God is testing us all

[Lacewing]

But we don't know anything supremely, do we? How could we... and why would we? What humans think, changes/evolves over time.

We may not know everything in one respect, yet in another because we observe relations we actually do. I may not see a tree fall in the woods, but I may see the birds fly from the tree and land on my lawn. Their movement is a shadow of the tree falling, and while I may not see the origin of the shadow, I see the shadow none the less.

Okay, that is not the same thing as "knowing supremely", is it? Rather, that is awareness of some things unseen, based on what is seen -- while much remains unseen.

My question above is asking: What is the NEED/DESIRE of believing that we know some sort of supreme, all-encompassing truth?

Because to claim their is no need is an all-encompassing truth.

How does asking a question or making a claim about need or lack of it represent some sort of "all-encompassing truth"?

Why is that important or necessary? What is the payoff? Why is it not enough to say: "This is what I see as true right here, right now."

Because often times what we observe as what is true "right here, right now" is simply a medial point or symbol for something else. Right now may in fact point to something beyond "now", but it does not make it any less true that there is "now". "Now" is a constant medial point from which the future and past extend.

Yes, what we know in the moment is true for us in the moment. It will not necessarily be true forever... and it is not a complete representation of ALL or ultimate potential for all. If we were truly aware of totality, why would we be in a limited physical body in a dense world of matter?

Doing that, acknowledges known limitations and unexperienced potential, rather than proclaiming ultimate supreme truths that apply to all of creation throughout time... based on one person's puny perspective and programming.

Does that apply to mankind through time? Is it a supreme truth that one perspective's perspective is puny?

This response and your others seem to show that you are missing/ignoring the value of the questions in favor of some other agenda you are tending to -- which I suspect is your desire to claim that you can know supremely. I'm not seeing any signs of that actually being the case, however.

[Eodnhoj7]

But we don't know anything supremely, do we? How could we... and why would we? What humans think, changes/evolves over time.

We may not know everything in one respect, yet in another because we observe relations we actually do. I may not see a tree fall in the woods, but I may see the birds fly from the tree and land on my lawn. Their movement is a shadow of the tree falling, and while I may not see the origin of the shadow, I see the shadow none the less.

Okay, that is not the same thing as "knowing supremely", is it? Rather, that is awareness of some things unseen, based on what is seen -- while much remains unseen.
We don't need to know everything to observe constants. Constants as approximations of a supreme truth reflect a supreme truth in the respect their are foundational truths.

Take for example "infinity", we cannot see it in its eniretly, but we can observe portions such as the center of the circle or pi.

My question above is asking: What is the NEED/DESIRE of believing that we know some sort of supreme, all-encompassing truth?

Because to claim their is no need is an all-encompassing truth.

How does asking a question or making a claim about need or lack of it represent some sort of "all-encompassing truth"?
I never accused the question in that manner. "All encompassing truth" can be observed three ways, minimum:
a) it exists which ends the argument.
b) it does not exist, yet that would be an all-encompassing truth by its logical format. Otherwise the statement is not universal true and voids the premise.
c) There is possible all-encompassing truth, and if that is the case, as a possibility it must manifest itself to some degree.

Why is that important or necessary? What is the payoff? Why is it not enough to say: "This is what I see as true right here, right now."

Because often times what we observe as what is true "right here, right now" is simply a medial point or symbol for something else. Right now may in fact point to something beyond "now", but it does not make it any less true that there is "now". "Now" is a constant medial point from which the future and past extend.

Yes, what we know in the moment is true for us in the moment. It will not necessarily be true forever... and it is not a complete representation of ALL or ultimate potential for all. If we were truly aware of totality, why would we be in a limited physical body in a dense world of matter?
Why does matter follow geometric constants?
In another respect one action eventually leads to another, so the prior actions is always maintained in some degree through the next action...much in a similar manner to reproduction.

Doing that, acknowledges known limitations and unexperienced potential, rather than proclaiming ultimate supreme truths that apply to all of creation throughout time... based on one person's puny perspective and programming.

Does that apply to mankind through time? Is it a supreme truth that one perspective's perspective is puny?

This response and your others seem to show that you are missing/ignoring the value of the questions in favor of some other agenda you are tending to -- which I suspect is your desire to claim that you can know supremely. I'm not seeing any signs of that actually being the case, however.

But you are always in a state of change, you will eventually agree with me, then get angry and disagree, then agree, then disagree, you might even make a pass at me if I write elegant enough, then get angry again. I honestly don't even know why you are here to be honest, I thought you were suppose to give up this site for the new year.

In all truth any argument for constant truth and I am accused of being baised, but always calling people biased is putting a lable on them and is bias.

To sum up the argument it is your logical form I find fault with, you say everything changes, but if that is the case then eventually what you will say will be irrelevant under your own terms.

And the strict "everything is material approach" is unscientific and unjustified when materiality is not empirically defined in modern physics...at least not to any agreeable definition.

[Lacewing]

you will eventually agree with me, then get angry and disagree, then agree, then disagree, you might even make a pass at me if I write elegant enough, then get angry again. I honestly don't even know why you are here to be honest, I thought you were suppose to give up this site for the new year.

So, you clearly don't know everything.

it is your logical form I find fault with, you say everything changes, but if that is the case then eventually what you will say will be irrelevant under your own terms.

So what? Does that stop one from living and exploring in the moment? Why does anything have to be relevant forever?

And the strict "everything is material approach" is unscientific and unjustified when materiality is not empirically defined in modern physics...at least not to any agreeable definition.

I don't know why you're saying this. It doesn't resonate for me... but you appear to be accusing me of it.

[Eodnhoj7]

you will eventually agree with me, then get angry and disagree, then agree, then disagree, you might even make a pass at me if I write elegant enough, then get angry again. I honestly don't even know why you are here to be honest, I thought you were suppose to give up this site for the new year.

So, you clearly don't know everything.
And neither do you

it is your logical form I find fault with, you say everything changes, but if that is the case then eventually what you will say will be irrelevant under your own terms.

So what? Does that stop one from living and exploring in the moment? Why does anything have to be relevant forever?

Living and exploring become repetitive after awhile, everyone starts appearing the same whether they intend for it or not. I, speaking for myself only, have heard so many "life stories" from people, that I actually halt them in conversation and say "hold on I am going to tell you what your situation before you tell me...can I do that without offending you?" They laugh and say "yes". I go ahead and I am usually right 9.5 time out of ten, with the .5 being some trivial detail I missed. They usually laugh nervously and shut up.

The majority of "lifes" explorations break down to:

Different foods that repeat themselves in different ways. For example, the Eastern Slavs have stuffed cabbage, and the Koreans (a completely separate eastern culture have a similar food called kimche, where the Mexicans to the same thing as the Slavs except using cabbage they use corn for burritos.

Their are only so many ways to scramble the same eggs.

And the same applies for women, no offense, deep down most are insecure and if you make them feel secure you get laid. Whether that security stems from money or emotional comfort it is the same. Other's try to pretend to be tough and empowered, because they are scared of the simple truth of being alone...because of the men who treated them cruelly, so they play "beyonce" type songs. Other's try to have as many orgasms as possible to kill the pain they have inside from failed loves?

Men? We compete with eachother because we have no real struggles to give us any definition. Most men are insecure and try to pull off the whole tough guy thing until one applies either the proper physical and intellectual force, and they break down into crying women. To top it all off most are trying to find some value for themselves in society and spend the majority of their lives in a quiet despair. A few get lucky and find a family, only for the family to mistreat them and not value any sacrifices the man made for them. So best case scenario a man get's a wife and kids, treats them well, and no one appreciates any of his sacrifices.

Why? all of this....boredom.

The only constant in the human condition is a feeling of emptiness and being alone, and 30 different types of people process it in thirty different types of ways, all to come to the conclusion it is all vain at the end of the day.

Wittgenstein observed this from a separate angle, where is made the statement of "ask any wise man from any culture and they will all say it is vanity". Now that is not the exact wording, but the message is the same.

Power? It is just banality. Most men who have power master the art of triviality and vanity. Most people believe in a man who is confident because of the image he, or she, projects. What they don't know is what happens behind the scenes, the confident man or women, where staring in the mirror trying to convince themselves they are successful...they do this because they don't know any more than the people that follow them.

What makes confident people in charge is the fact that the people who follow them don't know they do this.


Love? The truth is most lovers do not know what is going on in the other's head while they lie next to them. Men think of one thing, Women another, and both try to project what they think on the other.

Eventually the sex wheres off, they split up because they never really like eachother in the first place

Then you will have the people who will say "Eodnhoj7" you are wrong, I have "this" or "that" and I am happy. They will say this now, tomorrow and for a few more years, and the habit alone will make they believe they are right. But the man who wanted the son...well the son goes in another direction entirely, becomes a drug addict, or completely misunderstands the father's sacrifices entirely and scorns him.

The man who is one top of his career? One day his valuable skillset, which he bases his identity and value on, is replace either by another skill set or a piece of technology.

The women who got the career, she spends her nights alone petting her cat trying to convince herself she does not want to be held. Or the women who found the "loving and caring husband" who is secretly having an affair because he cannot deal with the fact he is dead inside.

You have the young "go getters" who go through life working hard...and they succeed, only to find themselves alone at the top.
Other's spend their lives trying to please family and friends, only to find that their friends are secretly bored with them because they are not ambitious enough...and when struggle comes most find themselves in the same position as the person on top.

Other's spend their life in folly drinking and laughing, believe their is nothing more, only to have it catch up to them later in life and they end up regretting their life decisions and spend the majority of their old age lost in memory over the "good old days" never realizing the "good old days" where simply a means to escape the present.

At the end of this you will say "so what" and continue with your "happy go lucky philosophy"...because considering everything you been through...you have no choice but too...and its admirable...but admirable people are dime a dozen too.

Everyone thinks the grass is greener on the other side, and they envy the other person over it.

Other's say "live in the moment", but they continually have to remind themselves of this by telling others "this is the truth".

Other's go through life with a neutral attitude, and stagnate never knowing what they were or could have been.

You have the poor man who believe he is cursed by God because he cannot provide for his family, however he is better than the rich man because he has a family. The rich and wise struggle with being alone, the poor (because of their condition) feel alone whether they are alone or not.

The rich man says in his heart "I have it all, I need no more" then it is taken from him unexpectedly and he is back to struggling to reclaim it. Or worse, he never finds enough and is a slave to own desire for more. In these respects he struggles more than the poor man.


Then you have people like me to describe everything in detail. Some people will agree with me, pat me on the back and say "You are wise", but the wise man does not take the compliment of a fool for any value. Others will call me a fool due to their own ignorance or out of fear of what I have to say, or they will simply believe I am wrong because of their view of the world. Most won't even both reading this whole post because they are pursuing one of the above problems.


You can "live" and "explore" all you want, but after awhile it becomes the same old same old and eventually it becomes difficult to find anything new. The whole exploration "thing", while exciting for a while (and you are right about this), eventually gets old because their is "nothing new under the sun".

And the strict "everything is material approach" is unscientific and unjustified when materiality is not empirically defined in modern physics...at least not to any agreeable definition.

I don't know why you're saying this. It doesn't resonate for me... but you appear to be accusing me of it.

Materialism? It appears that is what you are implying. No offense, and you have the right to call me a misogynist for saying this (and I will take no offense), but most women are strictly and extension of whatever environment they were born into and because of that inherently nurture (right or wrong) whether it is a career or family.

[Lacewing]

So, you clearly don't know everything.

And neither do you

I don't claim that I do... and (as I've been saying) I'm pretty sure it's not possible, and would make no sense.

[...blah, blah, blah... Eodnhoj7's view of reality and potential...]

Isn't it glorious? Fantastic show on the stage. Gimme some more popcorn. I haven't gotten bored yet... and I don't fit into any of the roles you describe.

You can "live" and "explore" all you want, but after awhile it becomes the same old same old and eventually it becomes difficult to find anything new.

If you don't expand your capabilities and frequencies... sure. You stay on the same channel.

Materialism? It appears that is what you are implying. No offense, and you have the right to call me a misogynist for saying this (and I will take no offense), but most women are strictly and extension of whatever environment they were born into and because of that inherently nurture (right or wrong) whether it is a career or family.

Notice how you apply your model to me even though I've said nothing like that -- coloring me like you color your text. You appear to be too sure of everything to be open to what exists beyond commonality -- which ironically would keep you stuck in commonality -- perhaps making you a king above the commoners? There's more than that experience. But, live it out however you want to. It's all a fantastic creation from my perspective.

[Eodnhoj7]

So, you clearly don't know everything.

And neither do you

I don't claim that I do... and (as I've been saying) I'm pretty sure it's not possible, and would make no sense.

[...blah, blah, blah... Eodnhoj7's view of reality and potential...]

Isn't it glorious? Fantastic show on the stage. Gimme some more popcorn. I haven't gotten bored yet... and I don't fit into any of the roles you describe.

[Then you have people like me to describe everything in detail..... Others will call me a fool due to their own ignorance or out of fear of what I have to say, or they will simply believe I am wrong because of their view of the world. Most won't even both reading this whole post because they are pursuing one of the above problems./color]

You can "live" and "explore" all you want, but after awhile it becomes the same old same old and eventually it becomes difficult to find anything new.

If you don't expand your capabilities and frequencies... sure. You stay on the same channel.

Materialism? It appears that is what you are implying. No offense, and you have the right to call me a misogynist for saying this (and I will take no offense), but most women are strictly and extension of whatever environment they were born into and because of that inherently nurture (right or wrong) whether it is a career or family.

Notice how you apply your model to me even though I've said nothing like that -- coloring me like you color your text.
You said nothing of the sort because the way I worded it would nullify anything of the sort. In simpler terms I said you have the right to view it as you wish...regardless and you even admit to this...you nurture those around you.

I never labeled, you anything other than strictly observing a few qualities, that is not necessarily limiting.

You appear to be too sure of everything to be open to what exists beyond commonality -- which ironically would keep you stuck in commonality -- perhaps making you a king above the commoners? There's more than that experience. But, live it out however you want to. It's all a fantastic creation from my perspective.

Their are no kings...just people who call other people "kings"...

And what makes you think I am so sure?

If I make a question, knowing there are only a limited number of ways it can be answered...what differs that from an accusation...as in a statement of "reality is this way."?

In all frankness, it is less a question of "surety" but rather moving to a point of observation. Pardon the pun on points, but I prefer to get to the point.

[Lacewing]

...

I've got no more interest in responding to this exchange. Good luck to you.

[Eodnhoj7]

...

I've got no more interest in responding. Good luck to you.

So much for the interesting world you claim.

In all truth, and for the sake of clarity as to what I see from a separate perspective, the view of the world you have where 'anything goes" in many respects causes the same problems it seeks to avoid.

Observing these rules you have infidelities, for both men and women, which break up families.
This leads to murder, theft, childhood abuse, etc....or leads to a greater degree of envy and want from both sides.

In many respects, and you make correct me if I am wrong, it is a moral cop out and not really a form of love at all but strictly just drifting with the current.

[gaffo]

one who has absolute knowledge does not need any further confirmation or corroboration of that knowledge

do you have such knowledge'?

if you do please let me know of it.

i lack said knowledge.

Where you got the idea of "God's moral compass" out of my argument is beyond me. Is this a strawman or a genuine case of misunderstanding from your part?

been a few weeks so forget the thread, but willing to discuss.

It is more arrogant to say that we are arrogant for reasonably assuming that the morality we understand in every day parlance is not the morality that is expressed by the orthodox God or traditional Abrahamic monotheism.

why so?

If the words 'good' and 'bad' and 'right and 'wrong' do not express what is supposed to be attributes of God and the things he wants us to avoid, ie, what God describes them and what has been transmitted since the beginning of religion, then it makes the situation even more incoherent than it is and you position is the less tenable one. You need a strong argument to support such an unreasonable and untenable position given the context in which we happen to be.

I see no need to demand for from my nature than what i am - I'm an ant - and view it a folly to demand God/Gods. - to be BE , and if they Be to be Be Good.

as an ant i not only do not demand that God/Gods exist, I do not even mandate as to their character as being "good".

as an ant within my limited nature per empiricism assume He/there do not exist (nor do i fixate upon their personalities of evil or goodness...............I leaave that to others of more ego who assume to know the knowable God/s. and speak for such deities.

I never appealed to any of the arguments from evil in the OP, I merely suggested that it is incoherent for us to claim that God is testing us if we take 'test' to mean what we humans mean when we use the term, ie, when we are unsure and do not know so we go about making sure and knowing.

ok.

i mentioned Job in some thread - here or in another. which is just such a case.........the intent of the author who was a Believer in YHWH (if more Gods also, its not known from that work).

Job is about sumitital (Islam basically --1000 yr prior to that religion - but the Mulsims affirm the same God so Jon is kosher to both camps (Muslims/Christians).

Would that have been a good rebuttal?

not sure there is a rebuttal.

as the bible says - "rain falls upon the just and the unjust"..................look at Job - God pissed on him, he remained humble and continued to believe upon the God that pissed on him, his humility mandated that he not make his god fit his image of morality.

precisely.

I agree, i'm an athiest BTW. agree with your view of Job and its message of humility.

Talking of incoherence, you just accused me of being arrogant for assuming that the moral system expressed by God is not the one we should assume that accurately expresses God's moral qualities and yet here you are appealing to the bible. This is utter nonsense.

not nonsense if you can undestand my viewpoint.

i value the message from the works of the bible - some works i value more than others - the themes transend "which god" one worships.

i value Job because it is infinately humble.

though at the same time it is also makes it bleak as hell (literally and figuratively).

;-/,

It is very arrogant of you to assume that you know what God means with 'just' and 'unjust'.

I'm an atheist! lol

i make not such demands.

only Believers make demands upon the nature of their God/s.

[gaffo]

I'm the one that has been banging on about the dichotomy of God for years around these very parts.

good for you - that means you have a mind.

only don't assume to be able to understand the nature of your God.

I wish you and your God well. I'm an Atheist, but only at war with Fundies (they presume to know the mind of God and at/speak for him), not others that believe in whomever God/s.

peace to you and your God.

[attofishpi]

I really don't give a flying rats backside what you believe.

However, what you believe, I am sure is germane to the topic. You can't detach yourself from your belief, and that is that. I accept that. Your belief is an extremely important factor in this conversation.

So while you can detach yourself from considering what I believe, I can't ignore what you believe, in order to keep this conversation going.

The ultimate reason i don't give a rats ass what you think is because you are the ultimate hypocrite. On the one hand you state that to be a theist one must accept everything in the bible as the truth to our belief, and yet when I address ALL your points by dissecting EVERYTHING you state, you do the cowardly act of omitting points I have made that you obviously have no way of successfully refuting.
So how about addressing ALL the points i made instead of being a wimp? ...and then, by all means, I will grant that yes you DO have the right to continue a conversation, pertaining to what you believe ...about my POV.

[wisdomlover]

As a teacher, I would give a test even though I could predict the outcome, in order to have a "paper trail" in case a student objected that I was being arbitrary. Plus, I couldn't be 100% sure of my prediction. Presumably, god doesn't have either problem.

I don't think god exists, but I imagine that if he does, he is testing us by seeing who will be silly enough to believe in him. Perhaps he wrote the Bible, a bizarre collection of stories and poems advocating genocide, gang rape, and other atrocities, just to see who will subvert the reasoning ability he gave them and fall for a bunch of nonsense.

[attofishpi]

I don't think god exists, but I imagine that if he does, he is testing us by seeing who will be silly enough to believe in him.

And yet you obviously don't see how silly that statement is.

Perhaps he wrote the Bible, a bizarre collection of stories and poems advocating genocide, gang rape, and other atrocities, just to see who will subvert the reasoning ability he gave them and fall for a bunch of nonsense.

What kind of a wally would think God/'God' wrote the bible?

[Lacewing]

I don't think god exists, but I imagine that if he does, he is testing us by seeing who will be silly enough to believe in him.

And yet you obviously don't see how silly that statement is.

Hey atto... I thought wisdomlover's idea had an interesting angle. Your pre-concept of God is going to skew your opinion, of course. If I'm going to fantasize about gods, I can imagine one who doesn't want people to be sheep... and therefore, that god might give humans some challenges to strengthen them from being easily misled and/or to weed out the ones that were. All for the purpose of continual improvement and expansion... as nature does. Humans that believe in gods might be an early prototype of what is still to evolve.

[Dontaskme]

you will eventually agree with me, then get angry and disagree, then agree, then disagree, you might even make a pass at me if I write elegant enough, then get angry again. I honestly don't even know why you are here to be honest, I thought you were suppose to give up this site for the new year.

So, you clearly don't know everything.
And neither do you

it is your logical form I find fault with, you say everything changes, but if that is the case then eventually what you will say will be irrelevant under your own terms.

So what? Does that stop one from living and exploring in the moment? Why does anything have to be relevant forever?

Living and exploring become repetitive after awhile, everyone starts appearing the same whether they intend for it or not. I, speaking for myself only, have heard so many "life stories" from people, that I actually halt them in conversation and say "hold on I am going to tell you what your situation before you tell me...can I do that without offending you?" They laugh and say "yes". I go ahead and I am usually right 9.5 time out of ten, with the .5 being some trivial detail I missed. They usually laugh nervously and shut up.

The majority of "lifes" explorations break down to:

Different foods that repeat themselves in different ways. For example, the Eastern Slavs have stuffed cabbage, and the Koreans (a completely separate eastern culture have a similar food called kimche, where the Mexicans to the same thing as the Slavs except using cabbage they use corn for burritos.

Their are only so many ways to scramble the same eggs.

And the same applies for women, no offense, deep down most are insecure and if you make them feel secure you get laid. Whether that security stems from money or emotional comfort it is the same. Other's try to pretend to be tough and empowered, because they are scared of the simple truth of being alone...because of the men who treated them cruelly, so they play "beyonce" type songs. Other's try to have as many orgasms as possible to kill the pain they have inside from failed loves?

Men? We compete with eachother because we have no real struggles to give us any definition. Most men are insecure and try to pull off the whole tough guy thing until one applies either the proper physical and intellectual force, and they break down into crying women. To top it all off most are trying to find some value for themselves in society and spend the majority of their lives in a quiet despair. A few get lucky and find a family, only for the family to mistreat them and not value any sacrifices the man made for them. So best case scenario a man get's a wife and kids, treats them well, and no one appreciates any of his sacrifices.

Why? all of this....boredom.

The only constant in the human condition is a feeling of emptiness and being alone, and 30 different types of people process it in thirty different types of ways, all to come to the conclusion it is all vain at the end of the day.

Wittgenstein observed this from a separate angle, where is made the statement of "ask any wise man from any culture and they will all say it is vanity". Now that is not the exact wording, but the message is the same.

Power? It is just banality. Most men who have power master the art of triviality and vanity. Most people believe in a man who is confident because of the image he, or she, projects. What they don't know is what happens behind the scenes, the confident man or women, where staring in the mirror trying to convince themselves they are successful...they do this because they don't know any more than the people that follow them.

What makes confident people in charge is the fact that the people who follow them don't know they do this.


Love? The truth is most lovers do not know what is going on in the other's head while they lie next to them. Men think of one thing, Women another, and both try to project what they think on the other.

Eventually the sex wheres off, they split up because they never really like eachother in the first place

Then you will have the people who will say "Eodnhoj7" you are wrong, I have "this" or "that" and I am happy. They will say this now, tomorrow and for a few more years, and the habit alone will make they believe they are right. But the man who wanted the son...well the son goes in another direction entirely, becomes a drug addict, or completely misunderstands the father's sacrifices entirely and scorns him.

The man who is one top of his career? One day his valuable skillset, which he bases his identity and value on, is replace either by another skill set or a piece of technology.

The women who got the career, she spends her nights alone petting her cat trying to convince herself she does not want to be held. Or the women who found the "loving and caring husband" who is secretly having an affair because he cannot deal with the fact he is dead inside.

You have the young "go getters" who go through life working hard...and they succeed, only to find themselves alone at the top.
Other's spend their lives trying to please family and friends, only to find that their friends are secretly bored with them because they are not ambitious enough...and when struggle comes most find themselves in the same position as the person on top.

Other's spend their life in folly drinking and laughing, believe their is nothing more, only to have it catch up to them later in life and they end up regretting their life decisions and spend the majority of their old age lost in memory over the "good old days" never realizing the "good old days" where simply a means to escape the present.

At the end of this you will say "so what" and continue with your "happy go lucky philosophy"...because considering everything you been through...you have no choice but too...and its admirable...but admirable people are dime a dozen too.

Everyone thinks the grass is greener on the other side, and they envy the other person over it.

Other's say "live in the moment", but they continually have to remind themselves of this by telling others "this is the truth".

Other's go through life with a neutral attitude, and stagnate never knowing what they were or could have been.

You have the poor man who believe he is cursed by God because he cannot provide for his family, however he is better than the rich man because he has a family. The rich and wise struggle with being alone, the poor (because of their condition) feel alone whether they are alone or not.

The rich man says in his heart "I have it all, I need no more" then it is taken from him unexpectedly and he is back to struggling to reclaim it. Or worse, he never finds enough and is a slave to own desire for more. In these respects he struggles more than the poor man.


Then you have people like me to describe everything in detail. Some people will agree with me, pat me on the back and say "You are wise", but the wise man does not take the compliment of a fool for any value. Others will call me a fool due to their own ignorance or out of fear of what I have to say, or they will simply believe I am wrong because of their view of the world. Most won't even both reading this whole post because they are pursuing one of the above problems.


You can "live" and "explore" all you want, but after awhile it becomes the same old same old and eventually it becomes difficult to find anything new. The whole exploration "thing", while exciting for a while (and you are right about this), eventually gets old because their is "nothing new under the sun".

And the strict "everything is material approach" is unscientific and unjustified when materiality is not empirically defined in modern physics...at least not to any agreeable definition.

I don't know why you're saying this. It doesn't resonate for me... but you appear to be accusing me of it.

Materialism? It appears that is what you are implying. No offense, and you have the right to call me a misogynist for saying this (and I will take no offense), but most women are strictly and extension of whatever environment they were born into and because of that inherently nurture (right or wrong) whether it is a career or family.

I really enjoy reading your thoughts. You are a brilliant writer of thoughts, and capture the true nature of the human condition perfectly, thanks for sharing this masterpiece here at the PNF

.
My two penny worth..human relationships are doomed to fail from the word go, while people seek for love and fulfilment in the external world.Real love is to love yourself and be comfortable in your own skin alone. No one can give you love, or love you, you give that to yourself. The whole love industry that tries to sell you love is the biggest lie that ever filtered through to the human mind, and people fall for this crazyness hook line and sinker.

.