Individualism vs. Collectivism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
uwot
Posts: 4396
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by uwot » Sat Aug 10, 2019 8:20 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:38 pm
The three essential forces of the Trinity exist as ONE in their being...
They're not forces in the modern sense. The trinity is just an attempt to answer the fundamental cosmological questions:
1. Where did the universe come from?
That's god the father who just pinged everything into existence for reasons we really couldn't understand two and a half thousand years ago, and aren't much closer to getting our heads around today.
2. What is it made of?
Well now, that's god the son - the embodiment, physical realisation of godiness. Literally the body. Matter in other words. No one knows what that is.
3. How does it work?
The holy spirit sees to that. In fairness, contemporary theories aren't much better as explanations, it's just that current maths pisses all over biblical accounts.

Nick_A
Posts: 4314
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Nick_A » Sat Aug 10, 2019 11:32 pm

I C
If there's no God, or if He's not actually a fit locus of your trust, then faith has no point. It would just be gratuitous unrealism, then.

And that's the point: "faith" is a transitive thing, meaning one has to "have faith IN (something specific)." One doesn't simply "have faith," as if it were a neutral quality of being. One exercises having faith IN particular objects of that faith.

So to say, "I have faith in the health care system," or "I have faith in the reliability of air travel," is to say you have faith in a particular matter, and in regard to a particular thing. But to say, "Well, I just have faith" is to say nothing at all.
Now this becomes deep and difficult. I assert that conscious faith is the experience of how above and below are connected through the intermediary. If we are an intermediary between the Christ and animal man then we experience the conscious connection that can receive from above and give to below. The dangerous mistake you are making IMO is to underestimate the power of idolatry. The way in which you are describing faith requires a personal God. This concept is idolatry. Consider how Simone Weil describes the devolution of faith into idolatry

One has only the choice between God and idolatry. There is no other possibility. For the faculty of worship is in us, and it is either directed somewhere into this world, or into another. ~ Simone Weil
It is natural for the human condition to lose awareness of the faith OF Christ in favor of idoltry or a faith of God in the world.

The mysteries of faith are degraded if they are made into an object of affirmation and negation, when in reality they should be an object of contemplation. Simone Weil
As a whole we have lost the ability for conscious contemplation and replaced it with the joy of argument created by idolatry

In the Church, considered as a social organism, the mysteries inevitably degenerate into beliefs. Simone Weil
This is a good description of exoteric Christianity. The mysteries which should serve as the basis of contemplation leading to metanoia degenerate into beliefs like a belief in a personal God.
The faith OF Christ is a potential we are born with.

Then why did Christ Himself say, "Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God"? He was already born, and already had the potential, you say. What's the second birth for?
We can be born with the potential to play a piano but something has to inspire us and provide the will to practice. Being born again is like waking up to reality. Man under the power of the prince of darkness needs a certain help to awaken.
Amazing Grace, How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost, but now am found
T'was blind but now I see
This does happen and when it does a person is born again and capable of what Christianity can offer. When we live in darkness we don’t know what it means to see so ridicule the concept to defend the fruits of darkness.
The faith OF Christ
I still can't figure out what you mean by this phrase.
The faith of Christ is a potential for human being. Through the power of conscious attention, conscious faith connects us vertically with the inner direction leading to our source as we witness the mechanics of the world around us.
Jesus could never seem enable people to understand the error in this thinking.

Then He failed, you think?

I don't think He did. I think that "many received Him," as John says.
Jesus didn’t fail. He did what was possible for a world which must hate the message.
"Metanoia" does mean "change of mind"; but it means a change of attitude TO God, not some sort of inner awakening to one's own latent 'greatness.' It means we stop thinking of ourselves as right, and start seeing ourselves the way God knows we are, by believing what He's told us about that. It's a change of attitude that results in a change of action, premised on a new perspective we have from God.
When a person experiences metanoia their attitude will change. One doesn’t awaken to their greatness but rather to their nothingness.
The Bible does not call for "repression," but rather for metanoia: for that change of mind by which we come to value things differently, and to have different priorities in life that redirect those desires and put them in a marital context, and by regeneration, the change produced by the Spirit of God. But giving vent to fallen sexual proclivities has never produced freedom: just addiction, predation, victimization, self-destruction and exploitation.


But why value sex differently then it is valued in modern society by the average person? Who knows? But in these times of increased scientific awareness ignorance of the value of sex energy for human being will just have a damaging effect on human being.

If a teenage girl with a scientific mind approaches her parents and asks what all the fuss is about sex. There are so many forms of birth control including abortion, why all this morality? Just be natural. Who could give a reasonable response rather than saying God doesn't approve? When we don't know what we are how can we expected to know what benefits or harms what we essentially are?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6441
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:38 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 11:32 pm
The way in which you are describing faith requires a personal God.
Beyond question.
This concept is idolatry.

Not by Biblical definition, it's not. And Simon Weil is actually agreeing with me, at least about this.
One has only the choice between God and idolatry. There is no other possibility. For the faculty of worship is in us, and it is either directed somewhere into this world, or into another. ~ Simone Weil
"Somewhere into this world" includes human beings. Looking inside themselves in order to worship the self is idolatry.
As a whole we have lost the ability for conscious contemplation and replaced it with the joy of argument created by idolatry
Weil is wrong about that, I would say. God says, "Come, let us reason together."
Being born again is like waking up to reality.
But it's not that. Probably the best translation of "born again" is "born from above." In other words, the source of this second birth is a spiritual awakening from God Himself. It's the kind of thing that the best teacher in Israel (Nicodemus) could not discover on his own, according to John 3.
"Metanoia" does mean "change of mind"; but it means a change of attitude TO God, not some sort of inner awakening to one's own latent 'greatness.' It means we stop thinking of ourselves as right, and start seeing ourselves the way God knows we are, by believing what He's told us about that. It's a change of attitude that results in a change of action, premised on a new perspective we have from God.
When a person experiences metanoia their attitude will change. One doesn’t awaken to their greatness but rather to their nothingness.
Oh, I disagree. What they awaken to is the love of God. God doesn't love "nothing."
But why value sex differently then it is valued in modern society by the average person?
Why not value it more highly? God does. And he tells us to regard it as sacred...to sacred to give over to the shallow appetites of the uncommitted, but sacralized within the covenantal bond of marriage and made into an image of the union with the Divine.
why all this morality? Just be natural.
Well, because the natural appetites are not always well-formed. Sometimes we feel we want very much something that is second-rate or even destructive for us.

A two-year old has a great appetite for chocolate pudding or for having her own way in everything -- but that's not a mature character, and she's not yet capable of experiencing the heights of achievement she'll have when she's older and learns to direct and master her appetites. When she can, she'll learn there are higher joys than chocolate pudding and temper tantrums.

She's settling for too little.

Nick_A
Posts: 4314
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Nick_A » Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:50 am

uwot wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 8:20 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:38 pm
The three essential forces of the Trinity exist as ONE in their being...
They're not forces in the modern sense. The trinity is just an attempt to answer the fundamental cosmological questions:
1. Where did the universe come from?
That's god the father who just pinged everything into existence for reasons we really couldn't understand two and a half thousand years ago, and aren't much closer to getting our heads around today.
2. What is it made of?
Well now, that's god the son - the embodiment, physical realisation of godiness. Literally the body. Matter in other words. No one knows what that is.
3. How does it work?
The holy spirit sees to that. In fairness, contemporary theories aren't much better as explanations, it's just that current maths pisses all over biblical accounts.
Understanding creation as I know it requires beginning with a source and Plotinus' idea of the ONE makes the most sense to me. It is the source of being which structures creation.

The ONE is consciousness so is mental The forces comprising the Trinity make creation possible. The three essential forces are affirmation, denial, and reconciliation. Affirmation is wholeness. Denial includes all potential fractions of the whole. The third force of reconciliation unites them. The Source simultaneously exists as one outside of creation and three within creation

When the forces divide it produces the light of consciousness and the potential for creation. When God says let there be light it is the initial separation and the beginning of creation. Through a process I couldn’t describe in a post the three forces separate and unite into creation producing a lower level of reality. This process of involution continues producing the levels of reality which sustain the cycles of creation

As you can see we are to far apart to discuss your questions. The materiality of the Source is ether. How can I explain this frequency of vibration to you?

The Son within creation (sun) is a quality of consciousness normal for a level of reality Plato described in the divided line analogy.

You are into denial and only accept what the senses reveal and are considered by inductive reason. Beginning with the ONE and contemplating how it initially produces Nous through deductive reason doesn’t appeal to you

Nick_A
Posts: 4314
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Nick_A » Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:11 am

I C
One has only the choice between God and idolatry. There is no other possibility. For the faculty of worship is in us, and it is either directed somewhere into this world, or into another. ~ Simone Weil

"Somewhere into this world" includes human beings. Looking inside themselves in order to worship the self is idolatry.
Agreed. Self glorification is the ultimate expression of vanity. But when idolatry becomes dominant people can claim that God wants them to do this or that including flying planes into buildings.
Weil is wrong about that, I would say. God says, "Come, let us reason together."

The Devil says the same thing. How do you tell the difference?
Being born again is like waking up to reality.

But it's not that. Probably the best translation of "born again" is "born from above." In other words, the source of this second birth is a spiritual awakening from God Himself.
When a person is born again or born from above they awaken to reality
Oh, I disagree. What they awaken to is the love of God. God doesn't love "nothing."

We are nothing. But this nothing has potential it contains the seed of the soul which is something. The Christ makes it possible to receive the help of the spirit.
Why not value it more highly? God does. And he tells us to regard it as sacred...to sacred to give over to the shallow appetites of the uncommitted, but sacralized within the covenantal bond of marriage and made into an image of the union with the Divine.
But this will not satisfy a girl of science who wants to know if the only purpose for sex is to have children and what sex energy is. I’m not being critical. I’m just saying that as a whole we don’t know what we are so how can society be expected to value what it doesn’t understand? How can we know what makes an action cheap or an expression of quality defined by social acceptance?

uwot
Posts: 4396
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by uwot » Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:20 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:50 am
You are into denial and only accept what the senses reveal and are considered by inductive reason.
Aw Nick, yer had to spoil it by getting snarky. I'm really not the one in denial. I accept I don't know the answers and having read a lot of philosophy, I am aware that there are many possibilities. You on the other hand, deny there is more than one.
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:50 am
Beginning with the ONE and contemplating how it initially produces Nous through deductive reason doesn’t appeal to you
Not really. Still that's not to say it couldn't be right.

Nick_A
Posts: 4314
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Nick_A » Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:24 pm

uwot wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:20 am
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:50 am
You are into denial and only accept what the senses reveal and are considered by inductive reason.
Aw Nick, yer had to spoil it by getting snarky. I'm really not the one in denial. I accept I don't know the answers and having read a lot of philosophy, I am aware that there are many possibilities. You on the other hand, deny there is more than one.
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:50 am
Beginning with the ONE and contemplating how it initially produces Nous through deductive reason doesn’t appeal to you
Not really. Still that's not to say it couldn't be right.
Uwot

There is nothing snarky about noticing what you have emphasized. Yes there are many possibilities. The trouble is that unless we start becoming realistic our species will endure a great deal of unnecessary suffering because of collective ignorance. Jacob Needleman describes the problem in the preface of his book “Lost Christianity.” Here is the excerpt.

http://tiferetjournal.com/lost-christianity/
What is needed is a either a new understanding of God or a new understanding of Man: an understanding of God that does not insult the scientific mind, while offering bread, not a stone, to the deepest hunger of the heart; or an understanding of Man that squarely faces the criminal
weakness of our moral will while holding out to us the knowledge of how we can strive within ourselves to become the fully human being we are meant to be– both for ourselves and as instruments of a higher purpose.
If science reveals the truth of facts and the essence of religion reveals the truth of meaning, they cannot be in contradiction. When they are it is proof of our ignorance.

So while it is true that there are many possibilities there are a limited number which do not insult the scientific mind and at the same time serve the deepest hunger of the human heart.

Neither blind denial or blind belief can provide this. An open mind is necessary. But it seems only few are willing to contemplate a question which if we don’t find the solution, may very well lead to our extinction. People prefer to argue details and are content to miss the reality of the forest for the sake of arguing among the trees.

Further on in the preface Prof. Needleman writes:
But, this is not an either/or. The premise –or, rather, the proposal—of this
book is that at the heart of the Christian religion there exists and
has always existed just such a vision of both God and Man. I call it
“lost Christianity” not because it is a matter of doctrines and concepts
that may have been lost or forgotten; nor even a matter of methods of
spiritual practice that may need to be recovered from ancient sources.
It is all that, to be sure, but what is lost in the whole of our modern
life, including our understanding of religion, is something even more fundamental, without
which religious ideas and practices lose their meaning and all too
easily become the instruments of ignorance, fear and hatred. What
is lost is the experience of oneself, just oneself—myself, the personal
being who is here, now, living, breathing, yearning for meaning, for
goodness; just this person here, now, squarely confronting one’s own
existential weaknesses and pretensions while yet aware, however
tentatively, of a higher current of life and identity calling to us from
within ourselves. This presence to oneself is the missing element in
the whole of the life of Man, the intermediate state of consciousness
between what we are meant to be and what we actually are.
It is, perhaps, the one bridge that can lead us from our inhuman past
toward the human future.
The intermediate state of consciousness allows us impartially to “KnowThyself” – to have the experience of ourselves making it possible to serve universal purpose or as some say: serve God’s will.

Nothing snarky about that. It is deadly common sense and useful to consider why the world must reject it..

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6441
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:35 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:11 am
But this will not satisfy a girl of science who wants to know if the only purpose for sex is to have children and what sex energy is.
Sex without procreation is an innovation of human society that has not been available for most of history.

"The pill" made it a problem, because it divorced sex from its other entailments, like love, marriage, commitment, security, family, responsibility, and so on. We haven't made very good decisions since, because human beings are notoriously self-indulgent and irresponsible when consequences are removed.

But go back and think about the way it used to be, and you'll see that the whole design of sexuality was for it to happen in the context of committed relationships, and with a view to the extension of the human race. It was an action heavily laden with social, personal, emotional, and other consequences. In other words, it was not a one-night-stand.

Neither men nor women were ever well-advised to forget how serious a thing creating another human life actually is; and we see the consequences of their irresponsibility in our present social disintegration. The pill has served men well, for the purposes for which they cared. It has been less kind to women: it has made them "available" in ways that do not harmonize with their best interests, and has freed men from the burden of caring for those women they harm and those children they produce.

Nick_A
Posts: 4314
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Nick_A » Sun Aug 11, 2019 6:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:35 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:11 am
But this will not satisfy a girl of science who wants to know if the only purpose for sex is to have children and what sex energy is.
Sex without procreation is an innovation of human society that has not been available for most of history.

"The pill" made it a problem, because it divorced sex from its other entailments, like love, marriage, commitment, security, family, responsibility, and so on. We haven't made very good decisions since, because human beings are notoriously self-indulgent and irresponsible when consequences are removed.

But go back and think about the way it used to be, and you'll see that the whole design of sexuality was for it to happen in the context of committed relationships, and with a view to the extension of the human race. It was an action heavily laden with social, personal, emotional, and other consequences. In other words, it was not a one-night-stand.

Neither men nor women were ever well-advised to forget how serious a thing creating another human life actually is; and we see the consequences of their irresponsibility in our present social disintegration. The pill has served men well, for the purposes for which they cared. It has been less kind to women: it has made them "available" in ways that do not harmonize with their best interests, and has freed men from the burden of caring for those women they harm and those children they produce.
I agree with you as to the value of sex in marriage. The question remains if that is the only purpose for sex energy. Sex energy as I understand it is the creative energy. Wwhere love is the energy of unity, sex energy serves the process of creation. We agree as to how it serves to create babies, but it is lso serves in the process of soul making - of enabling the seed of the soul to mature.

That is where the problem lies. Sex energy is not used within modern society to serve the purpose of nourishing the seed so the body must eliminate it. Emotional people become more hysterical. Physical people become more physical and even violent wile intellectual people like to argue. All this serves the purpose of discarding excess sex energy.and supporting egoistic negative emotions which creates an imbalance in our psyche. So the purpose of sex energy is not just o create babies but to create balanced human beings as well capable of conscious action.

When we see how much money is made by promoting imbalance and egoistic needs and how imbalance is necessary to maintain imagination necessary to control a population, it is obvious why the last thing wanted is a realistic appreciation for the nature and value of sex energy for the being of Man. This is not a new idea.
Desire is a rich and potent part of our human experience. The Taoists think of desire, called sexual energy or jing chi, as part of our life energy, or chi. ... It is the fact that sexual energy is so powerful that has prompted most major religions to control and restrict sexual behavior, especially the behavior of women.

uwot
Posts: 4396
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by uwot » Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:33 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:24 pm
If science reveals the truth of facts and the essence of religion reveals the truth of meaning, they cannot be in contradiction. When they are it is proof of our ignorance.
Well yeah. Science is in the business of discovering how the world behaves. Scientists generally don't ascribe 'meaning' to their work, at least not publicly. Philosophers try to put facts into a human context. Theologians insist this can't be done without a supernatural being. The trouble is, there is no scientific evidence for any such being.
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:24 pm
So while it is true that there are many possibilities there are a limited number which do not insult the scientific mind and at the same time serve the deepest hunger of the human heart.
So what does "the scientific mind' entail? And "the deepest hunger of the human heart"? Do you think your deepest hunger is shared by all other 8 billion humans? In my view, the most important words are 'I don't know'. Once you can embrace them, you can respect the other billions of people who are trying to make sense of this crazy universe. It's the silly cunts who can't accept their ignorance that fuck it up.

uwot
Posts: 4396
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by uwot » Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:42 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:35 pm
Sex without procreation is an innovation of human society that has not been available for most of history.
Yeah reliable contraception is a recent discovery, but people have been trying for all of recorded history. The Ancient Egyptians tried honey, for example. Mr Can, you really should do some research before you spout your self serving nonsense.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6441
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:23 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 6:46 pm
I agree with you as to the value of sex in marriage. The question remains if that is the only purpose for sex energy. Sex energy as I understand it is the creative energy.
I think that's true.

Most of the great love songs, stories and poems depend on the unrequited or impossible desire for a woman (or sometimes, a man). But that's a good argument for thwarted or repressed desire. The agonies entailed thereby often generate tremendous creativity.
... it is also serves in the process of soul making - of enabling the seed of the soul to mature.
I'm not sure why you would suppose this was more effective outside the bounds of matrimony than inside. It seems obvious to me that the opposite is true: the more committed, stable, loving and permanent a bond is, the better it is at making human beings mature. I have not noted that people who cruise bars looking for hookups are remarkably emotionally mature... :?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

uwot

Post by henry quirk » Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:43 am

"(R)eliable contraception is a recent discovery, but people have been trying (and failing) for all of recorded history" so it's quite accurate to say "(s)ex without procreation is an innovation of human society that has not been available for most of history".

Nick_A
Posts: 4314
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Nick_A » Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:46 am

I C
Most of the great love songs, stories and poems depend on the unrequited or impossible desire for a woman (or sometimes, a man). But that's a good argument for thwarted or repressed desire. The agonies entailed thereby often generate tremendous creativity.
Yes but the expression of sex energy may not result in anything beneficial when it is an expression of negative emotion. Consider the classic stalker resulting in rape. This isn’t a sex crime but a crime of violence made possible by imagination fueled by repressed sex energy. We can create many things but how many of them are not just expressions of negative emotion fueled by sex energy? IMO modern psychology has a lot to learn about the nature of sex and sex energy.

Of course sex energy plays a big part in the beneficial union of yin and yang. The fact that there is so much opposition to traditional marriage and what this unique ritual offers is just proof of ignorance.

But learning how to balance the creative energy in ourselves to create something beneficial for our being as opposing to losing it in negative expression is unfortunately largely both unknown as it is valuable.
I'm not sure why you would suppose this was more effective outside the bounds of matrimony than inside. It seems obvious to me that the opposite is true: the more committed, stable, loving and permanent a bond is, the better it is at making human beings mature. I have not noted that people who cruise bars looking for hookups are remarkably emotionally mature...
The commitment to romantic love serves our needs. The beloved arouses the feeling of love within us. When they no longer serve the lover, they are no longer loved and they will be blamed for the loss of emotion

The commitment to conscious love includes the desire to allow the beloved to become themselves. Where romantic love serves the needs of the lover, conscious love serves the needs of the beloved. Both can be based on an intense commitment but the use of sex energy is entirely different.

Do you really think that if adults had any understanding of the nature of sex energy they would allow the young to poison their being with violent video games arousing negative emotions and sex energy to fuel them? Of course not. But only a minority of individuals will have the courage to say no. So the collective effect is people making money off of young poisoned minds. Classic ignorance

Nick_A
Posts: 4314
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Nick_A » Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:17 am

uwot wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:33 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:24 pm
If science reveals the truth of facts and the essence of religion reveals the truth of meaning, they cannot be in contradiction. When they are it is proof of our ignorance.
Well yeah. Science is in the business of discovering how the world behaves. Scientists generally don't ascribe 'meaning' to their work, at least not publicly. Philosophers try to put facts into a human context. Theologians insist this can't be done without a supernatural being. The trouble is, there is no scientific evidence for any such being.
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:24 pm
So while it is true that there are many possibilities there are a limited number which do not insult the scientific mind and at the same time serve the deepest hunger of the human heart.
So what does "the scientific mind' entail? And "the deepest hunger of the human heart"? Do you think your deepest hunger is shared by all other 8 billion humans? In my view, the most important words are 'I don't know'. Once you can embrace them, you can respect the other billions of people who are trying to make sense of this crazy universe. It's the silly cunts who can't accept their ignorance that fuck it up.
Why worry about 8 billion people? All we can know is what we need at the depth of our being. Of course the world is against this need but the true individual seeks the pearl of great worth regardless of the protests of experts.

But the bottom line is that science offers the truth of facts which can be verified by the scientific method. The truth of meaning is felt and the quality of what is felt verifies the truth of the experience. When facts and meaning are united, technology will serve Man rather than Man serving technology which is the norm of the day.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests