Hasan Ali Tokuqin Posted November 12, 2006 Report Posted November 12, 2006 has Universe has a moral stance ? can it manuplated by high tech, or secret societies ? a luciferic conspiracy is possibel ? or life is a smoke screen, a holographic code like in Matrix ? or a highly angelic order with a messiah will strike and break the chain of evil is there a reptile human like race governing us can we control the physchic forces, climates, earthquakes, tsunamis.... Alien abductions ? another intelegent life behind the known universe are there paralel universes we can reside... or see our death relatives.... what lays behind this veil........ All I can say humans can be immoral and evil, goverments can be conspiring.... Universe is a highly developed mathematichal structure.... Math is the apostle of the reality and truth and can not be immoral..... Quote
Melanie_ Posted November 12, 2006 Report Posted November 12, 2006 I think we all need some of whatever you are smoking in order to properly discuss this.... Quote For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. Nelson Mandela
Frankie Posted November 13, 2006 Report Posted November 13, 2006 Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes! Quote -Apple Scruff
Figleaf Posted November 16, 2006 Report Posted November 16, 2006 Hasan! You really must submit your oeuvres for prize consideration. For example: http://www.griffinpoetryprize.com/home.php Sample competitor's work: 9/11The first person is an existentialist like trash in the groin of the sand dunes like a brown cardboard home beside a dam like seeing like things the same between Death Valley and the desert of Paran An earthquake a turret with arms and legs The second person is the beloved like winners taking the hit like looking down on Utah as if it was Saudi Arabia or Pakistan like war-planes out of Miramar like a split cult a jolt of coke New York like Mexico in its deep beige couplets like this, like that … like Call us all It Thou It. “Sky to Spirit! Call us all It!” The third person is a materialist. From On the Ground, by Fanny Howe Copyright © 2004 Quote
gnam Posted November 17, 2006 Report Posted November 17, 2006 Hasan! You really must submit your oeuvres for prize consideration. For example:http://www.griffinpoetryprize.com/home.php Sample competitor's work: 9/11 The first person is an existentialist like trash in the groin of the sand dunes like a brown cardboard home beside a dam like seeing like things the same between Death Valley and the desert of Paran An earthquake a turret with arms and legs The second person is the beloved like winners taking the hit like looking down on Utah as if it was Saudi Arabia or Pakistan like war-planes out of Miramar like a split cult a jolt of coke New York like Mexico in its deep beige couplets like this, like that … like Call us all It Thou It. “Sky to Spirit! Call us all It!” The third person is a materialist. From On the Ground, by Fanny Howe Copyright © 2004 WOOOOOOO fuckin HOOOOOO please greg, let us have an arts, poetry and philosophy section.... please, please, please!!!! The politics, religion, and morality are, of course indispensible... however, following Kant, if we are to have a true Can-Culture site it would seem remiss not to add the aesthetics category... no?? Quote
gnam Posted November 17, 2006 Report Posted November 17, 2006 I think we all need some of whatever you are smoking in order to properly discuss this.... My advice... smoke weed, take hallucinogens, love art, read peotry... in many ways they are all very similar. The Big problem with modern technological society (see G. Grant for elucidations on the nature of Technology, Empire, and Justice) is the loss of poetry... really, there is no smoking necessary. However, one (all) must learn to think outside of instrumental reason from within it. I am not saying that the poster's poetry is good or bad... but then we aren't even in a position to have that discussion. Poetry doesn't even register with us modern liberals (again see Grant for further discussion of the term 'liberal'), and as such, we are in a prior position in which we moderns must relearn poetry. My vote is that we start with a discussion of Form and Content in the work of art... or maybe we could begin with Heidegger's "Origin of the Work of Art," or, WTF, why not just start with the genesis(es) of western civilization... both the teachings of the Talmud and Plato + pre-socratics on art... any takers?? Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted November 17, 2006 Report Posted November 17, 2006 I tend to think that the morality is the perogative of those manipulating the masses of humanity. For example, the individuals that lead determine their following through their political policies, instead of using orartory to sway opinions and bring people into their line of thinking they select demographics and play upon those fears and grievances which are common within that group. True visionaries are rare commodities and often rejected. Those who are successful have shaped modern humanity within their own limits. Moses, Jesus, Mohamed are not exactly current yet their influences carry the day. Even so, they are all religous figures, and in todays world you have to consider the effects of Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. We have seen Churchill, Kennedy and their lot as well but overall those that have affected change in our time have been less than beneficial of themselves and it took counteraction to those individuals and conflict to get us where we are today. Perhaps in time the concept of nations and racial origins will be overcome by the great mass of humanity. Unfortunately I think that we have one large conflict in the making, and it will manifest itself very shortly. I don't believe the next conflict will be of a western Islamic confrontation. I think we will find ourselves in opposition to China, and when I say we I mean everybody but the Chinese. They are the emerging giant in both economic and political terms. Not to mention military terms, because little is known of their capabilities and that is very dangerous in and of itself. Quote
DarkAngel_ Posted November 19, 2006 Report Posted November 19, 2006 I tend to think that the morality is the perogative of those manipulating the masses of humanity. For example, the individuals that lead determine their following through their political policies, instead of using orartory to sway opinions and bring people into their line of thinking they select demographics and play upon those fears and grievances which are common within that group. True visionaries are rare commodities and often rejected. Those who are successful have shaped modern humanity within their own limits. Moses, Jesus, Mohamed are not exactly current yet their influences carry the day. Even so, they are all religous figures, and in todays world you have to consider the effects of Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. We have seen Churchill, Kennedy and their lot as well but overall those that have affected change in our time have been less than beneficial of themselves and it took counteraction to those individuals and conflict to get us where we are today.Perhaps in time the concept of nations and racial origins will be overcome by the great mass of humanity. Unfortunately I think that we have one large conflict in the making, and it will manifest itself very shortly. I don't believe the next conflict will be of a western Islamic confrontation. I think we will find ourselves in opposition to China, and when I say we I mean everybody but the Chinese. They are the emerging giant in both economic and political terms. Not to mention military terms, because little is known of their capabilities and that is very dangerous in and of itself. Well that may be true but if the masses morality is being manipulated today, that means that morality was manipulated well before now. The religious ramification from moral disbalance is often taken as, ‘unpleasant'. but I’d think the immoral for giving us lessons and wisdom, but religion is like our pride, and an unpleased event damages it, so I guess power mongers indeed then speak to their pride but I see that the 'morals or the universe' are not based on what is law, but what is not and the interaction of those boundaries making in effect law or in turn chaos in freedom within effects, if you speak of the ‘herd’, so to speak. then we need to go to a stance were self governance is the freedom of peoples, I’m not meaning anti-statist but we need to see life as self moral, and learn to separate situational from moral, so that we need not ask and so we don’t require to be asked, like a good family, of course we all need to be reminded but that’s not my point, 'thus spoke zarathustra' a book by Fredrich Neitzche speaks of religious morals as ‘a dragon that scales all say 'tho shalt' but our mind craves freedom of our morals and is like a lion that roars 'I will!'’ do you all see a moral high-horse that many have adopted and called belief? the problem is that belief can also mean that you think things are a lie, you deny them without question, because it is your pride and other peoples pride offends you, but with an agreed knowledge, you can realize once thing are told, what is true or not. truth is a reality, not a 'your truth.' so in this case government is lead by people without government, we can try to control them but they can hide in our laws, what then is a solution to this? those men mostly must govern themselves, but are they not unstable like us? well if you ask me their is more then 1 part to the human condition, and they all will act out to be free meaning that we would need a lot of time, change, and self-organization of those sides of our mind, before a morality of the universe is caused. Quote men of freedom walk with guns in broad daylight, and as the weak are killed freedom becomes nothing but a dream...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.