Spirituality, Atheism, Religion, and Saving the World:

[say what]

Going full force with this right now doesn't make any sense to me given the opposition (momentum?). Discussing it in smaller circles does me a lot of good when it comes to working out the best way to present all this. My nature empowers me in some ways and leaves me hang'n in others so I might have far more to learn here than any of you. I'll go full force with this after I get a little scientific notoriety. What I'm doing now is learning math.

My understanding of properties of the universe is pretty damn good. It was hard won. Virtually every scientist on the planet learns about the properties of the universe through the mathematics of existing theories. I didn't do that. I don't have the math skills to follow the theories as they are written. But I do know what the theories claim. I'm built in a way that enables me to see what aligns with physical reality or not. I know with confidence much of what modern science teaches is wrong. I can effectively express where modern science is wrong in english. Scientific debates about my views demonstrate I have real good idea of what I'm talking about. Still, mathematics alone is the language in which we express physical reality. Not losing scientific arguments as all fine and dandy but it doesn't really mean shit. I'll have to write it down in calculus to provide proof. So, I'm working on expanding my vocabulary.



I figure if Steven Hawking or Einstein broke out some crazy shit about bringing about a better world, people might pay attention. By the way it looks, I'm grateful I'm capable of correcting science, this cause depends on it.

Just a question, and not a criticism, but do you worry that by not understanding the math, you might not be seeing the whole picture? How do you know you're right, and their wrong if you cannot grasp all the details that they're discussing? This seems like a big gap to me - as, especially with theoretical sciences, the premise of what they discuss is hugely reliant on mathematics.

I'm glad to hear you've brought this to scientific debates and scientists in these fields- what have they said about it? I would be curious to know what backgrounds you've presented it to, and their response..as I think this would really help, in my mind, substantiate this. Knowing what experts in the field say is import, and it constitutes a form of peer review, which is essential in science and credibility.

Would you share this information with us?

 

[Rift Zone]

We see the world very differently. Neither of us is wrong or right, but we will not agree, and likely never will, on what spirituality is.

I'm under that impression as well. Philosophies are easy to adopt, hard to change. My focus is on what the next generation thinks. What I think is atheist spirituality will ultimately be warmly embraced.

You still didn't answer my questions: I don't want you to think that I don't think atheist spirituality is wrong or won't inspire humanity, but how is it different than buddism that also sees profound beauty and capability in humanity? Or paganism? Or taoism?

Identity is distinct.

But how are they different from what you're proposing? It's okay if you're not familiar with these belief systems in detail...but you might want to look into them as it sounds like they might actually capture what you're interested in.

I'm not familiar with every single detail. I immersed myslef within their teachings but I wasn't looking to know exactly what they were about, I was looking to see what spirituality was, it's breadth and depth. There are many examples of how they differ from atheist spirituality, I noted them along the way but I did not memorize them. The particulars were never very important for my purpose. I believe one example found in there somewhere is to completely abandon creature comforts, as they are the source of misery. Well, there might be some wisdom there but finding a happy medium seem wiser. -and atheist spirituality, my particular brand of it anyway, don't address notions like that. My spirituality is derived purely from scientific knowledge. That type of thing is more pure philosophy.

So, you believe religion is faith? Or that to be religious you need faith? Do you not have faith in spiritual atheism?

How is having faith in Abrahamic traditions any different than having faith in Easter Traditions?

You may find this of interest to you in defining spirituality, religion, faith, and sacred: http://www.darc.org/connelly/religion1.html

That was interesting! Thanks. I'm pretty sure we're gonna get into a semantical disagreement here too. I'm cool with splitting these hairs but I suspect we won't agree on the divisions.

Also, many people believe there is evidence that God exists- these are scientists as well. To say that religion is 'unsubstantiated' is slightly incorrect, because there is evidence - with evidence being broadly defined - that suggests otherwise. I would say that evidence is just as broad as claims made about the universe and it's existence. For me, broad sweeping statements that lump everything into one category doesn't sit well with me. This is just my background and belief, but I think doing that ignores the individual, unique and complex identities that we have as humans.

If there actually was evidence of god's existence it would paraded around the planet 24/7/365.24 -FOREVER. I'm not really impressed by any such claim. I have far more proof of non-existence than any one does to the contrary. Like the word of god: god said continents were made by "fractional differentiation". It seems my word is a bit more closely aligned with reality.

Anyways, I think it would be valuable for the discussion if you could show how your ideas are different than other religions or beliefs.

How are they the same? Expression of spirituality is the common trait. Like world view is entirely distinct? Like it's derived purely from known scientific knowledge? You lose me here. What are you getting at?

Just a question, and not a criticism, but do you worry that by not understanding the math, you might not be seeing the whole picture? How do you know you're right, and their wrong if you cannot grasp all the details that they're discussing? This seems like a big gap to me - as, especially with mathematics and theoretical sciences, the premise of what they discuss is hugely reliant on mathematics.

Mathematics is the language in which we express physical reality. Equations are constructs that make definitive declarations about relationships within the universe. -or not... You can easily make completely self-consistent mathematical constructs that have ABSOLUTELY no relation to reality at all. Check this out:

Time matters. It's just as real in my view as it is in relativity. Irrespective of if the universe travels along it, or it's just a trait of energy, we need to get that factor into our theories. Thermodynamics 2 is the same story, we need to get that in there somewhere. But where? That's ultimately what this discussion comes down to -we know many of the factors involved in the theory of everything. Are we putting them in the right place? Are we treating all these bits of info with the attention they deserve? I say we're not. We give time too much credit. We need time in there, but placing it as a trait of the universe misrepresents that factor and makes our model faulty as a result. Thermodynamics 2 too! I don't deny that phenomena in the least. But this universe is plasma. We know the stuff self-organizes into amazing complexity on its own accord, by nature of its own existence. That's how plasma rolls, it's just the way it is. Thus, thermodynamics 2 isn't a directive, it's a balance. That fact is not represented in modern theory. We have theories that point to deterioration. Pfft. It doesn't work that way in the universe. Util our theories say there's balance, they are wrong. If they put the right factors in the wrong place, the equations are wrong. There's no middle ground there. So all that being solid fact, the way it looks: we're wrong and holding it together with strings isn't going to help. -I'd use duct tape and bailing wire.

I'm going to put the values in the right place. I told you behind the scenes I did myself a lot of favors by not knowing the mathematics early on. If I took a more common path I would have gained my understanding of the universe through the math of existing theories just like every other scientist on the planet did. Well, the theories are wrong and the fact that Quantum Mechanics and Relativity won't talk to another demonstrates that. My understanding of the universe was developed the hard way. I didn't get an equal sign to look at. I got a description.

I have an intuitive sense of how things work in the universe because I've been watching it that closely; what energy and matter does is for all to see. I've stared and I know how things in the universe move. I am also hell bent on incorporating every bit of known empirical observation into my mental model of the universe. I don't get to ignore data like modern science does. I'm not lucky. My psyche makes me deal with it. I have to work out how everything fits together BEFORE I can attain a bit of knowledge. You could tell me the sky is blue but I would not be able to memorize or speak about it until i understood how that fit into defraction and black body radiation and spectroscopy and.... I can only know if I truly know. I guess that's the "specialized knowledge systems" INTJs build at an early age they were talking about. It makes sense to me or I can't hold on to it.

My knowledge is self-consistent. I'm hardwired that way. I don't have a choice there either. Across the board, my scientific knowledge all fits together perfectly. -Unlike relativity and QM, modern science is not self consistent! So, I got lots of descriptions about modern science and I pieced all that together the hard way. There is data and there is human translation of data. I never had much use for translation once I was grown with a decent foundation. I went straight to source. Mother Nature herself taught me. I took that foundation and edited it every time a new observation came up. And I know how the universe moves. The universe is telling us there are jets coming out of galaxies that are moving at nearly the speed of light. Holy shit! How are you going to pull that off? Ask human and it will say "black hole". Ask the universe (laws of physics) about black hole and it will laugh in your face! The universe says no! I'm lucky enough to be able to hear that. And I'm fortunate enough to be able to run my own simulations, to find what could fit. Neutrons are the universe's most powerful energy source and quasars are lasers that burn them for energy.

You can know exactly what the Big Bang theory says without math; I know because they print a new books on BBT all the time; any one of us could follow them. People on this forum may be just as familiar with BBT as I am. The nature of my gift is I have an onboard physics & logic processor with simulation capability.

If you watch a video clip of the moon formation event, it will show the entirety of protoEarth's original crust getting destroyed in the impact. I know they are full of shit! Proving it probably wouldn't take too much. How the energy moves through the system is very distinct from what they show. For one, the crust wasn't thick enough for energy to transmute through it in that fashion. The energy wouldn't transmute through it in that fashion anyway. That whole clip is sensationalism. I see a lot of things in there that is not supported by the behavior of this universe.

Quasars: They're supposed to be black holes. Apparently, a structure that sequesters every bit of matter and energy that crosses it's path is the most energetic and vivid thing in the universe. -That's a neat trick! I can run that simulation and tell you that it crashes and burns. That's such a poor explanation I can't believe "science" would ever go there.

I can see it. I can see everything about all this mess. Photographic memory? Sure, and auditory. And youtube, err, mytube. ProtoEarth, Quasars, supernovae, time....... I can see exactly what they presume the universe to do. I can see exactly why it will deny such profound bull shit. I know what crunching worlds together looks like, they have their story wrong. I know what a quasar is because I can see its structure. I can see what they're trying to make black holes do and it will never happen! Modern science's story is such crap, they won't even try to elaborate on it! The math, the laws of physics outright denies their explanation. That is why if you look for an scientific description of quasar they say a bunch of crap about acceleration but they never tell you what's really going on. -They won't tell you because they don't know. You cannot get active galactic nuclei to accelerate jets to relativistic speeds by orbiting a black hole. -Preposterous! Completely and utterly ridiculous.

A life time of digging into humanity's knowledge base makes something clear to me. I understand the nature of the universe better than any human does. I'm apparently the only one on the planet who knows a quasar is a laser. Proving that one will take down BBT and get me a Nobel Prize. I could also redefine time. Proving it would correct parts of Relativity and also get me a Nobel Prize. I'm really close to understanding what a particle is -seeing the known mathematical relations might get me the rest of the way there. If so, I'll correct QM and get a Nobel Prize. I'm going to work on all of it. I'm going to reconcile my complete understanding of the universe with the math. Then I'm going to look for the holy grail of science. Once I get my current knowledge in equation form, I figure I'll have an idea of how far away I am from the theory of everything. I could wind up being the most famous/significant scientist humanity has ever known. If find the theory of everything, many will get that impression. I'll blame Carl Sagan. =) He's my hero, he was my single greatest influence. Wish I actually met the guy.

Do I worry about my understanding? Hell no! I understand just fine. What I worry about is not getting along well with advanced mathematics. If calculus and I don't jive too well, that would create some issues for me. -not being able to prove any of that would really suck. It will all get proven eventually. And I'm already down on record for being the first to make such claims. It's wouldn't be theory of everything or Nobel kinda notoriety but it will demonstrate I know/knew what I was talking about and ultimately lend support to atheist spirituality anyway. Saving the world will just take longer, that's all.

I'm glad to hear you've brought this to scientific debates and scientists in these fields- what have they said about it? I would be curious to know what backgrounds you've presented it to, and their response..as I think this would really help, in my mind, substantiate this. Knowing what experts in the field say is import, and it constitutes a form of peer review, which is essential in science and credibility.


Would you share this information with us?

Wanna see how my views stand to scientific scrutiny?

How about "Ask a physics grad anything about quantum physics" -Like how come he won't debate some guy who doesn't even have an associates degree? I know the answer to that one! That guy and I have discussed things before and we both know who has more scientific knowledge.


There's another thread that led off with Big Bang. It wound up showcasing my scientific blasphemy and how ineffective modern science is at refuting anything I say.

 

[Eventhorizon]

The clearest and most concise summary I've produced to date is outlined in Post #158 of this thread:

World view directly affects our world. That is a causal relationship.

Abrahamic world view represents over 90% of this world and our world is built from it.

Abrahamic world view is crushing to the dreams and aspirations of the population. We live far below our capacity because of it. This world has serious issues thanks to that world view.

Atheist spirituality provides a world view that will inspire humanity like never before. It will inspire us to build a world worthy of our profoundly beautiful and capable selves. Atheist spirituality will save the world.

So post #158 explains the point you are trying to make, the thing you want people to understand here? What I see with post #158 is an opinion with no explanation. I also see something where religion is the primary concern. The post doesn't help me understand anything honestly. Did you understand my original question?

 

[Rift Zone]

So post #158 explains the point you are trying to make, the thing you want people to understand here? What I see with post #158 is an opinion with no explanation. I also see something where religion is the primary concern. The post doesn't help me understand anything honestly. Did you understand my original question?

I find it to be more of an argument than an opinion. A sound argument at that. I'll happily give an explination. What do you contest? What are you not so sure of? Where should I elaborate? Please help me out here, you clearly have a problem with what I've said, if ya let me know exactly what the problem is we might be able to get somewhere.






You have a point about my primary concern. It's not religion. It's humanity.

Why is this world like this? Where have we gone wrong? We are killing this planet. In my earliest days the news told me about ozone depletion, nuclear winter, widespread pollution, deforestation and war. Now we have global warming, collapsing ecosystems, and war. We already cut down most of the Garden of Eden from whence we came. We are in the middle of a mass extinction. RIGHT NOW! At this very instant -this little micro era of ours is seeing species die out faster than has happened in millions of years! I think the last time earth has witnessed mass extinction to this degree was when the dinosaurs were taken out 65 mil years ago, not certain, but i think so. The world is going to shit and we are running the show.

So I ask again, where have we gone wrong? Why do we make more food than we can eat but people starve? Why are we perpetrating the greatest ecological disaster to happen in ages? Political reform groups, environmental non-profits and humanitarian efforts are dealing with peripheral symptoms of more fundamental problems. The problem does not lie in our individual systems. Political reform groups, environmental non-profits and humanitarian efforts are missing the point. They need to bind together and deal with the real problem. What is the real problem? That is a fabulous question! Where exactly have we gone wrong? Please feel free to throw some things out there. The system is broken. Actually, i'm full of shit, the system works perfectly! Are you kidding me? Look at the empires the system has built! The distribution of wealth has never been so faulty and it gets worse every day.

The natural world is going to shit but not too much is being done about it. No one is really pitching a bitch about the wealth thing either, maybe a little whine here and there, but nothing is being done about it. Lets be clear about something: governance is the least effective and most profitable industry in existence. Managing humans is bank. You have 2 forms, church and state. The people of the world do not insist on a better world because they have beeen trained. They have been trained that their most fundamental relationship to the universe is subordinate. They have been trained to fear and hate their fellow human rather than embrace their strengths and use it to build a beautiful world. They have been trained to believe this world was meant to suck and that your salvation was death. They have been trained by humans to be taken advantage of by humans. Humans sealed it with a Jesus/Allah/Yahweh loves you and have been raping and pillaging this planet ever since. The religion is the richest and most powerful entity on the planet. The Catholic Church alone could probably clothe, feed, shelter, and provide medicine for every needy person on Earth and still turn a profit. It wouldn't hurt them too much.

The problems of this world are comprehensible. This is not la la land, or QM, shit happens for a reason here. We can know the reasons. This world is broken doesn't cut it. This world is being broken. There is something out there fucking off our planet. The system works perfectly but its not set up for the contentment or livelihood of any species. -Particularly our own! So then, what is behind all this? I'm a stickler for accuracy, if it's something else, I'd sure like to know.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I find it to be more of an argument than an opinion. A sound argument at that. I'll happily give an explination. What do you contest? What are you not so sure of? Where should I elaborate? Please help me out here, you clearly have a problem with what I've said, if ya let me know exactly what the problem is we might be able to get somewhere.






You have a point about my primary concern. It's not religion. It's humanity.

Why is this world like this? Where have we gone wrong? We are killing this planet. In my earliest days the news told me about ozone depletion, nuclear winter, widespread pollution, deforestation and war. Now we have global warming, collapsing ecosystems, and war. We already cut down most of the Garden of Eden from whence we came. We are in the middle of a mass extinction. RIGHT NOW! At this very instant -this little micro era of ours is seeing species die out faster than has happened in millions of years! I think the last time earth has witnessed mass extinction to this degree was when the dinosaurs were taken out 65 mil years ago, not certain, but i think so. The world is going to shit and we are running the show.

So I ask again, where have we gone wrong? Why do we make more food than we can eat but people starve? Why are we perpetrating the greatest ecological disaster to happen in ages? Political reform groups, environmental non-profits and humanitarian efforts are dealing with peripheral symptoms of more fundamental problems. The problem does not lie in our individual systems. Political reform groups, environmental non-profits and humanitarian efforts are missing the point. They need to bind together and deal with the real problem. What is the real problem? That is a fabulous question! Where exactly have we gone wrong? Please feel free to throw some things out there. The system is broken. Actually, i'm full of shit, the system works perfectly! Are you kidding me? Look at the empires the system has built! The distribution of wealth has never been so faulty and it gets worse every day.

The natural world is going to shit but not too much is being done about it. No one is really pitching a bitch about the wealth thing either, maybe a little whine here and there, but nothing is being done about it. Lets be clear about something: governance is the least effective and most profitable industry in existence. Managing humans is bank. You have 2 forms, church and state. The people of the world do not insist on a better world because they have beeen trained. They have been trained that their most fundamental relationship to the universe is subordinate. They have been trained to fear and hate their fellow human rather than embrace their strengths and use it to build a beautiful world. They have been trained to believe this world was meant to suck and that your salvation was death. They have been trained by humans to be taken advantage of by humans. Humans sealed it with a Jesus/Allah/Yahweh loves you and have been raping and pillaging this planet ever since. The religion is the richest and most powerful entity on the planet. The Catholic Church alone could probably clothe, feed, shelter, and provide medicine for every needy person on Earth and still turn a profit. It wouldn't hurt them too much.

The problems of this world are comprehensible. This is not la la land, or QM, shit happens for a reason here. We can know the reasons. This world is broken doesn't cut it. This world is being broken. There is something out there fucking off our planet. The system works perfectly but its not set up for the contentment or livelihood of any species. -Particularly our own! So then, what is behind all this? I'm a stickler for accuracy, if it's something else, I'd sure like to know.

Ok. I understand the perception you have given above. If that is all you want, then you have succeeded. I had the impression you were after something else.

If you dont mind my asking, what does this have to do with winning the noble peace prize or turning physics, theoretical or not, on its head?

 

[Rift Zone]

Ok. I understand the perception you have given above. If that is all you want, then you have succeeded. I had the impression you were after something else.

If you dont mind my asking, what does this have to do with winning the noble peace prize or turning physics, theoretical or not, on its head?

I'm not in the running for a Nobel Peace Prize. They don't give them to dead people and it might take a while before we start restructuring our approach to our systems. Fortunate for me, there are different divisions. It's the one in Physics I'm shooting for. Directly, it doesn't have too much to do with any of this. Indirectly it's all part of my evil plan to save the world. If Steven Hawking or Einstein told the world they were convinced there was a better path for humanity and demonstrated what that path was, I bet it would be well received by many. That's why I'm messing around with science. I know atheist spirituality will help us build a world that we all know we are capable of building! Every one of us knows things are not supposed to be this way. This is the path out. This is how we come up with inspiration and direction. We've been looking to sky daddy for direction for far too long and our world suffers because of it. We need to look into ourselves, find our beauty and capacity and bring that to the world.

I'm making a concerted effort to attain Nobel Laureate status purely for fame. (Between you and me, bah! I'd rather not. I think I'd be cool with "rich", but famous is far more intrusive than I want to deal with. Whatever. This planet is far more important than my insignificant self.) It's all about notoriety. A little academic fame goes a long way when it comes to introducing uncommon concepts. It's a very simplistic approach: prove I know what I'm talking about then tell them exactly what I want them to hear. I think the merits of atheist spirituality alone would attract spiritual seekers, back that up with strong opinions about saving the world from a confirmed elite intellectual, or whatever, and you have a beautiful little formula for a better day.

 

[Eventhorizon]

[MENTION=10289]Rift Zone[/MENTION] you understand that nothing you have had me look at or posted in relation to my question really answers it? I have to assume that is by intent so at this point I do not know what to say.

 

[Rift Zone]

@Rift Zone you understand that nothing you have had me look at or posted in relation to my question really answers it? I have to assume that is by intent so at this point I do not know what to say.

Hmm. That don't seem cool. Your assumption is wrong. I don't think it would take much to convince you that I have an uncommon way of thinking about things. We do different things with information. I will happily tell you anything you want to know. -Even if it is: "i don't know", I'm not ashamed of that at all. I'll tell you what I know. I'll tell you what I think. I'll tell you what I speculate on. I'll tell you what I couldn't touch with a 10 foot pole: magnetars, cant wrap my mind around them.

The problem must be I don't understand the question. I try to be concise! I leave out details all the time. Still, I try to completely address the question. If my answer didn't apply then I didn't understand the question. Pointing me back to it and saying "that question" is not going to help. Chances are pretty good if I took wrong the first time, my perspective might lead me down the same path the second. I know it's my fault here so I'm sorry to put this on you but the best way to go here is rephrase the question. -Say what? The more definitive your question, the more definitive the answer will be.

 

[say what]

I think there is no doubt that you think about things different- and it's something, which I believe, should be valued.

I think [MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION] brings up a great point on the delivery of your message. There's one thing to say "I believe this...." and another "I know this....", it's an important case of a hypothesis vs. a theory.

I think what would be valuable for you in the future, is to consider presenting your ideas in a way that follows a natural progress of a debate which is:

1. State why you think ______.
2. Provide evidence for ______.
3. State clearly how you think _____ differs from conventional ideas/theories.
4. Provide evidence or a method to succeed in ______.

You have to be prepared for debate, as you are stating a new hypothesis that goes against a large body of evidence and literature as well as common ideologies. You need to approach by saying, here's the evidence - not, here's my own personal evidence, because that limits the scope of your hypothesis. Perhaps it might also serve well to say "I have experienced this, this is my point of view, I would like to share it with the world' ...this approach is a lot more easy to take than "you're all wrong and I am right". Approach is everything when dealing with a very hot topic.

Also, I really liked [MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION] 's suggest of narrowing down your writing to a brief and coherent/succinct piece of writing. This is actually a critical piece in delivering your knowledge that you're taught in school. You want to be able to, in common language, tell someone your purpose, background, evidence and approach within 200 words. After that, people tend not to care.

In furthering your description of it might help to really present a short and coherent description of your idea, and then follow it with concrete evidence/literature. You'll also need to highlight the deficiencies in the opposing views that you critique. It's one thing to say "this is a new approach that could benefit the world" and another thing to say "this is a new approach that is better than all the rest". When you identify a 'directionality' in 'betterness' , you need supporting evidence. However, if you simply say, here's my idea, I think it would benefit humanity because it does this and this and this...you're not saying it's better than another belief, but just one that could be beneficial.

Also, I've read a few of the other threads you've posted around the net on archaic crust theory ( http://www.thescienceforum.com/pseudoscience/39184-archaic-crust-theory.html , as well as a few from the forum you posted above) and I've noticed that you ask for feedback, but seem very defensive when people suggest changes or simply disagree/question components. I wonder if you truly want feedback so you can grow this, or if you just want people to agree with you. It might be worth reflecting on what you're truly looking for from us.

 

[Lark]

I dont think the world can be saved but I think the world is worth saving.

For future generations.

 

[Rift Zone]

I think there is no doubt that you think about things different- and it's something, which I believe, should be valued.

Thanks.

The world does not interact linearly. This cannot be explained through approach you suggest. Making it more concise, I fear, will make it look even more foreign and unpalatable. Seems to be a fine line here. I'm trying to present the big picture. It is a picture -multidimensional. There's no linear world, problem or solution here; it's intricate.

My character... Seems like a lot of people around here have been questioning that, myself included. I'm such a dick. I mean well. =(

Archaic Crust Theory is irrefutable. If there was enough energy in the explosion to completely destroy protoEarth's original crust as shown in the moon formation clips, most of our planet would be floating around in the Oort Cloud now.

I recently shared this with [MENTION=5559]Cornerstone[/MENTION]:

You are very wise. Thank you for the insights. It appears I have a lot of immaturity to overcome. I know that I was born far more naive than intelligent. Thankfully, wisdom can be learned. This one is a hard lesson for me. I went from infinitely passive and humble to finding my strength. Knowing who I am makes the strength all the easier to wield. I know I need to find the middle ground now. Thank for your compassion. You are trying to share a lesson with me, not teach me one -as I would do. You are right about all that, and I don't like being in the wrong. Mentors come in all forms. Thank you for being mine. Humbling myself has too many advantages to ignore. I'm going to see if I'm ready to grow. I think I am. Thanks.

 

[Rift Zone]

I dont think the world can be saved but I think the world is worth saving.

For future generations.

It is certainly worth saving!!!

I disagree, however! I know it can be done. =)

 

[Lark]

It is certainly worth saving!!!

I disagree, however! I know it can be done. =)

Good luck with that.

 

[say what]

Thanks.

The world does not interact linearly. This cannot be explained through approach you suggest. Making it more concise, I fear, will make it look even more foreign and unpalatable. Seems to be a fine line here. I'm trying to present the big picture. It is a picture -multidimensional. There's no linear world, problem or solution here; it's intricate.

My character... Seems like a lot of people around here have been questioning that, myself included. I'm such a dick. I mean well. =(

Archaic Crust Theory is irrefutable. If there was enough energy in the explosion to completely destroy protoEarth's original crust as shown in the moon formation clips, most of our planet would be floating around in the Oort Cloud now.

I recently shared this with [MENTION=5559]Cornerstone[/MENTION]:

I don't think you're a dick- I think you're passionate, and perhaps have only ever seen this way of discussion and it be fruitful. There's many ways to discuss and debate, but I personally believe there are more fruitful ways - but a lot of people don't believe that!

I know we've talked privately about this- and I've even had discussions around my own work with senior mentors....there comes a point in your life when you're trying to create or push a movement that goes against traditional paradigms. It's not easy, but you can't expect the system to change to you and your ways. What you have to do, is conform to the system to build your credibility and position. Once you gain notoriety, you can then challenge it to adapt and shift. What I think this means for you, is that you're likely going to have to present your ideas in a fashion that the general community of people who can help you, can understands. Not all work out there is linear- in fact, much of it does recognize the interconnectedness of concepts in our world, and that it's often a dynamic and multi-reciprocal relationship...but they present it in a way that adheres to the standard means of discussing and debating ideas. While you might not like that way, or feel that your ideas are best expressed through that means, you're likely going to have to do it to make your first steps. Once you gain support and demonstrate your knowledge and abilities, you can then challenge that format. But until then, you'll likely not get the response you wanted.

You're challenging a system that's been in place for centuries, you can't expect them to change to how you see the world without first presenting it in a fashion they can understand. A life's work doesn't happen over night, it requires a lot of sacrifices on your end to get there- and often you have to put your own perspectives and ideas on the back burner, so that you can support others' in their way of thinking - as this gains you a lot of significance in the field. Once you've proven yourself, you can then show the world that you have much to often in new and innovative ideas.

So...with all that said- I don't think you're a dick...I think you're wanting the system to mold to you, which it never will. If the system changed for everyone who thought differently, there would be no system...there are many people like you who have to work for decades until they are able to successfully challenge the system. Once you realize that you have to play the game to get ahead, and once you're ahead, you can then change the rules...you'll likely find your discussions on this topic easier.

 

[Eventhorizon]

[MENTION=10289]Rift Zone[/MENTION] I would take [MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION] insight on this, she has provided a lot of relevant information here.

 

[Rift Zone]

I don't think you're a dick- I think you're passionate, and perhaps have only ever seen this way of discussion and it be fruitful. There's many ways to discuss and debate, but I personally believe there are more fruitful ways - but a lot of people don't believe that!

In our daily lives people have accountability. Online, there is usually little to no accoutability. Some people take advantage of that. Some people think they can do, say, and attack whom every they please with impunity because on the internet, you have minimal accountability. I was on a personal crusade to prove them wrong. I was going to show them there is accountability online, mostly by being a bigger dick than they could be. I'd pick my fights wisely! -going after everyone who unsavory online would keep me too busy so I would just correct those who bring that to me personally. My intentions were good but upon reflection my approach seems a little misled. I think I'm over it now.

I know we've talked privately about this- and I've even had discussions around my own work with senior mentors....there comes a point in your life when you're trying to create or push a movement that goes against traditional paradigms. It's not easy, but you can't expect the system to change to you and your ways. What you have to do, is conform to the system to build your credibility and position. Once you gain notoriety, you can then challenge it to adapt and shift.

Most the time, you are absolutely right. "Conform to the system" is not an option for me. I don't think they'd let me in. Besides, my ultimate objectives involve social systems and I'll never be a politician.

What I think this means for you, is that you're likely going to have to present your ideas in a fashion that the general community of people who can help you, can understands. Not all work out there is linear- in fact, much of it does recognize the interconnectedness of concepts in our world, and that it's often a dynamic and multi-reciprocal relationship...but they present it in a way that adheres to the standard means of discussing and debating ideas. While you might not like that way, or feel that your ideas are best expressed through that means, you're likely going to have to do it to make your first steps. Once you gain support and demonstrate your knowledge and abilities, you can then challenge that format. But until then, you'll likely not get the response you wanted.

I'm trying! I don't know what I should be telling you. It's as simple as that. I mentioned I wanted to publish this in a few seperate volumes. They would be interconnected and only availabe as a set. By the time it's ready for publishing, I'll make it flow as smoothly as I can. Right now, I'm not keen on exactly what that looks like. i have a picture to paint for you. I think I told you what the picture looks like, to some degree, but I know I haven't actually shown much of it. I don't know what to show you. I think what I've presented, in of itself is sound but filling in the blanks to show how that appiies to everything else is a different thing. I get that. I think that's were lose eachother most of the time here. I would LOVE to fill in those blanks for you. I don't know where they exist! I know this is really fuked up but im not ready to lead you through it yet. I can walk you through it but you will have to point me where to lead you. I know that is my problem and I need to overcome it before I'm going to get every far. Just the same, my offer about being an open book to you all stands. If you want to know, I'll tell you. It's a big picture though. "Possible solutions to the world's problems" -we might as well merge that thread with this one because I have a few ideas about that. What's presented in this thread hasn't even gotten the through the first volume of this set.

Democracy is when the people get to decide what the course of action should be. I move to reconsider the capacity of elected officials. Too often, candidates are chosen not because they are considered the best for the job, but more as a matter of their personal ideals. What is that? Why must I commit myself to the views of any one person? I don't care how much I may agree with anyone, there is no one but myself that is capable of making my decisions for me. Yet, US politics thinks otherwise. The population should have the power to affect its will directly upon the topic. Our elected officials should act to execute our demands, not decide them. Voting in this country is a mockery of democracy. Of the people, by the people, and for the people is a sales pitch unless the people mentioned are of a multi-billion dollar industry. -Be it corporate, governance or religious organizations. Understandably, elected officials have responsibilities above and beyond the scope of the private citizen. There are necessarily occasions that warrant decisions be made independent of citizen involvement. Yet, for the majority of issues that exists, it is the citizen that should be making the decisions. We are not given the right to make choices, we are forced to choose a ruling class. Our choices are presented to us by the ruling class. The media, thus all the crap we are fed, is inexplicably tied to the ruling class. Where is our choice? At what point do the citizens effect their will? They don't, and everything they were taught about the universe told them it was meant to be this way.

Infrastructure belongs to humanity. Those water pipes and electrical cables and data fiber and bridges all belong to us. We paid for them, they are ours. Fuck the corporations who put built in the first place, thanks for managing it for us, you built by making us pay dearly for it AS YOU MADE A HUGE PROFIT. Had you taken a big hit for the sake of investment, I could be more reasonable about it. But no, you jacked the populace so you could earn even more as you made us pay for every inch of infrastructure. That shit's ours buddy. Humanity makes the rules and owns the shit. -end of story.

Who owns natural resources? Some rich guy. Fabulous! So, basically, the welfare of humanity depends on some rich guy who needs no welfare. Fuck that guy. This is not his planet, it is ours. I will teach humanity to take possession of natural resources. I will teach humanity to take possession of everything. I will show how spirituality can take us there and how it will keep us honest moving forward. This is is a real big picture I'm willing to paint for you.

You're challenging a system that's been in place for centuries, you can't expect them to change to how you see the world without first presenting it in a fashion they can understand. A life's work doesn't happen over night, it requires a lot of sacrifices on your end to get there- and often you have to put your own perspectives and ideas on the back burner, so that you can support others' in their way of thinking - as this gains you a lot of significance in the field. Once you've proven yourself, you can then show the world that you have much to often in new and innovative ideas.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead

So...with all that said- I don't think you're a dick...I think you're wanting the system to mold to you, which it never will. If the system changed for everyone who thought differently, there would be no system...there are many people like you who have to work for decades until they are able to successfully challenge the system. Once you realize that you have to play the game to get ahead, and once you're ahead, you can then change the rules...you'll likely find your discussions on this topic easier.

"which it never will" I beg to differ. Being unreasonable about this my be my greatest asset. Eccentric means one's just gonna be that way no matter what the world thinks; you can bet I have some of that going on. I'm far too much of a freak for this world to bend me to its will. And, to be honest with you, seeing the most capable species known to exist live so far below its capacity really pisses me off. So we are going to clash. The system and I are going to clash in a big way. This world cannot break me and the system has a battle on the horizon. It's not a matter of bending the world to my will, exclusively. I'm just a dick enough to think my will aligns really well with humanity's spirit. I doubt there will be a draw here. I think I ultimately will find the support I'm looking for. We will bend this world to our will. I'm going to end the dark ages, you can count on that.

 

[Lark]

I'm a kind of religious socialist, I dont know if that's an interesting story but I know it's a better one that the big lebowski and it's got like a cult following and shit

 

[say what]

I'm a kind of religious socialist, I dont know if that's an interesting story but I know it's a better one that the big lebowski and it's got like a cult following and shit

Yeah...but do you have white russians? HUH!?

 

[Lark]

Yeah...but do you have white russians? HUH!?

I used to drink them all the time when I was a caver.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Jeff Bridges isnt Russian.