• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

What does peace require?

me, exaggerate? never! ;):p

but seriously now, i wonder what the dating scene will be like in the singularity....hmmmm
 
investment in spankerchiefs companies sounds super sound around about now
 
If there was a sudden and overwhelming alien invasion then the peoples of humanity might come together as a species against the threat.
It could potentially solve a good bit of problems, after being initially the worst thing any of us could imagine.

So come on aliens. Get on with the show.
 
A Blind Guy said:
If there was a sudden and overwhelming alien invasion then the peoples of humanity might come together as a species against the threat.
It could potentially solve a good bit of problems, after being initially the worst thing any of us could imagine.

So come on aliens. Get on with the show.
Click to expand...

Then, like all opposites, peace requires war.

Of course, when things settled down and normalized, sub-groups of humans would again distinguish themselves by their differences before similarities (when nothing else substantially different makes an impact to their sphere of operation) and divide along those lines. Every unity supposes a division.
 
Nagelfar said:
Then, like all opposites, peace requires war.
Click to expand...

Nagelfar said:
But your definition of it requires not-peace to understand it's place as an idea meaning 'peace' :p
Click to expand...

jejeje - I'm going to have to disagree, or perhaps that should be not-entirely-agree with your postulations. They seem very absolute, unless of course by not-peace you literally mean every possible "scenario" other than peace. Peace with an ever-so-slightly-itchy-foot may not be peace, and it's definitely not war, but it serves the same purpose in this example.

For me, belief is the culprit when it comes to the impossibility of peace, which by the way would be entirely possible, if it weren't for the insanity of belief itself.
 
Nagelfar said:
But your definition of it requires not-peace to understand it's place as an idea meaning 'peace' :p
Click to expand...
Only if you live in a world where you always need to experience one to know the other, maybe. This may not be the world I exist in though. If you've already attained peace its just there whether you understand it or not. Absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence.;)8(
 
qwe said:
(after our physical evolution became irrelevant to contmeporary human timescales)
Click to expand...

I can't agree with this... Related reading:

Stress-directed adaptive mutations and evolution.

Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA. [email protected]
Abstract

Comparative biochemistry demonstrates that the metabolites, complex biochemical networks, enzymes and regulatory mechanisms essential to all living cells are conserved in amazing detail throughout evolution. Thus, in order to evolve, an organism must overcome new adverse conditions without creating different but equally dangerous alterations in its ongoing successful metabolic relationship with its environment. Evidence suggests that stable long-term acquisitive evolution results from minor increases in mutation rates of genes related to a particular stress, with minimal disturbance to the balanced and resilient metabolism critical for responding to an unpredictable environment. Microorganisms have evolved specific biochemical feedback mechanisms that direct mutations to genes derepressed by starvation or other stressors in their environment. Transcription of the activated genes creates localized supercoiling and DNA secondary structures with unpaired bases vulnerable to mutation. The resulting mutants provide appropriate variants for selection by the stress involved, thus accelerating evolution with minimal random damage to the genome. This model has successfully predicted mutation frequencies in genes of E. coli and humans. Stressed cells observed in the laboratory over hundreds of generations accumulate mutations that also arise by this mechanism. When this occurs in repair-deficient mutator strains with high rates of random mutation, the specific stress-directed mutations are also enhanced.
Click to expand...

Also, a good discussion on this topic (conversation about the science described above):

http://www.iscid.org/lynn-caporale-chat.php
 
Last edited:
physical evolution rarely makes a novel significant appearance in our existential lives, it occurs too slowly. the timescale i'm considernig is minutes, years, and centuries. social evolution has outpaced physical evolution, in terms of how much our neurological structure changes per generation. that was my point.

though accelerated physical evolution (directed by ourselves, not the environment) is hopefully in our future, but that would be a product of social evolution (the two types of development, social and physical, are in a dance, carrying our individual and collective entities forward in e.g. artistic&technological progression)
 
^I gotcha. I wasn't really trying to criticize you man, sorry it came off that way.
 
Nagelfar said:
It is of what is absent.
Click to expand...
I enjoy that you can't concede quietly out the back, but i've already proved my point atleast sufficiently in my mind. If you need to know something in order to experience it then you will never experience a thing because we don't start out with infinite knowledge. We must learn in order to understand and understand in order to learn. So unless your a more evolved being than I, we play on the field, with the same prerequisites and rules to some degree. I'll leave you with this flawed logic, if you were smiling but didn't know you were smiling because you hadn't the faintest idea of what a smile is, does that mean your actually frowning?8o
 
Help?!?! said:
I enjoy that you can't concede quietly out the back, but i've already proved my point atleast sufficiently in my mind. If you need to know something in order to experience it then you will never experience a thing because we don't start out with infinite knowledge. We must learn in order to understand and understand in order to learn. So unless your a more evolved being than I, we play on the field, with the same prerequisites and rules to some degree. I'll leave you with this flawed logic, if you were smiling but didn't know you were smiling because you hadn't the faintest idea of what a smile is, does that mean your actually frowning?8o
Click to expand...

There's nothing flawed about it, it is what is in logic intrinsically and all there is to logic.

You can't frame what a frown is until you've oriented it in contrast to other contexts; until then, it cannot be labeled or even known. Your example is stating it is defined as its opposite if it were not known, however it's opposite is what co-substantiates it in existence, yet by saying one-side is unknown, you are admitting that it must be known, a paradox. So there is then another contradiction, you cannot know anything you don't already have the capacity to know. Every new thought you have is only possibly built upon a previous thought, we cannot think about anything but our thinking; even our 'senses' are objects of our thought. We aim our thoughts toward absolutes of variant categories, if something is hot, there must be something hotter, because absolute heat is an abstraction that can never be reified, but it is the grounding by which we lay the foundations of knowing anything whatsoever: between fully mental abstract absolutes of actual instances.
 
Kewlwip said:
There will always be a few men who seek to bend others to their will and commit evil to enrich themselves, always. It isn't until the masses resist them completely that peace can exist. That cannot occur until the world experiences widespread prosperity and education for all.
Click to expand...


The thing is that within those masses, unbeknown even to the men/women themselves, lies the dormant seed of the very few who will when they find themselves in the position to do so act in very similar ways to the very people they overthrew.
The centralisation of power will always eventually lead to this scenario.
Decentralisation of power is an appealing concept to me but I think it unlikely to ever occur except perhaps fleetingly. It's main drawback being that a centrally controlled projection of power can usually out compete a decentralised one.
That said there's no reason I can think of to give up on the idea completely.

(directed by ourselves, not the environment)
Click to expand...

Are we not part of the enviroment ? not sarcasm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top