Omniary as Opposed to SanctuaryxetheareAugust 4 2006, 21:08:54 UTC
The persistence of our individual beings, if not by "luck", lies quite literally on our understanding of the environment which sustains us. Having made complete discovery of the potential of our understanding, it is highly probably that we should make the most of this capacity.
I bring this point to light for the sake of keeping in mind that even the falsities contribute to the motions of the actual. ie What fraction of the sapince of this planet is affected by fiction?
Allow me to make clear that I am unsure how to bring my point to a clarity in your light (your understanding). In otherwords, keep in mind that how you might initially discern the above is merely one abstract, considering this narrow medium.
Sum:
It is obvious, to me, that the capabilities of one individual is insufficient to have a clear understanding. Schitzophrenic and proud of it.
Re: Omniary as Opposed to Sanctuaryinsolent_poolAugust 4 2006, 23:46:25 UTC
One word can hold many meanings, so I would be fairly ignorant to read a single one abstract from several paragraphs. Of course, I am ignorant, but not necessarily of this point. I digress. On to the point. I recognize that what one may hold to be 'bad' may in fact be considered 'good' in another light through different context. Viewed through that perspective one may come to the conclusion that actions are meaningless if no concrete advancement through one's actions can be influenced by our being, since advancement itself is context. If one defines a context it becomes singular and dependant on the interpretation. Advancement would still then have to come through either luck or through sharing of context. Now more to the point: a leader's job is to both sustain and advance the abstract he or she governs in the direction the majority of power in that abstract favors. When the majority lines are ill-defined and the context not shared, advancement or even sustainability may be called into question.
Liberty: Freedom vs SafetyxetheareAugust 7 2006, 19:45:37 UTC
Let me begin by making it clear that I agree for the most part.
On the one hand I should understand what you mean by "job". To simplify I might consider the common man's feeling of liberty. However, it is not quite so simple.
Having the talents of intellect (sapience) allowing us to understand the motions of macrocomponents of the pangenome/panmemone (for lack of a better word) it is often assumed, by more acute systems, that capability entails responsibility. The myth of "best interest" is a blinding factor here. Truth and the momentum of Greatness (?) can drown in the mire of the opinions composing the mob mentalities.
Sometimes the Lifeguard is shot by short-sighted passers by for fear that he was drowning the victim. How many great doctors were taken out during the witch hunts?
Stimulate and allow the system to find a new stasis. Find a motion and play the role of a participant. The components (often persons and people) must feel that they have "done it all by [themselves]". (see Tao te Ching). More will be revealed.
Comments 6
Reply
Reply
Reply
I bring this point to light for the sake of keeping in mind that even the falsities contribute to the motions of the actual. ie What fraction of the sapince of this planet is affected by fiction?
Allow me to make clear that I am unsure how to bring my point to a clarity in your light (your understanding). In otherwords, keep in mind that how you might initially discern the above is merely one abstract, considering this narrow medium.
Sum:
It is obvious, to me, that the capabilities of one individual is insufficient to have a clear understanding. Schitzophrenic and proud of it.
"E Pluribus Unum"
Reply
I recognize that what one may hold to be 'bad' may in fact be considered 'good' in another light through different context. Viewed through that perspective one may come to the conclusion that actions are meaningless if no concrete advancement through one's actions can be influenced by our being, since advancement itself is context. If one defines a context it becomes singular and dependant on the interpretation. Advancement would still then have to come through either luck or through sharing of context.
Now more to the point: a leader's job is to both sustain and advance the abstract he or she governs in the direction the majority of power in that abstract favors. When the majority lines are ill-defined and the context not shared, advancement or even sustainability may be called into question.
Reply
On the one hand I should understand what you mean by "job". To simplify I might consider the common man's feeling of liberty. However, it is not quite so simple.
Having the talents of intellect (sapience) allowing us to understand the motions of macrocomponents of the pangenome/panmemone (for lack of a better word) it is often assumed, by more acute systems, that capability entails responsibility. The myth of "best interest" is a blinding factor here. Truth and the momentum of Greatness (?) can drown in the mire of the opinions composing the mob mentalities.
Sometimes the Lifeguard is shot by short-sighted passers by for fear that he was drowning the victim. How many great doctors were taken out during the witch hunts?
Stimulate and allow the system to find a new stasis. Find a motion and play the role of a participant. The components (often persons and people) must feel that they have "done it all by [themselves]". (see Tao te Ching). More will be revealed.
Reply
Leave a comment