thyristor Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 5 minutes ago, Jade Cross said: we would likely not be able to get anything done. I still remember the day when I realized I could just buy the bread I bought last time, instead of reading the ingredients list from several brands before deciding 🤪 Link to post Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Jade Cross said: Im not disagreeing with you/saying youre wrong. I imagine that for many, if not most people, this is true and they see it and accept it as being attracted without any need for explanations. But my head tends to work a little differently amnd be it compulsion, obsession or just being too stubborn for my own good sometimes, I feel like I need to have that explanation present because otherwise, I cant just accept something at face value. You're going to drive yourself mad trying to figure this out, because there are no definitive answers. There never will be, it's all very subjective. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 @Jade Cross After a few hours on the internet I could not find much but I found an interesting article on The Biological Roots of Aesthetics and Art.  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491301100316  Although not a lot on humans but it is interesting on artists and animals and what is pleasing. Thought you might wanna give it a scroll. Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross Posted January 23, 2020 Author Share Posted January 23, 2020 On 1/23/2020 at 10:37 AM, GatsbyGirl said: @Jade Cross After a few hours on the internet I could not find much but I found an interesting article on The Biological Roots of Aesthetics and Art.  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491301100316  Although not a lot on humans but it is interesting on artists and animals and what is pleasing. Thought you might wanna give it a scroll.  Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 1 minute ago, Jade Cross said: Remibds me of sone of the articles I read when I first looked into this There really isnt much on this topic. It sorta sucks. Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross Posted January 23, 2020 Author Share Posted January 23, 2020 On 1/23/2020 at 8:53 AM, Anthracite_Impreza said: You're going to drive yourself mad trying to figure this out, because there are no definitive answers. There never will be, it's all very subjective. Â Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross Posted January 23, 2020 Author Share Posted January 23, 2020 On 1/23/2020 at 11:43 AM, GatsbyGirl said: There really isnt much on this topic. It sorta sucks. Â Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 15 hours ago, Anthracite_Impreza said: You're going to drive yourself mad trying to figure this out, because there are no definitive answers. There never will be, it's all very subjective. Dont people do that all the time? Link to post Share on other sites
thyristor Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 11 hours ago, GatsbyGirl said: Dont people do that all the time? No, sadly I find most people don't even see the questions that could drive them mad. Boring... Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 5 minutes ago, thyristor said: No, sadly I find most people don't even see the questions that could drive them mad. Boring... True, maybe not to madness but if we look at scientists and believers, dont they always try to find answers. Some spend their lifetime without answers? Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross Posted January 24, 2020 Author Share Posted January 24, 2020 On 1/24/2020 at 11:59 AM, thyristor said: No, sadly I find most people don't even see the questions that could drive them mad. Boring... Â Link to post Share on other sites
thyristor Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 29 minutes ago, Jade Cross said: Some are driven mad by the answer to their questions, These people definitely should go and find some other question!!  29 minutes ago, Jade Cross said: others still may be driven mad by finding an answer but not being able to use the information.  The only way to know is to seek Me... I know the answer to world peace but I don't even have a propper language to lay it all out... All words known to date are already so cluttered with non-peace, politics, fundamentalism, spirituality, craziness etc... Link to post Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 What I am getting at, is that while you may come up some answers to this, it's so subjective you cannot ever understand it fully. Try if you like, but don't ever expect to figure it all out, and don't try so hard you get stressed over not knowing. Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross Posted January 24, 2020 Author Share Posted January 24, 2020 On 1/24/2020 at 1:46 PM, thyristor said: These people definitely should go and find some other question!! Â Â Quote Me... I know the answer to world peace but I don't even have a propper language to lay it all out... All words known to date are already so cluttered with non-peace, politics, fundamentalism, spirituality, craziness etc... . Link to post Share on other sites
thyristor Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 5 minutes ago, Jade Cross said: Thats the thing. They wont know until they find it. This is particularly true of scientists whose inventions and findings have been twisted to become something entirely different. Does that mean that they should not have sought thenanswer to begin with? Surpressing the seeking of knowledge would not be a good way to reduce the twisting of good stuff into bad stuff. World peace would, though! Â 5 minutes ago, Jade Cross said: Thats an easy one, elimimate humans from the wirld and you achieve the concept of what we call peace. I'm not sure other animals have a perception of what world peace is, and if that is true, if you eliminate the only species that can percieve world peace, you have in fact eliminated the possibility to achieve it. there is no sound where there are no ears. Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross Posted January 24, 2020 Author Share Posted January 24, 2020 On 1/24/2020 at 1:57 PM, Anthracite_Impreza said: What I am getting at, is that while you may come up some answers to this, it's so subjective you cannot ever understand it fully. Try if you like, but don't ever expect to figure it all out, and don't try so hard you get stressed over not knowing. Â Link to post Share on other sites
thyristor Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 1 hour ago, Jade Cross said: others still may be driven mad by finding an answer but not being able to use the information.  3 minutes ago, Jade Cross said:  whether or not I would be into a body type, the information wont really be useful for much. still in danger.... 🤣 Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross Posted January 24, 2020 Author Share Posted January 24, 2020 On 1/24/2020 at 2:22 PM, thyristor said: Surpressing the seeking of knowledge would not be a good way to reduce the twisting of good stuff into bad stuff.  Quote  I'm not sure other animals have a perception of what world peace is, and if that is true, if you eliminate the only species that can percieve world peace, you have in fact eliminated the possibility to achieve it. there is no sound where there are no ears.  Link to post Share on other sites
thyristor Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 8 minutes ago, Jade Cross said: See? its not so boring after all. Â 8 minutes ago, Jade Cross said: But you see thats the fun in it. OH!! I realize we've been talking by eachother.... I didn't mean to say that it is boring to seek answers or questions or anything, just that those people who are not even aware that there might be questions must have a rather boring life! Link to post Share on other sites
thyristor Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 2 hours ago, GatsbyGirl said: True, maybe not to madness but if we look at scientists and believers, dont they always try to find answers. Some spend their lifetime without answers? Me = believer in world peace, aware it's mission impossible, but choose to spend my life with seeking a way to fix it. Link to post Share on other sites
thyristor Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 12 minutes ago, Jade Cross said: an idea we think up so the peace that humans want is not the same peace that animals might interpret but we dont think about that part of the equation do we? When people say world peace, they are refering to no conflict between humans, not any other portion of the planet. that's what I meant by not even having a propper language to use for that.... I'll have to create a brand new word stem I guess... Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross Posted January 24, 2020 Author Share Posted January 24, 2020 On 1/24/2020 at 2:45 PM, thyristor said: that's what I meant by not even having a propper language to use for that.... I'll have to create a brand new word stem I guess... Â Link to post Share on other sites
thyristor Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 1 hour ago, Jade Cross said: You would need a languagd that humans and animals (including bacteria) speak. I don't think we necessarily need to speak it the same way, or utter it the same way. But common concepts would be fine, yes, for all species. We will not be able to have (human) world peace without having the rest of the world at peace as well.  1 hour ago, Jade Cross said: Which would still leave the problem of adequate substinence to keep all species equally alive which in turn would mean completely having to rewrite the order of the universe. It depends on how you define world peace. It is not necessarily the absence of conflict; as you mentioned before, the absence of conflict would be nightmare-like boring. I think all rules or -isms or principles or whatever need to have a certain flexibility to them, like bridges or any constructions: if they are too rigid, they will just break if they are not strong enough, or make other things break if they are strong enough not to break themselves.  So, I like to think of world peace as a range of states to be in. One attempt of mine to define one aspect - the aspect of armed conflict, which is definitely not the only aspect - is this:  If out of 100 areas, no more than 15 have, let's say, something like street demonstrations, that is many people being very explicitly angry about something, that's okay, that is still world peace as long as we can handle that so that it will come and go, the problems will be solved at least once they rise to the surface for example through demonstrations.  If out of those 15 "conflict areas", 10 will be solved (while maybe 10 others arise somewhere else), 4 will remain status quo and one will turn into some kind of armed conflict, that could STILL be called world peace as long as the one armed conflict is not just blind killing of civilians and as long as it is very shortlived and will make everyone alert so that the problem can finally be solved. Right now it seems we have conflicts in 90 out of 100 areas, 80 of those are armed and 70 of those have been going on for ages AND are for completely irrational causes, that's certainly not world peace.  Please, don't put too much into the numbers, they are just my way of explaining the concept of being flexible in some way; obviously we would need to refine and define all those things. We can't reach an absolute state of zero negativity, that would probably mean zero positivity and be so boring. But that should not stop us from trying to learn how to make use of the methods we know to keep the amplitude of the wave between minus and plus within reason.  The same goes for epidemics, food shortages, natural desasters, individual crime and violence, etc, they will all still exist in some way. They have to, or we will not even know to appreciate when we are sheltered from them. It's like children's literature: you have a thief, you have a policeperson, you have a victim, you have a hero. But the amplitude need not be so enourmous.  I don't know it this makes sense to anyone, I hope so though. Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross Posted January 25, 2020 Author Share Posted January 25, 2020 On 1/24/2020 at 4:35 PM, thyristor said: I don't think we necessarily need to speak it the same way, or utter it the same way. But common concepts would be fine, yes, for all species. We will not be able to have (human) world peace without having the rest of the world at peace as well. Â It depends on how you define world peace. It is not necessarily the absence of conflict; as you mentioned before, the absence of conflict would be nightmare-like boring. I think all rules or -isms or principles or whatever need to have a certain flexibility to them, like bridges or any constructions: if they are too rigid, they will just break if they are not strong enough, or make other things break if they are strong enough not to break themselves. Â So, I like to think of world peace as a range of states to be in. One attempt of mine to define one aspect - the aspect of armed conflict, which is definitely not the only aspect - is this: Â If out of 100 areas, no more than 15 have, let's say, something like street demonstrations, that is many people being very explicitly angry about something, that's okay, that is still world peace as long as we can handle that so that it will come and go, the problems will be solved at least once they rise to the surface for example through demonstrations. Â If out of those 15 "conflict areas", 10 will be solved (while maybe 10 others arise somewhere else), 4 will remain status quo and one will turn into some kind of armed conflict, that could STILL be called world peace as long as the one armed conflict is not just blind killing of civilians and as long as it is very shortlived and will make everyone alert so that the problem can finally be solved. Right now it seems we have conflicts in 90 out of 100 areas, 80 of those are armed and 70 of those have been going on for ages AND are for completely irrational causes, that's certainly not world peace. Â Please, don't put too much into the numbers, they are just my way of explaining the concept of being flexible in some way; obviously we would need to refine and define all those things. We can't reach an absolute state of zero negativity, that would probably mean zero positivity and be so boring. But that should not stop us from trying to learn how to make use of the methods we know to keep the amplitude of the wave between minus and plus within reason. Â The same goes for epidemics, food shortages, natural desasters, individual crime and violence, etc, they will all still exist in some way. They have to, or we will not even know to appreciate when we are sheltered from them. It's like children's literature: you have a thief, you have a policeperson, you have a victim, you have a hero. But the amplitude need not be so enourmous. Â I don't know it this makes sense to anyone, I hope so though. Â Link to post Share on other sites
thyristor Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 6 hours ago, Jade Cross said: It does to me 💚 Thanks Jade! Needed to hear that! Link to post Share on other sites
thyristor Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 Oh, here's a thread for us! Can a utopia exist? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.