Comments

  • A great song that I would recommend every philosopher,scientist,mathematician and witches


    Metal, myth, and metaphysics? Maiden and the Mariner!
  • The Indisputable Self
    db4d6d19c253d87e5cd7a48a09347795.png

    Each person has a sleeping volcano of energy at the base of their spine.
    To open it so it flows upward through the different aspects of our being (survival, sexual, social, compassion, wisdom, etc) is both possible and a mystery.
    It is the flow of energy, thus will not be directly observable under a microscope or such.
    This is within all, not just Hindus or meditators.
    Dare we release the volcano and become pure energy?
  • Culture is critical
    I have that teeshirt! — Vera Mont

    Haha! I have one that says ‘I reached enlightenment and all I got was this stupid T-shirt’. :blush:
  • Culture is critical
    As soon as I lied down I thought of Sumer and the story of a wild man living in the wilderness being tamed by a woman in the city. The point being we are not naturally good and caring beings who live well in communities. We learn how to be civilized. Children who are not nurtured well early in life may lose the ability to love. — Athena

    I think I see what you are saying here, but I might make a small but important distinction between ‘civilization’ and ‘socialization’.
    One can see amazing socialization in groups of primates, even in mammals such as prairie dogs.
    They have no civilization of course.
    We have civilization, but our overall interconnection and true socialization is in tatters, as you have suggested.
    We are out of touch with each other, literally and metaphorically.
    I envy spider monkeys and bonobos.

    monkey_sacrific_1024x1024.jpg?v=1677263864
  • Culture is critical
    https://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/dic/Content/T/60

    That is different from thinking in terms of God's manifestation and good and evil like Zoroastrianism or the God of Abraham religions. Once the concepts of good and evil blend with our thoughts is it possible for us to think without good and evil judgments? How does it feel to think of the 10 mysteries?     — Athena

    How about you? I find Eastern thinking liberating. As I near death I am comforted by the notion that I am one with the universe, but also distressed about being one with the universe and no "I". If "I" do not exist does anything matter? But is it not that need for "I" that separates us from the oneness? I have an awful lot of thinking to do. — Athena

    :smile: :up: Thanks! That’s enough to ponder if one were going on a vacation to a desert island!
    Like the Hindu saying “you are that” (everything that is).
    Can’t imagine getting much more liberating than that.
    I will now go to a pizza shop, and ask them to ‘make me one with everything’.
    If they’re clever, they’re say ‘you already are!’ :starstruck:
  • Culture is critical
    Immediately I know, I like the notion that I belong to the world — Athena

    Good, glad to hear that! :grin: It’s a liberating feeling.
    We’ve all been lied to, and have even repeated the lies that we ingested.
    Now’s an excellent to to stop, beginning with what we tell ourselves in the quiet of our minds.

    It was a shock to me that women's lib would destroy that value system and turn us into "just housewives" as though that is almost the lowest thing a woman can be. Just one step above a prostitute. Then I learned of matriarchy and some Native American tribes where women have value and are highly respected. I am asking people to look at what the 1958 National Defense Education Act did to education and our culture. How did the development of well-rounded individual growth become too expensive and focus us on education for military and industrial needs? — Athena

    :up: :100: :sparkle:
  • Culture is critical
    At the moment I am questioning my reliance on Athens that continues to exclude the Native American spirituality which I still hunger for. A PBS show about Chaco Canyon has me thinking heavily about these people's spiritual point of view. Animism is a belief about the entire universe being alive and some of the science I have come across is saying the same thing. — Athena

    The universe is alive. Yes… that sums it up very succinctly!
    We can’t wait until we prove it 100% to have this belief-philosophy-attitude.

    In some ways, things are what we make of them…
    If a large number of people act as though the Earth is dead matter… that’s what shows up.
    And thankfully it can work (and did work for thousands of years) in a positive living way.

    Daniel Quinn imagined a wise gorilla patiently teaching a human in what ways we are right,
    and in what ways we’ve gone off the rails.
    Reveal


    ”What happens to people who live in the hands of the gods?” (said Ishmael the gorilla)
    “What do you mean?” (said the human)
    “I mean, what happens to people who live in the hands of the gods that does not happen to people who build their lives on the knowledge of good and evil?”
    “Well, let’s see,” I said. “I don’t suppose this is what you’re getting at, but this is what comes to mind. People who live in the hands of the gods don’t make themselves rulers of the world and force everyone to live the way they live, and people who know good and evil do.”
    “You’ve turned the question round back to front,” said Ishmael. “I asked what happens to people who live in the hands of the gods that doesn’t happen to those who know good and evil, and you told me just the opposite: what doesn’t happen to people who live in the hands of the gods that does happen to those who know good and evil.”
    “You mean you’re looking for something positive that happens to people who live in the hands of the gods.”
    “That’s right.”
    “Well, they do tend to let the people around them live the way they want to live.”
    “You’re telling me something they do, not something that happens to them. I’m trying to focus your attention on the effects of this life-style.”
    “I’m sorry. I’m afraid I just don’t know what you’re getting at.”
    “You do, but you’re not used to thinking about it in these terms.”
    “Okay.”
    “You remember the question we started out to answer when you arrived this afternoon: How did man become man? We’re still after the answer to that question.”
    I groaned, fully and frankly.
    “Why do you groan?” Ishmael asked.
    “Because questions of that generality intimidate me. How did man become man? I don’t know. He just did it. He did it the way birds became birds and the way that horses became horses.”
    “Exactly so.”
    “Don’t do that to me,” I told him.
    “Evidently you don’t understand what you just said.”
    “Probably not.”
    “I’ll try to clarify it for you. Before you were Homo, you were what?”
    “Australopithecus.”
    “Good. And how did Australopithecus become Homo?”
    “By waiting.”
    “Please. You’re here to think.”
    “Sorry.”
    “Did Australopithecus become Homo by saying, ‘We know good and evil as well as the gods, so there’s no need for us to live in their hands the way rabbits and lizards do. From now on we will decide who lives and who dies on this planet, not the gods.’”
    “No.”
    “Could they have become man by saying that?”
    “No.”
    “Why not?”
    “Because they would have ceased to be subject to the conditions under which evolution takes place.”
    “Exactly. Now you can answer the question: What happens to people—to creatures in general—who live in the hands of the gods?”
    “Ah. Yes, I see. They evolve.”
    “And now you can answer the question I posed this morning: How did man become man?”
    “Man became man by living in the hands of the gods.”
    “By living the way the Bushmen of Africa live.”
    “That’s right.”
    “By living the way the Kreen-Akrore of Brazil live.”
    “Right again.”
    “Not the way Chicagoans live?”
    “No.”
    “Or Londoners?”
    “No.”
    “So now you know what happens to people who live in the hands of the gods.”
    “Yes. They evolve.”
    “Why do they evolve?”
    “Because they’re in a position to evolve. Because that’s where evolution takes place. Pre-man evolved into early man because he was out there competing with all the rest. Pre-man evolved into early man because he didn’t take himself out of the competition, because he was still in the place where natural selection is going on.”
    “You mean he was still a part of the general community of life.”
    “That’s right.”
    “And that’s why it all happened—why Australopithecus became Homo habilis and why Homo habilis became Homo erectus and why Homo erectus became Homo sapiens and why Homo sapiens became Homo sapiens sapiens.”
    “Yes.”
    “And then what happened?”
    “And then the Takers said, ‘We’ve had enough of living in the hands of the gods. No more natural selection for us, thanks very much.’”
    “And that was that.”
    “And that was that.”
    “You remember I said that to enact a story is to live so as to make it come true.”
    “Yes.”
    “According to the Taker story, creation came to an end with man.”
    “Yes. So?”
    “How would you live so as to make that come true? How would you live so as to make creation come to an end with man?”
    “Oof. I see what you mean. You would live the way the Takers live. We’re definitely living in a way that’s going to put an end to creation. If we go on, there will be no successor to man, no successor to chimpanzees, no successor to orangutans, no successor to gorillas—no successor to anything alive now. The whole thing is going to come to an end with us. In order to make their story come true, the Takers have to put an end to creation itself—and they’re doing a damned good job of it.”

    “4
    “When we began and I was trying to help you find the premise of the Taker story, I told you that the Leaver story has an entirely different premise.”
    “Yes.”
    “Perhaps you’re ready to articulate that premise now.”
    “I don’t know. At the moment I can’t even think of the Taker premise.”
    “It’ll come back to you. Every story is a working out of a premise.”
    “Yes, okay. The premise of the Taker story is the world belongs to man” I thought for a couple of minutes, then I laughed. “It’s almost too neat. The premise of the Leaver story is man belongs to the world.”
    “Meaning what?”
    “Meaning—” I barked a laugh. “It’s really too much.”
    “Go on.”
    “It means that, right from the beginning, everything that ever lived belonged to the world—and that’s how things came to be this way. Those single-celled creatures that swam in the ancient oceans belonged to the world, and because they did, everything that followed came into being. Those club-finned fish offshore of the continents belonged to world, and because they did, the amphibians eventually came into being. And because the amphibians belonged to the world, the reptiles eventually came into being. And because the reptiles belonged to the world, the mammals eventually came into being. And because the mammals belonged to the world, the primates eventually came into being. And because the primates belonged to the world, Australopithecus eventually came into being. And because Australopithecus belonged to the world, man eventually came into being. And for three million years man belonged to the world—and because he belonged to the world, he grew and developed and became brighter and more dexterous until one day he was so bright and dexterous that we had to call him Homo sapiens sapiens, which means that he was us.”
    “And that’s the way the Leavers lived for three million years—as if they belonged to the world.”
    “That’s right. And that’s how we came into being.”

    Excerpt From
    Ishmael
    Daniel Quinn
    https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ishmael/id420055326?mt=11
    This material may be protected by copyright.


    A fusion of tribal thinking with Greek and Stoic philosophy could be amazing.
    I think the Tao Te Ching is in the neighborhood of that in some ways, and is a deep well of wisdom. :sparkle: :flower:
  • Culture is critical
    I watched a show about Native Americans and have been attempting to see the world from the point of view of people who were here long before Europeans and the technology that came with them and continues to drive our modern way of life. I want to feel connected with Mother Earth and live with the purpose of caring for nature. — Athena

    That is the important part of the message of the Natives and tribal peoples.
    Earth plus us is a marriage, a relationship, a friendship.
    The current relationship to the Earth too often is ‘take, take, take!’… which ends up being very close to criminal activity like slavery, theft, and rape.

    Are there any opinions about the psychological factor in music, song, dance, sports, and possibly art? All this would be part of a liberal education. — Athena

    Yes… part of life! Such mythical and creative things are celebrated in our culture when it’s a billion dollar entertainment enterprise. Pushing product endlessly… beer, soda, betting…

    But what about the rest of us? We get to be ‘fans’ (boooo!) :confused:
  • Culture is critical
    ↪Athena

    Thanks for your wonderful post!
    :flower: :smile: :up:
  • Culture is critical
    Socrates would love your argument. That is the problem with learning the technology of rhetoric instead of being prepared for good moral judgment. That rhetoric can get people into wars they should avoid. Our sense of self-importance has gone crazy. We are as paranoid as Germany, suffering an extreme need to be superior and in control. That comes with education for technology. This is a culture change that came with the change in education. — Athena

    Thanks. :up:

    I’d put a similar thought in this way: a culture of people can either be a ‘dominator culture’ or not.
    These days the word ‘dominant’ is seen as superior, but being a ‘D-Cult’ its strength is superficial and stolen… and extremely toxic.
    It’s like a person growing rich by embezzlement; it may go on for years, but it is ultimately unsustainable.

    We are living in a dominator culture (as you probably agree).

    As a culture bent on turning the Earth into wealth, and absorbing (stealing) everything and everyone else on the planet, we have a certain logic and rationale that is difficult to argue with.
    It is difficult to argue with because it is the logic of absolute power, the persuasion of guns behind all the complex and scholarly reasoning.

    And to defy the Empire that rules the world, an empire that is now beyond any one particular nation, is a paradox.

    It is a paradox because it is suicidal to oppose complete power, yet it is genocidal to go along with it.

    This is why the people around us (and perhaps ourselves) are struggling to keep from slipping into insanity.
  • Culture is critical
    I think when Trump was our president, we experienced the division that was felt during the Civil War. The way he handled Covid and went about other things, divided all of us and we turned our backs on our neighbors and friends who were no longer our friends because it was unbearable to associate with those we opposed. I have never experienced anything like that in my life. It was such a strong emotional thing it was closer to insanity than sanity, and I think that happens when people go to war. — Athena

    I get this unsettling feeling that many people (10 thousand? 100 thousand?) in the USA are actively chomping at the bit to start another US civil war… or some bloody battles anyway.
    They are pumped up with automatic weapons, anger, and enough ‘theory’ to be actual loose cannons… and they are proud of this.

    Trump not only uses these people for votes and cash, but I seriously wonder if one of Trump’s multiple personalities actually wants to start a civil war.
    Especially now that he probably feels persecuted; I fear he wants a bloodbath.

    I dislike DeSantis and his stupid bigotry very much, but he is not the nuclear timebomb and stuff of nightmares that Trump is. I hope neither gets the nomination.
    The status quo sucks, but some of the ‘alternatives’ are hell on earth.
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    ↪universeness


    :ok: :cool: :sparkle:
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    Then let me try to be clear. I support all tech advances and all attempts to create a tech advance but I do not support the private ownership or distribution of such. My broad goal would be to employ any tech only when it is proven as a net benefit to all existents it can affect, or at least to the vast majority. I do realise that this is a very difficult standard to reach for every example but it does nosed to be the main standard set, imo. — universeness

    I am a secular humanist and a democratic socialist. Elon Musk is a net negative as an influencer and unfettered capitalism is utterly pernicious and its practice needs to be ended. Only small capitalism can be contained, so that is all that should be tolerated, imo. — universeness

    Ok good, thanks! :up:
    You had mentioned in another thread that you leaned towards democratic socialism, and I was trying to reconcile that with what seemed to me like a pro-industry stance (or something similar).
    I realize that one cannot say everything in one post, so what you say here helps me understand your positions.

    Technology advancements are of course generally a good thing, although with some drawbacks.
    If we as a society can really see the true cost and impact of everything we do, and base leadership decisions on that… it would be a turn for the better.

    But right now the entire world is playing a board game (with real money and lives at stake) that is a combination of the Monopoly and Risk games, and we are all losing.
    Even the kings are captives in a gold cage, surrounded by swirling smoky chaos.
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    Is it your experience that religious or spiritual people are open to communication, good listeners, willing to cooperate, fair, goodwilled, acting in good faith? — baker

    Most are fair and goodwilled… not much different than any others that I know.
    Political issues seem to be more divisive than strictly religious ones.
    But of course, self-righteousness in any style is fuel for political fervor!

    To me, absolutist Evangelicals and smug judgmental hardcore atheists are quite similar and can go fornicate with each other.
    Maybe that will loosen them up a little. :blush:
    This is probably straying from the topic though.
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    As much as consumerism, alcohol, tobacco, drugs, pornography, or TV do to the youth. Who are we to judge people who want to redeem themselves? I searched for the definition of zombifying, and Google says: Deprive of energy and vitality. She will stare zombified on TV for 20 minutes.

    Do you really think that religion or spirituality deprive people from energy? I don't think so. It is just -let's say - a pathway to a free state of mind. Whether you like it or not, there will always be the necessity to believe in something. Far away from what we are all able to perceive or understand.     — javi2541997

    :smile: :up: Well said.

    Patriotism may be the ‘last refuge of the scoundrel’ (as the saying goes), but having an absolutist, inflexible, and literalist stance on any religion or spiritual belief is a close second, in my very humble opinion.
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    Well, as a general statement I’d generally agree, but ‘part of the problem or the solution’ is a bit absolute (cut and dried) and perhaps authoritarian (?) for my taste.
    — 0 thru 9

    Only if you take such a statement as offering a binary choice, and ignore all of the intended range of possibilities, that realpolitik tends to reveal.     — universeness

    But that’s how you worded it. Either / or. And that’s an invitation for purging the dissenters and foot-draggers.

    I am concerned about a passive, non-skeptical ‘religious’ attitude towards Tech that asks for faith, total belief, and patience.
    — 0 thru 9
    Me too, but I also don't advocate for a luddite approach to tech, or initially seeing all tech advances as evil, because of a knee-jerk reaction against probable initial job losses amongst humans, or the idea that AI overlordship is inevitable. Auto systems also have the potential to free humans from certain daily toils, and allow economic parity for all. We just have to stop the nefarious b******* from claiming all its benefits for themselves.     — universeness

    Thanks for not actually calling me a “luddite” lol (which sounds like ‘troglodyte’ :monkey: ), but what you wrote amounts to a polite way of labeling a critical stance towards capitalist-funded tech as being evil-fearing techno-phobe.
    You do not speak like a skeptic of anything related to Tech or the owners of such.
    Back to binary choices… agree with our sketchy vision of Technotopia or be labeled as a suspicious and superstitious machine-smashing grunt.
    I don’t hate or fear technology for this is how we live now of course.

    The promise of ‘machines doing the work for us’ is a double-edged sword: they replaced humans and either put them out of work, or weakened their position.
    How can “auto systems… allow economic parity for all”? Please back that claim up with something substantial or unfortunately it seems hollow at best.

    If you wanted to link to a previous post of yours, or to an article that shows this vision and its possibilities, I will honestly read it with an open mind.

    Who decides? What are the criteria?
    (Ah, the pesky details… sorry. )
    — 0 thru 9
    No apology required. Most people will have similar thoughts. For me, the answer is 'we the people,' decide and/or those we democratically elect to represent us, and submit themselves to all checks and balances, that 'we the people' deem necessary, based on the historical databases of examples we have built up, since 'civilisation' began as a human goal. The criteria is whatever 'we the people,' decide it is, but that 'we,'must be a well informed majority of all stakeholders, and not a poorly educated, poorly informed, mostly duped mass of people, who can't even take their basic means of survival for granted.     — universeness

    We need more than “checks and balances” to defeat the “nefarious few” (as you aptly call them).
    Been there, done that: they have gamed the system until their wallets overflowed.
    I’m not asking for specifics on how to defeat the 1% and pry the remote control out of their cold dead hand lol. I don’t know either.

    But as a very general direction saying “we the people” comes through as a platitude in a rote political speech.
    Personally, it sounds like an afterthought to a plan already drawn up, or a rationalization for it.
    We as a people are NOT the stakeholders now, if we ever were, and things are moving in the wrong direction.

    You seem to be asking for a lot of faith in this system you are describing, and trust in Elon Musk and like visionaries.
    Basically, it is the capitalist status quo in hip new clothes.
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    How about. We are each either part of the problems or part of the solutions.
    I think the human race can become a net positive. Each human can help or hinder that goal.
    This is a general statement, yes.     — universeness

    Thank you for clarifying. :up:
    Well, as a general statement I’d generally agree, but ‘part of the problem or the solution’ is a bit absolute (cut and dried) and perhaps authoritarian (?) for my taste.
    Who decides? What are the criteria?
    (Ah, the pesky details… sorry. )

    To give a specific statement, we would need to focus on a single current issue. We have already done so on this thread. I think a techno religion of any form is unwelcome and would be more of a negative that a positive. Do you agree? — universeness

    But why focus on one issue? This one above all? Or focus on one issue at a time? Ok…
    I am concerned about a passive, non-skeptical ‘religious’ attitude towards Tech that asks for faith, total belief, and patience. (Because the crucial breakthrough is ‘just around the corner!’ and then we will be cruising down easy street on robot power, or something).

    I’m even more concerned about who’s driving the chariot?
    Who’s in charge, and where are we going, and why?
    To assume an overall ‘tech neutrality’, or technology’s benign character that is ’evolving naturally of its own accord’, is no longer wise or really even an option.
    Every tech advancement helps us, but it help the Rulers even more.
    Until that fact changes, my skepticism remains.

    As I mentioned above, tech can be used to control and contain us, but it also makes it harder for the bigshits to hide and operate without criticism and pushback.
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    Your concerns are widely held, understandable and must never be merely hand waved away.
    It is up to those in the know, and those who 'investigate' and monitor and report, to inform us all, of all clear and present dangers.     — universeness

    Excellent, thanks! :up:

    But it is also your responsibility and my responsibility, to be determined, to be as active as we can be, in playing as significant a role as we can, as part of or/and a support for, that hopefully overwhelming, set of checks and balances that our history makes crystal clear, are so absolutely essential to our species becoming a net positive force, on this planet and in this universe. — universeness

    Sorry, this sentence is reaching for a conclusion, but seems too general and vague (?) to me.
    Could you please reword it if possible?
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    ↪universeness


    But to elaborate on my techno-skepticism…
    The sheer physical fact of the living planet being turned into ‘stuff’ at an exponentially increasing (and unsustainable) rate is reason enough for pause and wondering if science can discover a more efficient way…

    The suspicion that the Billionaires view and use Tech as the ultimate way to control, contain, monitor, and sedate the mob of people unofficially under their power is sometimes difficult to avoid for some cynics.
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    ↪universeness

    :victory: :smile:
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    ↪universeness

    The post was meant to be satire, sorry if it was too broad or amateurish.
    But anyway the point of my post is that Tech is the dominant ‘worldview’ (NOT a religion :snicker: ).

    Some may play the victim (martyr?) and say that Science is in actual danger from religious zealots.
    Science may get some bruises, but Tech rules uber all… it even rules over the religious mob, except for the dwindling few still living in the desert eating locusts and using snail mail.

    One could list differences of Tech to Religion for days, of course, just as one could imagine some humorous or interesting similarities.
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    I thought that technology worship (technophilia?) has been the prevalent worldview for years, no?
    It’s not a religion, but that’s exactly its appeal: being so casual, unstuffy, and accessible.
    Anyone can be a fanboy, drooling over the latest gadget that will make onlookers fall to their knees in ecstasy.

    Even the ordinary person can bow their head in communion with their smartphone and hear the wisdom sent directly to their ears via earbuds.
    In high towers, the elite consult cryptic pages to foretell if the new phone should have 5 cameras, or only 4; while in a dusty basement, a believer sacrifices a old HP desktop computer for good fortune.

    And all over the planet, the huddled and hungry masses await the guidance that AI will lead us into the promised land called “The Future”, where we can finally enjoy simply being alive.
  • If only...
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness

    Watched some of the archeology video. Good find. I really dig it! :nerd:
  • Culture is critical
    Socrates said it is most important to know ourselves, to be aware of what we think and why we think what we think. What is our "story". I use the word "story" because of how that word is presented in a set of CDs about communication. Our story is not just what we tell ourselves about ourselves but also what we tell ourselves about "those people". Our stories determine our behavior unless we are aware of them and question them. What you just called being able to see outside of our own bubble. — Athena

    There are some wonderful things about polytheism. Your gods can argue with each other and their arguments expand our consciousness. This is not so with the all-powerful one and only god.

    Athenians gave us humanized gods and each one is a concept. Together the gods led to increasingly complex concepts, and this can not be done with Christianity which has only good or evil. If the Renaissance had not occurred we would still be living in the dark ages. It seems a near miracle to me that some Christians and scientists have learned to live together. A book that starts out explaining we are cursed because Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit of knowledge, is not compatible with democracy and universal education to empower the people. I don't think we can get past black or white, right or wrong, this or that thinking, as long as Christianity dominates our culture and the other half of our citizens are ignorant of the reasoning behind democracy. Democracy is an imitation of the gods who argued until there was a consensus on the best reasoning. This does not come with the God of Abraham and social structure based on heritage, not the merit that organized Athens. Our freedom of social and economic movement comes from Athens, not the Bible.

    Christianity plus education for technology is terrible for humanity! Our love of technology is pushing the this or that, right or wrong, mentality. And what you said is so true! :heart:     — Athena

    Thanks very much for your thoughtful replies! :smile:
    (Your two quotes were from different posts, but they seem to be related).

    Stories… our stories…
    Yes, I think we as humans cannot help having stories, hearing stories, remembering stories, disagreeing with some stories etc.
    Not just our shared cultural bedtime stories, or fables, or movies, but a particular person’s mind making some sense of our world by combining perceptions, ideas, facts, urges, matter, energy, and so on into a narrative.
    (I’m referring to reasonably intelligent, ethical, mature, cultured adults. I’ve met one or two lol.)

    This can be done successfully, I believe, though any person is capable of making mistakes (and learning from them hopefully).

    Facts are facts, and facts should certainly be recognized for optimal existence.

    But how to process this stream of data?
    In the experience of being a human, with perceptions, sensations, ideas, and feelings swirling around our minds, and activity churning nonstop around us, using internal stories makes the world clearer to us.

    Of course, it’s best that one recognizes the ever-changing nature of these personal stories.
    And acknowledge that like clothing or food, what suits us may not work for someone else.
    Imposing our stories on others (as opposed to sharing them) is not surprisingly problematic.

    As an example, if a person chooses to perhaps weave into their stories zombies, unicorns, Batman, gnomes, angels, demons, ET aliens, UFOs, multi-dimensions, talking animals or ancestor spirits… and can live a stable existence, who’s to say otherwise?
    Sometimes, it can be quite a competitive sport to poo-poo the ‘personal mythology’ of others, and gain an edge.

    But is claiming to be completely 100% story-free itself a story we can tell ourselves?
    Is it helpful or not?
    Helpfulness and usefulness and balance are the critical aspects, when thinking about our stories and how to integrate them into our lives.

    Is this continuous story creation an advanced creative power we have?

    Or is it simply a heuristic technique shortcut to quickly size up our current life to be analyzed in depth later?

    Yes! :smile:
  • All things Cannabis
    ↪jorndoe

    Thanks for the informative articles! Yes, caution is always a good thing.
    Especially with driving, and THC candy gummies around kids. :up:
  • Culture is critical
    ↪Jamal
    But of course. I’m fanatical, not dumb! :blush:
  • Culture is critical
    I recognize it now for what it was: fanaticism. — Jamal

    I’m a little disappointed that my fanaticism is being overlooked. Imho, with all due respect I’m much more fanatical and unhinged than anyone here!

    (Uh, while staying within Forum guidelines, of course :hearts: )
  • Culture is critical
    I think we have already started, but your 300 years suspension may well be required, depending on whether or not the wars and threats we are currently experiencing can be contained and survived. — universeness

    I was not objecting to EVER exploring deep space, just objecting to doing it now with the turmoil you mentioned.
    If we drag ourselves out of the mud, and get our act together, the skies the limit!
    And I hope you’re the first person to walk on the surface of Mercury. :starstruck: (just kidding)
  • Culture is critical
    but you are welcome to offer your opinion on what, say Mercury or Mars is for? Do you think humans could give such objects more 'purpose' and/or meaning than they seem to have at present or do you think that some presence or current existent in the universe has a prior claim or a cunning plan for such that we are just not currently aware of? — universeness

    The planets are here doing their thing, and will be doing it until the sun explodes. :sparkle:
    If someone wants to gaze at them, or write a symphony for them, that’s fine.
    What do you think their meaning or purpose is?

    So give me examples of any theism from any group, past or present that you consider progressive. — universeness

    I am not an apologist for Religion in general, especially its many corruptions and crimes.
    The Native American view of the spiritual realm is different enough from Civilizational Religion that using the word ‘theism’ strikes me as overly simplistic and perhaps dismissive.
    Their way was more pantheistic and animist.

    I agree with Hitchens. "Religion is pernicious." — universeness

    Hitchens, the patron saint of modern atheists. His evangelical zeal has converted many. :snicker:

    Perhaps you have misunderstood me, somewhere in my exchanges here. Where did I suggest that science or tech or knowledge from any indigenous people was in some way inferior or not worth investigating? — universeness

    Apologies if I misunderstood! Glad to hear that then. :up:
  • Culture is critical
    The album Synchronicity by The Police has many songs that seem timely:



  • Culture is critical
    The floating city looks nice, but I have to wonder 1. where all the produce on those tables came from and 2. what percent of the urban population can afford to live there? — Vera Mont

    Yes, I only mentioned this as an example of technology that’s at least trying to deal with climate change. (Another example was solar power, which seems to be more feasible at this point).
    This particular one is rather pretentious and upper class on second glance: a new and improved Titanic .
    The designers behind it are going for the big bucks, ‘upscale clientele’.
    More dictatorship of the dollar…

    Much could still be done to mitigate the inevitable damage - if the responsible agencies were given the resources and the power. — Vera Mont

    Exactly. That’s about all we can do.

    I tend to agree with this point, how it is emphasizing the long history of humanity.
    — 0 thru 9
    It's not a very long history compared to dinosaurs.     — Vera Mont

    We may be walking in their very large footsteps.
    We have a choice, but time and physics stop for no one.
  • Culture is critical
    You do understand that many animals (not crows or octopi) live in caves, fissures and burrows, while others construct elaborated homes and colonies. Humans learned construction from birds, insects, apes and the rodents.

    “If you could see inside a woodrat’s house, you’d find a tidy little home: a nest bedroom or two lined with grasses and shredded bark; a pantry full of acorns and other seeds, leaves, and twigs for food; and several latrines for waste (a woodrat poops over 100 pellets a day!). The nests might have a few scattered California bay leaves to repel fleas. Food items that can be toxic when fresh (such as toyon leaves) are kept in a separate room to age before the rats move them to the pantry. When the latrines get full, woodrats clean house, shoving the pellets out into the forest, where they fertilize the soil.”

    And all other construction, including the ones that keep falling on heads when the wind blows, when our lovely fellow hominids lob bombs or whole airplanes at them, when the earth shakes, when a river floods, when fracking creates a sinkhole under them, evolved from those early, safe and durable structures - because some of us keep wanting bigger, instead of more sensible.     — Vera Mont

    Excellent example! And it serves as an antidote to anthropocentric thinking. :up:

    Sometimes (probably 10 times per day) we (myself included) need a little reminder that humans are not the emperors of the universe, and that pretending to be is dangerous hubris.

    Science has given us much, but like spoiled children we cover our ears to the parts we don’t like.

    It’s been proven that the Earth is not the center of the cosmos, that humans slowly evolved from simpler and slimier lifeforms, and that the world at its base is not constructed of indivisible solid
    Lego-like atoms.

    But the subtle lesson that we humans are part of a team which consists of everything and everyone we see around us (and much that is invisible) is about as appetizing as broccoli is to a child who has candy.
  • Culture is critical
    To do more from gen to gen than just exist and survive.
    Humans can progress in ways that no other species in history has demonstrated. Our solar system currently contains nothing more than meaningless objects that function much the same or with even less significance than the dinos did. Humans have the potential to change that, and bring fantastic new purpose, to this currently lifeless domain.     — universeness

    Meaningless objects? Dinosaurs and the solar system just a bunch of insignificant junk?
    Your enthusiasm for human potential is admirable, but throwing absolute statements like this seems like cheerleading one would find in a school textbook from the 1950s: “Better living through chemistry! Soon we will be able to grow an acre of wheat in a petri dish!”

    This is half the story at best, and it fails to mention that the textbooks were provided by Dow Chemical. :nerd:
    The more modern techno-futurist at least gives lip service to human-made problems.
    You may be engaging in a polemic and are taking an extreme position for argument sake maybe, but I need some more evidence.
    Please don’t equate skepticism with hopelessness.

    Humans do have the potential and have done much with our amazing brains!

    But the first order of business seems to me to be sustainability, so tech with that in mind is of importance (such as the solar power @Vera Mont was discussing and has purchased).
    How about floating cities for when the oceans flood the world’s coastal zones?

    Better yet… can we use our minds to devise a way to stop the flooding?
    Sadly, it may be too late but we don’t know that for sure and every rational solution must be considered.

    But the powerful human minds, brilliant science, astounding technology are currently under the heel of authoritarian power that will not let anything exist which threatens its hegemony.
    This is daunting and depressing, but it is the status quo that I’m generally observing.
    To me, little real progress will be made under the dictatorship of the dollar.
    (I hope I’m wrong about this, and would love to be convinced otherwise).

    no progress at all in the theism of indigenous American tribes — universeness

    This is another sweeping statement.
    The many many different indigenous peoples who lived in what is now called the Americas were definitely NOT a monolith, not a single entity following the same playbook.
    Some tribes were simpler in their possessions, if that is what worked for them.

    If you want cities and civilization, how about the Mayans? The Hohokam built an irrigation system that they abandoned, but was later used by settlers.
    As a general rule, members of the tribes had a knowledge of flora, fauna, and environment that modern scientists would rightly envy.
    Scientists today are working with tribes in the Amazon trying to catalog (and perhaps preserve) the immense number of plant species there before they are wiped out.

    The species 'homo' is actually closer to 3 million years old and we are directly descended from that line.
    — universeness     — universeness
    I tend to agree with this point, how it is emphasizing the long history of humanity.
    Even if they weren’t ‘sapiens’. :monkey:

    Thanks for your input and time! :smile:
  • Culture is critical
    I'm a huge fan of solar energy. In bad weather, of which we've had lots and expect considerably more - there are many power outages in the boonies. We don't notice, unless we go to the the other wing of the house and try to turn on a light. We still need Hydro backup, since we only have 8 batteries. Our electricity use last month cost $13; the delivery charge, taxes and surcharges were an additional $50. Highway (literally) robbery, but it's still way less than other people are paying. — Vera Mont

    Sweet deal! :ok:
    I’d love to get some solar energy going on here, even though we’re not in the sunbelt… yet. :yikes:
    (like most belts, it seems to be expanding).
  • Culture is critical
    ↪Vera Mont
    Yes, it is cool. I’m just being a smartass / dumbass. :blush:
  • Culture is critical
    I'm still waiting for my solar-powered car. The one I want
    . There are quite a few in development, and the airplane works pretty well, though neither, I think will serve so many people over such distances as we are wont to travel now. Me, I hate speed. I hate having to drive on the highway. But country living means we do have the solar array for our house, and a wood-burning stove and room to grow some vegetables.     — Vera Mont

    Looks like a cool car! Hope they become more common, at least solar panels in other vehicles.

    . There are quite a few in development, and the airplane works pretty well, — Vera Mont

    “Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to have to make an emergency landing because it’s nighttime and this is a solar airplane. We apologize for any inconvenience!” :cool:
  • Culture is critical
    Humans are the only animal who wants the whole world.
    — 0 thru 9
    I wholly agree with this. The sane species get what they need - if they can - and then rest or play. They migrate when they need to, arrive at summer or winter feeding ground, and stay there. Man, I think, is the only animal (besides a few of our pets) that can't quite grasp the concept of "enough".     — Vera Mont

    Thanks! :smile:

    If people are worked until they are mentally and physically exhausted, they will have little energy
    to do much more than stumble home after going to the store to buy some edible products (that may or may not actually contain nutritional value) and get lottery tickets and dream of what could be… or maybe the way it should’ve been all along.

    Chimpanzees are the only animals I know that fight their own species for resources. — Vera Mont
    :monkey: Oh noes! Not our closest relatives! (I have a second cousin who’s a chimp). How about the
    peaceful and sexy bonobos? :hearts:
  • Culture is critical
    oppressive, they almost always appreciated a metal axe or a glass bottle.
    — 0 thru 9

    So, you have seen The Gods Must Be Crazy
    Some good lessons there!     — Vera Mont

    Ah yes… the bottle falling from the sky. Wonderful movie!
    Unfortunately, it seems like the versions on YouTube are all the mediocre sequels.
    If you can find a link to the original movie, please share. Maybe the library has it.

    Probably not so large as New York and Tokyo. But the early and very idea-fertile city states only had populations of 10-30,000. That size is sustainable, I think, especially if the construction is designed properly, along the lines of the Venus Project, Earthship neighbourhoods or co-housing units, that incorporate independent home workshops, educational facilities and urban farming. I think it's important to be within walking distance of all one's basic necessities and social interactions. — Vera Mont

    Yes! We must use every means to be more efficient with our use of materials.
    I’d love to install some solar panels and reuse the rain water from my home… it’s on the list
    but lower than I’d like.

    I was thinking about cars, and how they get so incredibly hot in the summer.
    Car companies really have to up their game… how about solar panels on the top of the vehicle?
    That would provide shade and power for some fans to cool a parked cars.
    Add more fans and vents etc to keep the temperature below boiling! :sweat:
  • Culture is critical
    ↪universeness


    The word ‘war’ is of course loaded with connotations, mostly negative.
    So personally I would not use that term for animals, but ‘territorial fighting’ seems accurate.
    Even when animals spread their territory, they are kept in check by the overall system.
    Billions of years of animals eating each other, but the planet was fine… thriving in fact.
    The evolving continued, and continues still. :flower:

    I think the point I was making was about the remarkable balance of nature, including humans.
    That is until fairly recently, in the grand scheme of time.
    In the past few thousand years, humans have become clever enough to leverage the situation,
    to attempt to turn the whole world into humans, and into our food and possessions.

    This may sound reasonable and profitable on paper; in reality it is disaster.
    Are we smart enough to learn from less intelligent animals, to know our place in the grand scheme?
    Human exceptionalism is unscientific, technically we are mammals. :smile:
Home » 0 thru 9