So after years of whatever, this is the best I can come up with at this point:
The 'Secret' of 'Life' (or however you want to refer to this experience) is this:
There is a 'flow of nature'
You can temporarily disrupt this 'flow of nature' and send it in a different direction (other than how it was moving before).
When you do this, it gives you a temporary illusion of control.
Eventually the pressure builds and pops whatever it is that was causing the disruption and the flow of nature is restored.
This can be repeated or not depending on how you feel.
Ill prolly refine this later.
Enjoy.
Please feel free to bash or dismantle.
Quote from: LHX on December 10, 2006, 03:23:56 PM
So after years of whatever, this is the best I can come up with at this point:
The 'Secret' of 'Life' (or however you want to refer to this experience) is this:
There is a 'flow of nature'
You can temporarily disrupt this 'flow of nature' and send it in a different direction (other than how it was moving before).
When you do this, it gives you a temporary illusion of control.
Eventually the pressure builds and pops whatever it is that was causing the disruption and the flow of nature is restored.
This can be repeated or not depending on how you feel.
Ill prolly refine this later.
Enjoy.
Please feel free to bash or dismantle.
Furthermore, when that bubble pops, you may be fucked.
Just sayin.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on December 10, 2006, 03:34:11 PM
Furthermore, when that bubble pops, you may be fucked.
Just sayin.
no doubt
thats the implication
it works on the personal scale AND the social scale
how to proceed on this? im not 100% sure
when you realize that you may have become the type of person that is setting yourself up to get fucked later on
it might be wise to start popping yourself
humility FTW
Quote from: LHX on December 10, 2006, 03:23:56 PM
So after years of whatever, this is the best I can come up with at this point:
The 'Secret' of 'Life' (or however you want to refer to this experience) is this:
There is a 'flow of nature'
You can temporarily disrupt this 'flow of nature' and send it in a different direction (other than how it was moving before).
When you do this, it gives you a temporary illusion of control.
Eventually the pressure builds and pops whatever it is that was causing the disruption and the flow of nature is restored.
This can be repeated or not depending on how you feel.
I like it!
Quote from: LHX on December 10, 2006, 03:23:56 PM
Ill prolly refine this later.
Leave it alone it's fine like it is.
Shih.
Its a good word. You can find it in the Art of War, and implied in alot of Taoist works.
Quote from: Cain on December 10, 2006, 04:21:46 PM
Shih.
Its a good word. You can find it in the Art of War, and implied in alot of Taoist works.
100% troof
it has no english translation
good eye
Quote from: LHX on December 10, 2006, 04:36:44 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 10, 2006, 04:21:46 PM
Shih.
Its a good word. You can find it in the Art of War, and implied in alot of Taoist works.
100% troof
it has no english translation
good eye
Link me now goddamnit! All I can find are pictures of stupid little fluffy dogs :x
http://academic.bowdoin.edu/suntzu/content.cmhtml?chapter=05
This chapter introduces the term shih, one of the key terms of the Art of War. Most simply said, shih is the ever-changing configuration of power in one's environment. The skilled general knows shih so well that he/she can use it to achieve effortless victories. For example,
One who uses shih sets people to battle as if rolling trees and rocks.
As for the nature of trees and rocks --
When still, they are at rest.
When agitated, they move.
When square, they stop.
When round, they go.
Thus the shih of one skilled at setting people to battle is like rolling round rocks from a mountain one thousand jen high.
Chapter 5 also contains the famous pair "orthodox and extraordinary." The former is battle-by-the-book, what the enemy expects. The latter is always unpredictable. Thus:
In sum, when in battle,
Use the orthodox to engage.
Use the extraordinary to attain victory.
Quote from: LHX on December 10, 2006, 03:23:56 PM
So after years of whatever, this is the best I can come up with at this point:
The 'Secret' of 'Life' (or however you want to refer to this experience) is this:
There is a 'flow of nature'
You can temporarily disrupt this 'flow of nature' and send it in a different direction (other than how it was moving before).
When you do this, it gives you a temporary illusion of control.
Eventually the pressure builds and pops whatever it is that was causing the disruption and the flow of nature is restored.
This can be repeated or not depending on how you feel.
Ill prolly refine this later.
Enjoy.
Please feel free to bash or dismantle.
How does one recognize this "flow"?
And what if the "disruption" resembles the "flow" so closely that it is imperceptable?
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2006, 01:53:35 PM
How does one recognize this "flow"?
thats the question right there - for lack of anything that can be pointed at or demonstrated - that seems to be where something like this would break down
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2006, 01:53:35 PM
And what if the "disruption" resembles the "flow" so closely that it is imperceptable?
im not sure if perception has much to do with this scenario
the disruption can resemble the flow all it wants - but if it tries to go in a different direction, it is pretty much fucked
something small that is part of (and depends on) something bigger cant successfully go against that bigger thing (except in apparently small, temporary bursts)
The question being, if the disruption resebles the flow, how do you know you aren't going with the flow, but are instead going with the disruption?
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2006, 02:11:01 PM
The question being, if the disruption resebles the flow, how do you know you aren't going with the flow, but are instead going with the disruption?
you stick with it until you have reason to believe otherwise
you know because you factor that uncertainty in
Occam's Razor + Maybe Logic FTW
if it walk like a duck, talk like a duck - you assume its a duck until you open it up and find machine parts in it
Mecha-Quackers!!!
I really like the dam metaphor in the OP.
It's appropriate.
Mankind thinks a dam allows it to control nature. And, perhaps, it does in the short term. Short term being relative of course. For a being with a lifespan of 80 or so years it probably feels long term, and thus, reinforces the delusional idea of control.
But, the reality is, that a human lifespan is very short term in the grand scheme of the planet and the universe. A river being damned for 150 years seems like history to us.
To the planet, all it is is a temporary artery blockage.
There is no control anywhere.
And again, when that blockage is released, when the flow is returned, we may be fucked.
Hell, we may be fucked right now. If not, we are well onto our way to being fucked.
Humans have no priority.
Humans have no athority.
Any bowing that you see the mountains and oceans doing,
Thats only until our back is turned;
And we will be swept a way in a tide of sand and detrius...
humility and versatility FTW
You can't blame humanity, though, in the scheme of things. The human being has reached great heights in creation, re-creation and surpassing of things physically limiting. I'm just thinking of moon travel and the like, I guess.
To be proud of such achievments, and expect further increase of them, in escalation, is to be expected.
But you are right--forces of nature will out...though I have to say that studies of nature can differ in conclusionary aspects such that it IS quite difficult at times to know what is natural and what is forced environment. We are, after all, part of the Earth and its environment.
Here's a notion:
Humanity gets to a point where it is satisfied and stops "advancing."
Possible?
Probably not.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 12, 2006, 07:17:50 PM
Here's a notion:
Humanity gets to a point where it is satisfied and stops "advancing."
Possible?
Probably not.
I wonder if that is as deeply ingrained in us as our very DNA itself.
All signs would point to that...til the nukyular haulocaust, that is.
Quote from: Jenne on December 12, 2006, 06:23:30 PM
You can't blame humanity, though, in the scheme of things. The human being has reached great heights in creation, re-creation and surpassing of things physically limiting. I'm just thinking of moon travel and the like, I guess.
To be proud of such achievments, and expect further increase of them, in escalation, is to be expected.
But you are right--forces of nature will out...though I have to say that studies of nature can differ in conclusionary aspects such that it IS quite difficult at times to know what is natural and what is forced environment. We are, after all, part of the Earth and its environment.
Yet those things are just another adaptation of getting by, no more special and no more useful. Insects have no need of complex cognative abilities, they get by just fine without them. Their forms and adaptations are the dominate ones on the planet, at least in bredth of species joined with environs. If you look at just how much success even just one order has had, say, the Coleoptera (beetles) or Diptera (true flies), it puts the sucesses of primates to shame.
Sure, we're alowed to have some pride and bias to humans because we are human, but that doesn't mean we have the right, nay, the athority or ability to put ourselves at the top of the tree, as the most derived form, as the most advanced.
When you consider this closely, you enter into anthropocentric circular reasoning; What makes us the most advanced? Our intelligence? Beetles get by without that and there are hundreds of thousands of species of them. Our physical bodies? Don't make me laugh; primates living in a temperate zone? lol, the only way our puny bodies get by is by making "fur" to wear out of other materials. Our society? Even more laughable; you don't see the honeybees having the troubles we do in their social and efficient world. Our achievements? Ha, we go to the moon, split the atom, chart the universe, yet we fail continuously to find happiness.
I think it comes down to this: We are best, because we say we are best.
Sorry about the jack, Jenne, just needed to lay that down, it was clogging my colon.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on December 13, 2006, 06:46:15 AM
Beetles get by without that and there are hundreds of thousands of species of them.
Beetles don't have the ability to live off Earth. Unless they're living on the ISS as part of an experiment.
QuoteOur physical bodies? Don't make me laugh; primates living in a temperate zone?
Which other primate species can live in any climate zone on Earth?
Quote
I think it comes down to this: We are best, because we say we are best.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/6/6e/Human.png)
/
HUMANITY! HUMANITY! HUMANITY!
\
(http://www.kusports.com/multimedia/wallpaper/2005/football/1024jayFans.jpg)
I should reiterate and specify: We are best, ONLY because we say we are best.
And to your comments:
1. Any humans living off planet still need an umbilical cord here. There is no other planet to life on, and if the astronauts were stuck up at the ISS they would soon perish. Im sceptical of any and every person who talks of living elsewhere in the solar system; to me it doesn't seem plausible. And for the most part, I say fuck you to people who suggest living extraterra. Yet another reason to despise humanity: We fuck something up and we think "oopse", and we go on to fuck something else up leaving what we have fucked up without a second thought.
You know, the more I think about it, the more rediculous the whole "we can go to the moon" arguement is. Think about it: what does having a couple of humans land on the moon and leave do for humans? It doesn't do shit, is what it does. Its the whole "we did it just to say we can" arguement again. The more I think about it, the more I think "fuck the fucking space programs, just one more pile of human bullshit on the mountain that is already there".
2. No other primates can live on any temperate zone, and the only reason we can is because we manufacture artificial furs for ourselves. We're puny and easily destructable, even more than most primates.
Quote from: BMWOur achievements? Ha, we go to the moon, split the atom, chart the universe, yet we fail continuously to find happiness.
But we have the
potential to be happy, which is more than you can say for most of the other creatures on the planet.
Can an mud wasp be happy?
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on December 13, 2006, 08:50:45 AM
I should reiterate and specify: We are best, ONLY because we say we are best.
Well, the concept of a "best" species is ridiculous. Each species fills the niche it adapted to, and will go extinct when conditions can't sustain it. Many of the species that evolved during the Cambrian explosion are extinct now. Atmospheric and geologic conditions changed, with no no help from humans.
I'm not a fan of the whole "The Earth is to crowded! The sky is falling! Let's have hundreds of millions of people die!" argument. Take a look at the idiocy of John Zerzan. Billions of people would have to die so the world can be how
he wants it to be.
It says a lot when people on this board who have computers, cars, cushie jobs shuffling paperwork, college degrees, etc. whine like Emo fucks about "sheep" (for the slaughter) instead of some NWO flunky who screams for the blood of people who work much harder to survive and have much less impact on the environment than anyone who spend hours a day posting on the 'net with a computer full of heavy metals.
Quote1. Any humans living off planet still need an umbilical cord here.
Or cut the umbilical cord, nurture the baby and eventually it can fend for itself.
Humans
on Earth still need an umbilical cord, it's called interdependence.
QuoteThere is no other planet to life on,
So fix the problem. Energy is cheaper in space since a solar panel can be pointed at the Sun constantly. There are plenty of minerals out in the asteroid belt that are extremely rare here on Earth. Plant seeds, microorganism, fungal spores, etc. could easily be transported to a Lagrange point station. Sure,
all two Biosphere projects had problems, but they gathered data about biology and Murphy's Law.
Quoteand if the astronauts were stuck up at the ISS they would soon perish.
Tell it to Steppin' Razor.
We're living in a sci-fi novel. 103 years after Kitty Hawk a myriad of aircraft Orville and Wilbur could only dream of flit around the skies daily.
And if you feel to whine about the dehumanizing, unending march of technology--smash your flush toilet and dig a fucking latrine on the campus of your resource-hungry college.
QuoteIm sceptical of any and every person who talks of living elsewhere in the solar system;
I'm skeptical about people who bitch about apocalyptic bullshit and "the sky is falling" nonsense when worldwide literacy rates, lifespans and posting armchair philosophy on the internet are all at all time highs.
Quoteto me it doesn't seem plausible. And for the most part, I say fuck you to people who suggest living extraterra. Yet another reason to despise humanity: We fuck something up and we think "oopse", and we go on to fuck something else up leaving what we have fucked up without a second thought.
OH NOEZ!!~~@!!~ HUMANITY IS SO DESPISABLE WITH THEIR DELICIOUS LABIAS~!!~~!~
I've done a decent amount to minimize my impact on Mother Earth, here. If everyone on Earth lived at the level I do, it would take 1.5 Earths to sustain the whole of humanity, according to a highly accurate internet quiz
FNORD you can find yourself.
QuoteYou know, the more I think about it, the more rediculous the whole "we can go to the moon" arguement is. Think about it:
I have "thought about it". I have also "read about it" and "done math about it".
No, I will not post any material from my book making solid proposals on the scientific/engineering issues associated with colonizing and terraforming Mars.
Quotewhat does having a couple of humans land on the moon and leave do for humans? It doesn't do shit, is what it does. Its the whole "we did it just to say we can" arguement again.
Obviously.
Did you have a point, there?
For bonus points, you can not make use of any advances in electronic communication stemming from the "space race against the Ruskies" while posting a reply.
Quote2. No other primates can live on any temperate zone
Fascinating!!Quoteand the only reason we can is because we manufacture artificial furs for ourselves. We're puny and easily destructable, even more than most primates.
Tell me more shit I already know!!!Deer are so tiny and fragile because they have to eat plants! They need to get their fucking act together and grow a pair of watermelon sized Chloroplasts.
Mayflies don't need HVAC, so why should you? Smash the fuck out of your furnace, everyone at the University will thank you for enlightening their dumb, cheese eating asses in the middle of December!
Just remember everyone, a cauliflower is not the boss of you! Life on Earth is interdependent and interconnected, so fuck those Water Striders! They're just as abhorrent as your own species!
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: <----- Me, during the whole typing of this post
Quote from: LMNO on December 13, 2006, 12:49:44 PM
Can an mud wasp be happy?
Maybe. At least they can't sit around being emo, they've gotta use that energy to fire up a few ganglia and flap those wings.
the development of the word leads to the development of identities
identities lead to egos and separation
we are the only 'life' we know of that does that
'art'
the creation of abstract symbols
if somebody/thing bigger came down that could step on us, it would recognize a difference between man and other animals which are also alive
Maybe they would say something like:
"We ate them all - but these ones here - they acted strangely."
anyway - anybody who endures thru this self-destructive phase will prolly enjoy whatever comes next
space exploration
development of robotic allies
development of new bodies
life takes many forms
we are the only one that we know of that communicate like this (and have that temporary illusion of control - as alluded to in post #1)
Quote from: Starship, take me on December 13, 2006, 01:13:40 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on December 13, 2006, 08:50:45 AM
I should reiterate and specify: We are best, ONLY because we say we are best.
Well, the concept of a "best" species is ridiculous. Each species fills the niche it adapted to, and will go extinct when conditions can't sustain it. Many of the species that evolved during the Cambrian explosion are extinct now. Atmospheric and geologic conditions changed, with no no help from humans.
Yet that is what most humans believe. And the whole rant (as deluded and tired and muddled and rambling as it was, written at 3 in the morning) was trying to get accross that, and pretty much only that, and it failed for the most part.
Then again, I do feel rather strongly that the "salvation by space colonization" arguement is bullshit. It just turned out rather badly in written form.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on December 13, 2006, 06:46:15 AM
Quote from: Jenne on December 12, 2006, 06:23:30 PM
You can't blame humanity, though, in the scheme of things. The human being has reached great heights in creation, re-creation and surpassing of things physically limiting. I'm just thinking of moon travel and the like, I guess.
To be proud of such achievments, and expect further increase of them, in escalation, is to be expected.
But you are right--forces of nature will out...though I have to say that studies of nature can differ in conclusionary aspects such that it IS quite difficult at times to know what is natural and what is forced environment. We are, after all, part of the Earth and its environment.
Yet those things are just another adaptation of getting by, no more special and no more useful. Insects have no need of complex cognative abilities, they get by just fine without them. Their forms and adaptations are the dominate ones on the planet, at least in bredth of species joined with environs. If you look at just how much success even just one order has had, say, the Coleoptera (beetles) or Diptera (true flies), it puts the sucesses of primates to shame.
Sure, we're alowed to have some pride and bias to humans because we are human, but that doesn't mean we have the right, nay, the athority or ability to put ourselves at the top of the tree, as the most derived form, as the most advanced.
When you consider this closely, you enter into anthropocentric circular reasoning; What makes us the most advanced? Our intelligence? Beetles get by without that and there are hundreds of thousands of species of them. Our physical bodies? Don't make me laugh; primates living in a temperate zone? lol, the only way our puny bodies get by is by making "fur" to wear out of other materials. Our society? Even more laughable; you don't see the honeybees having the troubles we do in their social and efficient world. Our achievements? Ha, we go to the moon, split the atom, chart the universe, yet we fail continuously to find happiness.
I think it comes down to this: We are best, because we say we are best.
Sorry about the jack, Jenne, just needed to lay that down, it was clogging my colon.
no need to apologize!  *didn't start the thread* :D
I already know your stance on this, BMW, as I've read your positions on anthropocentrism before.  Doesn't shock or surprise me, and I think I share quite a few views with you.  In fact, I saw someone on a talk show last night speaking about being speciesist, and I believe all humans tend to fall into this category, more or less.
We really, actually, have no choice.  *shrug*  I believe that was built or adapted into our survival mechanism in the end.
I disagree, I think it came out fine.  I for one agree with you as far as the colonization part is concerned.  I believe the space program does have potentials for solving problems here on Earth.  But, I agree that approaching it from the basis of finding a place to escape to because we are screwing up Earth is pretty poor.  
"The Martian Chronicles" FTW
Quote from: Jenne on December 13, 2006, 04:33:16 PM
I already know your stance on this, BMW, as I've read your positions on anthropocentrism before. Doesn't shock or surprise me, and I think I share quite a few views with you. In fact, I saw someone on a talk show last night speaking about being speciesist, and I believe all humans tend to fall into this category, more or less.
We reall, actually, have no choice. *shrug* I believe that was built or adapted into our survival mechanism in the end.
Quote from: Original Post
You can temporarily disrupt this 'flow of nature' and send it in a different direction (other than how it was moving before).
When you do this, it gives you a temporary illusion of control.
it wasnt built in - it was a post-manufacture installation
a child doesnt spontaneously develop a exaggerated sense of self-importance
it is a trait that had a beginning and had been perpetuated
and fitting it into the original post - it looks like it is something that bursts (on a personal and societal scale)
thats sort of like a anti-survival mechanism
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 13, 2006, 04:33:49 PM
I disagree, I think it came out fine. I for one agree with you as far as the colonization part is concerned. I believe the space program does have potentials for solving problems here on Earth. But, I agree that approaching it from the basis of finding a place to escape to because we are screwing up Earth is pretty poor.
"The Martian Chronicles" FTW
earth is approaching the space race like a athlete that needs to shoot up before he takes the field in order to get himself to perform
ass-backwards
I sorta disagree there.
I think I have too much experiential and historical precedent in those who went against the societal grain to fight for something completely unattainable and somehow not only succeeded but also became a forefather or mother of something significant for the future of humanity (whatever the fuck that may be).
And I wasn't talking about an exaggerated sense of self-importance...just an innate ability to think of self and self-survival first.
For example, think about worker bees--their sole living mechanism is to perform a set of tasks, and if they can't, they die, leave or both the one place that birthed them.
Humans are not innately built to do this, I believe. Socialization for humans is TAUGHT, first and foremost, to a large degree.
Quote from: Jenne on December 13, 2006, 04:43:14 PM
I sorta disagree there.
I think I have too much experiential and historical precedent in those who went against the societal grain to fight for something completely unattainable and somehow not only succeeded but also became a forefather or mother of something significant for the future of humanity (whatever the fuck that may be).
that sounds kind of sensational
something significant for the future?
other than apocalypse?
Quote from: Jenne on December 13, 2006, 04:44:24 PM
For example, think about worker bees--their sole living mechanism that we have documented is to perform a set of tasks, and if they can't, they die, leave or both the one place that birthed them.
fixed
Quote from: Jenne on December 13, 2006, 04:44:24 PM
Humans are not innately built to do this, I believe. Socialization for humans is TAUGHT, first and foremost, to a large degree.
yes
humans are known to perpetuate their traditions
as aimless and self-destructive as they have become
Quote from: LHX on December 13, 2006, 04:46:25 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 13, 2006, 04:43:14 PM
I sorta disagree there.
I think I have too much experiential and historical precedent in those who went against the societal grain to fight for something completely unattainable and somehow not only succeeded but also became a forefather or mother of something significant for the future of humanity (whatever the fuck that may be).
that sounds kind of sensational
something significant for the future?
other than apocalypse?
:lol:  No, come on, world leaders, people who led significant political movements, musicians, etc.
The creators (even if they created "evil" or chaos) of some of the knowledge base and experiential data that what we are doing NOW is built on.  What whole institutions get paid millions to teach.  *shrug*  THAT still has value, imho.  THAT still has significance.  
If it doesn't, a shitload of our compatriots on this board are in engaging in a horrid waste of their time.
Quote from: LHX on December 13, 2006, 04:48:21 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 13, 2006, 04:44:24 PM
For example, think about worker bees--their sole living mechanism that we have documented is to perform a set of tasks, and if they can't, they die, leave or both the one place that birthed them.
fixed
Quote from: Jenne on December 13, 2006, 04:44:24 PM
Humans are not innately built to do this, I believe. Socialization for humans is TAUGHT, first and foremost, to a large degree.
yes
humans are known to perpetuate their traditions
as aimless and self-destructive as they have become
aw, so NOT the same thing.
And we've always been aimless and self-destructive.
No evolution there.
Quote from: Jenne on December 13, 2006, 04:33:16 PM
no need to apologize! *didn't start the thread* :D
I already know your stance on this, BMW, as I've read your positions on anthropocentrism before. Doesn't shock or surprise me, and I think I share quite a few views with you. In fact, I saw someone on a talk show last night speaking about being speciesist, and I believe all humans tend to fall into this category, more or less.
We really, actually, have no choice. *shrug* I believe that was built or adapted into our survival mechanism in the end.
Was it Peter Singer? On the Colbert report? Cause I heard that he was on there. In actuallity, hes a speciesist too, because he only recognizes inherent worth (intrinsic value) in organisms that have the ability to feel. Everything else is only good in so far as it aids sentient life in survival to him.
And yeah, all humans are speciesist to some extent. All species other than humans are speciesist, really. But, if theres anything good about human minds, maybe its to break down the barriers, to remove this oh so binding idio- and anthropo-centrism. And in many ways I believe it is pertinate to our future survival to do so, a moral imperative, even.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 13, 2006, 04:33:49 PM
I disagree, I think it came out fine. I for one agree with you as far as the colonization part is concerned. I believe the space program does have potentials for solving problems here on Earth. But, I agree that approaching it from the basis of finding a place to escape to because we are screwing up Earth is pretty poor.
"The Martian Chronicles" FTW
I would go further and say Ray Bradbury FTW.
Quote from: LHX on December 13, 2006, 04:38:57 PM
it wasnt built in - it was a post-manufacture installation
a child doesnt spontaneously develop a exaggerated sense of self-importance
it is a trait that had a beginning and had been perpetuated
and fitting it into the original post - it looks like it is something that bursts (on a personal and societal scale)
thats sort of like a anti-survival mechanism
Wasn't built in? LHX, man, have you ever SEEN how a baby acts? ALL of its actions are out of self importance. Its only later in their lives that they are able to expand that sense of self to other people, and beyond. But otherwise we all start out as selfish, winey little fucks.
Quote from: Jenne on December 13, 2006, 04:50:33 PM
Quote from: LHX on December 13, 2006, 04:46:25 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 13, 2006, 04:43:14 PM
I sorta disagree there.
I think I have too much experiential and historical precedent in those who went against the societal grain to fight for something completely unattainable and somehow not only succeeded but also became a forefather or mother of something significant for the future of humanity (whatever the fuck that may be).
that sounds kind of sensational
something significant for the future?
other than apocalypse?
:lol: No, come on, world leaders, people who led significant political movements, musicians, etc.
The creators (even if they created "evil" or chaos) of some of the knowledge base and experiential data that what we are doing NOW is built on. What whole institutions get paid millions to teach. *shrug* THAT still has value, imho. THAT still has significance.
If it doesn't, a shitload of our compatriots on this board are in engaging in a horrid waste of their time.
it might have significance, but not in the realm of comparison
as in - thank goodness A happened instead of B
it has significance by virtue of the fact that it happened - plain and simple
the original post suggests that something was distorted - separated
now we witness it coming back together
so these things that happened in the past - they are siginificant as
landmarks perhaps
but not significant as pivotal events
what seems significant is the snowball building momentum - the "way it looks" and "what we call it" seems to be little more than decoration - scenery on the side of the road (one of the reasons why we can agree on so little when it comes to history and 'what happened' - the dates, faces and names are of approximately zero significance)
Quote from: Jenne on December 13, 2006, 04:51:44 PM
And we've always been aimless and self-destructive.
No evolution there.
1. as far as we can remember (which isnt very far)
2. we havent always been able to notice it
3. where did the trait of pretending to have an aim and ignoring signals of our destructive traits come into the picture?
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on December 13, 2006, 04:54:49 PM
Wasn't built in? LHX, man, have you ever SEEN how a baby acts? ALL of its actions are out of self importance.
lol
precisely yo
there is no exaggeration there, and the baby doesnt represent it as being something other than what it is
there is no exaggerated sense of self-importance
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on December 13, 2006, 04:54:49 PM
Its only later in their lives that they are able to expand that sense of self to other people, and beyond. But otherwise we all start out as selfish, winey little fucks.
we still are selfish
but we also learn to be afraid of things that dont exist and desire things that cannot be obtained
thats where our selfishness gets messy
thats where we start interrupting each other
LHX, I'm not sure I disagree with what you're saying here...so I'll leave what I said and come back to it later.
BMW--yes, it was Peter Singer on the Colbert Report. I had heard about the speciesist thing before, and in fact I think I've seen Singer himself elsewhere, but it was good to hear his theories.
Quote from: LHX on December 13, 2006, 05:00:04 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 13, 2006, 04:51:44 PM
And we've always been aimless and self-destructive.
No evolution there.
1. as far as we can remember (which isnt very far)
2. we havent always been able to notice it
3. where did the trait of pretending to have an aim and ignoring signals of our destructive traits come into the picture?
1. so?
2. so?
3. who says it wasn't always there, latent?
Quote from: Jenne on December 13, 2006, 05:14:39 PM
Quote from: LHX on December 13, 2006, 05:00:04 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 13, 2006, 04:51:44 PM
And we've always been aimless and self-destructive.
No evolution there.
1. as far as we can remember (which isnt very far)
2. we havent always been able to notice it
3. where did the trait of pretending to have an aim and ignoring signals of our destructive traits come into the picture?
1. so?
2. so?
3. who says it wasn't always there, latent?
well - you are right on that account
obviously, since we ARE destructive, the potential had to have been there
going back to the original post (again)
i guess that if our destructive tendency is our ability to temporarily 'disrupt' the flow of nature
then what we are learning here is how to use it
when you give a person a new tool, it takes time to learn how to use it properly
so yeah - i agree with what you say about latency - it makes sense
thats the way tools work - you use it sometimes, and sometimes you let it rest
Quote from: Jenne on December 13, 2006, 05:14:06 PM
BMW--yes, it was Peter Singer on the Colbert Report. I had heard about the speciesist thing before, and in fact I think I've seen Singer himself elsewhere, but it was good to hear his theories.
I heard that Colbert tore him apart. :lulz:
You know my position on Utilitarians, so I need not say more than that.
Quote from: LHX on December 13, 2006, 05:04:21 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on December 13, 2006, 04:54:49 PM
Wasn't built in? LHX, man, have you ever SEEN how a baby acts? ALL of its actions are out of self importance.
lol
precisely yo
there is no exaggeration there, and the baby doesnt represent it as being something other than what it is
there is no exaggerated sense of self-importance
Oh, I get you now. The babies self importance is a sincere, natural, and needed self importance, whereas exagerated self importance comes later.
Quote
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on December 13, 2006, 04:54:49 PM
Its only later in their lives that they are able to expand that sense of self to other people, and beyond. But otherwise we all start out as selfish, winey little fucks.
we still are selfish
but we also learn to be afraid of things that dont exist and desire things that cannot be obtained
thats where our selfishness gets messy
thats where we start interrupting each other
Maybe the point is to grow out of this selfishness?
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on December 13, 2006, 05:41:57 PM
Quote from: LHX on December 13, 2006, 05:04:21 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on December 13, 2006, 04:54:49 PM
Wasn't built in? LHX, man, have you ever SEEN how a baby acts? ALL of its actions are out of self importance.
lol
precisely yo
there is no exaggeration there, and the baby doesnt represent it as being something other than what it is
there is no exaggerated sense of self-importance
Oh, I get you now. The babies self importance is a sincere, natural, and needed self importance, whereas exagerated self importance comes later.
Quote
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on December 13, 2006, 04:54:49 PM
Its only later in their lives that they are able to expand that sense of self to other people, and beyond. But otherwise we all start out as selfish, winey little fucks.
we still are selfish
but we also learn to be afraid of things that dont exist and desire things that cannot be obtained
thats where our selfishness gets messy
thats where we start interrupting each other
Maybe the point is to grow out of this selfishness?
To what? Hivethink?
maybe
or to acknowledge that selfishness involves living in a fertile place where living things can thrive
and that aiming to be supremely selfish will have the indirect by-product of benefitting everything else that lives around you
selfish is usually seen as 'bad' - thats because the type of selfishness these days that sees people 'succeed' has the by-product of abusing and oppressing
on a long-term scale - that type of selfishness is self-destructive (and the result of a distorted understanding of the process at work)
Quote from: LHX on December 13, 2006, 05:55:53 PM
maybe
or to acknowledge that selfishness involves living in a fertile place where living things can thrive
and that aiming to be supremely selfish will have the indirect by-product of benefitting everything else that lives around you
selfish is usually seen as 'bad' - thats because the type of selfishness these days that sees people 'succeed' has the by-product of abusing and oppressing
on a long-term scale - that type of selfishness is self-destructive (and the result of a distorted understanding of the process at work)
Ok, yeah, THAT I can get behind.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on December 13, 2006, 05:37:27 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 13, 2006, 05:14:06 PM
BMW--yes, it was Peter Singer on the Colbert Report. I had heard about the speciesist thing before, and in fact I think I've seen Singer himself elsewhere, but it was good to hear his theories.
I heard that Colbert tore him apart. :lulz:
You know my position on Utilitarians, so I need not say more than that.
Oh, he did...in his usual "killing them with bullshit" manner. I felt sorry for the guy--in fact, I usually feel sorry for academics who go there expecting a fair trade in conversation. :lol:
I don't feel sorry for them. They should know exactly what they are getting into when they sign up. They should know that Colbert has a character that he plays damn well, and they just have to go along with the satire.
On the other hand, the reasons I don't feel sorry for Singer are completly different. :lulz: :lol:
Quote from: LHX on December 13, 2006, 05:55:53 PM
maybe
or to acknowledge that selfishness involves living in a fertile place where living things can thrive
and that aiming to be supremely selfish will have the indirect by-product of benefitting everything else that lives around you
selfish is usually seen as 'bad' - thats because the type of selfishness these days that sees people 'succeed' has the by-product of abusing and oppressing
on a long-term scale - that type of selfishness is self-destructive (and the result of a distorted understanding of the process at work)
Well spotted. Nothing wrong with selfishness if it's done properly.
Just because you're not ideocentric doesn't mean you have to "hivethink".
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on December 13, 2006, 04:22:56 PM
Then again, I do feel rather strongly that the "salvation by space colonization" arguement is bullshit.
Yes, it's bullshit, that's why no real student of the subject suggests that. Not me, not Freeman Dyson, Bob Zubrin or anyone else. They and I are
optimists and don't piss puerile misanthropy under the banner of a goddess of chaos. Sure, people do plenty of hideous stuff. Einstein treated women like crap and raged against quantum theory. But this is no reason to say humans shouldn't reproduce, but I realize you were
NOT just sayin' that.
The idea behind space colonization is not to "evacuate Earth" or some tripe. Africa wasn't evacuated when humans spread over the rest of the Earth. However, humans and our descendant species might be living in places other than a vulnerable blue speck in the far future.
Just think about the first unicellular organisms that all life on this planet descended from moving out of primordial tidal pools, if that helps any.
Doesn't Stephen Hawkins promote colonization?
I mean, yeah, it's an appeal to authority, but by all indications, that guy is smarter than all of us put together.
Quote from: LMNO on December 14, 2006, 12:36:31 PM
Doesn't Stephen Hawkins promote colonization?
Yeah, he has been making news for his thoughts on that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O%27Neill
These guys were the pioneers. Notice Dyson's efforts towards international peace and the environment.
Quote from: Starship, take me on December 14, 2006, 01:49:24 AM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on December 13, 2006, 04:22:56 PM
Then again, I do feel rather strongly that the "salvation by space colonization" arguement is bullshit.
Yes, it's bullshit, that's why no real student of the subject suggests that.  Not me, not Freeman Dyson, Bob Zubrin or anyone else.  They and I are optimists and don't piss puerile misanthropy under the banner of a goddess of chaos.  Sure, people do plenty of hideous stuff.  Einstein treated women like crap and raged against quantum theory.  But this is no reason to say humans shouldn't reproduce, but I realize you were NOT just sayin' that.
The idea behind space colonization is not to "evacuate Earth" or some tripe.  Africa wasn't evacuated when humans spread over the rest of the Earth.  However, humans and our descendant species might be living in places other than a vulnerable blue speck in the far future.
Just think about the first unicellular organisms that all life on this planet descended from moving out of primordial tidal pools, if that helps any.
So, then, what is the
real aim/purpose of space colonization?
Because, to me, and I admit I could be totally misguided, it's all about "because we might be able to" (notice I didn't say, "because we can", NASA's track record isn't good enough to warrant that meme)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 14, 2006, 02:50:16 PM
Quote from: Starship, take me on December 14, 2006, 01:49:24 AM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on December 13, 2006, 04:22:56 PM
Then again, I do feel rather strongly that the "salvation by space colonization" arguement is bullshit.
Yes, it's bullshit, that's why no real student of the subject suggests that. Not me, not Freeman Dyson, Bob Zubrin or anyone else. They and I are optimists and don't piss puerile misanthropy under the banner of a goddess of chaos. Sure, people do plenty of hideous stuff. Einstein treated women like crap and raged against quantum theory. But this is no reason to say humans shouldn't reproduce, but I realize you were NOT just sayin' that.
The idea behind space colonization is not to "evacuate Earth" or some tripe. Africa wasn't evacuated when humans spread over the rest of the Earth. However, humans and our descendant species might be living in places other than a vulnerable blue speck in the far future.
Just think about the first unicellular organisms that all life on this planet descended from moving out of primordial tidal pools, if that helps any.
So, then, what is the real aim/purpose of space colonization?
Because, to me, and I admit I could be totally misguided, it's all about "because we might be able to" (notice I didn't say, "because we can", NASA's track record isn't good enough to warrant that meme)
It's the viral will of the dna molecule to spread everywhere. Humanity is merely one, semi successful, conscious wing of that movement. The insects will prolly employ their usual sneak tactic and hide in some food or something and we'll take a bunch of animals and plants with us as part of the biosphere. DNA will not stop until it covers and fills every square millimeter of the universe or it gets wiped out.
Well, if that's true, then that's the flow of nature, and it would be wrong to fight against it, according to some.
I don't have any problem with it. In fact I'd like to see the end result.
end result:
success after learning responsibility and respect
(just a hunch)
Quote from: LHX on December 14, 2006, 05:16:05 PM
end result:
success after learning responsibility and respect
(just a hunch)
I was kinda picturing a huge big globulent mass of biology throbbing and pulsating across the whole of infinity but, yeah, that'd be cool too.
Quote from: SillyCybin on December 14, 2006, 07:17:53 PM
Quote from: LHX on December 14, 2006, 05:16:05 PM
end result:
success after learning responsibility and respect
(just a hunch)
I was kinda picturing a huge big globulent mass of biology throbbing and pulsating across the whole of infinity but, yeah, that'd be cool too.
That would make Akira quite the prophetic movie then wouldn't it?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 14, 2006, 07:25:56 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on December 14, 2006, 07:17:53 PM
Quote from: LHX on December 14, 2006, 05:16:05 PM
end result:
success after learning responsibility and respect
(just a hunch)
I was kinda picturing a huge big globulent mass of biology throbbing and pulsating across the whole of infinity but, yeah, that'd be cool too.
That would make Akira quite the prophetic movie then wouldn't it?
Bang on! Exactly like the akira blob but infinite.
Quote from: SillyCybin on December 14, 2006, 07:17:53 PM
I was kinda picturing a huge big globulent mass of biology throbbing and pulsating across the whole of infinity but, yeah, that'd be cool too.
you might be right
but even a globule mass could have things living in it
just dont fight the glob
OH MY GLOB!!!
may glob have mercy on you
o no i have gotten carried away
Quote from: LHX on December 14, 2006, 05:16:05 PM
end result:
success after learning responsibility and respect
(just a hunch)
Wouldn't it be better to not waste time and do that now then?
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on December 15, 2006, 12:04:46 AM
Quote from: LHX on December 14, 2006, 05:16:05 PM
end result:
success after learning responsibility and respect
(just a hunch)
Wouldn't it be better to not waste time and do that now then?
emphatically yes
with emphasis
[emphasis]yes[/emphasis]
bump.
Good stuff in this thread.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 14, 2006, 07:17:53 PM
I was kinda picturing a huge big globulent mass of biology throbbing and pulsating across the whole of infinity but, yeah, that'd be cool too.
what the fuck does globulent mean? googling it gives a site where its called a made-up word and this thread.
anyway something covering the whole of infinity can't resemble a globule.
I'll decide wether i want humanity to leave this planet when i decide wether i want humanity to survive, this may take a while.
Chances are the first colonies will be manufacturing, but moving enough material out of the Earth's atmosphere would cost too much fuel, there was research into using frozen water on the moon's poles and seperating the oxygen and hydrogen, but it's been a few years since I heard about that.
This was from back when I wasn't such a pussy.
You're not a pussy.
I can prove it.
QuoteWhy are so many people trying to debunk Intelligent Design? It's just as good a theory as Evolution! I mean, Darwin can't even explain the origen of life, and no one's ever seen an animal switch species. Hell, if Darwinism is true, you could get spontaneous life forms from a jar of peanut butter!
Quote from: LMNO on October 07, 2008, 02:06:19 PM
You're not a pussy.
I can prove it.
for a second, I thought this was the OP, the proposal for the secret of life. I think it kinda works!
Quote from: LMNO on October 07, 2008, 02:06:19 PM
You're not a pussy.
I can prove it.
QuoteWhy are so many people trying to debunk Intelligent Design? It's just as good a theory as Evolution! I mean, Darwin can't even explain the origen of life, and no one's ever seen an animal switch species. Hell, if Darwinism is true, you could get spontaneous life forms from a jar of peanut butter!
:argh!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1msS71xL00
So, I just pulled this video out of my ass (yes, google is in my ass) a couple minutes ago.
Summary:
-My GOD when are people going to stop using the biblical geneology to determine the age of the earth. This was stupid hundreds of years ago, and it is still STUPID STUPID
STUPID. This "scientist" decided that taking the 75 generations leading up to jesus would determine the age of the earth.
-Does not understand mother fucking GEOLOGY. Uses the grand canyon example like every other numb nuts. Does not realize that the earth is not like a frosted cake, or it would be, if the CAKE WAS ROCKED TO PIECES BY PERIODIC EARTHQUAKES AND CONTINENTAL DRIFTING.
-Mississippi river delta. UGH. Flood, blah blah blah young earth, bristlecone pines blah blah blah SOME ONE KILL THIS DUMB SHIT.
-Oh, and sequoias. Apparently the oldest trees are significant to geology. Yes. I'm not making shit up.
-Counting back from the population of the earth. Yes. He doesn't understand population dynamics either.
-"Hi, I'm a fossil of a Homo sapiens, and I'm 92 thousand years old" ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
-Has absolutly no concept of how the human population over time.
-Carbon 14. Okay, blood boiling. This guy claims to be a chemist. I'm glad this fucker isn't a nuclear physisist or we would all be FUCKED with this DUMB SHIT running our power plants. Doesn't understand contamination. Oh, and lol, potassium argon. I wished WISHED he had mentioned uranium. Please please mention uranium. :x
-blah blah blah earth is young. And fuck yes you need a long time to make fossils. OH MY GOD THIS GUY DID NOT USE A COWBOY BOOT AS A FOSSIL.
-THIS GUY USED A COWBOY BOOT AS A FOSSIL. Still cant get over it. Oh, and that boot, as far as I can see, is still a boot, and not a rock. It has to BECOME a rock, dumbfuck, before it is a fossil. Oh, and more of the same shit. Minors hats, glass jars. CALCERIC DEPOSITION DOES NOT MEAN FOSSILIZATION YOU STUPID WASTE OF MY AIRSPACE. More and more examples.
-EVOLUTIONARY THEORY DOES NOT TALK ABOUT OPALS! ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.
-Oh, yes, we can manufacture diamonds too you idiot.
-BRAINWASHING?! I'LL SHOW YOU BRAINWASHING YOU STUPID FECAL DEPOSIT. WERE YOU THERE YOU SHITSTAIN?
-Apparently the bible is a perfectly accurate historical record now.
Now go fuck yourself, cause I can't even finish this video and stomach your ignorant bullshit one more second.
Hahahahahha Kai that was awesome!
Quote from: Nigel on October 10, 2008, 12:24:56 AM
Hahahahahha Kai that was awesome!
Thank you. Whenever someone mentions the peanut butter video I feel the need to find a creationist vid and rip it to shreads.
Quote from: Kai on October 10, 2008, 12:29:07 AM
Quote from: Nigel on October 10, 2008, 12:24:56 AM
Hahahahahha Kai that was awesome!
Thank you. Whenever someone mentions the peanut butter video I feel the need to find a creationist vid and rip it to shreads.
In that case.
Peanut butter proves evolution (more like evilution) is false. Damn know nothing scientists and their Darwinist religion. They just want an excuse to buttfuck monkeys.
Quote from: Vene on October 10, 2008, 12:32:00 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 10, 2008, 12:29:07 AM
Quote from: Nigel on October 10, 2008, 12:24:56 AM
Hahahahahha Kai that was awesome!
Thank you. Whenever someone mentions the peanut butter video I feel the need to find a creationist vid and rip it to shreads.
In that case.
Peanut butter proves evolution (more like evilution) is false. Damn know nothing scientists and their Darwinist religion. They just want an excuse to buttfuck monkeys.
Sorry, my colon is cleansed for the evening. Come back tomorrow.
Quote from: Kai on October 10, 2008, 12:39:33 AM
Quote from: Vene on October 10, 2008, 12:32:00 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 10, 2008, 12:29:07 AM
Quote from: Nigel on October 10, 2008, 12:24:56 AM
Hahahahahha Kai that was awesome!
Thank you. Whenever someone mentions the peanut butter video I feel the need to find a creationist vid and rip it to shreads.
In that case.
Peanut butter proves evolution (more like evilution) is false. Damn know nothing scientists and their Darwinist religion. They just want an excuse to buttfuck monkeys.
Sorry, my colon is cleansed for the evening. Come back tomorrow.
Will do. Who knows, I may even grab some real creationist quotes (not that what I said is far off).
Quote from: Vene on October 10, 2008, 12:44:06 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 10, 2008, 12:39:33 AM
Quote from: Vene on October 10, 2008, 12:32:00 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 10, 2008, 12:29:07 AM
Quote from: Nigel on October 10, 2008, 12:24:56 AM
Hahahahahha Kai that was awesome!
Thank you. Whenever someone mentions the peanut butter video I feel the need to find a creationist vid and rip it to shreads.
In that case.
Peanut butter proves evolution (more like evilution) is false. Damn know nothing scientists and their Darwinist religion. They just want an excuse to buttfuck monkeys.
Sorry, my colon is cleansed for the evening. Come back tomorrow.
Will do. Who knows, I may even grab some real creationist quotes (not that what I said is far off).
Its also nice when you can give me a creationist video or tract at the same time.
To summarize:
Kai = Not a pussy.
QED.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hfPPB5_zUw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hfPPB5_zUw)
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78r-fkZ2x8Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78r-fkZ2x8Q)
Take your pick.
And some ramblings (http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/evollawa.txt (http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/evollawa.txt):
QuotePerhaps the reason so many people continue to reject the notion of
evolution is that it seems contrary to ordinary experience. Things left
to chance just don't get done. Random changes in anything simply do not
produce higher levels of organization and complexity. Rather, all
complex machines and devices with which we are familiar are the result
of intelligent design and manufacture. Random changes can only destroy
them.
None the less, the essential claim of evolution is that random change
and natural selection do make simple things spontaneously transform into
more complex things without recourse to intelligent purpose or design.
The famous evolutionist Julian Huxley has defined evolution as a
"directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time,
which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an
increasingly high level of organization in its products." In his book
_Evolution in Action_, says that nowhere in the process of evolution "is
there any trace of purpose, or even of prospective significance."
Huxley says that evolution is driven solely by "blind physical forces"
engaged in what he calls a great "chaotic jazz dance of particles and
radiations."
Quote from: Vene on October 10, 2008, 03:05:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hfPPB5_zUw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hfPPB5_zUw)
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78r-fkZ2x8Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78r-fkZ2x8Q)
Take your pick.
And some ramblings (http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/evollawa.txt (http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/evollawa.txt):
QuotePerhaps the reason so many people continue to reject the notion of
evolution is that it seems contrary to ordinary experience. Things left
to chance just don't get done. Random changes in anything simply do not
produce higher levels of organization and complexity. Rather, all
complex machines and devices with which we are familiar are the result
of intelligent design and manufacture. Random changes can only destroy
them.
None the less, the essential claim of evolution is that random change
and natural selection do make simple things spontaneously transform into
more complex things without recourse to intelligent purpose or design.
The famous evolutionist Julian Huxley has defined evolution as a
"directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time,
which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an
increasingly high level of organization in its products." In his book
_Evolution in Action_, says that nowhere in the process of evolution "is
there any trace of purpose, or even of prospective significance."
Huxley says that evolution is driven solely by "blind physical forces"
engaged in what he calls a great "chaotic jazz dance of particles and
radiations."
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!
Don't have time right now. Must destroy later. :x