Nature. Earth, type of genes combined with type of environment/nurture.
I don’t think humanity’s collective mental delusion or psychosis whatever word you prefer is endowed by nature.
It comes from somewhere else entirely. Nature doesn’t concern itself with thoughts, feelings, or emotions.
Do you have anything in mind? I would agree that this is the path worth taking.
What is this truth? Do you agree with the idea that entities produce their world rather than that the world produces the entities, or do you see the world as primary?
I feel the USA was set up on the basis of the primacy of the part; because this part is also a whole, even without the whole of the State.
I like the idea of word of open courts, where law is the prime thing to be consumed audiovisually; - because indeed, the actual procession of argument against argument is the most life-intensive form of judgement, and therefore alone justified against all others.
Lawyers are awesome.
No, it arises at the very moment where culture becomes civilization. In this movement, life is tamed, pressed back onto itself, and forced to become violent in perverse ways, i.e. against its own self-worth.
It is often simply a matter of overpopulation; but also of the tenacious instinct to want to tame nature, to consider it bad and dangerous.
But now it should be clear that it is not as dangerous as its assailant, the state, which really is the church and nothing besides.
Different church, different rules.
Before man, there was ape. Before ape, there was communist. Or woman. Or … worse.
This attitude once ruled over vast amounts of acres.
Why was this possible, why was this justified?
Precisely because it was wanton and cruel.
The poetry of prescribing upon ones less fortunate, less gifted fellow beings.
Did not nature ordain it this way?
And yet, so did she then ordain by this fact an impulse as a reaction to the resulting state; this reaction was rhetoric, and became democracy.
I can see what you’re saying, yes. For instance God is not a creation of nature. God is a creation of a specific need or existential insecurity.
The problem with trying to take and domesticate nature is that nature always wins out…
Civilization becomes a constant losing battle against nature as a whole and against humanity’s real inner nature it tries to masquerade under idealistic fictions.
So what’s it mean when the continued existence of the federal government (in all its throat stomping glory) is an affront to the constitution? What’s all this bragging here worth?
They are trying to make smart guns which can be disabled by the us government at anytime. This defeats the whole purpose of guns, which is to defend against tyranny, if the government tried to pull an unjust holocaust or something similar or something.
Smart guns should only serve to limit the gun to it’s owner, its should not be able to be disabled remotely. Hell, there is probably a way for anyone to disable it remotely, then…Might be useful in a fire fight. Hit one button and disable all their guns.
I think we’re past the point where the citizenry is able to defend its liberty against government tyranny by people stockpiling guns and ammo. You realize this is 2016 and not 1816 right?
Yes, worlds come from the collective actions of entities. The entity itself, beings, self-value and according to that activity there arise larger mutual conditions and cooperations, laws of violence and peace. The world is the sum collection of that kind of emergent activity of entities – however, each individual entity, not as sum but as single being, is embedded within the larger world and is relatively powerless to that total world. It is a contradiction: the world comes from individuals (en mass), but any ONE individual is basically powerless to change the world (I actually disagree with that, certain individuals can and do change the world, perhaps a lot more than we think or know; but my point is to outline here the distinction between the world qua sum activity of all entities vs. the individual qua world-embedded and world-produced.)
Those two distinctions are not at all mutually exclusive, in fact they need each other, and are two sides of one existential coin.
One can examine the ways in which individuals come into being, contrast against the ways in which worlds come into being. There are ranges of influence, beings, of various scope and degree in either case, and they aren’t all independent of each other nor categorically isolated. Basically philosophy is hopelessly incompetent and incipient when it comes to the real work, which is to say to proper existential and phenomenological understanding. Nietzsche and Husserl should have a love child.
I agree. The part is a whole, and the part is also ‘the whole’. Without central value of the part as such, wholes get de facto degraded and under-valued. Parts and wholes are decimated over time due to the degradation of realities, one of those realities being as you mention the fact that the basis ought to be set to the part as opposed to the whole. Ontologically speaking and despite the fact that each part takes shape from within the whole, the whole is nothing but “a bunch of parts”. Of course that isn’t entirely true since the whole in this fashion also becomes “part-like”, which is another fascinating phenomenological detour worth looking into.
Really there needs to be a constitutional society rooted in the rights and values of both parts and wholes. We aren’t there yet, but we are moving in the right direction, I think. What, maybe another 500-1000 years or so? Who knows. But I’m optimistic.
Yes – argument against argument is the greatest intensity known to humanity. Physical combat is only a kind of “argument against argument” anyway, and this can play out either in terms of bodies or in terms of minds.
Being is self-justifying, radically existential, and demands insanities and new vitalities. It demands to both be what it is and to refuse to be what it is, at the same time, under the same contexts and laws. Pretty fucking cool if you ask me.
Lawyers kick ass and take names.
Excellent question.
You clearly can’t comprehend what a well organized guerrilla force is capable of either even amongst modern warfare.
That’s the kind of talk from a person who has already accepted defeat.
Yes, I’d quite like to see your citizen’s “well organized guerrilla force” take on a platoon of US Marines, or even a few tanks and ATV’s. Or maybe just one drone.
Yeah, your knowledge of weaponry or modern warfare equals Jack Diddley.
I’ve said nothing thats untrue, so fuck yourself in a gutter, clown.
With the right amount and kind of stolen military equipment, supplies, or weapons I think you might be surprised…
Oh right – so you need to steal from the military in order to be stronger than… the military?
Nice job.
Temper, temper, magical unicorn. Turn that frown upside down.
Even when Im smiling I might be frowning on the inside, so my facial expressions are often meaningless.
^ actually made me laugh out loud.
Thanks for that.