Angelic

[Erik_]

The struggle for existence, survival of the fittest,
the war of all against all, tooth and claw - it's just an immature stage in the evolution of mankind,
similar to how a child will kick and scream, when it doesn't get its way, or when children fight with
each other, not wanting to share their toys. Children grow out of this phase, just like mankind is growing out
of its phase of barbarianism. Civilization is the process towards world peace: the full maturation of humankind.

[Arcturus Descending]

The struggle for existence, survival of the fittest,
the war of all against all, tooth and claw - it's just an immature stage in the evolution of mankind,
similar to how a child will kick and scream, when it doesn't get its way, or when children fight with
each other, not wanting to share their toys. Children grow out of this phase, just like mankind is growing out
of its phase of barbarianism. Civilization is the process towards world peace: the full maturation of humankind.

Not all children grow out of this phase. Hence the state of the world, in part.


Why do you consider world peace to be the full maturation of mankind?
Is there still some kinds of conflict within this world peace of yours, Erik?
I don't know. It just seems to me that without human conflict there can be no maturation of mankind.
Will we have stopped evolving when we reach full maturation?

[Erik_]

Arcturus wrote:

Not all children grow out of this phase. Hence the state of the world, in part.


Why do you consider world peace to be the full maturation of mankind?
Is there still some kinds of conflict within this world peace of yours, Erik?
I don't know. It just seems to me that without human conflict there can be no maturation of mankind.
Will we have stopped evolving when we reach full maturation?

Yes, unfortunately, there are still a portion of humans who have not outgrown their immaturity.

Humans are a higher type, they have the ability to reason and reflect, to transcend the lower natures
of the animals. Nature has been directing itself towards this process, towards the development of life-forms
that can create a structured environment of order and peace.

World-peace is the apex, the top of the mountain.
That's the destination. There would be no more need to evolve, as it is the perfect,
ideal state of being. Once there, we can either maintain our healthy, elite status,
or we can decline back into barbarism - fall down the mountain back into a primitive state.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

The struggle for existence, survival of the fittest,
the war of all against all, tooth and claw - it's just an immature stage in the evolution of mankind,
similar to how a child will kick and scream, when it doesn't get its way, or when children fight with
each other, not wanting to share their toys. Children grow out of this phase, just like mankind is growing out
of its phase of barbarianism. Civilization is the process towards world peace: the full maturation of humankind.

World peace?

Keep on dreaming......

[Arcturus Descending]

Yes, unfortunately, there are still a portion of humans who have not outgrown their immaturity.

I think that most of us have not Erik, it just depends on degree.

Humans are a higher type, they have the ability to reason and reflect, to transcend the lower natures
of the animals.

Is it having the ability to do those things or is it actually in the doing of those things which make us the higher types, Eriki?

Nature has been directing itself towards this process, towards the development of life-forms
that can create a structured environment of order and peace.

Will we have already found all cures for cancer and other diseases when the above has occurred?

World-peace is the apex, the top of the mountain.

You're a Christian now, Erik. How would you answer Jesus' words: "Suppose you that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, No; but rather division".

That's the destination. There would be no more need to evolve, as it is the perfect,
ideal state of being.

How long would it take, do you think, before we humans became bored with such a utopian state of mind?
For me, that's just a romantic view of things, nice, but not very realistic in the long run.


For me, a state of evolution, the process of evolving would be a more perfect state or at least a more natural statre and more fun too.

Once there, we can either maintain our healthy, elite status,
or we can decline back into barbarism - fall down the mountain back into a primitive state.

Well then, Erik, if it is capable of declining, ebbing whatever then it wasn't so perfect in the first place. It was just a phase perhaps we're meant to go through.

[The Golden Turd]

I really wouldn't call someone with a Krishna Avatar a Christian.

[Arcturus Descending]

I really wouldn't call someone with a Krishna Avatar a Christian.

But he taken on a Christian's clothing, hasn't he?



Erik! Explain yourself and your nomadic Weltanschauung... this time around. lol

[Erik_]

Arcturus wrote:

Is it having the ability to do those things or is it actually in the doing of those things which make us the higher types, Eriki?

"Eriki"?

lol

It's in the doing of those things, of course.

Will we have already found all cures for cancer and other diseases when the above has occurred?

Possibly. Hopefully.

World-peace is still attainable, even if those things are not solved.

I realize that we are very far away from such a goal, that it may never even happen.
But a one world government could boost things along.

You're a Christian now, Erik. How would you answer Jesus' words: "Suppose you that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, No; but rather division".

I'm many different things.

I'm not a conventional Christian, more of an esoteric one.

Jesus, along with his Jewish brethren, often spoke in metaphors.
What he meant by that quote is that following him would be difficult,
that one's own family may rise up against them, that one would often
be persecuted for his name sake. Division, chaos, strife...

How long would it take, do you think, before we humans became bored with such a utopian state of mind?
For me, that's just a romantic view of things, nice, but not very realistic in the long run.

It is romantic, but romantic ideals are always the best ones.

For me, a state of evolution, the process of evolving would be a more perfect state or at least a more natural statre and more fun too.

We would continue to evolve in other regards, such as intelligence.
The full maturation of humankind was referring to human behavior - human moral behavior would reach its pinnacle with world-peace.

Well then, Erik, if it is capable of declining, ebbing whatever then it wasn't so perfect in the first place. It was just a phase perhaps we're meant to go through.

If we couldn't choose to do evil things, to decline back into a primitive state, then we would be slaves, forced to be good.
If one is forced to be good, then that's not, really, good; it would be insincere. The whole spirit of goodness would be sullied.

[Arcturus Descending]

Erik_

Is it having the ability to do those things or is it actually in the doing of those things which make us the higher types, Eriki?

"Eriki"?

lol

It's in the doing of those things, of course.

Never fear - typo.
On second thought, I would say that it is BOTH but more the latter.

World-peace is still attainable, even if those things are not solved.

Can there actually BE world peace, Erik, if there is still suffering in the world and inequality?

But a one world government could boost things along.

Could lead to despotism, no?
Would we lose our own individual sense of identity and cultures with a one-world government?
We would simply be so many peas in a pod or sardines in a sardine can.
Are you up for that?

Jesus, along with his Jewish brethren, often spoke in metaphors.
What he meant by that quote is that following him would be difficult,
that one's own family may rise up against them, that one would often
be persecuted for his name sake. Division, chaos, strife...

How do we achieve your heart's desire then -- world peace?

It is romantic, but romantic ideals are always the best ones.

Sometimes but do they achieve more than the practical wise ideal?
But you're right too. I do think though that the ideal has to be grounded in more than a romantic idealism.
It has to be able to spur the human[s] on to change.

We would continue to evolve in other regards, such as intelligence.

How will we recognize this?

The full maturation of humankind was referring to human behavior - human moral behavior would reach its pinnacle with world-peace.

What if that world peace was forced on us?

If we couldn't choose to do evil things, to decline back into a primitive state, then we would be slaves, forced to be good.

Do you think that there is another way to express what you mean above?

If one is forced to be good, then that's not, really, good; it would be insincere. The whole spirit of goodness would be sullied.

Now that would be enslavement - not necessarily insincere. Insincere to me implies a choice.

[Erik_]

Arc wrote:

Never fear - typo.
On second thought, I would say that it is BOTH but more the latter.

I wasn't offended

I thought it was funny, kind of like how sometimes you misspell my name with a "C", instead of a "K".

Can there actually BE world peace, Erik, if there is still suffering in the world and inequality?

The type of world-peace I'm referring to is when all people come together, work together, and end wars.
Instead of spending so much money on wars, people would focus on ending starvation and poverty.
In a world of peace, there could still be suffering. Accidents would still occur and so on, but major suffering,
such as starvation and war, would come to and end.

Could lead to despotism, no?
Would we lose our own individual sense of identity and cultures with a one-world government?
We would simply be so many peas in a pod or sardines in a sardine can.
Are you up for that?

It could lead to despotism, but that still occurs today, without a one world government.
No, the eradication of individuality and uniqueness would not happen with the world government I have in mind.

How do we achieve your heart's desire then -- world peace?

The one world government would be the way to go.
It's still achievable without it, but people, in mass numbers, would have to have change.

Sometimes but do they achieve more than the practical wise ideal?
But you're right too. I do think though that the ideal has to be grounded in more than a romantic idealism.
It has to be able to spur the human[s] on to change.

The practical ideal is, usually, more achievable; but the romantic one, when successful, is infinitely better.

How will we recognize this?

IQ tests, enhanced technology, better societies, etc.

What if that world peace was forced on us?

That would be a bit ironic, no?

Do you think that there is another way to express what you mean above?

Not really, no

Now that would be enslavement - not necessarily insincere. Insincere to me implies a choice.

People's good deeds would be insincere, because they would be doing them out of fear of punishment.
A genuine good deed would be done from the heart, without coercion.

[AutSider]

I never thought I'd say this, but... Erik, Arc has more balls than you. And Arc has no balls. Where did yours go? Or were they never there?

[Erik_]

I never thought I'd say this, but... Erik, Arc has more balls than you. And Arc has no balls. Where did yours go? Or were they never there?

I know this idea of world-peace sounds fantastic and mawkish,
but I'm not referring to a state of being where everyone sings together and eats rainbow cookies.
I'm talking about ending unnecessary suffering.



If wanting to end wars, so little kids don't suffer anymore, makes me balless, then so be it.
In my ideal state of peace, there would still be MMA, boxing, weight-lifting, and other sports related activities that augment testosterone.
I'm not trying to turn people into soft little care-bears; I'm thinking about helping children grow up in safe environments, so they can enjoy
their childhood.

[WendyDarling]

Very admirable. Childhood is precious.

[Arcturus Descending]

Arc wrote:

Nice posting with you again too Erik.

I thought it was funny, kind of like how sometimes you misspell my name with a "C", instead of a "K".

Can it "actually" be called misspelling when it has at times been deliberate on my part?

Can there actually BE world peace, Erik, if there is still suffering in the world and inequality?

The type of world-peace I'm referring to is when all people come together, work together, and end wars Instead of spending so much money on wars, people would focus on ending starvation and poverty.

Yes, that is a nice kind of landscape but unfortunately I don't think that there is enough opium in the world for that.
What would be the great incentive for that? Perhaps an invasion by a more advanced alien species.
Of course, I can't really be an absolutist and say that that is an impossibility. We can't really know the future, can we? Or can we?

In a world of peace, there could still be suffering. Accidents would still occur and so on, but major suffering, such as starvation and war, would come to and end.

How would we conquer world hunger?
How might we convince people that peace is greater than war, conflict, et cetera? Aren't those things kind of inherent within us?

No, the eradication of individuality and uniqueness would not happen with the world government I have in mind.

I may be wrong here but how can there exist individuality and uniqueness and autonomy in a one-world government?
Do you see individuals and cultures wanting to give that up?
Would there be no chance of abuses of power at some point taking over in this one-world government? What kind of people would be in power?

How do we achieve your heart's desire then -- world peace?

The one world government would be the way to go.
It's still achievable without it, but people, in mass numbers, would have to have change.

Hmmm...now that "mass numbers" kind of pricked up my ears.
Does opium come in a gas form?
I suppose that the "powers that be" would have to appeal to the collective unconscious.

The practical ideal is, usually, more achievable; but the romantic one, when successful, is infinitely better.

This kind of reminds me of the woman who stays with her man even though he repeatedly abuses her verbally and physically. The practical thing there would be to leave the animal; the romantic one for her would be to stay..."but I love him and he loves me".

I find that the practical ideal is not generally more achievable because it ISN'T romantic.

[Erik_]

Science, in itself, is about objectivity, but once humans enter into it, bias joins along.
Human beings are the ones who operate scientific experiments - and their own subjective psychologies
can and do taint the perceived results.

For the most part, science works, but it's in no way infallible.

So, when people ridicule you for being skeptical of, say, climate change, it's because they are, probably, under
the naive impression that science is unquestionable.

Science can become politicized and is highly politicized toward the Left.
And if it can be politicized, then it's not infallible.

Leftists like to wield around 'science' to support their political agenda.
For this reason, one should not have blind faith in science, or, in other words,
one should not accept things as unquestionably true, just because a scientist says they are.

Scientists are humans - and humans have their own subjective psychologies and biases.

Investigate and think for yourself.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

Thing is, we need war with china to save the children.

when human society cannot be reasoned with war is the only answer. china cannot be reasoned with tyrants cannot be reasoned with.