In Truth

[scameter]

I feel that I am not aptly qualified to discuss truth any longer. Perhaps my confidence was misplaced, or perhaps not; I know that just as little as I know truth. So, I will quiet my curiosity of it, and discuss it with my own interest in mind no more. I will pursue other things. But, I've come to the conclusion that me knowing the truth will only change my lifestyle and my way of thought, not life itself, and so I will focus my philosophical interests on that: the living of life, mine and humanity's in general. The truth will be there, whether I'm looking at it or not. I believe that the truth is there, sure. I simply don't know, and apparently can't know, what it is, and so I will stop wasting my and other's time with my words on it. My mind works philosophically so I cannot simply stop thinking that way, but as I said, I will simply redirect my philosophy to other parts of the field than truth. I figured I'd let everyone here know this. Thanks for the ride.

Anyone reading this if you would please also read my reply to this post which repairs some of the mistakes I made in this post. Thank you.

[scameter]

I would like to make some ammendments to my last statement, which I feel I made a few mistakes in.

Me:I feel that I am not aptly qualified to discuss truth any longer.

Actually, I meant I feel as if I am not aptly qualified to discuss truth anymore from my own personal viewpoint.

Me:Perhaps my confidence was misplaced, or perhaps not; I know that just as little as I know truth.

From my own personal conclusions.

Me:I simply don't know, and apparently can't know, what it is, and so I will stop wasting my and other's time with my words on it.

That wasn't entirely accurate of my own thoughts. Rather, I'd like to say this: I feel that I know what the truth is, but my knowledge of it cannot come from my own personal conclusions from introspection, and so I will no longer use introspection as my means of determining what is true, but rather will use my own reason, discussion, intuition and inspiration to have faith in the truth I already believe in.

Me:I will simply redirect my philosophy to other parts of the field than truth.

Than supposed truth gotten by me through introspection.

[CSwriter1]

Some people use science to know truth, and not even the scientist are absolutely sure what is true. The more mature we become, the easier it is to live with uncertainity and question what we think we know. The older we get, the more we know of what we don't know. When I think of everything I don't know, I think it is silly to put too much importance on what I do know.

However, of things I do know, some are very important to me. Hum, how do I say? Democracy and the philosophy that supports the ideology, and how we pass it on to the next generation, is very important to me. I am willing to live or die for the generations that follow me to know of democracy through philosophy. At the same time, what I know of it is very little. Does that make sense?

[scameter]

Surely. I've seen your adovocacy for democracy here many times.

[CSwriter1]

Surely. I've seen your adovocacy for democracy here many times.

Thank you. Few people respond to my talk of democracy, so it is like people never read what I say, and because they do not respond, we can not develop our understanding of it. However, as I understand democracy, it has everything to do with discovering truth, and governing ourselves with an understanding of universal, and self evident truths (science).

It is understanding, no one man can know enough to govern wisely for many. Not even a committee can have as much information as the masses. Democracy isn't suppose to be authority over the people, but rule by reason, and this makes education vital to democracy. The masses must be well educated and capable of reasoning. Unfortunately, this is not the result education for technology. Education for technology, prepares individuals for the Borg. Education for democracy prepares people to be their own authority and to work together as equals. There is a huge cultural difference, between the two purposes of education.

Education for technology, favors those with good memories, and prepares people to rely on authority. It rapidly advances technology, however, it doesn't prepare people for self government and weighing the values of different ideas. Education for democracy prepares everyone for science, and there is an unfortunate misconception of what liberal education is about. People think liberal education is about arts, and they have a limited understanding of the arts, as though it means paintings, music and fancy lace. The truth is, science is essential to democracy, because democracy is about discovering truths and rule by reason, so it is essential to liberal education. This however, is science that stresses the need to weigh values. It means coming to science with a sense of social responsibility, and not just the German goal of power and glory, and feats such as the "Shock and Awe" attack on Iraq, and torture methods, and capitalism without morality.

Thank you Scameter, you have helped me develop my understanding of democracy and the importance of education, in a very important way.

[scameter]

No problem, though I don't necessarily agree with you on every point, especially your emphasis on technology, I'm glad I could help you. At least someone responds to my posts other than the ones they view as wrong or ignorant.

[CSwriter1]

No problem, though I don't necessarily agree with you on every point, especially your emphasis on technology, I'm glad I could help you. At least someone responds to my posts other than the ones they view as wrong or ignorant.

Boy, can I relate to what you said here. I have attempted to discuss democracy in many different forums, and it is like I am from Mars, saying things that no one agrees with. What is it about my emphasis on technology you disagree with? I think most people misunderstand what I am saying. They usually amuse I am opposed to technology, and that is not so at all. I think our survival depends on rapidly increasing our technology. I am very distressed that so few young people are prepared for the future. And if you don't come back and reply to what I am saying, it is pointless for me to keep expressing the thoughts you stimulate in me. This is a sad situation.

[Akamu]

Boy, can I relate to what you said here. I have attempted to discuss democracy in many different forums, and it is like I am from Mars, saying things that no one agrees with. What is it about my emphasis on technology you disagree with? I think most people misunderstand what I am saying. They usually amuse I am opposed to technology, and that is not so at all. I think our survival depends on rapidly increasing our technology. I am very distressed that so few young people are prepared for the future. And if you don't come back and reply to what I am saying, it is pointless for me to keep expressing the thoughts you stimulate in me. This is a sad situation.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for the good things that have been brought about by technology, but why should our survival depend on it? I mean humans could have remained hunter-gatherers up until this day and still be surviving. Sure the trials of nature would ebb and flow throughout our history, but technology has not been the salvation of the human race; we would have grown and adapted and improved other qualities of life.

Technology of any kind always comes at a price; nothing can escape balance. Our transportation gets us where we need to be at an amazing speed. However, it also pollutes our planet and increases the pace of life which in turn demands more of us in a shorter amount of time, resulting in augmented stress. The internet and other efficient forms of communication enable us to have access to limitless information and contact people across the globe. However, people are becoming socially challenged; they would rather text message, e-mail, or talk via telephone rather than communicate face to face. The internet isn't without its problems as well; people lose their ability to research, new criminal threats arise, authorities in power can abuse their country's network. And of course, there are the extensions of our fists: guns, missiles, nuclear warheads.

But rapidly increasing our technology when we don't even have a grasp on what is being used today? Much of our modern technology has the potential to destroy us at any time; and I am not even talking about atomic bombs. It is said that most of our technology today has been produced in order to solve problems technology created in the first place. I honestly think we are building upon very unstable foundation and it is only a matter of time before it collapses unless we start taking a closer look at how each new invention can affect the whole picture. It is my opinion that we should not be primarily relying on inventions outside of ourselves.

[CSwriter1]

Don't get me wrong, I am all for the good things that have been brought about by technology, but why should our survival depend on it? I mean humans could have remained hunter-gatherers up until this day and still be surviving. Sure the trials of nature would ebb and flow throughout our history, but technology has not been the salvation of the human race; we would have grown and adapted and improved other qualities of life.

Technology of any kind always comes at a price; nothing can escape balance. Our transportation gets us where we need to be at an amazing speed. However, it also pollutes our planet and increases the pace of life which in turn demands more of us in a shorter amount of time, resulting in augmented stress. The internet and other efficient forms of communication enable us to have access to limitless information and contact people across the globe. However, people are becoming socially challenged; they would rather text message, e-mail, or talk via telephone rather than communicate face to face. The internet isn't without its problems as well; people lose their ability to research, new criminal threats arise, authorities in power can abuse their country's network. And of course, there are the extensions of our fists: guns, missiles, nuclear warheads.

But rapidly increasing our technology when we don't even have a grasp on what is being used today? Much of our modern technology has the potential to destroy us at any time; and I am not even talking about atomic bombs. It is said that most of our technology today has been produced in order to solve problems technology created in the first place. I honestly think we are building upon very unstable foundation and it is only a matter of time before it collapses unless we start taking a closer look at how each new invention can affect the whole picture. It is my opinion that we should not be primarily relying on inventions outside of ourselves.

You make an excellent argument. I will be very direct. The greatest problem humanity faces is over population. Areas of the world are facing a water crisis, and many people who are nearing a water crisis, don't even know it, because it is their ground water and they don't see how low it is getting, nor they realize their land is sinking.

Many years ago, I began warning people of an oil crisis and everyone argued that I am wrong. People insisted we have plenty of oil and oil is not that important to our economy. Now we know better, and they are shocked by how things went from okay to really desparate so fast. Now think water. Water is even more important to our ability to grow food than oil, and oil is very important to our ability to grow food. If we do not develop cost effective ways to convert sea water to fresh water, there will be a mass die off.

We could not possibly feed the masses that live today without our technology, so without it there will be a mass die off. Without oil, we can not maintian that technology. Oil is an essential element of the fertilizer as well as the fuel for farm machines and transporting the produce.

Low tech people burn wood for cooking and heat, and the deforest their land, and then errosion destroys the soil. Being low tech is not the answer, unless we greatly reduce the earths population.

We now have enough information about extinct peoples to be aware of the horrors of exhausting resources, that leads to the extinction of first knowledge and than the people. We are really over confident in our coninuing existence, and the most important thing technology has given us, is the ability to learn so much. We can not go backwards because a low tech reality will not support the mass of human population, but our future is very questionable. We seriously need major break throughs if we are to continue without a mass die off, lost information, and terrible set back. In fact our lives are dependent on one very limited resource, and I am wondering if our lives will contine when it is gone.

[Akamu]

CSwriter1: Many years ago, I began warning people of an oil crisis and everyone argued that I am wrong. People insisted we have plenty of oil and oil is not that important to our economy. Now we know better, and they are shocked by how things went from okay to really desparate so fast. Now think water. Water is even more important to our ability to grow food than oil, and oil is very important to our ability to grow food. If we do not develop cost effective ways to convert sea water to fresh water, there will be a mass die off.

Oh ok, I see where you are going. Well you are completely right...the way society in general is flowing right now, it is imperative to create new technologies. But it just goes back to what I said previously: the only reason we must pump out these new technologies is to solve problems created by previous ones and also because we depend too heavily on it in the first place.

Whenever I see a problem, I think the best solution is not to treat the symptoms, but attempt to look deep enough to find the cause. As you pointed out, most of our problems in today's world is overpopulation. I may be wrong, but increasing our technology to comfortably accommodate more and more people will simply throw us into an endless cycle because sometime in the future, people will perpetuate enough so that even our new and more efficient technologies will not suffice. Naturally the solution to this would be to stop having so many damn babies. The ideal would be to get everyone who does not want a family at the time to use birth control...but then there are all the moral/religious concerns with this. Another thing is education, although I don't know enough about it to make any amendments to it...maybe if people realized the irony that superfluous perpetuation of our species is leading to our destruction.

It's funny how much this intertwines with physics, namely the law of the conservation of matter. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. So let's look at what this means. A long time ago when there were only a few hundred thousand people on the planet, the earth remained whole, intact...our species struck a balance will all things. However as the population grew, matter from the planet simply needs to be converted to make up our bodies. Our bodies come from the nutrients we get from our food, our food comes from plants/animals, plants/animals come from other plants/animals. When our overwhelming need to survive increases, so does our demand for matter to make up our bodies. So now forests are destroyed, animals are going extinct, our environment as we know it will be a distant memory. It is funny how simple of a logic it is, the more "us" there are, the less of everything else there can be...until the planet can no longer sustain its deterioration. It is really interesting to ponder how nature works because as our population limit is transcended, means to control it will manifest and our technology can only hold it off so long. Disease, war, famine, natural disasters...these are all becoming ever increasing. And the source isn't some wrathful god, (although you can certainly see it this way, it's the same thing) but a simple violation of the law of balance and cause and effect. Humans need to understand that their very existence impacts EVERYTHING.

[CSwriter1]

CSwriter1: Many years ago, I began warning people of an oil crisis and everyone argued that I am wrong. People insisted we have plenty of oil and oil is not that important to our economy. Now we know better, and they are shocked by how things went from okay to really desparate so fast. Now think water. Water is even more important to our ability to grow food than oil, and oil is very important to our ability to grow food. If we do not develop cost effective ways to convert sea water to fresh water, there will be a mass die off.

Oh ok, I see where you are going. Well you are completely right...the way society in general is flowing right now, it is imperative to create new technologies. But it just goes back to what I said previously: the only reason we must pump out these new technologies is to solve problems created by previous ones and also because we depend too heavily on it in the first place.

Whenever I see a problem, I think the best solution is not to treat the symptoms, but attempt to look deep enough to find the cause. As you pointed out, most of our problems in today's world is overpopulation. I may be wrong, but increasing our technology to comfortably accommodate more and more people will simply throw us into an endless cycle because sometime in the future, people will perpetuate enough so that even our new and more efficient technologies will not suffice. Naturally the solution to this would be to stop having so many damn babies. The ideal would be to get everyone who does not want a family at the time to use birth control...but then there are all the moral/religious concerns with this. Another thing is education, although I don't know enough about it to make any amendments to it...maybe if people realized the irony that superfluous perpetuation of our species is leading to our destruction.

It's funny how much this intertwines with physics, namely the law of the conservation of matter. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. So let's look at what this means. A long time ago when there were only a few hundred thousand people on the planet, the earth remained whole, intact...our species struck a balance will all things. However as the population grew, matter from the planet simply needs to be converted to make up our bodies. Our bodies come from the nutrients we get from our food, our food comes from plants/animals, plants/animals come from other plants/animals. When our overwhelming need to survive increases, so does our demand for matter to make up our bodies. So now forests are destroyed, animals are going extinct, our environment as we know it will be a distant memory. It is funny how simple of a logic it is, the more "us" there are, the less of everything else there can be...until the planet can no longer sustain its deterioration. It is really interesting to ponder how nature works because as our population limit is transcended, means to control it will manifest and our technology can only hold it off so long. Disease, war, famine, natural disasters...these are all becoming ever increasing. And the source isn't some wrathful god, (although you can certainly see it this way, it's the same thing) but a simple violation of the law of balance and cause and effect. Humans need to understand that their very existence impacts EVERYTHING.


It is ancient philosophy that fire will consume everything. This didn't mean the fire, such as we would call in the fire department to control. Fire is life, and it was realized, in time, there would be more life that what is left to be consumed.

However, let's throw something into the mix. Chardin said, God is sleeping in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. Our individual brains, are individual points of consciousness, and the altimate reality is consciousness. We can call this God, and think ourselves a part of God, rather than separate from God. Each cell in our body has own function and its own consciousness of sort, operating to survive and to do its part in the survival of the larger organism. Perhaps we should no more think of ourselves as separate from God, than a cell in the larger organism is separate from the whole.