I try to clarify my philsophical perspective
Created | Updated Jan 13, 2005
I only said SEE. I did not mean AGREE with me.
Oh dear, :-), Scandrea, I understand your examples. But I am not wrong, but proposing a perspective you have not fully considered.
The circumstances of this world are POSSIBILITIES. Now, you've already stated certain examples as possiblities. Furthermore, what you are saying is that your examples are the most likely reality to exist. This is true concerning what you say. However, you misunderstood what I meant by "Life As War". I did not say that men are so belligerent to one another that they cannot possibly be together and exist peaceably.
[For men to be together, they have to agree and work toward a purpose that ALL of them can agree on.]
I should have further clarified for you. Well, I can admit to that mistake. LOL. Please be patient with me instead of immediately saying that I am wrong, or even implying that I am crazy. :-).
Now like I already said, I agree with you that men (animals alike) exist in social troops. Even badgers have to come together for a shared purpose. :-). But I supposed that you had already considered that all genus of animal go to WAR, YET also try to live peaceably.
So right now, for you to see, I present this situation:
On the island, (as example of "Lord of the Flies"), the kids try to establish a stable peaceful society. However, THIS ATTEMPT fails because *necessities of life* have not been sufficiently met for a "peaceful" society to exist. So, the kids live "Life As War" or live in a low and mean state of murder and brutality.
I have read Lord of the Flies. :-).
Now, before you write me off (and I assume this) as ONLY "bookish" and, therefore, out of touch with reality, please be patient with me and hear me out. :-). You cannot tell me that I am wrong because you do not know me or what my life experiences have been like. But what you can do is further inquire as to why I proposed my ideas, which you disagree with. Then finally, you can either believe what I am saying or you can let me keep to my perspective. [Keeping to our different opinions will not necessarily (because of civil effort) result in WAR.]
To call me wrong is not your place to say, my dear. :-). For instance (just listen to this example) 52% of the American people have voted for Bush Junior, and would you say that they are wrong? To you they are wrong, but they can also say that you are wrong because you offer NO OTHER FEASIBLE options for them to choose. So, the American people voted for Bush Junior because he provides a consistent and certain way to follow (perspective) unlike Kerry who was *unsure* but still willing to keep to the war. Scandrea, what I am saying by this example, is that the world is full of possibilities but only certain ideas BECOME situations when they are 1st) recognized, and 2nd) choosen.
To get back to my example from Lord of the Flies:
The one child first had the idea of establishing a peaceful society, and the other children recognized this idea and then chose it. So, the idea of the peaceful society was implemented. However, THIS idea couldn't sustain itself in the environment because the "necessities of life" were difficult to gather and, thus, this struggle proved to make the peaceful society break into two tribes.
The child leader of the dissenting tribe then declared war on the leader of the tribe, who first thought to establish a peaceful society. Finally a ship arrives, and the children are caught sight of.
The children then realize the shame for what they've become. The adults of the ship have just witnessed that TWO BOYS are already dead because they were murdered (I believe this is correct) and the rest of the children have De-Evolved into brutal animals. As brutal animals, the children murder other animals for them to survive (please do not think that I am TALKING from a vegetarian view), and they have degenerated into the state of fighting each other.
Now like I said before, I understand your very real examples. But what I have been philosophizing about is "Life As War" or Evolution as De-Evolution. The reality you've talked about has TWO RULES, which are the following:
1) For Life to Live, life has to murder life. So one life has to be murdered (or eaten) or also die (as in, Expire) for another to live.
Life is a paradox (or contradicts itself) since death is included in the definition (the word) of life.
2) To live comfortably, one life subjurgates another life. Or to talk less abstract: Humans have domesticated all sorts of species of animal. For instance, cows are ruled by us and have been categorized as "food" (livestock) so that we can live comfortably at their expense. Now, let me put Cows in the place of Humans (and Humans in the place of Cows). With this switch, the cows now rule the humans (or the cows are like vampires) and the humans are, therefore, in the unfortunate position as "food".
Please be patient with me. I know that you want to jump to conclusions but continue to hear me out. :-)
In history, humans have been in the category of "food" for other animals. As well, viruses have ravaged our bodies (and brain matter) because we are a harvest for them to subsist on.
[I also study Virology and the History Of Disease. LOL. Try not to think that I am being A-Know-It-All. I can't be A-Know-It-All because learning and living is a continual effort and process.]
:-)
Scandrea what I was proposing, is the problem with the reality of this world --EVOLUTIONARY THEORY-- that puts living beings into the position in which they have to be brutal to one another (struggle to survive) or murder each other (such as, life eat life) in order to live. What I was proposing is that,
"If the struggle to survive is a *STRUGGLE* to the fullest meaning, then Evolution could be De-Evolution. If the RULES of the struggle to survive are brutal, then all living beings have no choice but to play by these immutable rules. Evolution of life within this already established reality only means that (for instance) animals can ONLY change their outward appearances, their size, whatever else, and the outward appearances of their environment. But the RULES, which make them struggle and brutal, cannot change."
So Scandrea, to fall back to my example of the 52% vote for Bush Junior: 52% of Americans voted for Bush Junior because they saw NO OTHER FEASIBLE options (choices) to solve the current dilemma (or Change Reality).
Now, you have several retorts. I will address your immediate retort (if I guess right):
If life didn't eat another life, if life didn't die, then the world and the universe would be full of Cells Of Life that don't die off and only result in a CANCER.
Well, I am currently meditating about why reality is the way it is. I ask, "Can reality be different? Or is this existence the best POSSIBILE reality that can ever exist?"
***I have to agree that EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
is the best observation of THIS REALITY in which we exist***
What you first saw in my proposition (or that post to which you quickly replied :-)) is my musing, wondering, meditation and philosophizing. So, I do not expect you to AGREE but perhaps SEE what I talk about.
Scandrea, what I unfortunately can't zip-file for you to fully understand, is that I do see all of your examples as the ONE POSSIBILE reality of this world (of this universe) because no other way seems plausible or attainable to have all of life exist in peace. THIS physical material reality, although the form can be changed but not the RULES that keep this reality intack, has all animals (beings who are born) be automatically put into the position of (1) and (2) [please refer to my list of the TWO RULES of reality]. Or all living beings come into a world of struggle and suffering.
Now, you have several retorts. But I will only address one more (if I guess right):
If life is nothing but struggling and suffering, then why do animals try to get along within their own groups? Or why do humans try to exist in peaceful societies?
However, I've already answered your question.
In the reality of struggle and survival, animals (also plants) and humans stay alive by not eating their own kind. If animals ate their own kind *all the time*, then their kind would self-destruct or eat each other out of existence. LOL. So, each genus of "living being" eat (or murder) something that is not of their genus. Doing this enables the notion of peace to exist within species. However, sharing is a matter of war more often than not. So although a species, such as human beings, do not rely on each other (all the time) as a "food resource", wars have been fought because 1) livestock was scarce, 2) territory, in which there was food, was scarce, and 3) because of greed and fear. Or a group (an elite, a class, or also a disgruntled untrusting people) did not share the "necessities of life".
Scandrea, I can write for hours and hours about my philosophizing. LOL. Well, I already do. :-).
Overall, in sum, I do not like the reality of (and neither do some philosophers, scholars, and even people without titles) "Natural Selection" and "Survival of the fittest" because this objective reality always puts people (no matter who or what they are), or all living beings, into the position of "Eat or be eaten. Murder or be murdered. Kill or be Killed." The situation is not only brutal in this sense but is also difficult to observe NOT from an alien outside perspective. Well, I one time wrote the story, "Leiann the Space Cadet." So, perhaps I am somewhat of an alien from the imagination. LOL. But I am most certainly not crazy.
************************************************************************
I only said SEE. I did not mean AGREE with me.
************************************************************************
Oh dear, :-), Scandrea, I understand your examples. But I am not wrong, but proposing a perspective you have not fully considered.
The circumstances of this world are POSSIBILITIES. Now, you've already stated certain examples as possiblities. Furthermore, what you are saying is that your examples are the most likely reality to exist. This is true concerning what you say. However, you misunderstood what I meant by "Life As War". I did not say that men are so belligerent to one another that they cannot possibly be together and exist peaceably.
[For men to be together, they have to agree and work toward a purpose that ALL of them can agree on.]
I should have further clarified for you. Well, I can admit to that mistake. LOL. Please be patient with me instead of immediately saying that I am wrong, or even implying that I am crazy. :-).
Now like I already said, I agree with you that men (animals alike) exist in social troops. Even badgers have to come together for a shared purpose. :-). But I supposed that you had already considered that all genus of animal go to WAR, YET also try to live peaceably.
So right now, for you to see, I present this situation:
On the island, (as example of "Lord of the Flies"), the kids try to establish a stable peaceful society. However, THIS ATTEMPT fails because *necessities of life* have not been sufficiently met for a "peaceful" society to exist. So, the kids live "Life As War" or live in a low and mean state of murder and brutality.
I have read Lord of the Flies. :-).
Now, before you write me off (and I assume this) as ONLY "bookish" and, therefore, out of touch with reality, please be patient with me and hear me out. :-). You cannot tell me that I am wrong because you do not know me or what my life experiences have been like. But what you can do is further inquire as to why I proposed my ideas, which you disagree with. Then finally, you can either believe what I am saying or you can let me keep to my perspective. [Keeping to our different opinions will not necessarily (because of civil effort) result in WAR.]
To call me wrong is not your place to say, my dear. :-). For instance (just listen to this example) 52% of the American people have voted for Bush Junior, and would you say that they are wrong? To you they are wrong, but they can also say that you are wrong because you offer NO OTHER FEASIBLE options for them to choose. So, the American people voted for Bush Junior because he provides a consistent and certain way to follow (perspective) unlike Kerry who was *unsure* but still willing to keep to the war. Scandrea, what I am saying by this example, is that the world is full of possibilities but only certain ideas BECOME situations when they are 1st) recognized, and 2nd) choosen.
To get back to my example from Lord of the Flies:
The one child first had the idea of establishing a peaceful society, and the other children recognized this idea and then chose it. So, the idea of the peaceful society was implemented. However, THIS idea couldn't sustain itself in the environment because the "necessities of life" were difficult to gather and, thus, this struggle proved to make the peaceful society break into two tribes.
The child leader of the dissenting tribe then declared war on the leader of the tribe, who first thought to establish a peaceful society. Finally a ship arrives, and the children are caught sight of.
The children then realize the shame for what they've become. The adults of the ship have just witnessed that TWO BOYS are already dead because they were murdered (I believe this is correct) and the rest of the children have De-Evolved into brutal animals. As brutal animals, the children murder other animals for them to survive (please do not think that I am TALKING from a vegetarian view), and they have degenerated into the state of fighting each other.
Now like I said before, I understand your very real examples. But what I have been philosophizing about is "Life As War" or Evolution as De-Evolution. The reality you've talked about has TWO RULES, which are the following:
1) For Life to Live, life has to murder life. So one life has to be murdered (or eaten) or also die (as in, Expire) for another to live.
Life is a paradox (or contradicts itself) since death is included in the definition (the word) of life.
2) To live comfortably, one life subjurgates another life. Or to talk less abstract: Humans have domesticated all sorts of species of animal. For instance, cows are ruled by us and have been categorized as "food" (livestock) so that we can live comfortably at their expense. Now, let me put Cows in the place of Humans (and Humans in the place of Cows). With this switch, the cows now rule the humans (or the cows are like vampires) and the humans are, therefore, in the unfortunate position as "food".
Please be patient with me. I know that you want to jump to conclusions but continue to hear me out. :-)
In history, humans have been in the category of "food" for other animals. As well, viruses have ravaged our bodies (and brain matter) because we are a harvest for them to subsist on.
[I also study Virology and the History Of Disease. LOL. Try not to think that I am being A-Know-It-All. I can't be A-Know-It-All because learning and living is a continual effort and process.]
:-)
Scandrea what I was proposing, is the problem with the reality of this world --EVOLUTIONARY THEORY-- that puts living beings into the position in which they have to be brutal to one another (struggle to survive) or murder each other (such as, life eat life) in order to live. What I was proposing is that,
"If the struggle to survive is a *STRUGGLE* to the fullest meaning, then Evolution could be De-Evolution. If the RULES of the struggle to survive are brutal, then all living beings have no choice but to play by these immutable rules. Evolution of life within this already established reality only means that (for instance) animals can ONLY change their outward appearances, their size, whatever else, and the outward appearances of their environment. But the RULES, which make them struggle and brutal, cannot change."
So Scandrea, to fall back to my example of the 52% vote for Bush Junior: 52% of Americans voted for Bush Junior because they saw NO OTHER FEASIBLE options (choices) to solve the current dilemma (or Change Reality).
Now, you have several retorts. I will address your immediate retort (if I guess right):
If life didn't eat another life, if life didn't die, then the world and the universe would be full of Cells Of Life that don't die off and only result in a CANCER.
Well, I am currently meditating about why reality is the way it is. I ask, "Can reality be different? Or is this existence the best POSSIBILE reality that can ever exist?"
***I have to agree that EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
is the best observation of THIS REALITY in which we exist***
What you first saw in my proposition (or that post to which you quickly replied :-)) is my musing, wondering, meditation and philosophizing. So, I do not expect you to AGREE but perhaps SEE what I talk about.
Scandrea, what I unfortunately can't zip-file for you to fully understand, is that I do see all of your examples as the ONE POSSIBILE reality of this world (of this universe) because no other way seems plausible or attainable to have all of life exist in peace. THIS physical material reality, although the form can be changed but not the RULES that keep this reality intack, has all animals (beings who are born) be automatically put into the position of (1) and (2) [please refer to my list of the TWO RULES of reality]. Or all living beings come into a world of struggle and suffering.
Now, you have several retorts. But I will only address one more (if I guess right):
If life is nothing but struggling and suffering, then why do animals try to get along within their own groups? Or why do humans try to exist in peaceful societies?
However, I've already answered your question.
In the reality of struggle and survival, animals (also plants) and humans stay alive by not eating their own kind. If animals ate their own kind *all the time*, then their kind would self-destruct or eat each other out of existence. LOL. So, each genus of "living being" eat (or murder) something that is not of their genus. Doing this enables the notion of peace to exist within species. However, sharing is a matter of war more often than not. So although a species, such as human beings, do not rely on each other (all the time) as a "food resource", wars have been fought because 1) livestock was scarce, 2) territory, in which there was food, was scarce, and 3) because of greed and fear. Or a group (an elite, a class, or also a disgruntled untrusting people) did not share the "necessities of life".
Scandrea, I can write for hours and hours about my philosophizing. LOL. Well, I already do. :-).
Overall, in sum, I do not like the reality of (and neither do some philosophers, scholars, and even people without titles) "Natural Selection" and "Survival of the fittest" because this objective reality always puts people (no matter who or what they are), or all living beings, into the position of "Eat or be eaten. Murder or be murdered. Kill or be Killed." The situation is not only brutal in this sense but is also difficult to observe NOT from an alien outside perspective. Well, I one time wrote the story, "Leiann the Space Cadet." So, perhaps I am somewhat of an alien from the imagination. LOL. But I am most certainly not crazy.
************************************************************************
I only said SEE. I did not mean AGREE with me.
************************************************************************
