What could be a true self? Is there a being that exists that doesn't need to behave in a certain way(due to external factors)just to stay alive? Is the existence of one life - across all species - not determined by the existence of the many?
I would see it as an apathy, you fail to support your moral collective and you fail to support the self. Cumulating in a suicidal pulse that spans the society. Consider the honey bee, the hive can randomly induce erroneous beliefs that lead to the destruction of all. Evolution is littered with this, its crude interpretation of individual struggle is wrong, entire species have simply, and randomly, commited suicide because they came to act in a certain that defeated their own survival - my belief is that apathy is the Human manifestation of this will-against-life.
I would disagree with your opinion. Whistleblowers need to remain anoymous or often it would ruin their lives. Exposing whistleblowers would allow more secrets to remain secrets.
I have no knowledge of not living before I was born, just as I have no knowledge of not living after I die, and if there were to be consciousness after I die, I imagine there'd be no knowledge of this life.
How does the Female ego feel about this line? Is it offensive?
What if it were true in context, would it still offend the ego?
I'm interested to know what Women perceive in the word Feminism. I'm also interested in the proportion of Women whom take Feminism to the point of the mental disorder, and how best to avoid these kinds of Women.
I doubt China will have much of a role in improving the Western economy. This idea that we can have an export-led recovery to a nation that steals technological design and employs peasant is pure fantasy, especially when you consider the current state of our manufacturing.
I also believe that land and raw materials will take precedence over the desire to invest in gold in the future.
Perhaps you could say there are those inherently less susceptible to the illusion. There's a connection between Autism syndrome and the rejection of free will, which could perhaps be explained by the diminished connection between emotion and intellect within Autistic people and so their greater capacity for scientific objectivity. Einstein is a good example of this, widely regarded to have had Asperger's, and also a firm rejecter of free will.
Doesn't an open marriage defeat the point of a marriage?
I mean, if you're too weak-willed to make an honourable commitment and you're unable to control your base instincts then why bother with some silly half measure? Why make a show of depth and meaning to an otherwise hollow relationship?
If you're interested in the mind and how it works BB try reading 'Social Intelligence' & 'Emotional intelligence' both books by Daniel Goleman, this gives a good scientific analysis of the brain.
If you can subject yourself to the heavy philosophical stuff, neuroscience points at Schopenhauer.
All that is consciously thought is connected to feeling - feeling will dictate how you choose to think, whether you deny this or not it is now a scientifically established fact - and how you feel falls within the realm of the subconscious. The subconscious isn't conscious(obviously), so the subconscious can not be governed by free-will.
If you want to know what I think then it is that our position now is the end of the cycle which I describe, there is no inherent meaning to any of it other than that it governs our being and completes the cycle.
Once we are aware that there is no meaning to life in itself we reach Nihilism, and it is that which explains the cynacism and hedonistic pulse of the modern age - a cynacism no better expressed than it is in post-modernism(which me and you espouse to) - I view this discovery as a self-defeating knowledge, we destroy willpower itself by unveiling its illusions and the culture ends by basing culture upon an "anti-faith".
In a sense we do determine what is and has been, but we have no conscious way of reversing the cycle - the question, can we "fix" free-will now we are aware it is an illusion? Is a question we were fated to ask, it is itself a product of the cycle.
To have will and to have free will are not the same. Free will suggests that you choose that which is your will. But I contend that you can only want whatever you will, you can not will whatever you want. If you get me?
How I see time, or the age, is as something that transcends the subconscious of every individual within a given culture, like a Jungian archetype. "Choices" such as to rebel or conform, and the likelihood of you choosing one over the other, is defined by the mood of the age.
I see time as a cyclic governing consciousness that is expressed through culture.
The only things that are pure chance is where, and more importantly, when we were born. Beyond this, whether you're a rebel or a conformer, you rebel or conform to the same thing, the age itself. We are all the products of our time.
Yes, it truly is different. The persona Royals' put on is a service and contribution to the cohesion, stability and togetherness of the country. The individual persona is a service to no other besides himself.
One way that we don't have traditional corporatism is that there's nothing nationalistic about modern corporatism. Outsourcing - the chasing of the cheapest labour and playing one group of national workers off against another - is not corporatism.
To say bankers are not Capitalists is false. There are two distinct forms of capitalism; its industrialists and entreprenuers known as productive, or historically speaking, protestant capitalism, which is woven into the fabric of society and comes from the industrial revolution, and then there's the banking and money-lending, which is financial, or historically speaking, pariah capitalism, this "hovers above" the rest of society and is almost estranged hence the term pariah, this form of Capitalism has existed for eons. The former is more related with qualitative concerns, the latter is more related to quantitative concerns - e.g. monetarism.
The good thing about the nobility was that at least it came with some sense of an ideal, and thus an obligation. The problem with solely pursuing merit is that it translates into a society that only values material success - where honour, obligation, duty and other such ideals do not exist - where only those whom most ruthlessly pursue materialistic goals attain any power over society, and, more often than not, these are the same people that care least for the well-being of society.
I only wish she was more of a power and influence. A check against those criminals we have in government and finance. History made a big mistake by sidelining the Monarchy and landed nobility to the extent in which it did.
RedSpaceDuck Forum Posts (61)
RE: True Colors
What could be a true self? Is there a being that exists that doesn't need to behave in a certain way(due to external factors)just to stay alive? Is the existence of one life - across all species - not determined by the existence of the many?I would see it as an apathy, you fail to support your moral collective and you fail to support the self. Cumulating in a suicidal pulse that spans the society. Consider the honey bee, the hive can randomly induce erroneous beliefs that lead to the destruction of all. Evolution is littered with this, its crude interpretation of individual struggle is wrong, entire species have simply, and randomly, commited suicide because they came to act in a certain that defeated their own survival - my belief is that apathy is the Human manifestation of this will-against-life.