Competition vs. Collaboration

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

thata23
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by thata23 »

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:00 pm
You did say "I just have to disagree with the FACT" though!!? So there is perhaps at least a little doubt in your mind? If not, then why so certain, do you consider that it`s prudent over such a radical proposal as this? All the murders, rapes, hatred, prejudice, is this all down to money then in your view? It surely needs to be, because for what you are proposing to work the world would have to undergo one hell of a lot of perfecting up. That`s a given. Where do you get this notion from that if everybody were to be told that they`d no longer be paid any money for their toils they`d all perfect up, this is still the human race we are talking about. Surely, we`d have to have minds programmable in their thinking and function first.
I'm sorry I did not use the word correctly - I was trying to use terminology I did not know how to properly use and should have thought more about the word "fact" - however, I still stand by my overall argument and there is still little doubt in my mind. If we can not trust fellow humans to do the right thing, then what can we trust? All the "facts" (physics, language, science) that allow the world to run in the manner it does are the result of the human mind - should we just doubt those too since they were "created / discovered" by the mind of humans (yes, they are facts of the universe, but we would not know them as true without our fellow human beings, and us accepting them is still entirely based on trust)? Yes, it would require a fundamental change, but this seems inevitable and I think we should try to arrive there sooner rather than later. The only thing preventing a universal fact that humans are 100% transparent and will do the right thing to advance the human race is ourselves - is that not great! This fear of our fellow humans is just a fear of ourselves, we are all from stardust and universally connected - we cannot hide from ourselves.
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

You do n`t think that you are thinking outside the box of logic then? Just because we should n`t trust human nature to produce a god like world of perfect sanctuary (because this is n`t how human nature has been shown to operate, either now, or in the past) it does n`t follow that we cannot trust in humans intellectual ability. Our minds are made up "parent", "adult", and "child", intellect is in the adult, and our nature is in the child. One is entirely stable and can be trusted, but the other cannot. Would you give all of your worldly goods to random children/adults with the nature of children, for their safe keeping, or to a bank ("the adult")? Just because humans can be more trusted in one area of their mind it does n`t follow on that they should be equally trusted in them all. However, your world might well rest on this.
thata23
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by thata23 »

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:28 am You do n`t think that you are thinking outside the box of logic then? Just because we should n`t trust human nature to produce a god like world of perfect sanctuary (because this is n`t how human nature has been shown to operate, either now, or in the past) it does n`t follow that we cannot trust in humans intellectual ability. Our minds are made up "parent", "adult", and "child", intellect is in the adult, and our nature is in the child. One is entirely stable and can be trusted, but the other cannot. Would you give all of your worldly goods to random children/adults with the nature of children, for their safe keeping, or to a bank ("the adult")? Just because humans can be more trusted in one area of their mind it does n`t follow on that they should be equally trusted in them all. However, your world might well rest on this.
Yes, I would because the fact that the mind can eventually come to different conclusions as it grows is amazing and shows that we are striving for something deeper and can change. I do trust that they will eventually realize their wrongs and will get it right - if they cannot, that means I cannot either since I am human too and I will not accept that. Everything is "nature", even intellect, the mind of the adult still carries with it the nature of the child, it is just experiences that have shaped it to act differently. Your world relies on doubt, mine relies on trust, and if we don't have trust in our fellow humans, we can't trust anything.
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

thata23 wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:33 pm
Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:28 am You do n`t think that you are thinking outside the box of logic then? Just because we should n`t trust human nature to produce a god like world of perfect sanctuary (because this is n`t how human nature has been shown to operate, either now, or in the past) it does n`t follow that we cannot trust in humans intellectual ability. Our minds are made up "parent", "adult", and "child", intellect is in the adult, and our nature is in the child. One is entirely stable and can be trusted, but the other cannot. Would you give all of your worldly goods to random children/adults with the nature of children, for their safe keeping, or to a bank ("the adult")? Just because humans can be more trusted in one area of their mind it does n`t follow on that they should be equally trusted in them all. However, your world might well rest on this.
Yes, I would because the fact that the mind can eventually come to different conclusions as it grows is amazing and shows that we are striving for something deeper and can change. I do trust that they will eventually realize their wrongs and will get it right - if they cannot, that means I cannot either since I am human too and I will not accept that. Everything is "nature", even intellect, the mind of the adult still carries with it the nature of the child, it is just experiences that have shaped it to act differently. Your world relies on doubt, mine relies on trust, and if we don't have trust in our fellow humans, we can't trust anything.
In terms the significance of logic it makes no difference how vast the mind. But "deeper" does not mean different, and many right/final answers are found even with the mind of a mouse. Eventually getting it right? - When over application is made in finding a solution there is the tendency to moving further away rather than closer to actuality. Because philosophical process has most to say for those that make a name off the back of it, notions which are deliberately impossible to entirely follow take pole position over any genuine process. It works for them, and with mortgages to pay they wont be making any subtle changes/they wont be realizing any wrongs. Believing otherwise very obviously further promotes their cause. You are human too, and you are/should ideally be an individual (a genuine through and through individual), so without all of this programming and brain washing on board. As such it is not written that you cannot function on levels unique to you, such, your measure cannot be known because there exists somebody else with a measure too. No, it`s psychology, the "adult" has nothing to do with the "child", we are not talking the whole person, it does not carry it, it has nothing even to do with being an adult, or being a child, and you might be virtually any age. These are categories of mind, and untampered with communication through this area is possible, hence the book. Philosophical process is concerned with optimal simplification. Only through optimal simplification can new corridors ever hope to be opened, but without this process never even begins to occur. Only with optimal simplification comes about universal understanding and perfection of communication. Doubt and trust do not dictate worlds, these commodities do nothing on their own, but knowing when to doubt and when to trust can go a long way. If an attractive girl regularly stood naked with a straight guy, her trusting him not to fancy her, she might on occasion feel let down, even very let down, trust me. Blind trust should be respected as the enemy. but you only ever argue it to be your god. Fine, but what are you doing suggesting to the entire world sharing in your singular blind faith?
thata23
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by thata23 »

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:55 pm
In terms the significance of logic it makes no difference how vast the mind. But "deeper" does not mean different, and many right/final answers are found even with the mind of a mouse. Eventually getting it right? - When over application is made in finding a solution there is the tendency to moving further away rather than closer to actuality. Because philosophical process has most to say for those that make a name off the back of it, notions which are deliberately impossible to entirely follow take pole position over any genuine process. It works for them, and with mortgages to pay they wont be making any subtle changes/they wont be realizing any wrongs. Believing otherwise very obviously further promotes their cause. You are human too, and you are/should ideally be an individual (a genuine through and through individual), so without all of this programming and brain washing on board. As such it is not written that you cannot function on levels unique to you, such, your measure cannot be known because there exists somebody else with a measure too. No, it`s psychology, the "adult" has nothing to do with the "child", we are not talking the whole person, it does not carry it, it has nothing even to do with being an adult, or being a child, and you might be virtually any age. These are categories of mind, and untampered with communication through this area is possible, hence the book. Philosophical process is concerned with optimal simplification. Only through optimal simplification can new corridors ever hope to be opened, but without this process never even begins to occur. Only with optimal simplification comes about universal understanding and perfection of communication. Doubt and trust do not dictate worlds, these commodities do nothing on their own, but knowing when to doubt and when to trust can go a long way. If an attractive girl regularly stood naked with a straight guy, her trusting him not to fancy her, she might on occasion feel let down, even very let down, trust me. Blind trust should be respected as the enemy. but you only ever argue it to be your god. Fine, but what are you doing suggesting to the entire world sharing in your singular blind faith?
I should be a "genuine through and through individual" - I just do not believe I am or anyone is, since we are the result of our experiences and learning from those around and before us. We are just a small (but important) part of a universal human mission, which means all of us are both the least important and most important person on Earth. If everyone believed he/she were the most important on Earth, their best would come out and at the same time if they though they were the least important, they would listen to others. "Perfection of communication" requires trust in that what is being communicated is true, or else communication would be meaningless. What I am suggesting is that if we all thought of ourselves as part of this search for universal truth, 100% transparency would naturally occur, borders would disappear, and wars and enemies would be silly and meaningless. This does not mean each of us cannot have our unique qualities, but we must realize all of us feed off each other and no one is above the team but everyone is uniquely important.
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

thata23 wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:52 am
Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:55 pm
In terms the significance of logic it makes no difference how vast the mind. But "deeper" does not mean different, and many right/final answers are found even with the mind of a mouse. Eventually getting it right? - When over application is made in finding a solution there is the tendency to moving further away rather than closer to actuality. Because philosophical process has most to say for those that make a name off the back of it, notions which are deliberately impossible to entirely follow take pole position over any genuine process. It works for them, and with mortgages to pay they wont be making any subtle changes/they wont be realizing any wrongs. Believing otherwise very obviously further promotes their cause. You are human too, and you are/should ideally be an individual (a genuine through and through individual), so without all of this programming and brain washing on board. As such it is not written that you cannot function on levels unique to you, such, your measure cannot be known because there exists somebody else with a measure too. No, it`s psychology, the "adult" has nothing to do with the "child", we are not talking the whole person, it does not carry it, it has nothing even to do with being an adult, or being a child, and you might be virtually any age. These are categories of mind, and untampered with communication through this area is possible, hence the book. Philosophical process is concerned with optimal simplification. Only through optimal simplification can new corridors ever hope to be opened, but without this process never even begins to occur. Only with optimal simplification comes about universal understanding and perfection of communication. Doubt and trust do not dictate worlds, these commodities do nothing on their own, but knowing when to doubt and when to trust can go a long way. If an attractive girl regularly stood naked with a straight guy, her trusting him not to fancy her, she might on occasion feel let down, even very let down, trust me. Blind trust should be respected as the enemy. but you only ever argue it to be your god. Fine, but what are you doing suggesting to the entire world sharing in your singular blind faith?
I should be a "genuine through and through individual" - I just do not believe I am or anyone is, since we are the result of our experiences and learning from those around and before us. We are just a small (but important) part of a universal human mission, which means all of us are both the least important and most important person on Earth. If everyone believed he/she were the most important on Earth, their best would come out and at the same time if they though they were the least important, they would listen to others. "Perfection of communication" requires trust in that what is being communicated is true, or else communication would be meaningless. What I am suggesting is that if we all thought of ourselves as part of this search for universal truth, 100% transparency would naturally occur, borders would disappear, and wars and enemies would be silly and meaningless. This does not mean each of us cannot have our unique qualities, but we must realize all of us feed off each other and no one is above the team but everyone is uniquely important.

All this is a given though, sure, we are human, and we have both been aware of what it is to be human for a very long time now, surely. Everything, and I do mean everything, begins with the limitations of our humanity, but we are not required to fill all that in each and every time we open our mouths, there is universal awareness, we share being human with others. Of course, to be a human individual is not to be a full individual, it is relative to the human condition. Do n`t let`s constantly look for excuses to jump back to the beginning, we should move only forwards, or otherwise there would never be any getting off the ground here. Just what the gods want! "Genuine (human) individuals" process off others rather than learn off them/they question everything. Humans are not on a mission, and we are equally important, neither the most nor the least. Perfection of communication does not require trust, for trust is blind, the opposing commodity is required, questioning. It`s not about a communication being true, or not, it is neither at inception, it has first to become wholly successful communication, and this process always takes two. This is how philosophy is communicated.
thata23
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by thata23 »

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:44 am Humans are not on a mission...
What is motivating if we are not on a mission?
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

thata23 wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:46 am
Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:44 am Humans are not on a mission...
What is motivating if we are not on a mission?
Whatever it is that is motivating to one, everything, nothing, or somewhere inbetween. We cannot all be on a mission together because you declare it so, for us all to be on a mission it is a requisite of this state of being that we can all name the mission, detail the purpose of the mission, and our role in it. It is straight forward stuff. Mission means mission, which means mission. I experience my separation from those around me to be the more motivating. This is an area of social psychology before it has to say for anything distinctly philosophical. If through your fifties and sixties the majority of your friends are under the age of sixteen, you perform physically at world class level, you live with teenagers, and you loathe conventional love, before looking any deeper it can be reasonably suggested that one is more than just averagely individual. Accept nothing, but rigorously process everything - Why would a rationally minded person wish to exercise reverse age prejudice when all this can result in is the further separation from youth, and the compounding of one`s own ageing.
thata23
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by thata23 »

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:39 am We cannot all be on a mission together because you declare it so, for us all to be on a mission it is a requisite of this state of being that we can all name the mission, detail the purpose of the mission, and our role in it.
Fine, I will still be on a mission with everyone to make this world and society a better place even if you're not. Everyone is everyone's responsibility, you can't deny for us to be in this thing together even if you declare it so, because the fact that you are connected with everything and everyone makes that false - this is simple stuff. You trying to remove yourself from this team of humans is simply wrong, and I don't know why anyone in their sane mind would want to be individualized from their fellow brothers and sisters whom they share the Earth with. Be my guest, live in your own fantasy land if that makes you happy, but your fellow humans are still here and your actions affect them and their actions affect you. The desire for humanity to live will outlast the desire of those who seek to destroy life because they think they are above the team.
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

You cannot be on a mission with everyone until everyone has recognised that they are on this said same mission with you, for this does n`t happen merely by singular will alone. Good luck with it though. My opinion on the matter is neither here nor there, and neither also is your own.
thata23
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by thata23 »

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:19 am You cannot be on a mission with everyone until everyone has recognised that they are on this said same mission with you, for this does n`t happen merely by singular will alone. Good luck with it though. My opinion on the matter is neither here nor there, and neither also is your own.
Thank you, but people are on this mission whether they like it or not. Unless you were born in a vacuum away from any humans, you are part of society. I guess you could liken it to cells in an individual human body - sure, one could argue that they are all separate, however they are all functioning for a higher purpose, even if they may not know it.
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

It`s impossible to be on a collective mission without even being aware of it, we can have collective destiny, all share of the same opinion, all be of single race, all this you could argue, but being on a mission is not a subliminal state.
Post Reply