his comments (like calculators) to be pretty harmless things.
___________________________
And what is with your comments about "bitter, lonely" people who are such because they "can't feel love" (I think you may have made a similar comment referring to me at some point on this forum)? I understand you've done a little work in psych before, but come on... you sound (more than) a little hokie.
And if a guy/ gal challenges others, then that means he "can't feel love"? In a sense, challenging someone is the ultimate sign of love. And, sometimes, challenging someone intensely (which you mistakenly assume to be a sign of bitter loneliness) is the sign of the greatest love imaginable.
When a control freak works on a project (works to change the current situation), he's not really and agent of change... he's an agent for stability, security. He wants to avoid chance and randomness. He wants surety. If it's hot outside, and I want it to be cold, and (somehow) I make it cold, I am not an agent of change: I am an agent of stagnation, I "fix" things just so.
The person who does not execute projects, on the other hand, is an agent of change (and not an agent of stability and security). Here the waters are not made stagnant- no attempt at "control" is made. Here the waters freshly flow. Here things never remain the same. I let it be cold outside (just as I let it be hot). All sides of the story are affirmed; not just one.
So-called "projects for change" are really agents of security (agents of "anti-change"). When you say that "my philosophy" means not changing and not growing, you've simply got it backwards.
_________________________________
I made some other comments on this thread that you may find pertinent. They're in a reply to turtlesuds.
Flowing with nature and not interrupting it leads one to a life of peace.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
I completely disagree with that notion, so if that is indeed a Taoist belief then I am no Taoist. I associate "flowing with nature" as anything but peaceful. Peaceful is what I associate with the goal of project (when "project" entails interrupting "nature")- project seeks to escape the irritation that present reality presents.
When someone seeks to change a situation, they aren't an agent of change?
I don't disagree that they are seeking stability, but since the world is unstable, seeking stability is change.
Doing nothing, which is essentially what you advocate, is not being an agent of change. Allowing the world to function as it does is not allowing change to occur. Yes, the world changes on its own. Yes, some people seek to change how the world functions.
If either idea is stagnation, it is not acting to change the world. Let it be is a philosophy for the well-off or the self or specie loathing.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Do you disagree that life would have no value if we were NEVER able to "let it be" (as you call it; I prefer "embrace the present")?
And do you disagree that our culture is so caught up in projects for change that the supreme value, which lies in embracing the present, is more often than not (perhaps even "dangerously" often) pushed aside, forgotten, and discouraged?
I don't say people should never let it be. I do say that people shouldn't always let it be, which seems to be what you are suggesting.
I think that sometimes people get too wrapped up in projects, as you put it, but that doesn't mean that attempts to better the future are inherently bad.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
"I think that sometimes people get too wrapped up in projects, as you put it, but that doesn't mean that attempts to better the future are inherently bad."
Agreed.
Ah, but for the buts.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
"Progressive" is not fighting injustice. It is not working out policies that will benefit education, the environment, health organizations, or society in general. "Progressive" is not a concern for mutual cultural understanding, for world peace. It is not a fight for freedom. (The great majority of this website's activity is not "progressive".) "Progressive" is not envisioning a better future. "Progressive" is not looking at the present as a an opportunity for improvement.
None of this is "progressive". These things distract from "progressive".
The basic problem with your rant is that you are not addressing the term "Progressive" in an accurate context. In socio-political terms, the idea of "Progressivism" refers to a specific political philosophy which values certain types of policies in the context of an evolving modern society in the United States. The term has other meanings in other contexts, but in the framework of a discussion of U.S. politics, the philosophy stems from the platform of Theodore Roosevelt's 1912 Progressive Party. While "Progressivism" is usual associated with "The Left" these days, the planks of that platform were originally bi-partisan with prominent supporters on both sides of the aisle. In today's "fourth wave" of social and political "Progressivism," the term refers to a driving focus of policies on democracy, efficiency, the regulation of monopolies and large corporations, social justice and ecological conservation. THIS is what "Progressive" means here at ProU.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"In today's "fourth wave" of social and political "Progressivism," the term refers to a driving focus of policies on democracy, efficiency, the regulation of monopolies and large corporations, social justice and ecological conservation. THIS is what "Progressive" means here at ProU."
... God forbid I challenge people's values and convictions...
nor has anyone here whose ideas you have attempted to annihilate. :what:
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
...I would suggest that it would first have to correctly address the viewpoint you are challenging in accurate terms. If you want to challenge what it means to have a politically "progressive" viewpoint, then you need to address what it actually means to hold those convictions. It doesn't accomplish much to tell ProU that we aren't "progressive," when you are misrepresenting the context of the way in which we use the term.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
it seems to me that there has been a lot of definition problems with basho.
Or maybe, I just picked the 2 lucky blogs....
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
it's all right..sometimes people want to redefine things according to what they either see or think things should be alas, the accepted definitions are present for a reason because we all, or most of us, universally accept them..
"A person doesn't die when he should but when he can."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
"close your eyes, clear your heart..." I love this<
If you're saying that "Progressivism" is the term used for defining a specific political movement, and that I am challenging the definition of that term, I'd question the amount of effort you put into reading my blog.
It's completely obvious that when I said these things weren't "progressive" I meant that they were agents of degeneration as applies to human experience. (If the majority of the blogging activity on ProU is qualified as "Progressive" ("Progressive" here referring to the political movement), then look at it this way: I am challenging just how "progressive" ("progressive" here referring to being beneficial, being an improvement) that "Progressivism" (the said political movement) really is.)
Now, on a site where "Progressivism" is (supposedly) the theme, it would seem to me that to challenge how DESERVING a movement is of its name would be quite worthwhile.
____________________
Any decent reader (of which I would expect to find many on a website filled with college students) should be able to ascertain the sense in which a term is used by examining the context. Furthermore, in this particular post, it's not as if I said "progressive" briefly and just in-passing; I made it the central focus (thus all the more contextual backing from which to build an understanding). I directly opposed two types of activity and insinuated that one was degenerative while the other was beneficial. I repeatedly labeled what was (obviously valued as) beneficial as "progressive".
okay, you are not redefining...
you are going in circles or as I would like to call blah blah blah....
and i'm loving that I am feeling the urge to hit my head against something, you've really --challenged--me ;)
"A person doesn't die when he should but when he can."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
"close your eyes, clear your heart..." Allama Iqbal...An Ode to the Cup Bearer<
...the term "Progressive" as it is used in the context of this website and its goals. In order to level the kind of criticism that you SAY you want to offer, i.e. "to challenge how DESERVING a movement is of its name," then you need to address your criticism in relation to that definition. Simply redefining the term to fit what YOU think of when YOU use the term "progressive" doesn't really offer a MEANINGFUL counter-point to the term as it is used by this site.
As for understanding your comments, the major obstacle that seems to confound your readers is your inability to communicate in commonly understood terms, compounded frankly with a poorly constructed, unclear presentation. Perhaps if you rambled less, your points would be more clear.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Since apparently you have trouble synthesizing together a clarity of understanding when confronted with more than one thought at a time, maybe I have to go through this with you step by step, good ole Socratic dialogue style. Here's step one:
Do you agree that the majority of the bloggers' activity on this website can be characterized as representative of the American political movement known as "Progressivism"?
One cannot mix oil and water no matter how hard one tries, not can one truly make sense of an intentionally illogical diatribe no matter how hard one tries to mix it with an equal portion of rational discourse. Furthermore, I would hardly categorize your disjointed ramblings as a fine example of a Socratic dialogue.
Be that as it may...even as a staff member, I don't even read MOST of the bloggers who belong to ProU. I try, but there are just too many. I would say that in my experience, most of our active bloggers are interested in discussing Progressive Values in a positive manner, whether or not they actually identify themselves as "Progressives."
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I should also like to point out that out of 335 reads since this post came out 4 days ago, somehow, despite my horribly tragic "failure to define terms" and the completely "non-meaningful" counter-point which was a result, you were the ONLY person to get tripped up by my use of the term "progressive". That's quite miraculous isn't it!
(...I'm not saying that other people agreed that my support was strong enough to convince them of my claim, but they did at least understand the claim I was attempting to support... which is (supposedly) far more than you can say for your own understanding)
...than most, and perhaps I am completely off-base. I don't think that I am, of course, but I am comfortable in leaving the judgment of just how insightful and interesting are my comments to our readers.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I'll certainly give you my vote as the person I would least like to be stranded on a deserted island with.
"Progressive" is not fighting injustice. It is not working out policies that will benefit education, the environment, health organizations, or society in general. "Progressive" is not a concern for mutual cultural understanding, for world peace. It is not a fight for freedom. (The great majority of this website's activity is not "progressive".) "Progressive" is not envisioning a better future. "Progressive" is not looking at the present as a an opportunity for improvement.
Bullshit ... all these things are progressive.
None of this is "progressive". These things distract from "progressive". They present endless labyrinths in which masses upon masses, generations upon generations of people get caught up in (and end up wasting away their lives, their empty, empty lives). These things, these projects are flights from the heart of reality. The universe is raw, infinitely wild. Nothing will ever conform neatly to our concepts, ideas, and planning. That is living a dream, an illusion. And to pursue the creation of such a world is doubly illusion (for it is (1) ignorance of "the way things work" and (2) ignorance of meaningful, valuable experience).
(1) So the people who discovered fire, agriculture, medical cures, work-saving technology, etc "wast[ed] away their lives, their empty, empty lives". Unlike you who, if one takes your words seriously, would be too dumb to get in out of the rain.
(2) I don't know about you, but for most people most things conform neatly to our concepts, ideas, and planning. So much so that it enables us to live meaningful lives without walking into walls. And it is due our KNOWLEDGE of the way things work, and deriving meaning from valuable experience.
To pursue change is to live life like a machine, it is to live as a tool (as a willing slave). It is to live within linear time, it is to experience time's progression as cold-hard cause and effect.
So Albert Einstein, who pursued change in Physics, live as a willing slave? Poor him, huh? It sure would have been a much more fulfilling life to have been a failure in his father's electric company until he would have been sent off to a concentration camp, starved, and gassed by the Nazis. Yeah ... now THAT really sounds like a life of ecstasy.
As for "linear time" ... I suppose you deny that there are 60 seconds per every minute, 60 minutes per every hour, 24 hours per every day. That is about as linear as one can get. It is what we all have. What matters is what we do with the time that we have. You seem to be saying ... do NOTHING, just enjoy it.
Well I don't enjoy doing nothing, and what is more ... neither do you. You wrote this blog. You sleep. You eat, You go take a shit. If one takes your words at face value you should just lie there and enjoy whatever happens to you until you die of starvation.
But there is another way of living. There is a life of "ecstasy", of "ex-stasis", a life lived "outside" of time, "beside" it. A life which annihilates any sense of linear time, which causes time (and reason) to explode. A life whose radiance could never be contained in such a straightforward construction (as linear time). When I experience great love or great loss, when I see the ocean for the first time, or realize the mind-shattering vastness of the universe, when I witness a superhuman effort...
So, tell us, oh enlightened one ... How is this living "'outside' of time"?? Time is the interval between events. Do you not eat? Do you not sleep? Do you not take a shit? Isn't there an interval in between. You just like the rest of us, are living inside of time. You cannot avoid it. Furthermore, time is linear (unless you live in a non-linearly accelerating reference plane, which you aren't). You have no control over that ... to think otherwise shows an "ignorance of the way things work".
Finally, what makes you think that everybody else in the world doesn't experience great love and loss in ways that hold as much or more meaning to them than you do? As far as I can tell your philosophy holds nothing of significance to it.
The "time-less" life, the life of ecstasy, supersedes any attempt at project. A man who wishes to change the world is a man of ill health- he cannot stand the frenetic blast of real experience. He seeks to transcend it, to escape it, to flee it. He needs salvation from his current state- he is too weak for it.. The man of glowing health, of overflowing strength, however, affirms the present moment, whatever that moment may be. This is a life of immanence (not transcendence), and it means stripping oneself of all hope of being saved from reality.
What sophomoric mind-numbing blather.
(1) There is nothing "time-less" about your "life of ecstasy".
(2) There is no apparent "ecstasy" in your "life of ecstasy"
(3) There is nothing that necessarily implies that a person who wishes to change the world cannot "stand the frenetic blast of real experience". In fact, if the person is successful, I would suspect the act of changing the world would cause a "frenetic blast of real experience" much beyond what your philosophy entails.
(4) There is nothing apparent in your "life of ecstasy" that suggests that it would better enable you to "stand [or even recognize] a frenetic blast of real experience".
(5) There is nothing apparent in your "life of ecstasy" that makes it any more "immanent" than any other life.
(6) There is nothing to suggest that a life dedicated to changing the world, is a life that needs to be "saved from reality".
"Progressive" is not working to change the present situation, BUT STRIVING TO AFFIRM IT. "Amor fati", in the words of Nietzsche... love your fate. Love everything your fate entails, every second if it, every aspect of experience. Whatever the circumstance. To want, to crave, that which IS (don't scorn it for something better). For, indeed, a life of project is a life which is always in contempt for the present moment (and the present moment is all that we really ever have).
About the only thing "Amor fati" is good for is to not waste one's time complaining about what has happened. It can allow you see it as an opportunity to identify and CHANGE the things that need to be changed.
But there is absolutely NOTHING noble, empowering, or even sane about AFFIRMING all circumstances. Leprosy used to be considered a horrible deforming and life-threatening disease. Suppose you and I come down with it. Your response seems to be ... enjoy it! Enjoy it as you loose sensation in body parts. Enjoy it as undetected microtrauma turns into gangrenous infections. Enjoy the amputations and disfiguration. Enjoy it as septicemia leads to multiple organ failure. Enjoy it as you take your last painful breath.
My response would be ... give me some penicillin and cure it. It is easily cured with modern medicine ... you know the stuff discovered by people who wanted to change the world. Then I can get on with my life.
The world can go on in project. Everyone can keep spending lifetimes trying to attain better circumstance. But ultimately, the attempts will always be thwarted. War, poverty, injustice- these have existed from the beginning of time... they are not going to end. Instead of reaching a point where you can stop working, and start enjoying the better state you've earned, there will always be something better to work towards- a new project for change... Unless you learn to affirm the life which looks you in the eye RIGHT NOW.
So there are problems with no ends in sight. So what? That doesn't mean that it would be better to go back to Australopithicine savanna-living huddle in tribes for protection against marauding predators. We have made progress ... which by definition is progressive ... and we will continue to do so, and this progress will be made ONLY by people who wish to change the world.
Project, plans and efforts for change: these are nothing but narcotics which deprive life of all its meaningful (real) experience. Quit trying to escape your life. Love your fate. Now.
Project[s], plans, and efforts for change ARE WHAT GIVES LIFE MEANINGFUL EXPERIENCE. If you live in a house, if you eat food you did not gather from the wild, if you wear clothes, if you sleep on a bed, if you take medicine for diseases, if you live in a society governed by laws; if you travel by using shoes, bicycle, tricycle, skates, skateboards, motorcycles, cars, planes, or rockets; if you communicate by primitive signals, a language other people understand, a telegraph, short-wave radio, land-line telephones, cell-phones, letters, books, or computer; if you bathe, brush your teeth, use deodorant, comb your hair, use a mirror, wear glasses, file your fingernails, use toilet paper, an alarm clock; if you like to take photographs, listen to music, play sports, cook, garden, bird-watch, look at the night sky through a telescope ... then you are using information or products that were originated by people who wanted to change the world.
And I for one, thank them for it.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Keep on EDUCATING, Enlightening AND Enticing young minds that need it (including myself)
"A person doesn't die when he should but when he can."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
"close your eyes, clear your heart..." I love this<
I think it's kind of cute he pisses off atheists too. Poor kid, he just needs some love. :idk:
Awwwwww, that's cute, do you guys have a little club going on here?
"A person doesn't die when he should but when he can."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
"close your eyes, clear your heart..." Allama Iqbal...An Ode to the Cup Bearer<
I've got blueprints for the house, but I can't find a good-sized tree.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
would have to transport herself somehow from CA and I live in philly and I think (if my brain is right) you are in NY?
but let's collaborate on this, it might work?
"A person doesn't die when he should but when he can."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
"close your eyes, clear your heart..." Allama Iqbal...An Ode to the Cup Bearer<
:dances:
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
I have a great "Keep Out" sign left over from my last tree house.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
@_@ the merrier
"A person doesn't die when he should but when he can."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
"close your eyes, clear your heart..." Allama Iqbal...An Ode to the Cup Bearer<
I am TOTALLY a willing slave!
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
almost complete
:haha:
(i'm a little smiley crazy...)
"A person doesn't die when he should but when he can."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
"close your eyes, clear your heart..." Allama Iqbal...An Ode to the Cup Bearer<
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
We'll need to create transporter devices.
Actually, I'm in Boston for school, but I'm from NY.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
cool
but i'm a hater and so I am green with envy :-|
"A person doesn't die when he should but when he can."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
"close your eyes, clear your heart..." Allama Iqbal...An Ode to the Cup Bearer<
About what, my transporter devices,or my current location? :grin:
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
:huh:
"A person doesn't die when he should but when he can."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
"close your eyes, clear your heart..." Allama Iqbal...An Ode to the Cup Bearer<
Boston's a bit cold....
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
but I am in philly/lansdale and currently askjeeves says that the weather is colder here
"A person doesn't die when he should but when he can."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
"close your eyes, clear your heart..." Allama Iqbal...An Ode to the Cup Bearer<
We had icicles on cars a week or two ago. Right now the weather is annoyingly inconsistent.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
he dropped us off at home after thanksgiving and we had to wait for the car to heat up for about 5 minutes at 2 AM
Sometimes I hate the northeast with a passion because I was born in july and I can stand 100 degree weather quite easily even without an AC
"A person doesn't die when he should but when he can."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
"close your eyes, clear your heart..." Allama Iqbal...An Ode to the Cup Bearer<
I say cold is better than heat, because you can always put more on and there's only so much you can take off.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
we like to keep things under wraps even if it's hot
"A person doesn't die when he should but when he can."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
"close your eyes, clear your heart..." Allama Iqbal...An Ode to the Cup Bearer<
Well, in that case, come on up.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Haha wow did i just get labeled "sophomoric"? Is that some kind of ultimate put-down on progressiveU or something? Ouch.
________________________
I hardly expect somebody who gets their kicks by performing extensive logical proofs and deductive reasoning (like a machine) to understand the least bit of anything about "ecstatic" experience.
(Your blogging activity is almost a perfect case in point for a comment I made earlier to a different person on this board (see bit on "logic can work for me or I can work for logic"). You have almost totally (d)evolved into a pure slave of logic. The only reason I know you haven't totally devolved (yet) into a machine is the fact that you expressed ever so briefly a real human feeling-- the feeing of irritation-- in your opening sentence.)
_______________________
"You just like the rest of us, are living inside of time. You cannot avoid it. "
Where to start? Time is not absolute "reality". It is not an entity that exists in itself. (Maybe its "time" for you to get past 18th century thought). Time is a human construct, a human tool. Time "exists" only when and insofar as "I" perceive it ("I" referring to any one person's subjective experience). When I speak of existing outside of time (as opposed to "in time"), what I mean is experiencing life without perceiving time. When I'm having an orgasm, for example, there is absolutely no experience of time going on whatsoever (and if the case was otherwise, I'd say something's wrong).
______________________
"Project[s], plans, and efforts for change ARE WHAT GIVES LIFE MEANINGFUL EXPERIENCE. If you live in a house, if you eat food you did not gather from the wild, if you wear clothes, if you sleep on a bed, if you take medicine for diseases, if you live in a society governed by laws; if you travel by using shoes, bicycle, tricycle, skates, skateboards, motorcycles, cars, planes, or rockets; if you communicate by primitive signals, a language other people understand, a telegraph, short-wave radio, land-line telephones, cell-phones, letters, books, or computer; if you bathe, brush your teeth, use deodorant, comb your hair, use a mirror, wear glasses, file your fingernails, use toilet paper, an alarm clock; if you like to take photographs, listen to music, play sports, cook, garden, bird-watch, look at the night sky through a telescope ..."
I'd be a pretty pathetic excuse for a human life if I considered the pinnacle of "meaningul experience" to be my use of technology.
There's absolutely nothing inherently valuable about any of these things you listed. You get out of things what you put into them. A car, a telescope, an alarm clock : these can very well entail completely "meaningless experience". They all mean nothing to me; that is, until I put into practice "amor fati".
(1) "Sophomoric" is an accurate description of this blog and this response. When I used the term, I want to convey the idea that I think you are spouting nonsense. That is what it is intended for it to be. If you want to imbue it with the further meaning of being a put down, I would not object.
(2) You seem to think that logical thinking (a term that I do not like ... I much prefer reason) to be a bad thing. That too is sophomoric.
(3) You seem to think that "ecstatic" experiences are beyond a person of reason. That too is sophomoric. Or perhaps that you think that non-reasonable experiences preferentially lead to ecstasy. If so ... that too is sophomoric.
(5) You have a sophomoric idea of time. When we say that time is not an absolute we mean that two people in different reference frames may experience time differently. That does NOT mean that time is not real ... In fact, Einstein (who showed that time is not an absolute) showed that time is as much a part of our existence as is front/back, left/right, up/down ... the spatial dimensions. In other words, time is a dimension just like the three spatial ones ... Einstein's term for the universe was "space-time", in fact.
(5) To claim that time is a human invention is especially sophomoric. Time has been around LONG before humans.
(6) If you truly don't experience time while having an orgasm then something IS wrong. You are not doing it right. The feeling should last a satisfying length of time instead of being over instanteously.
(7) If I were take what you write at face value ... it is somehow wrong to try to make things better, one should just enjoy whatever happens ... then you ARE pretty much of "a poor excuse for a human life". Especially if you think that people who have contributed to all the things that you use in your "life of ecstasy" are pathetic weak willed people who have wasted their empty empty lives.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"You seem to think that logical thinking (a term that I do not like ... I much prefer reason) to be a bad thing."
In general, there is nothing inherently bad about logical thinking. It is a tool that can be put towards ends (and the value depends on the ends). In your case, however, there is a vital misunderstanding (to the point of being dangerous). You have lost all sight of the ends; sole value (for you) lies in the tool itself. Like I said, you have become a blind slave to a tool, a utility. You have become nothing more than a tool yourself. That is emptiness. That is meaningless experience. That is to live like a machine. (Congratulations.)
________________________
"If you truly don't experience time while having an orgasm then something IS wrong. You are not doing it right. The feeling should last a satisfying length of time instead of being over instantaneously."
When you are sitting at home consciously thinking "wow, right now (in the present) my financial situation really sucks so tomorrow (in the future) I am going to go out and get a job", you experiencing an awareness of linear time. If you are having sex with your girlfriend and you begin to convulse in deeply sensual orgasm, you are not experiencing awareness of linear time. The latter can be described as "being present" in a moment. It is ecstatic experience.
Science is completely enveloped by the notion of project. When you bring Einstein's "proofs" into the discussion, your comments about time and space are limited to to the realm of project. What I have shown (in the paragraph above) about time is also true of space:
When you are standing at point A with an apple in your hand and you need to walk to point B to put the apple in a basket, you are performing a project; you are also experiencing an awareness of dimensional space. Returning to the scenario of sex before, when you are wildly convulsing wrapped up in bed with your girlfriend, you are not experiencing awareness of dimensional space. That is because, again, you are "being present"; you are having an ecstatic experience.
Same meaningless blather that you unfortunately think of as profound.
TTFN
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
A hammer only knows to hammer. When you confront it with the question/ problem of what it is building, or why it is building it, you shouldn't expect too much of an answer. When such questions/ problems are engaged, the hammer falls silent...
Or perhaps it falls silent when nothing is being built.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Looks like one of the little club's members is getting defensive...
A hammer doesn't know anything. It doesn't have a brain. It doesn't say anything either. The good part about that is that a hammer at least doesn't sound stupid. ... Perhaps you could learn something from a hammer -- but then again from what I've seen so far, I doubt it.
bye,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Thanks for illustrating my point
Here ... let me illustrate that for you too:
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Hahaha
(Glad to finally see that there's more to you than the dry systematized logic critiques)
but I'll say it again. If you took the time we have all taken with you, and bothered to read what your opponent's positions on life are, you might not have to fight so hard. But I sense you enjoy the conflict.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
I feel so less alone
:rofl:
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
Then enjoyed your exchange with DB even more!
The point you are making is essentially invisible to him.
Love the truth!
"To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour."
--William Blake