Temporarily fabricated imaginings are any/all thoughts, feelings and beliefs (including attributing meaning to this text that I write and you read).
Any thought is potentially false. I see. What if though thoughts are the means to real progress - real progress meaning a state that “God” wants to exist?
Thoughts can mean the difference between WWIII and global peace, therefore if thoughts are possibly all unconnected to the reason of existence (assuming there is one), relative to God global peace is meaningless.
Makes sense, Shelly. I’d say you’re right on that point.
Do the bombs grasp and understand the horrors of non-peace or is it minds (thoughts, feelings, beliefs, emotions) that grasp and understand the horrors of non-peace?
What do you mean?
I mean, if a house is knocked down (by an earthquake or alterntively a bomb) and someone dies, it is our minds (thoughts, feelings, emotions, beliefs) that grasp and understands the event.
Of course. I think uniformity is what stops civilizations from preventing all means of violence. An example being that all homo sapiens can be the reality of a forum discussion, or a query to a literary agent, but uniformity stops this as being a means to no war.
Say what?
It’s like movie stars; actors will play roles, showing the freedom of identity. Gal Gadot plays Wonder Woman, but she could also be a contestant on any game show, or an employee in a HMV store. Any homo sapien can use ILP (including any monarch in history), yet never does this truth mean no war.
“No war” occurs very often and humans are responsible them many times in their lifetime but there is no permanent “no war”.
Like the supernatural. Demons aren’t real, yet no universe can expect to have a whole history without reference of the supernatural, like war.
There is a means to no war: homo sapiens give their perceptions of movies or art to one another (all of one another). So instead of elected representatives talking about making countries better, or rejuvenating the economy, or fighting terrorism elsewhere, they should reference those “terrorists” as the meaning of their own favourite films, or why those films are great in the first place.
If not art, and films, reference them as the importance of food being used to pass the time, or the importance of music, or fresh air, or even just talking to someone.
I am not a great supporter of telling others what “they” need to do as I don’t think others care to listen that much.
But reality is the public address, and laws and government. The economy and the nation are as much dependent on music and art as the reverse.
It may be the reality for some but I wouldn’t assume it is the reality for all.
It won’t be. But is it meaningful that the public address represents the reality of the vast majority (I ask aware that it may not be meaningful)?
It may be true for the vast majority, but people generally follow the path they feel will fulfil their aspirations rather than follow the path that is “told” to them.
Is it wrong that instructions and commands represent a substantial percentage of reality (military, government, courts, companies, borders etc), or even the predominant percentage?
I agree that people will not follow a path that is “told” to them.
People disobey orders? Is that what you’re saying?
To disobey orders implies that there is a leader who is ordering and a follower who is disobeying.