It’s a question I ask all the time; how does it make sense, that human life needs to feed on other life, yet the source of existence encompasses all life?
Ants. Spiders. Rabbits. Ducks. Birds. All of these life forms get destroyed, yet they’re as much the reason of life as Brexit voters, or any American citizen. Could the answer to the puzzle be this discussion?
We hardly fit into the cycle… This planet would go fine without us being here to perceive it. Take away the snake you have a rodent problem, take away a mosquito frogs may cease to exist. Now take away a human and watch every thing come back to vibrant life. We are a cancer on this planet, to view otherwise is naive, there is no evidence I have seen personally or at all for that matter to show we give or do anything good for this planet, what we do, we do for ourselves, without balancing the cycle or giving back.
Turd likes hanging out in the lobbies of McDonalds and LongJohnSilvers. Definitely not much of a nature lover.
Even when he was stranded out in beautiful majestic Hawaii we would hear stories of him huddled around a beach diner eating whole entire cans of SPAM. Like, who the fuck does that in Hawaii anyways?
I live in a town of less than 200 people and I love it when city fuckers start giving lectures about nature.
[/quote]
What do they talk about? Are they environmentalists?
Therefore anything is everything else, just re-expressed? Is politics (or even a party convention) the same as a forest? I’m inclined towards the idea that contrast doesn’t exist, and that reality is perhaps a sequence of elimination (a contradiction).
If contrast is not real, the only way to make sense of elimination is via bias. So then I suppose the question becomes is bias a virtue?
Everything in the entire universe is from the same source, force, evolution. To think we are separated from it is a mistake, the universe is nature, Nature is here, we are nature.
It’s an illusion of mind to view ourselves different or outside of the rest, this is a source for the destruction today.
Everything in the entire universe is from the same source, force, evolution. To think we are separated from it is a mistake, the universe is nature, Nature is here, we are nature.
It’s an illusion of mind to view ourselves different or outside of the rest, this is a source for the destruction today.
[/quote]
I agree. But what confuses me is the presence of division (YouTube, which is not a shopping mall, which is not a trip down memory lane, which is not a movie premiere, which is not an internet forum, which is not a budget speech, which is not a private circle of friends on a yacht, which is not a national history, which is not a visit to a garden centre, which is not the month of March, which is not American architecture, which is not a rehearsal of a stage production).
Maybe the universe is the re-existence of God, and maybe the point is God learning about itself in order to do what it actually wants to do (which in my personal opinion means equating independence to co-existence, based on private research), however relative to myself and to any other life form the problem appears to be bias: if anything is dependency, what right does anything have to become anti, or preserved in the face of annihilation?
But didn’t all those things that you listed start off as the same thing? They all share something. I don’t believe in god, but I believe we are here to experience ourselves, aka the universe perceiving itself so that it may further its own expansion.
Exactly. The list represents the absence of division, yet absence is nevertheless the problem of duplication. if absence is perfection, why is duplication unavoidable in the first place; if absence is an episode of Parkinson in the 90’s being the same as the history of a farm in North Dakota, why do the two need to be reflected to one another? The same applies to the perception of outer space relative to music in a nightclub - if each represents no division, why the need to unify?
If reality is foresight, why does foresight need to be referenced? The answer I think is something you alluded to: the universe learning how to develop/expand.
I’ve spent my life wanting to give my nature experiences to the American people, in order to eradicate the reality of the American people, based on the understanding that the American people as a reality was dependent on a life form’s experience of nature not being given to the rest of reality.
The overarching problem is the division of progression and the means of progression; progression is change, but what is the change relative to? Is it relative to the goal or to the means of the goal? Is the means the same as the goal, in which case how is one able to perform the sequence of means and goal without committing bias?