Is It Okay To Be Stupid - Page 18 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Is It Okay To Be Stupid

Yes, It is okay to be stupid
17
47%
No, It is not okay to be stupid
12
33%
Other
7
19%
#14867252
Atlantis wrote:I don't believe that is true. Marx, like his sponsor Engels and many of the early communists, was a true idealist who sincerely wanted to improve society. It is hardly possible to blame him for having a self, like everybody else, that in one way or another wants to assert itself.


Actually, I agree with that. Perhaps I was over critical of Marx. I do believe the concept of Communism was based on things he would have benefited from though. Nonetheless, the overall concept of Communism is a utopian idea that relies on no corruption. In a perfect world, Communism would be ideal. But in my opinion it defies human nature of improvement and advancement. And without that I can only see society failing because I don't see why anyone would care about a society where the burden/reward doesn't affect you directly.

Revolutionaries today, like in the past, are rarely free of narcissistic self-love that elevates their own being as the sole possessor of the true teaching.

Corruption and material privileges only enter once a communist state has its spoils to distribute.


Again, I agree. If you have a revolutionary who was selfless and is prepared to share the spoils, Communism is the true equality ideology. There be no birth right. There is no discrimination. There be no wealth. Everyone is equal. Who wouldn't sign up to that who wasn't in the top percent? But history states that to be a revolutionary you need to be hostile. A killer. Give demand by the gun. This kind of individual is a selfish individual and will always be ruthless. For that reason alone I could never sign up for communism. It will always be the perfect ideology that is riddled by the potential of corruption.

Anyways, what I tried to explain above holds true: people and movements will invariably deviate from the original intuition of a truth. For example, even if I, as pro-asylum supporter, say something factual but critical about migrants, I risk that my words are being used by xenophobes the moment I have uttered them. That's the scary bit, no matter how careful we chose our words, there is always the risk that they will influence the political discourse in a way opposite to our intention.


Surely it is possible to be critical of an individual without being critical of a race? The problem is people refuse to distinguish between the two. So in that sense I agree with you. Choose your words carefully. But never be afraid to speak your mind. Otherwise you will never be able to air your intuition or truth. You perhaps might not even fully understand what truth you believe in as you will be unable to discuss your opinion. But If it helps, I find your opinion consistent and I believe you are someone who is a true individual that is fighting for what is right for his fellow man.
By RhetoricThug
#14867318
Inspiring Humanity

“Regard yourself as a cloud. Clouds never make mistakes. Did you ever see a cloud that was misshapen? Did you ever see a badly designed wave? No, they always do the right thing. And if you will treat yourself for a while as a cloud or wave, you’ll realize that you can’t make a mistake whatever you do. Because even if you do something that appears totally bizarre, it will all come out in the wash somehow or another. Then through this capacity you will develop a kind of confidence. And through confidence you will be able to trust your own intuition.” – Alan Watts

Atlantis wrote:Leaving aside the duality of being and non-being, why do we need faith to live? To live is the natural state of living beings.
Fair enough, we shall let go of the duality of being and non-being. We shall be like water. Now, I know words compress 'things,' things we can perceive and experience, just so we can communicate and retrieve data (and yes, I know some linguists will say that we are unable to perceive and communicate certain things without words). But I think living is an act of faith (trust, belief, confidence, conviction, etc), because as a self-aware individual node inside a body happening inside a society happening inside a village town or city happening inside a country happening inside a planetary organism happening inside a galactic plume happening inside a cosmological happening, we're channeling energy or consciousness that does not belong to us. To be is to think, and to think is to believe, thus we have faith in existence, faith in NOW. Alas, I know what you mean... Nodes in a circuit simply channel 'what is,' because that's what 'happens.'

Effects precede causes? The child is father to the man- William Wordsworth

Today's problems come from yesterday's solutions

I find myself thinking about causality quite often, and recently I've uncovered something peculiar... On the surface, the known (as in all human knowledge, and extensions of human knowledge, technology, society, etc) can never discover the NEW. The unknown is the main force behind the discovery of the NEW. Perhaps I'm not wording this right, but hear me (or see me, since you're reading this) out. If you're not seeking the unknown, you become what's known. In other words, if you're not seeking the NEW, you become the OLD. Yesterday's thought becomes tomorrow's program, while the eternal present offers all 'things' the unknown or NEW. However, at one time or another, the known (old) had to be unknown (new). Thus, if we're nodes in a happening, and we're not separate from what IS (everything known/old and unknown/new) because we're what IS, wouldn't Life as a natural state of perpetual BEING guide the total nature of its BEING to (re)discover what IS and what will be tomorrow for an eternal present expressing its infinite ways?

The NEW always uses the OLD as its material

Call it invention, call it discovery, not a single soul/node living or dead discovered or invented any-thing- each soul/node unveils or channels a fragment of the unknown and incorporates it into a known framework. Perhaps the unknown employs the known. I could live my life 'in the know' and still be in service to the unknown, because in order to evolve with or adapt to the surface of 'things,' we chase and have faith in the unknown. Ultimately (if you're still hanging in there, I know this is very convoluted) we're systems of interactions processing ONE single process that is trying to (re)discover itself... Or at least create new variations/patterns of itself only to confuse itself and therefore amuse itself only to annihilate itself. :lol: 1X0

Effects are perceived, whereas causes are conceived. Science organizes knowledge, not ignorance, labels rather than processes.

Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery:
The "principle of causality" is the assertion that any event whatsoever can be causally explained- that it 'can' be deductively predicted. According to the way in which one interprets the word 'can' in this assertion, it will either be tautological (analytic), or else an assertion about reality (synthetic). For if 'can' means that it is always logically possible to construct a causal explanation, then the assertion is tautological, since for any prediction whatsoever we can always find universal statements and initial conditions from which the prediction is derivable. (Whether these universal statements have been tested and corroborated in other cases is of course quite a different question.) If, however, 'can' is meant to signify that the world is governed by strict laws, that it is so constructed that every specific event is an instance of a universal regularity or law, then the assertion is admittedly synthetic. But in this case it is not falsifiable,... I shall, therefore, neither adopt nor reject the "principle of causality" ; I shall be content simply to exclude it, as 'metaphysical,' from the sphere of science.

I shall, however, propose a methodological rule which corresponds so closely to the "principle of causality" that the latter might be regarded as its metaphysical version. It is the simple rule that we are not to abandon the search for universal laws and for a coherent theoretical system, nor ever give up our attempts to explain causally any kind of event we can describe. This rule guides the scientific investigator in his work.


Causality is not merely reciprocal action but complementary process
Niels Bohr's complementarity that represents "atomic" interactions as both "acoustic" waves and "visual" particles exemplified by every process involving the continuous interplay of simultaneous actions.

All elementary particles are packed ignorance? "A careful analysis of the process of observation in atomic physics has shown that the subatomic particles have no meaning as isolated entities, but can only be understood as interconnections between the preparation of an experiment and the subsequent measurement." The medium is the message- Literacy became synonymous with Western civilization that divorced "subject" from "object" and thought from feeling (The royal divorce of thought and feeling- James Joyce), just as the dominant metaphors (a man's reach should exceed his grasp- Robert Browning) of mechanism widened the separation of "cause" and "effect." The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences (causality is tested by experience as percept, not concept), for this barrier does not exist.

Considering the known/unknown, cause/effect, subject/object conundrum. Perhaps quantum simulations can process the problem and solution simultaneously, because the very nature of BEING is a problem and solution simultaneously. Infinite evolution scheme, and we're it as an expression and of its potentiality. Humans chase it, because we're it, but it doesn't know we are it and the best we can do is think therefore believe in it. Nirvana is to let go of it, and know you're it, and it is what IS. The biggest ego trip is getting rid of your ego, and of course the joke of it all is that your ego does not exist. There is nothing to get rid of. It is an illusion.

I don't need to torment myself with dark thoughts or with unfulfilled desires, I can simply enjoy life, no matter how miserable. A whiff of the fresh morning breeze can fill us with an unlimited joy, no golden towers can procure. Just to feel that life force flowing through us, call it love for all beings or whatever, is enough to want life.
I agree. One love, indeed.

Moreover, considering the vastness of the universe, human awareness must be a very rare thing, which won't return in innumerable eons. The Buddhists have this story to illustrate how rare human life is:

A blind turtle lives at the bottom of a vast ocean bed and surfaces just once every hundred years. A golden yoke floats on the vast ocean, blown here and there by the wind. What are the chances of the turtle surfacing at just the right time and in just the right place to be able to put its head through the yoke? Human life is even more rare.
Beautiful story. :) I think human awareness is not human awareness, but simply a symptom of the invisible and omnipresent/universal consciousness. Consciousness is the medium, we're its message. Perhaps the flash, er flesh-cell vessel is rare, but I think there are other creatures in the universe (or multi-verse) that have 'human' experiences.

Why throw away that rare gift on a whim? There is hope for awareness, for insight, until our very last breath, or perhaps even beyond.
To live is to die. Life is a holiday, and death is a gift? Or is Life a gift, and death is a holiday?

Potemkin wrote:A truth-teller is simply someone who repeats what almost everyone already knows, Mike. Just imagine the most boring and conformist poster on PoFo, and that will be your man (or woman). Only cranks say anything interesting, which may later be accepted by future generations as a 'truth', in which case they will retrospectively be labelled 'truth-tellers'. At the time, of course, they were just cranks. For example, Wegener, who came up with the theory of continental drift about a century ago, was a crank. It was only decades after his death, when his cranky ideas were confirmed by modern science, that he was posthumously labelled a truth-teller. All truth is social truth, Mike. Even scientific 'truth' is based on consensus.
:up:

RT said:
The crowd is spell-bound by today. Hence why I care not for today's approval, today's approval is like braille felt by blind reactionaries, it guides communication and gives definition to 'vision.' Most people are too involved with the contemporary environment, stumbling through the motion of 'being' present, to 'see' artistic vision. The artist precedes the scientist.

Drlee wrote:I look at the people who are true believers in what Trump says. In their circles they are the truth tellers. The thing about intelligence is that it makes one harder to fool. It is not OK to be stupid because stupid people are by definition victims.


RT said:
Political mythology does not educate stupidity, political mythology weaponizes stupidity.

Truth is a side-effect of who, what, where, why, when, and how you live, therefore any definition of truth must be a coping strategy developed by a human for a human.
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18

I have no problem admitting that certain news outl[…]

Right Wing Marxism?

The German rural peasantry and small-holders of t[…]

The Deep Thinks of Hong Wu

What are you afraid of, exactly? It's really fun[…]

Trump and Russiagate

Their Russia spam has been a disaster, so they're[…]