Mean discourse fanau
View original post 467 more words
Mean discourse fanau
View original post 467 more words
Hand in hand with the victory of resolution over youthful traumas we come upon the end of an epoch, the end of a story; and the beginning of a new order of life. 😉
This is the end of a quest that is but an Intro.
Make sure to come and converse with me when you have journeyed and attained to that next level. The one they call Bleestos.
I will pray for your destinies until then,
and may we continue unraveling the myriad bountiful mysteries that Being has yet to behold.
Farewell, my beloved companions.
Tihei mauri ora
I made up a game with my flatmate. I decided to give her a nickname – “Gay”. Of course she resented it. But when I offered her to call me “Wanker” in return she was only too happy to play along.
Now, if you were to be within hearing distance every time we greet you would be witness to a series of name calling.
“How’re you doing Wanker?”
“I’m pretty good, today was a good one, Gay!”
Today, I busted a couple of nuts over spilt milk. Feeling a little anxious after the ordeal, I eventually decided that the best way to relieve my anxiety and tension is to resort to consuming a few spoons of creatine.
Fuck shit dependence.
It’s pretty good. I’m actually buzzing right now as I write. Death metal music pumping in my ears. Oh the opiates we crave in hard times.
It’s not even a hard time. It’s pretty bland to be honest. But people just wanna have fun.
When you think a dream has come to life. Then it gets dashed against the cold hard rocks of reality. What do you do?
Maybe, you were just a bit too attached to the dream. Too sensitive. Forget your memories mate. Let your cares go.
(Maybe it’s still alive and you’re just over reacting, crazy mother fucker, hahahahah)
Dreams are a lie.
Dreams are a fantasy.
They were never meant to be.
Extreme to extreme.
Bipolar disassociated prick.
Take your time? Stuff time, patience me bloody ass!
Maybe another route? Could be.
Why live pretending to be, thinking you know where you ought to go, from step to step and free to be.
To jump from a height seems the most attractive option.
Actually…. I think it’s wise to apply that option.
At least metaphorically.
Hopefully, the dream is at the bottom there, just waiting.
If not, then at least you won’t have to worry anymore.
When you finally catch up to yourself. It’s bloody, fucken, amazing. I tell you this.
When your life catches up to your destiny. It blows your mind. I tell you this.
In your search for true knowledge in life. When you realise your understanding is tending to converge with the absolute. You feel like you have jumped off a cliff.
When your life catches up to your dreams. Your being starts to make sense. And your eyes are widened. In all your days, you could never have imagined that this would happen. It is reality
Every time the relative reaches the absolute. It becomes complete. It finds certitude, it is incorrigible and immutable conviction. There is no questioning this question anymore. This is it. It is
Pages 1 – 4: http://www.thegreatideas.org/aww/tgio103.pdf
Scientific theories are both corrigible and mutable. Often, they begin as hypotheses (or mere opinions) that include aspects of both true and false opinions, and must be tested in order to clarify and refine the range of knowledge that is possibly available and relevant to each theory.
In relation to “scientific knowledge” – a large volume of the ideas we generally use to materially interact with life and nature are guided by and founded upon the refinements of known knowledge achieved from the findings and clarifications of scientific investigation.
Scientific investigation is the process of constructing hypotheses, opinions, or theories, and then testing and measuring them against the physically identifiable and interactable properties of reality and as a result we are able to determine with certitude what parts of theories are “false opinions”, and thereby enabling further convergence to a certitude, incorrigibility, and immutability of what “scientific knowledge” is.
To have religious conviction is to have a fixed and firm belief in the ways of living and existence. It cannot be perturbed by clever arguments, persuasive facts or theories. It cannot be compared with relativity to a differing system of ideals. It is faith that the belief ultimately encompasses and includes all other forms of thought and knowledge. It is an incorrigible, immutable faith and certitude that the belief is correct. Religious conviction is knowledge. It is the part and the whole.
Of course as individuals we are also prone to demoralisation, blind faith, and false belief; which pertains to mutable, corrigible, mere, and false opinions, and are also conditions that exist prior to achieving religious conviction.
Philosophical reasoning can be attributed to have qualities similar to scientific theories outlined above. In that, various philosophies are often in competition with or superseded by other philosophies – similar to the claims of scientific theories, and the process of scientific investigation detailed above.
Actually, it can be observed that both philosophical reasoning and scientific investigation have worked hand in hand throughout history to develop more superior philosophies and to determine what scientific knowledge there really is.
Theories of racial superiority
When subjected to the rigours of philosophical reasoning, scientific investigation, and compared to religious conviction, it most certainly becomes apparent that any such theories of this nature are absolutely false opinions – there is no base that can support, substantiate or convict such theories.
Belief in the oneness of mankind
In contrast to “theories of racial superiority”, when “belief in oneness” is subjected to the rigours of philosophical reasoning, scientific investigation, and compared to religious conviction, it is found to be in agreement with true opinions, and therefore is knowledge. It is an incorrigible, immutable fact of certitude.
Now see, where it leads.
Life is a maze.
From path to path, each gate opens to the next stage of life.
There are opportunities and options, the question remains, which step to take next?
This way or that way?
After a while of walking in circles, one starts to notice
There is a particularly attractive, barely distinguishable path to take
It has a unique quality – it radiates love
You can feel it, you can smell it, maybe you can even start to see it.
It is the love trail,
Sometimes it is one long path, from start to finish
Sometimes it is segmented, each segment taking you only so far, where you must find a beginning to the next segment
Sometimes the segments are linked, gated from one part of the path to the next
A lovely journey.
Hopefully it will never end
Contentious negotiation, manipulation, and partisanship pertain to a mode of social dynamics in which one or both parties act with an underlying conscious or unconscious aim to gain dominance over the other party – a power struggle. The result of gaining dominance invests the ‘winning’ party with value or energy which is the natural rightful divine belonging of the ‘losing’ party. Therefore an imbalance in power becomes apparent which was achieved via ignoble methods – that is via profound acts of injustice – spiritual injustices – acts of divine thievery in order to satisfy materialistic cravings and addictions.
In a decision-making process, if the involved parties pertained to the social dynamics described then they are obviously not seeking to build unity as they do not have a receptivity to each other’s outlooks.
If they were to engage the decision-making process via a dispassionate examination of options – then they would exclude the influence of the “ego” and its cravings and addictions from negotiations to their best ability, thereby the risk of entering into a power struggle is minimised. For the most part the involved parties would examine and apply justifications to each option in a unified manner, and acts of profound injustice would be minimised during the decision-making process. Therefore acts of manipulation, contention, and forming partisanship will be virtually non-existent, and a unified outcome will be achieved. This is an outcome where justice was maintained during the decision-making process.
Examples of said power struggle dynamics can be seen throughout history, a prominent example is the European colonisation of non-European lands, and the accompanied interactions with indigenous peoples that often did not follow the path of justice.
Of course European settlers may have been perpetuating injustices that originally eventuated during the formative ages of their own cultures – a phenomenon that can be similarly noticed within practically any other culture – and this gives rise to the logical connection that a historical series of causes and effects of injustice can be followed back to an initiating act of injustice. Perhaps even the ‘very first act of sin’ as represented in the events of the lives of such figures as Adam and Eve…
No doubt many individuals have managed to overcome injustice in their own lives, but perhaps the universal remedy for such illnesses is the collective enlightenment of the masses, which is a process that can be observed in various spaces today…
Consider the following passage:
The second attribute of perfection is justice and impartiality. This means to have no regard for one’s personal benefits and selfish advantages, and to carry out the laws of God without the slightest concern for anything else. It means to see one’s self as only one of the servants of God, the All-possessing, and except for aspiring to spiritual distinction, never attempting to be singled out from the others. It means to consider the welfare of the community as one’s own. It means, in brief, to regard humanity as a single individual, and one’s own self as a member of that corporeal form, and to know of a certainty that if pain or injury afflicts any members of that body, it must inevitably result in suffering for all the rest.
Would two groups of people, both working behind some kind of “veil of ignorance of one’s initial conditions” as required by Rawls, but one trying to apply the above guidance and the other approaching the task from the angle of personal interest, come up with the same set of principles of justice?
What would the main differences be?
Using the “veil of ignorance of one’s initial conditions”, is somewhat synonymous in nature to “a consultative climate…that permits options to be examined dispassionately”, in such wise that the occurrence of power struggles for selfish ends is minimised.
There is certainly a difference in the set of principles that would be established, if one were to apply the guidance referenced, or if one were to approach the task from the angle of personal interest.
From the angle of personal interest, the principles that would be established would include an underlying nature of stagnancy – of maintaining the status-quo in order to ensure basic survival and rights are upheld.
On the other hand, if the above guidance were applied, the principles that would be established would have an underlying nature of attention and focus on growth and developing prosperity – for the collective.
The focus is taken away from ensuring individual dignities are maintained (the personal interest perspective, which is easily prone to falling into competitive pursuits), and is instead directed towards developing and maintaining the dignity of the collective, which also in turn maintains and brings dignity to individuals and the risk of entering into competitive interactions is circumvented.