Well I am fighting for the fight on the side of trying to remain balanced and educated, the side of avoidance of causing harm unless absolutely necessary to preserve ones life, everyone to me has an objective value the same as me. I just try to help people see that they are bigger and stronger than the pain of reality and to use it for their own strength, to rise up instead of collapsing from the weight. Sometimes I’m not, sometimes I can be an asshole and so sometimes I stay away from people due to both being misunderstood and also from not wanting to violate their own consent (waking them up to reality) even though I try to educate/promote understanding, the student must seek the master instead of the master seeking the student.
How doesn’t living imply consent if you choose to live and understand that the world is both bad and good if one makes it such?
How hard is it to understand that individuals and society can force people to live against their will by withholding desirable methods for suicide from them?
Also, a person cannot consent to this entire reality, but works to assemble the ingredients they want for a reality that they do consent to, without consenting to ANY of the bad here?
well society is tyrannical by the force it asserts. That’s how it is Ec but we may change that. That isn’t objective reality holding it away from us though it is the ignorance of people and their non acceptance of new or better ideas, fears.
Well can it be bad if you learn or truly understand something new from it, if you gain power?
Direct democracy meaning a computerized open source voting system across the globe, without political representatives and money? I feel voting should have certain requirements based off of education, if one doesn’t put in effort to understand the issues and the intricacies I don’t think they should have the power to determine solutions for them, do you think that is fair?
So, if someone can prove what from how, it saves time that thats what they should think.
Not everyone has time to do proofs through contradiction, but if they see one, and if the person states the conclusion in their proof, it is a what to think. That’s not a horrible thing
Yes but there are few who possess such abilities to manifest a morally just ‘what to think’ and a lot who do are not in positions of societal power. I am not sure it is so simple as to. Is it not true that a what to think could become a knowing without an understanding to an external individual? If the power of a what to think is not earned through an understanding of that same what to think it could lead to more unnecessary bad.
If power is gained without the “what to think” in order to get there, then it will in all likelihood lead to bad.
To have “a not what to think”. Someone requires no selective pressure to perform a task.
Like my analogy of NASA … there are no flat earthers that work at NASA. Because they don’t have that specific task, they have the luxury to believe that earth is flat. Once they have the task, they no longer have this option. This analogy extends to all truth or luxury of falsity.
Wow. I have misread you. I certainly understood that this was part of your feeling fractured and fragmented, but I thought you also considered the self illusory or at least potentially illusory and that you did not seem to have the sense of self that others had. Not just around moral issues, but in general.
It’s true. There will always be a lower class of civilization due to value attribution (fear and satisfaction). If this is the conclusion then I do agree with you, I have high hopes though that we can make society better universally for a better guided understanding for individuals.
By guided understanding, I mean get Person A. Whom is a flat earther on the path to position B where person B is. Working at nasa and is more educated. While at the same time getting person B to position C.
We must setup a better guide/system fundamentally for society so that we all may understand this and it’s functioning without any added social conditioning/cultural blinding that keeps individuals trapped in their own present desires.
I think your obsession with eliminating the fear / satisfaction aspects of life completely is unhealthy.
I have no desire to punch some random person walking down the sidewalk in the face, not only do I not have that desire, if I look closely enough, I fear at a minimum, the consequence of how I’d feel about myself if I did such a horrible thing.
But, you tell me that this is wrong.
Also, just because I have no fear, doesn’t mean I can’t get hurt … I could do a lot of stupid non street smarts type stuff and get myself killed really fast, and then it’s tragic to those who appreciate me, I can feel satisfaction for caring enough about them to not be a dumbass.
No but unnecessary fear from the ego and constricting/restricting oneself with fear or satisfaction is bad.
I also never stated to get rid of fear and satisfaction completely, there’s a difference between understanding it and getting rid of it. The guide:system would be more so to understand and prioritize value attribution based off of real self, subconscious self. That’s the point of balance.
I don’t mean a balance between logic proofs and disproof. I mean a balance of self and the unveiling of contrasts to not get too biased with a contrast.
Moderation is a form of balancing, which -is- necessary unless one wants to die quickly.
That’s a good quote and it’s true. I just don’t look at it like it is evil, painful yeah and an assertion over an individual but it’s of no intent… reality can be many things and it has no choice in the matter ultimately, it is mankind that has the choice, we’re conscious.