Brilliant. Now this is brilliant. Well done to both parties.
1 Like
Kropotkin always makes you think. Well done Kropotkin.
Now we come to the nitty gritty of philosophy…
which is simply this, what is in it for me?
What does this topic Static vs dynamic mean to me, personally?
The question leads us back to what kind of life do we actually
want to have? and that is a choice and as we know, choice
is what makes us human…animals have few if any choices,
where to sleep, which dog or cat food to eat, (my own cat
has two separate choices for what to eat, wet food and dry
food, animals have a very limited number of choices to make)
as a human, I have many different, diverse possibilities to work out…
including what kind of person am I, and what it is I am supposed
to be or what to do…
Kierkegaard once wrote: ‘‘What I really need to get clear about
what I must do, not what I must know, except insofar as knowledge
must proceed every act. What matters is to find a purpose, to see
what it really is that god wills that I shall do; the crucial thing is
to find a truth which is truth for me, to find the idea for which
I am willing to live and die for’’
my handy dandy dictionary says this:
Static State: this refers to a condition characterized by a lack of
motion, change or progression. It describes an object or system
at complete rest, in balanced equilibrium, or existing in an
unvarying condition over time…
there are several posters around here who have advocated
being passive, defeated, that the state/society is going to crash
around your ears and there is nothing you or anybody can do about it…
Just watch it burn… this is a static state because it is so negative,
so passive and nihilisitic… Rome fell in part because of this exact
same belief… that the society/state was so corrupt and so unlivable
that its better the state/society burn then try to save it…and again,
many posters around here advocate that viewpoint about our
modern day society/state… these people like to give up
because the right thing to do is almost always the hardest
thing to do…because the basic values of being human as
expressed by the various documents of America, for example,
the ideas expressed by the Declaration of Independence,
are ideas and values worth living for, worth dying for…
The idea of justice found within the thesis statement
of the declaration: ‘‘That all men are created equal’’
Justice and equality are the same thing…and that
thesis statement is one worth holding and maintaining
our state and society…the real implications of the
Declaration has never really been commented on…
that America was founded on the principle of Justice,
not freedom… and that is what we are or ought to be
fighting for… and fighting for justice is not a static or
passive matter… it is an active, engaged, dynamic matter
to seek out justice… and unlike these defeated people
who advocate being passive, and static, I am engaged
in dynamic actions and behavior, and at every step of the
way, I am attempting to make the state/society more responsive,
more care about people instead of wealth…
I have freely admitted to being liberal and ‘‘WOKE’’
and why would I want to do that? Because to be conservative
is to be passive and static about my own life…
if there is a Christian god and he is what they say he is,
then I have no point, no meaning within existence because
I don’t control my own fate… I exists at the pleasure of god…
I am a slave… with no choice about my own existence…
I categorially deny this…If I have no choice in my fate,
then I am no better than an animal… to be human is to
make a choice about the values I live by and if need be, die by…
and that is what I mean about being dynamic… I make my
own choices as to what it means to be human… I engage
with my own possibilities that lie within me… as I am old,
my own choices/possibilities are much more limited than when
I was younger… but I can still make choices… and I can
follow what limited possibilities still exists for me…
and I choose to spend my final years in fighting for a life,
country, existence worth living for and dying for…
to be dynamic, all one needs is to fight for the values and beliefs
that are worth living for, worth dying for? instead of being passive,
static, nihilistic… one might say, but Kropotkin, it sounds all
very vague… it isn’t… what values for you are worth living for,
worth dying for? and once you have those values, then you
spent your life fighting for those values because the goal
purpose of existence isn’t to be passive, static, the goal
is to creating one’s values and then living by that value/values…
To be ‘‘WOKE’’ is to engage in expressing ethical and moral values…
‘WOKE’’ as an ethical value is no different than the ‘‘Sermon on the
Mount’’ or Kant’s ‘‘do under others as you would have them do unto you’’
How are we to treat people? Even here we can discuss what
static/passive means as opposed to active/dynamic…
to treat people with dignity and respect… that is ‘‘WOKE’’
101… and we try to express this ethical theory with laws
and rules that include others into being treated with value
and respect… that is the entire point of liberals passing
so called ‘‘WOKE’’ laws… it takes action and movement to
help create an America that fully embraces the idea of
treating people with respect and decency… that is what
I mean by a dynamic state… one that practices a moral
and ethical treatment of people… and it takes a dynamic
state to end prejudices and bigotries that today, deny
people the respect and dignity that is their right…
and Kropotkin, how do you know everyone deserves dignity
and respect in our modern world?
‘‘That all men are created equal’’
a passive, static approach will not help achieve our goal,
which should be a goal, of treating everyone with the dignity
and respect that belongs to them… and that goal comes from
the ethical, moral theory that is ‘‘WOKE’’…
and what can I do today, right now to ensure that people are
treated with the ethical theory of ''WOKE?" What changes would
I make to treat people with dignity and respect? that is why
we need to engage with the state, actively and embracing
a dynamic view of being human…
‘‘that all people are born equal’’
Kropotkin
1 Like
Rome fell because it was, essentially, a pyramid scheme. It spent a lot and had huge upkeep, but stopped conquering territory from which it could get new resources - new territories are the equivalent of new members in pyramid companies. It had huge inflation, constant incursions by the Germanic tribes, corruption, assassination of emperors and an enormous military budget to hold the empire together. You get a positive feedback loop when you start to lose territory.
They essentially actively destroyed the British government in their colonies. They made it burn. That’s dynamic and if you decide that it is going to fall without a revolution, then you are not anti-dynamic, you are pro-dynamic. You’ve just made a judgment there’s no need for a revolution.
You realize that you are acting as a conservative here. You want the values in the Declaration of Independence to be upheld. You are going back in time and finding your value there.
That would have to be some odd subset of Christianity. That is not at all what Christianity says and they have championed free will, even in the face of modern trends towards determinism. If you want to look for something that indicates you are not free, look to the implications of scientific physicalism (read: determinism).
So would it be good if we stopped having the equal under the law idea?
You have a family: would it be good if you went more dynamic, saw other women (or men)? I think you have a child. Would it be good to continue to be the parent she or he has?
Are you upset, by any chance, that Trump takes on more power than most Presidents have or are you conservative? Would you be dynamic and open to having no term limits or conservative?
Are you dynamic on the possibility of, say, have a test you have to take about politics before you have the right to vote or would you be conservative on that one?
Ice has been granted new power - for example, non-judicial warrents - is that good liberal dynamism, or would you like more stability - oh, look. If we shift that one word from statis to stability, hm?
The war on drugs was incredibly dynamic: both liberals and conservatives were involved but the latter much more. This led to huge increases in the incarceration of people, mainly poor and minorities. More prisons, more power to law enforcement, more damaged families, etc. Was it good to be dynamic with this? Might it not be good to go back to a better era in regard to this and do like Portrugal and legalize possession?
Which parts of the constitution does your dynamism want to change?
You are skewing everything by binary thinking, blaming the other team, not noticing how much you actually you want to keep, are conservative about. You don’t notice that you are angry about the dynamism of conservatives, yet here you focus on that part of the right that wants to watch things change on their own. Why do you not notice your own conservatism? Why do you not want to think, in these posts, about the dynamism of conservatives?
So that your simple utterly misleading schema can be another way to us/them everything and hit maga.
Woke is not one value, it is hundreds of policies and values. But to keep it all simple, it is as if all Woke is good and any criticism is bad.
And yet you do not respect or include parents who don’t want their kids seeing images of explicit sex. And, again, when it was brought up here, your ‘respect’ led you to imply someone was gay, since you thought that would shame him.
It has been many a dynamic state that has created and increased those things.
Let us further explore this idea of ethics, morals and static/dynamic…
There are many around here who support, for various reasons,
ideas like the need for traditional marriage, one man and one women…
that there are only two sexes, the rest don’t need or should exists…
Traditional ethics and morals…and the question rarely gets asked,
what exactly is the benefit of those traditional morals/ethics? It is
certainly assumed that those traditional values are the right values
today, but how do we know? What standard are we to use in understanding
what values are useful or not useful… let us look at another example,
the idea of men can only be men if they are ‘‘masculine’’ and that
part of the problem today is ‘‘feminine’’ men… that is, at least the
argument is, that part of the ‘‘failure’’ that exists in today’s society/state,
is men aren’t playing the roles that they used to play and that, in
some undefined way, is hurting or damaging the state/society…
when challenged as to why men must be ‘‘masculine’’ the proponents
always bring up the past or the bible or both… but going forward,
how does the future and we must always keep an eye on the future,
how does the traditional role of men being masculine and women being
feminine, how does that benefit us going into the future?
the underlying assumption is that the traditional roles of men and
women in some fashion is beneficial to the state/society…
and that is an assumption… and what do we say when the
right wants to make a return to the past? Which past?
now we are talking about? and here they pick and choose
what traditional values they accept and what they don’t…
for example, the traditional values of the family, a man,
a woman, 2 kids and a dog name fido… but if we are going to
be ‘‘traditional’’ and follow what the society and the bible have
agreed with as being traditional values, then we must
consider a return to slavery, a return to women being the
property of men, of only wealthy, white men voting…
why do we reject those past values and accept the traditional
family values? That there have been slaves as long as their
as been human beings… some hold to the traditional value
of men being men, of being masculine, and women must be
feminine… bearer of children and house…
both values, of traditional family values and slavery are
time honored… mentioned in the bible, held by society and state
for thousands of years, why not hold to those traditional values
of slavery and women being property? The bottom line is that
values, even so-called traditional values do change, they do
evolve… they adapt to the modern world… as values should
adapt and change with the environment… and as should
so called traditional values such as men must be masculine…
in our modern, ever changing world, and given the future,
why should hold onto these traditional values such as
men being masculine and women must be feminine…
why those time honor values and not other traditional
values such as slavery and women being property?
as our situations and environment changes, our values must
to change and adapt…does traditional masculine and feminine
values have a place in our modern society/state?
one might argue that traditional values must always be honored,
and yet, we have made slavery and women as property, illegal,
and those are clearly traditional values… why do we choose one
set of traditional values and reject another part of so called
traditional values?
What standards are we using to justify the use of
traditional values instead of adapting and evolving
according to the environment today? let us return to
the question of static and dynamic… to return to
traditional values, of men being men and women being women,
that is being static… for there is no change and no adaptation
to a ever changing world… to be dynamic is to change and
adapt to conditions as they are, not as we hope them to be…
or what we are comfortable with… so how exactly does
the practice of traditional male, female roles, help us move
into the future? it depends on what future we are actually
trying for… and the question of men playing their traditional
role of being a man, is that something we must maintain or
can we adapt to the new environment, the new world where
playing the traditional roles is simple being static and stationary
in the face of the new environment?
The right always says that the gays and trans people are damaging
the state/society, but they never actually tell us how this gays
and trans are damaging/hurting the state/society?
The fact of the matter is that the evolution of sexual ideals,
the famous LBGTQ, how does that damage the state/society?
I hold that the LGBTQ aspect of our world actually improves it,
it allows people to invest in their world… If I was gay, and I am
not respected nor allowed to be me, where is my incentive to
engage with or be part of the state/society?
One of the important aspects of today is that we must have
an investment in the state/society by its citizens… and therein
lies part of the problems today… we have disenfranchised so many
people that don’t feel they belong or are a part of the state/society…
and what is their reason to engage in a state or society, that
ignores them, attacks them, imprisons them… why would
I invest my time or effort in a state/society that treats me
as badly as our modern state treats me today…
where is my investment going to go if the state/society refused
to treat me with dignity and respect?
This question of its citizens becoming invested into the modern state/society
is one of the questions of our time… how do we get people to reinvest
into our modern world? by making changes to the existing state/society
into a state/society that doesn’t force me into playing roles that I cannot
nor want to engage with…
one of the reasons for the defunct Tea party and the current MAGA
party lies within this notion of people on the right not having
any engagement with the state/society… in other words, they
are no longer invested in making the changes needed to
really MAGA… increased investment in the state/society is
one such path to improving the state/society…
But Kropotkin, why do the extreme right no longer have
an investment in their state/society? basically because they
are holding onto values and believes that are bible based or
based on traditional values… and those values, either on the
left or right, must engage with the modern world… and its
environment is ever changing… we must change our values
and beliefs to adapt to those changes… I hold that the
modern world no longer needs those traditional masculine,
feminine values… we have moved past them into a new future…
or do we hold onto traditional values simply because they
are more comfortable for us to hold?
exactly in the same way we have rejected slavery and women as
property… those values, however traditional they might be,
are not conducive to the modern world…
so, one question to ask, why hold on to certain traditional values,
such as men being masculine and women being feminine, and
we reject other traditional values such as slavery and women as
property? Why these values and not other values?
Kropotkin
Liberal society and civilization will collapse because of all the inherent contradictions it is inundated with. When that occurs massive political revolution will be paramount everywhere, this is not nihilistic in thinking. It’s just reality of the world we live in.
Your liberal world order is crumbling all around you and it is very obvious you cannot mentally handle it.
MrAuthoritarian:
Liberal society and civilization will collapse because of all the inherent contradictions it is inundated with. When that occurs massive political revolution will be paramount everywhere, this is not nihilistic in thinking. It’s just reality of the world we live in.
Your liberal world order is crumbling all around you and it is very obvious you cannot mentally handle it.
K: and right on cue, MR. Nihilism arrives…gives us nothing resembling
any hope or possibilities, nahhhh, only death and oblivion… this is the
same person who prays for a dictatorship every single day…another act
of nihilism… and all because he is butt hurt about being homeless…
basic fallacy thinking that because we are a liberal democracy,
that must mean that’s why he was homeless for so long…
blaming liberal democracy for his own failures… I was homeless
too, but I don’t go around blaming liberal democracy for my own
failures… you never see long lasting dictatorships because
they cannot survive more than a few years before being overthrown…
the longest lasting dictatorship was the Soviet Union and that
lasted a whole 70 years…roughly 3 generations, which says
a lot about MR. A in that he supports failures like dictatorships to
assuage up his being butt hurt…
The truth of the matter is that MR. A can’t even tells us why
liberal democracies are ‘‘bad for us’’…it is just assumed
in his world that liberal democracies must be bad…
he never tells us what should replace liberal democracies…
or the steps he would take to save democracies… he is so
butt hurt, MR. A can’t even contemplate the possibility of
liberal democracies being the best political system we
have… like Pavlov’s dogs, he hears the words, liberal democracy
and he automatically shouts no, no, NO… which wouldn’t be so bad
if he had an alternative to liberal democracy, or even tell us why liberal
democracy is so bad…
Nah, that would require him to actually think instead of just reacting
to the words, liberal democracy… Ok, let us get rid of liberal democracies,
now what? what is next? as far as I can tell, if liberal democracies go
away, the state/society collapses into dictatorships… which is apparently
ok with MR. A because he has no clue what it means to live under a
dictatorship… he might be surprised to find the two of us sharing a
prison cell with 30 other people… for that is the nature of dictatorships…
to remove anyone who might, MIGHT, criticize the all-mighty state…
and as he MR. A post’s on philosophy sites, he is automatically
suspect… and due to spend some time in prison for being a
traitor… and being a traitor means someone who even slightly
criticizes the state or its dictator…
Kropotkin
1 Like
Equates political revolution to nihilism, hilarious. What I would expect from an illiterate of global human history.
Oh, no!
I believe in a dictatorship that is pro working class, universal healthcare, and state sponsored free universal education!
A dictatorship where nobody in huge numbers ever has to go homeless their entire lives where housing is a human right!
The communist revolutionary horror of it all!
MrAuthoritarian:
Oh, no!
I believe in a dictatorship that is pro working class, universal healthcare, and state sponsored free universal education!
A dictatorship where nobody in huge numbers ever has to go homeless their entire lives where housing is a human right!
The communist revolutionary horror of it all!
K: and how do we get from here, where we are now, to where we need to be?
how do we go from A to B? That is all I am asking…
What plan or ideas do you have that get us from our current state to
this new ideal state? If vagueness were an Olympic sport, you
were certainly win gold, but in the real world, we have to have
some plan or idea of how to get to where we want to be, and that
plan, according to you, should go how?
Kropotkin
1 Like
Revolution, although that won’t happen until the current system collapses completely which is why I am always talking about the collapse of this nation of ours.
This current system will collapse entirely eventually.
MrAuthoritarian:
@Peter_Kropotkin
Revolution, although that won’t happen until the current system collapses completely which is why I am always talking about the collapse of this nation of ours.
This current system will collapse entirely eventually.
K: So, your plan is to wait for the revolution and hope by some act of
god, we move into the next phase of government?
As one who has followed Hume, I can’t even state for sure,
if the sun will come up tomorrow… so, while we wait for
the ‘‘coming’’ revolution, do we sit around a campfire and sing
‘‘Kumbaya?’’ Woefully short of actual ideas for what is coming,
if you are indeed, right? You sound like some sort of Christian
waiting for Godot, indeed, Yah, take that plan to the bank as a
certainty to work… at least your idiot plan gave me a good laugh…
sit around and wait for the end… sheez louise…
Kropotkin
1 Like
Beats the hell out of your liberal voting where you vote for the next billionaire, lawyer, banker, judge, military general, actor, or other kind of asshole into political power.
I won’t have to wait very long either the way this nation is currently going.
Also, societal and political government collapse will bring about revolution naturally. It’s an inevitability in my mind.
But hey, go out and vote some more liberal. That’s been so helpful all these years and decades.
The current system is unsalvageable, at least I don’t pretend otherwise.
Except he’s not a theist as you well know. He does not want things to be static. You yourself brought up Rome with started to fall in a predictable trend.
He’s on team dynamism, which, despite sentences saying the opposite in the OP; means that he’s on the right team. He’s doing as much as you are doing. He’s online expressing his views of where we should go? What dynamic actions are you taking what make you more solidly dynamic?
Today people have to work much harder to get the same things they got before. Your voting has done nothing except validated the system.
1 Like
in thinking about ‘‘matters’’, one matter that has my
attention is this idea of simplicity vs complexity…
which is of course, a variation on the static vs dynamic
discussion…
the path of existence, of systems, of which we belong to
many different, diverse systems… just being human is a
system… and belonging to, as we all do, belonging to a state
or society is one where we go from simple to complex…
Systems that don’t change, remain the same are static,
unchanging systems… and systems that change, as they
ought to, is of course, dynamic…
In a holistic viewpoint, which means focus on the whole, not
on the part, as most people do, would suggest to us that systems
travel from simple to complex… take government for example…
government has become much more complex…as it must due
to the number of people now alive…think about when we lived
in tribes, and the total number of people within that tribe might
be 30 or 40 families, perhaps, 200 people…
the idea of a government is a very small, limited one…
with 200 people, we don’t need a complex government, it isn’t
needed…and what little government is needed, is needed
in terms of security for the tribe… that becomes the basic
fundamental aspect of government… protection, security…
with only 200 people, you don’t really need a big bureaucracy…
and you can run the entire government with maybe 10 people,
at most…the lower number of people means the less government,
bureaucracy one needs… government can be and should be fairly
simple… taxing such a system is fairly easy… now the government
at this time is very small… but with each increase in population,
the government, by necessity, must become more complex…
whereas maybe 10 people can run the government, given the
population is 200 people, make the population 10,000 and we can
no longer manage the government with 10 people…
the government by necessity, due the increase in population,
must also become much more complex… with increasing taxes
and rules/laws… the system/bureaucracy also has become much
larger and more complicated… and that is the nature of things…
with every increase in population, comes another increase in
the complexity of government… it has to or it will collapse…
with every increase in population comes more complexity and
uncertainty… people being people become more uncertain
as systems become more complicated… with more complicated
systems comes the understanding that in being more complicated,
the system, becomes ever easier to slow down or even stop…
as we have seen given COVID, the larger the system, the easier
it becomes to throw a monkey wrench in it… it doesn’t really take
much today to slow down or even shut down our system because
it has become much more complicated…
but in systems, any system, it becomes more complicated…
not only within government, but socially, politically, economically
and philosophically… what happens in a system, say
America over the last 50 years… say since 1976…
what has happened within America over the last 50 years…
has it gotten simpler or has live gotten more complicated…
I was a Junior in High School in 1976… and trust me when I
say, life socially, has become vastly more complicated…
in virtually every way… and those vast changes since then,
that is a good thing because it means we do exists within a
dynamic society…if it didn’t become more complicated, that would
mean we exists within a static/stagnant state/society… and we
clearly do not…existence in 1976 was simpler than today
in virtually all respects… dating for example, or in drug laws,
or even in sexual orientation… it was rare for someone to
proclaim themselves as gay… today, every other person
says they are gay… sexual orientation has changed dramatically
since 1976… LGBTQIA didn’t exist… and no one what
that would have meant in 1976… but life today is vastly
more complicated, we have not just 2 sexes, but dozens…
sexual orientation has become much more complicated…
as it should have… today, we have become slowly,
less gender stereotyping… in other words, its ok to
answer to genders other than man or women, or in sexual
terms, LGBTQIA… this is life becoming as it should,
more complicated…if we held to the old stereotyping of
just being two sexes, a man and a woman… we wouldn’t
be progressing, we would be static/stagnant…
life is vastly more complicated today than it was in 1976…
and it is good because that is the path of any and all systems…
Look at the cars produced today vs the cars of the 1976…
cars today are vastly more complicated today… to be a
mechanic today, one practically has to have a computer degree…
as virtually all mechanical devises today require computer
chips to function… my hearing aid is really just a small
computer that interprets sounds for me… and that is quite
common today… which is a very different reality than the one
of 1976 which didn’t have computers as we know them nor
did they have computer chips… I didn’t get my first hearing aid
until the mid 1980’s… and they were pretty limited devises…
and then as the technology improved, they got ever more
and more complicated… exactly as systems should go, from
simple to ever more complicated… and this going from
simpler to more complicated explains why the MAGA attempt
to destroy the American government is doomed to failure…
it can’t be made simpler because otherwise it will fail…
to function properly, government must become more and
more complicated as we increase in population and gain
in complications in other aspects of our lives…
the size of our government is dictated by the ever
increasingly complicated world we live in… and that too,
is as it should be… the path we travel, both personally,
professionally and in culture all lead us the same way,
from simple to ever more complicated… my life,
even being retired, is way more complicated than my life
was in my 20’s or even in my 30’s… and as it should be…
old age is simply the act of returning to a simpler way of life…
being old means the ever more complicated life becomes
ever more confusing… and in a very real way, this explains
why old people become ever more conservative as they grow
old… and why IQ45 is popular among the old… he promises
a less complicated life… and that is a promise that has
interest to old people… but we cannot return the genie back
into the bottle… life is going to be ever more complicated
and that is a fact…because if it doesn’t become more complicated,
it becomes static/stationary/stagnant… and that doesn’t work
for anyone because it violates the basic law of systems…
and that law is simple… the longer a system lasts, the
more complicated it must become… evolution even within
systems is still a thing… adapt, evolve or die is pretty much
the story of existence… all existence including our own…
and the next step in our story is the question of transactional
vs transformational…the single best way to think of transactional
is IQ45…everything for him is transactional… what can you do for me?
every transaction must benefit him… or he has no interest in it…
and if I were to describe America today, it is transactional…
and that is in part because that is the nature of business
in America today…business won’t act unless that action
in some fashion benefits them…this transactional nature of
America has in a very real way damaged it… because the
transactional nature of America is about money/profits over
people…the bottom line for business is profits, and anything,
anything that interferes with profits is attacked and denied…
but there is another path that we can follow… but listening
to government, business, you wouldn’t know that second
path… and that second path is transformational…
rather than simple rewards and punishment, that is the
hallmark of business today, we need to transcend who we are…
to overcome our own self-interest, to prioritize collective goals,
to create shared goals and engage in the future, not the past…
and when we think about great leaders, what type of engagement
do they have, transactional or transformational?
I can give you two examples of transformational leadership,
JFK: and so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country
can do for you-ask what you can do for your country…
and the second example, also JFK:
"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving
the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the
moon and returning him safely to the earth’’
These two examples are excellent examples of being
transformational… not transactional… and can we
achieve greatness while practicing transactional behavior?
and the answer is clearly no…every great leader from
JFK to Gandhi to MLK to Jesus, has been transformational,
not transactional… the single most transactional president
in American history is IQ45 and has he done anything even
vaguely close to reaching even average heights in leading?
no, part of the reason he is the single worst president in
American history is because he is the most transactional
president we have ever had… he never acts on something
unless it, in some fashion, benefits him… every single time…
The question we must engage with is this idea of
living transactional or transformational… if the greatness
of leaders comes from an engagement with transformational
leadership, then it seems to reason that the goal of human
beings is to live transformational, not transactional…
So, the question becomes, how do we become transformational?
Each of these points lead us into a direction that suggests that
we can become better individuals, better members of a state/society,
better human beings…
But the beginning, to begin means we must understand
who we are, what is our own nature…
Let us look at MR. A… for an example… he is so fixated
on his hatred of liberal societies, because he blames them
for his being homeless, that he can’t see past that…
he is static/stationary/ stagnant… there is nowhere for
him to go until he releases/removes his anger toward
liberals and the state that we have created…
He needs to, in the words of Nietzsche, learn to
overcome, to become aware of who he is and what
is the next step down the path of existence… we are
travelers, and our journey is from animal to becoming human…
the road is long and sometimes lonely… and if one is stuck on
one aspect of existence, the journey is effectively stopped until
he learns to overcome… he needs to move beyond his anger
and he is unable to… thus, we get day after day, month after
month, year after year, the exact same responses with no
changes… there is no adaptation, no changes, no evolution,
he is stuck… so, all we can do is compare ourselves with him…
and ask ourselves, are we stuck on a certain viewpoint or are
we changing, evolving, adapting?
only honesty will get you to be able to answer that question…
Kropotkin
But we have no idea what is an ideal set of changes. You’re using arguments that would make industry very happy because they use similar argument to fight the precautionary principle. That when introducing things that may cause unknown changes and there is a liklihood of effects in lots of already present systems, one is cautious, evaluates in steps. As opposed to, for example, what happened with the introduction of GMO foods into livestock. So, we have an incredible experiment with almost no way to track the experiment.
We need stability and we need change. If we read your posts then it seems like change good, stability bad. But this is absolutely not the case in societies, human bodies, ecosystems, adult support of children and a host of other complicated situation.
This is actually odd, because government is very much in support of stability. The control the rate of change. Industry oversight - which we barely have any more- was to slow down change until we were sure of things. Half of your argument could be used against the other half. We could view the government as slowing change - because it does - and want to shink it, so society is more dynamic.
It sounds confused. Simpler and more complicated.
So, you listen to what he says and not to what he does.
What is important to remember is this:
that the universe, world, existence and even human beings,
are full of contradictions… so, what do we need, stability
or change? and the answer is both… we don’t live in a
world where we have agreement, consistency and confirmation…
much of the world’s problem come from the inability to understand
that our existence is contradictory… is the outside light or dark?
that is an easy one to answer because there is only one problem,
is there light… but existence has many different and diverse
problems with even more different and diverse answers…
the only aspect of life that we can count on is change…
what is true today or even 5 minutes ago, may not be
true tomorrow or even 5 minutes from now…
the universe, as I have stated before, is a random, chaotic,
chance universe… along with being contradictory…
but Kropotkin, that doesn’t make any sense… and welcome
to existence… where much of existence doesn’t make any sense…
but Kropotkin, why is this?
and therein lies a tale… we human beings have a very limited
understanding of existence… we are limited in our senses,
we are limited in our intellect, we are limited in how far our
systems can go… in other words, any system we choose to
work out, is by its very nature, not going to include everything
we must have to explain that system… for example, in
our understanding of cars… we don’t really ever point out that
for a car to work, it must have oxygen… the car’s internal
combustion engine requires oxygen to burn fuel…
but is that even mentioned in the owner’s handbook we get
with every car… Nope… it is assumed that everyone already
knows that… the entire system of existence, that means
basically, everything is full of contradictions, and limited
because we are unable to piece together all aspects of
every system… there will be some aspect of systems
that we can never reach or understand… that is the nature
of existence… we simply don’t know enough because of
the incompleteness of our knowledge of systems…
or said another way, we simply don’t know what we don’t know…
and that by itself, limits our understanding or knowledge of
what we are…and where we need to be…or what
goals or purposes that we human beings must work for…
but to be blunt, we don’t know enough to even ascertain
what goals or purpose we should attempt…
one might ask, so the goal or purpose is to remain static/stagnant?
yes, so the goal or purpose is to change and be dynamic? Yes,
so, the goal is to become transformational? Yes… there are
a thousand answers to every question… to fixate that there is but
one answer to every question is to basically misunderstand
our question… so, the world is about the yes, YES,
and is the world about the NO, again, the answer is Yes…
But Kropotkin, you are in contradiction… and your point is?
Kropotkin, you have gone mystical on us… not at all…
I simply embrace that the universe itself is contradictory
and random… think of it like painting…
the very canvas we work on, as human beings, is constantly
changing and adapting, the world itself changes as do we…
and that has to be part of the equation of being human…
to accept that the world itself is contradictory… and we have
to learn to work with that…
Kropotkin
and what of systems, for example, the system of Plato that
says, we have two worlds, one is transient, and the other
is permanent… Plato’s eternal forms… but that is a nice
lie we tell ourselves… there is no eternal forms, but
a chaotic, random universe that we can’t get to the bottom of
because we are so limited in senses, intellect and knowledge
to discover what is existence… it is both, yes and no…
are human beings eternal, Nope… are we temporary, limited
beings that can’t have, and probably won’t have a full complete
understanding of existence, either our own or the universes…
because too much of systems are themselves incomplete,
and partial, and unknowable because we can’t ever get
to all aspects of a system enough to uncover its nature…
we are temporary beings with, at best, temporary knowledge
of what it means to be human and what it means to exists
within this time and place…
Kropotkin