World Peace, quote contradictions?

[gorski]

1) I'm not a conservative...

2) I do think the only realistic way to acheive world peace is through a one world state whos laws cannot be disobeyed by anyone. My name is Darth foreigner, how do you do.

1) Yes, you are and you don't even know it. To you that's the 0only "reality" you know and so...

2) ..."reality" to Mugabe is not exactly the same as to his victims...

"Let's be realistic and demand the impossible", as someone said...

Your name might be more akin to Darth Vader, it looks like...

 

[camouflage]

1) Yes, you are and you don't even know it. To you that's the 0only "reality" you know and so...

2) ..."reality" to Mugabe is not exactly the same as to his victims...

"Let's be realistic and demand the impossible", as someone said...

Your name might be more akin to Darth Vader, it looks like...

bless your little cotton socks.

 

[gorski]

Not sure what you're on about here.

I am not surprised, I must say...

I can't see us stopping to understand ourselves, the "other" and the environment if we stop warring and the adversarial model of behaviour and thinking is behind us. Quite the opposite is the case: UNLESS WE FIND A WAY OUT OF IT - IT IS BOUND TO CONTINUE and leave us stranded!!! That is an irrational manner of resolving disputes [actually, it always produces new ones!], which, of course, are inevitable. But not the only one. And certainly not the best way!!

Indeed, if we put all our energies into solving the essential problems of Humanity and research constructively, as opposed to destructively based research [from the we warring machine perspective/needs] - I mean, from medical problems to renewable energy production, storage and distribution, water supplies, soil erosion and deforestation, better division of all the spoils we commonly produce and particularly or individually appropriate, finding a better way of producing over the irrational market nonsense, space exploration [we will have to leave one day] and so on and on and on...

Tell me: exactly which part is not clear and what do you understand it to be? Maybe you can even help yourself...?

We attack those problems anyway, we are many, our activities are directed in a multitude of directions. We're basically fluidic in the way we take on problems, one good thing about having many different ideas and opinions and attituides about what's important, it means you cover all bases. But it also means you generate lots of internal friction from opposing forces. Which kind of comes back to what I was saying, if you remove the opposing forces within, maybe there'd be no heat, no movement, just a cold, stagnant, sterile uniformity. A species at the end of it's life, no new ideas to quarrel over, no clash of opinions. Still, we'd be around a long time but... we wouldn't be ourselves anymore would we, we'd be a monoculture.

It would be better to stop blowing eachover up and hacking at eachover certainly, maybe one day we'll learn to have conflict whithout murder, but again, force is force. Are you really taking things seriously if at some point one side doesn't MAKE the other side do as it says? Life isn't just a game of cards right?

You view of Human Nature certainly is bleak and dark! Much closer to animals than Humans...

It's good that you see that we are a multitude - but it's very perplexing how you don't see that there aren't a multitude of ways of dealing with those problems and that you only see force as the principle of "gravity" from which all and everything is dealt with.

You see, in all things Human nothing is "just" this or that, black or white, either-or, "force them or nothing will be achieved" - we are much more than that!!!

And there are certainly other principles from which we not only may but are acting/thinking/feeling!!!

 

[gorski]

Just one more thing: from "clash of opinions" [academically] to a real, forceful conflict - is a rather large step...

 

[camouflage]

The love that is given is none of what you have described. The love you have described is the usual one found in love songs and in lyrics. It is the sort that is desired by people to come their way from others. Any giving of love they so themselves is dependent on it coming back to them.

I disagree, even the pop songs are well familiar with the need to give love, regardless of what comes back.

I was alluding to this just earlier when talking about the need for individuals to be proactive and avoid being a slave to reactions.

Sounds very rational, logical, almost machinistic in it's imperviousness to inner sensuality. Design, architect, implement, asses, feedback is irrelevent. Jelousy, fear, hate, like, enjoyment, hope, pride, friendship... all irrelevant to behaviour. Certainly nothing like the humans beings as found in the wilds of their natural environment that I've come to know. Sure we can be rational beings some of the time. In corporate environments for instance, and science labs.

The giving of love regardless of what comes back is an outcome of an independent person. The need and desire to receive love is a sign of a dependent non-free person.

Independent people have no need to fight or wage war. Only those who are dependent on others will wage war.

So waging war is a child-like characteristic. Children are war-mongers, as are the old and the infirm, anybody who values the presence and interaction of other human beings. Hm.

Love as i'm referring to is the essential precursor to freedom and independence, that in turn when found in enough people - the critical mass - will become a collective force that may well convert permanent war into permanent peace.

The love you seem to be reffering to is a very rare thing indeed. Most people just get by on normal regular messy love.

It is an absence of this kind of love that leads to destructive tendencies. Destruction does not come first, it is only dependent on certain conditions being in place. This is a prime argument that eternal peace is not only possible, but should be easier than permanent war. And if you look at the number of nations that have nothing to do with war, they totally outnumber those that seem to always be in war. So, we're on our way!

You are right here, many countries haven't been involved in wars for years, hopefully this will spread, but only when the capricious violent expansionist power-mongering ways of certain other nations have been rolled back. By FORCE if necessary. mwa-hahahahaha.

 

[camouflage]

You view of Human Nature certainly is bleak and dark! Much closer to animals than Humans...

It's good that you see that we are a multitude - but it's very perplexing how you don't see that there aren't a multitude of ways of dealing with those problems and that you only see force as the principle of "gravity" from which all and everything is dealt with.

Humans are animals, there's nothing wrong with that, perfectly fine phenomena, are animals, diverse, all kinds of behaviour, different methods of getting by, some are social, others solitary, some look after their offspring and others just spawn and be damned. You can't ignore the fact that many are predators though and just go around with your throat exposed hoping that all the other animals will do the same.

I don't think force is how everything is settled, certainly not, but when the methods used, the only answer to it is also force.

 

[camouflage]

Just one more thing: from "clash of opinions" [academically] to a real, forceful conflict - is a rather large step...

Tell that to the fundamentalists, the extremists, the fanatics, tell it to the intelligencia that were marched out and shot in the first days of whatever occupation, dissapeared in the early days after whatever coup.

 

[gorski]

Wait, wait: I heard that somewhere before - we are animals...

And that means precisely what you are saying now - we have always behaved like that and so there is no way out, we will always behave like that.

No chance fro chance, freedom, creativity, imagination, nothing ever changes, all is in vane, just the same old same old... How convenient... well, if you don't wanna make any effort and take any [at least co-]responsibility on your meek shoulders...

 

[camouflage]

Wait, wait: I heard that somewhere before - we are animals...

And that means precisely what you are saying now - we have always behaved like that and so there is no way out, we will always behave like that.

No chance fro chance, freedom, creativity, imagination, nothing ever changes, all is in vane, just the same old same old... How convenient... well, if you don't wanna make any effort and take any [at least co-]responsibility on your meek shoulders...

You just have a poor opinion of animals. We've done not bad for ouselves considering we were at one point a bunch of fruit an insect munching mammals, who knows where we might be in a few thousand or even a few hundred years time, exploring the oceans of Europa? Scooting around in vehicles powered by hydrogen clouds? Communing in vast quantum-simultaneous conversations of billions? anythings possible, but I don't think it's constuctive to lie to ourselves about our own natures. Certainly not if we want to adapt our natures to new forms of behaviour. got to start from what we're actually made of, not what we'd like to be made of in some fluffy idealized wish. We don't fly around with gossima wings sprinkling fairy-dust. We fight amongst eachother, we quarrel, we can be jelouse and small-minded and some of us are complete jerks, and if you cut us, icky red stuff comes out and a few hours after we've eaten stinky brown stuff comes out. simply put, we're not angels, never were and are unlikely ever to be. don't mean we aren't capable of beautiful creative things too. In fact, for me that's the beauty of it. We have ugly ways and are capable of beautiful things. I don't see how denying the truth any of these qualities or afflictions would lead to deeper self knowledge.

 

[weltweit]

.... You are right here, many countries haven't been involved in wars for years, hopefully this will spread, but only when the capricious violent expansionist power-mongering ways of certain other nations have been rolled back. By FORCE if necessary. mwa-hahahahaha.

"haven't been involved for years" is the operative phrase.

The trouble is that (IIRC) all countries have at some point in their history been involved in war. It seems to be a growing phase or emotional development phase that they/we all go through.

Name a country or nation that has never in its history been involved in a war? I am not sure there are many, perhaps there are none if your grasp of history is long enough.

Yet we think civilisation is the bond that makes us better than animals, yet there has not been a civilisation that has not enforced its will on its margins with the point of a sword or barrel of a gun.

 

[neon_mask]

It seems as though, this thread has found peace