Deep Stoner Thoughts

[White Beard]

We are still too mired in our tribal past - and are not evolving collectively as one race - the human race - so we are fractionated - when we should all be working together.

Merely want to say a word in favor of our tribal nature:

The tribe is the basic functional unit of any society or culture; pretty much all of what we now know as ‘common law’ and the basics of interpersonal behavior are all tribal at the root. With out that taproot, we are truly lost IMO.

The singular characteristic of the Sixties was that it marked the first time that members of the dominant tribe began to reach out to and make connections with other tribes. Willingly. Voluntarily. These were the beginnings of a true human tribe, in which people recognize people of other tribes AS people - people like them: human, mortal, flawed, trying to live well.

Status wars, whether overtly tribal or not, will keep us where we are - and push us lower if it can.

 

[Teddybrae]

...which would make “time” a left-side phenomenon
We will never reach any kind of better tomorrow until we learn how to identify those who want to force others, and stop them.

Seems to me ...the problem is always OUTSIDE. The problem is always with Others. It is never my Self.

Remaining outside our selves like that, the 'problem' remains theoretical and we never actually deal with 'the problem' we just talk about it.

And yes, violence seems often to be our first choice of action. Although violence has never prevented future violence (altho it may drive violence underground).

Of course you will agree that violence is Instinctive.

Therefore how do you know that the things you say are not underpinned, promoted, by this instinct for violence?

That in fact, your philosophising is a passive/aggressive pass time which rests on existential anxiety?

Now there's a question which answer is not to be found on the Web!

 

[White Beard]

I wish I was capable of more complete, more persuasive arguments...

Indeed: how can I know anything?
Experience, observation, reflection, trial and error.

Just like everyone who ever figured anything out
...and like no one I know who took Introduction to Philosophy.

All based on the one snippet. Your observation that people tend to believe that the source(s) of their problems lie outside themselves is a good one, and accurate. It creates a lot of oppression via scapegoating, etc. I’m not sure however that it supports your suggestion that violence is somehow *primary*, a core characteristic of humanity.

Violence is a protective instinct of mammals to threat, force or invasion. Even in humans, when it is the main method of influence, it is seen as a problem and dealt with.

In fact, violence as main force for impersonal, abstract purposes seems to me to feed *in* to the notion that the ‘problems’ are over -there- so go get ‘em. For such purposes, it seems to me that encouraging a free-flowing state of fear, nearly to hysteria, in “the troops” is how we get all these massacres.

Therefore how do you know that the things you say are not underpinned, promoted, by this instinct for violence?

That in fact, your philosophising is a passive/aggressive pass time which rests on existential anxiety?

I can’t imagine I have any answer that will satisfy you on such twisty questions.

For all I know, these questions are passive-aggressive expressions of anxiety themselves, and you have posed them due to the call of some underpinning of violent intent all your own.

I certainly can’t know your heart based on this post, which itself seems pretty passive-aggressive to me. Perhaps that was your point?

It’s certainly the least interesting aspect of what I wrote IMO, but I welcome further thoughts.

 

[Stoner4Life]

If Mankind is capable of a bright future why isn't Mankind doing it?

Don't mean to marginalize your very valid thoughts down to this but... we are perhaps in an evolutionary cycle... So here goes "Two steps forward, and one step back......." We do seem to be caught in this 'one step back' cycle at the moment, it's how and when we come out the other side that matters the most.

 

[armedoldhippy]

If Mankind is capable of a bright future why isn't Mankind doing it?

because man is also quite capable of fucking up so dramatically that it is hard to wrap your brain around it...we'll use nuclear weapons development as a starting bid. (yeah, yeah, i know. the A-bomb ended WW2)

 

[moose eater]

I tend to separate spiritual or psychic evolution from tech evolution. In one category, humans seem to excel. In the other, I'm not sure there's any forward motion at all.

 

[Teddybrae]

Seems to me the questions aren't curly. A genuine reply to them needs to come from a right brain response, though. At the least a moment or two of silent mind is required to perhaps allow Intuition to work. I think you know the answers to my question but they are not within the Compendium of Reason your Persona identifies with ... not within your Persona's map of the world.

This is the Thing: individually we create a map of the world then try to fit real life within it. Such maps are always too narrow in scope ... well, History seems to indicate this. eg: Adolph, Stalin, Pol Pot are notable failures.

Carl Jung's Persona and his ideas of the Shadow might explain what I mean. His ideas of Archetypes are also interesting for me, Mr White Beard.

But I 've had enough of this discussion. Do you mind if we end it here? (If you read them, I 'd be interested later to find out what you make of Jung's ideas.)

I can’t imagine such twisty questions.

 

[White Beard]

Seems to me the questions aren't curly. A genuine reply to them needs to come from a right brain response, though. At the least a moment or two of silent mind is required to perhaps allow Intuition to work. I think you know the answers to my question but they are not within the Compendium of Reason your Persona identifies with ... not within your Persona's map of the world.

This is the Thing: individually we create a map of the world then try to fit real life within it. Such maps are always too narrow in scope ... well, History seems to indicate this. eg: Adolph, Stalin, Pol Pot are notable failures.

Carl Jung's Persona and his ideas of the Shadow might explain what I mean. His ideas of Archetypes are also interesting for me, Mr White Beard.

But I 've had enough of this discussion. Do you mind if we end it here? (If you read them, I 'd be interested later to find out what you make of Jung's ideas.)

I’ve written five responses to you, Teddy. I haven’t posted any of them, because I like you.

I really only post this to ask you to consider just how insulting this comment of yours is...if anything, it suggests you *did* mean to come after me as I were an inattentive schoolboy, but I’m not willing to believe that yet.

 

[Brother Nature]

What is reality? Is there an underlying objective reality that those with consciousness experience via their own perception, or is the perception of reality in itself reality?

 

[armedoldhippy]

What is reality? Is there an underlying objective reality that those with consciousness experience via their own perception, or is the perception of reality in itself reality?

ones perception of reality quite likely is unique, much like the varied descriptions of the elephant by the four blind men. we each see through our own lens...

 

[Teddybrae]

A perception of reality BEING reality seems to me to be a paraphrase of "I think therefore I am". (How WONDERFUL: I can't remember which famous person's quote that is!)

So the philosopher says he identifies with his thoughts. The problem with Identifying with one's thoughts is that when one is NOT THINKING ... one still knows that he is.

Not that he is ... some thing. He just IS.

Subjectively: I am that I am.

Silent mind.

Peace.

Out.

What is reality? Is there an underlying objective reality that those with consciousness experience via their own perception, or is the perception of reality in itself reality?

 

[moose eater]

Popeye Buddhism: "I ams what I ams."

My favorite, little-known 'faith'.

 

[White Beard]

A perception of reality BEING reality seems to me to be a paraphrase of "I think therefore I am". (How WONDERFUL: I can't remember which famous person's quote that is!)

So the philosopher says he identifies with his thoughts. The problem with Identifying with one's thoughts is that when one is NOT THINKING ... one still knows that he is.

Not that he is ... some thing. He just IS.

Subjectively: I am that I am.

Silent mind.

Peace.

Out.

Rene Descartes, on recognizing the existence of the questioner within. Have a good night, sir!

 

[St. Phatty]

G*d D*mn, I'm closing 1/2 the news web pages because they just stuff ads in your face.

 

[Hermanthegerman]

autumn is in the air-der herbst liegt in der luft

 

[Teddybrae]

Ahem. Cough, cough ... excuse me please ...

I think that needs to be 'Popeye Christianity'.

'I am that I am' is stated in the Bible ... in the really old part.

(But it's really good, I think, that this fact is outside your conditioning. Sorta like me being able to [gladly] forget Descartes.)

Popeye Buddhism: "I ams what I ams."


My favorite, little-known 'faith'.

 

[moose eater]

No, I liked Popeye's version better; "I ams what I ams" is a bit different than the other (Bible verse). It's Popeye's acceptance of his total being; warts, perfection, and all. Can't get much more Buddhist than that, in my opinion.

The other simply accepts that he/it is 'here.'

 

[SuperMac]

Charlie done Surf.

 

[SuperMac]

writing is rewriting

and

Charlie don't Surf

 

[Hermanthegerman]

The sun isn´t getting up and down, the earth is moving.