The paradox of a Free World

[UncleSunny]

~ I am endlessly entertained at the paradox of a Free World. The paradox, I think, comes down to Nature vs. Civilization. Despite the Hippie idea of Nature as a fragile and beautiful thing, I believe that a completely Capitalistic, war based society is actually the manifestation of Nature in its purest form. The reality of Nature is that beautiful things usually get eaten.

Every animal, including Early (and modern) man, has lived in a state of fear and hunger, using any and every tool available to them to survive as well as they could. This is part of what turned Homo Sapient into Humankind; the drive to capture everything and screw anything. Nature's laws do not consider the social, ethical or political ramifications.

Now a days, a person who lives this way is a either a sociopath or a very wealthy person (or both, usually). However, it is in our nature and, I believe, our evolutionary best interest, to do everything to take care of ourselves and the ones we love.

However, one day someone realized, "if I get enough of my 'buddies' together and make some simple rules, surviving would be a lot easier". This created something called “Civilization”. Instead of foraging for berries, hiding in the bushes, or running for your life, we could create a system that could work for the Greater Good, and we could all have the time and resources to multiply comfortably. If people had the time to sit and dream and think and invent and build, make friends and fall in love…the whole idea of Eden says volumes about who we think we are. This is the other part of Homo Sapient which makes us more than animals.

Millennia later, things are not so simple.

Ever since the first guy built the first city wall, people have been willing to give up their freedoms to avoid the horrors of Nature. Whether it is a hungry tiger, a violent neighbor or the edge of starvation, we just wanted to be left alone and not be dead so we could hang out with our favorite people. Everything—medicine, science, economics, religion, politics—everything humans create equates to this one goal. This, to the best I can explain it, is what pursuing happiness means to me.

I have spent two decades trying to figure out what Happiness means, and I’m still not sure. Tribes have turned into Nations, and the communities we fought to protect have become infringing Special Interest Groups fighting wars with other people’s lives. Humans will sacrifice everything because they genuinely believe in their Duty to the Nation which exists to maintain their freedom to seek happiness. A Nation builds laws, but some in that Nation bend or break those laws, other Nations bump into one another, and the equilibrium breaks down on many levels. revolutionary ideas pop up, and bump against each other, resulting in more screaming matches and hate than universal solutions.


I think that every sacrifice ever made by any man or woman in the name of their Freedom would be completely in vain if Mankind forgot the whole reason we decided to band up together in the first place. Let me be myself with the folks that I care about; I’ll help my neighbor if he helps me, and give him his space if he allows me mine. Complete freedom means violence. Boundaries must be set, or else we will destroy ourselves entirely.

 

[VictorVIcious]

too heavy for my buzz right now, I'll visit again tomorrow. VV

 

[smokinjs]

im high as hell and man that kicked asss.....nice posst ... i admit to tho im to buzzed to give a detailed, more enlightning reply..jus wanted to bump it...smoke on

 

[nowstopwhining]

Wow.......

 

[craca102]

Great post.

 

[WhatAmIDoing]

I actually am going to have to disagree with you. Not entirely, but I believe that you hit upon the basis of this, as I can see it, "neccessary contradiction".

You say that Nations, Communities, and Neighbors provide us with protection for our interests. Then, at points, these interests, with all their protection, come in conflict, and thereby create wars. For this I cannot discredit you, as I agree completely. This can be proven with historical evidence.

...Yet history tends to be quite incomplete by nature. As only a very few are recording the events, they are seen from a limited point of view by default. Everyone and their reality cannot be included, therefore, it is incomplete.

Where you deem these "contradictions" as neccessary, I believe you are missing a key element that can prove their innecessity. (or does that mean that they're absolutely vital? I don't know, english is so inconsistent with those kinds of things) When you say that a Community creates the paramaters, or boundaries, for human life and the protection of such things as deemed "cumbersome" or "dangerous" by the time, you then conclude that there is no alternative for this except complete savagery and independence. You fail to see (pardon the expression...I'm just not sure how else to word that) that nations and boundaries of today are just a small step. There is not just this or that, or even this, that, and everything in between. It's so much more beyond "this" and "that", there is so much else to be considered. That's why, on even a base introduction to this process reveals a spectrum with "savagery and complete independence" on one end, and "entire, complete, encompasing inclusion". (however, how to deem this at limits...well. maybe later) and complete, would mean everything that is currently known. however, that is a bit unrealistic, as many people are not familiar first hand with things not of this Earth. We have all experienced this planet first hand. For a long time too, yet much is still unlearned. If the world worked together as one, banded together, not by an outside threat (as that is still closed in a way...simply encountering more support). I believe that it is necessary to openly accept, and in doing so, accept there is more beyond what you know. Be open to new ideas and information (I know, nothing new right? People have been saying that since history began to be written). But don't do so rashly. I mean, it's a balance. You can't have all one, or all the other (Which explains your rationalization of current conflicts+disagreements, etc. ...aahhhhhh. now i get it ) however, then comes in the balance of being open to new thoughts and ideas. It's an inconsistent (or consistent, depending on the level) cycle/process. If we could all just be inclusive without thinking twice about the spoken word as truth, without all the deceits and verbal web-spinning. Think, what then man. I don't know for sure, but one prediction would be that the world begins to think on a much broader scale, begin to understand their inadvertant effects upon other elements of reality (i geuss. i wanted to say nature, then the world, then the universe, then...well, i'm not sure). Then, with an increase in respect as well (as that is necessary when a difference is evident. or else conflict ensues), maybe, just maybe, (and this is real idealistic) people could get along and actually have fun living.

 

[UncleSunny]

I actually am going to have to disagree with you. Not entirely, but I believe that you hit upon the basis of this, as I can see it, "neccessary contradiction".

You say that Nations, Communities, and Neighbors provide us with protection for our interests. Then, at points, these interests, with all their protection, come in conflict, and thereby create wars. For this I cannot discredit you, as I agree completely. This can be proven with historical evidence.

...Yet history tends to be quite incomplete by nature. As only a very few are recording the events, they are seen from a limited point of view by default. Everyone and their reality cannot be included, therefore, it is incomplete.

Where you deem these "contradictions" as neccessary, I believe you are missing a key element that can prove their innecessity. (or does that mean that they're absolutely vital? I don't know, english is so inconsistent with those kinds of things) When you say that a Community creates the paramaters, or boundaries, for human life and the protection of such things as deemed "cumbersome" or "dangerous" by the time, you then conclude that there is no alternative for this except complete savagery and independence. You fail to see (pardon the expression...I'm just not sure how else to word that) that nations and boundaries of today are just a small step. There is not just this or that, or even this, that, and everything in between. It's so much more beyond "this" and "that", there is so much else to be considered. That's why, on even a base introduction to this process reveals a spectrum with "savagery and complete independence" on one end, and "entire, complete, encompasing inclusion". (however, how to deem this at limits...well. maybe later) and complete, would mean everything that is currently known. however, that is a bit unrealistic, as many people are not familiar first hand with things not of this Earth. We have all experienced this planet first hand. For a long time too, yet much is still unlearned. If the world worked together as one, banded together, not by an outside threat (as that is still closed in a way...simply encountering more support). I believe that it is necessary to openly accept, and in doing so, accept there is more beyond what you know. Be open to new ideas and information (I know, nothing new right? People have been saying that since history began to be written). But don't do so rashly. I mean, it's a balance. You can't have all one, or all the other (Which explains your rationalization of current conflicts+disagreements, etc. ...aahhhhhh. now i get it ) however, then comes in the balance of being open to new thoughts and ideas. It's an inconsistent (or consistent, depending on the level) cycle/process. If we could all just be inclusive without thinking twice about the spoken word as truth, without all the deceits and verbal web-spinning. Think, what then man. I don't know for sure, but one prediction would be that the world begins to think on a much broader scale, begin to understand their inadvertant effects upon other elements of reality (i geuss. i wanted to say nature, then the world, then the universe, then...well, i'm not sure). Then, with an increase in respect as well (as that is necessary when a difference is evident. or else conflict ensues), maybe, just maybe, (and this is real idealistic) people could get along and actually have fun living.

Okay, I admit I am a little confused. Are you speaking of "Human Evolution" on a higher scale than just physical? I mean, it sounds like you are taking my point and saying that "that is all well and good for our physical lives, but succumbing to the Powers-that-be can ultimately be AGAINST the evolution we are really here to develop, and that conflict is just a part of our growing pains as a species.

If that is what you are saying, then Bingo, you kinda hit the hidden point in my essay. That is the point I alluded to when I said, " If people had the time to sit and dream and think and invent and build, make friends and fall in love…"
I have to admit, I spent a CONSIDERABLE amount of my life under the influence of LSD, and although I haven't done a hit in years, the thoughts of human mental and spiritual development has had a considerable effect on my life. People can live in peace without walls and laws, but, sorry to say, I think humans are still in a type of infancy, and reactionary things like hate and violence are still solutions we use too often. It only takes one asshole to start a fight, but it takes two or more to start a war. People are so blinded by their religious or political beliefs that they shut their ears. I don't blame people; I'm only just turning 35, and I can feel that hardening of my beliefs, although I try to fight against it.

It happens. You get older and you see how futile the rage and anger of youth is, and how valuable things like Love and Family are. You just slowly accept things. I am not saying it is right, I just wanted to create a picture of the situation as I see it.

But please, if I misunderstand, tell me. I write these things to get discussions going because I love talking about this kinda stuff. I never assume that I am Right, and I live for debate, so thanks for the input, and as for disagreements, bring them on my Friend!

 

[WhatAmIDoing]

Okay, I admit I am a little confused. Are you speaking of "Human Evolution" on a higher scale than just physical? I mean, it sounds like you are taking my point and saying that "that is all well and good for our physical lives, but succumbing to the Powers-that-be can ultimately be AGAINST the evolution we are really here to develop, and that conflict is just a part of our growing pains as a species.

If that is what you are saying, then Bingo, you kinda hit the hidden point in my essay. That is the point I alluded to when I said, " If people had the time to sit and dream and think and invent and build, make friends and fall in love…"
I have to admit, I spent a CONSIDERABLE amount of my life under the influence of LSD, and although I haven't done a hit in years, the thoughts of human mental and spiritual development has had a considerable effect on my life. People can live in peace without walls and laws, but, sorry to say, I think humans are still in a type of infancy, and reactionary things like hate and violence are still solutions we use too often. It only takes one asshole to start a fight, but it takes two or more to start a war. People are so blinded by their religious or political beliefs that they shut their ears. I don't blame people; I'm only just turning 35, and I can feel that hardening of my beliefs, although I try to fight against it.

It happens. You get older and you see how futile the rage and anger of youth is, and how valuable things like Love and Family are. You just slowly accept things. I am not saying it is right, I just wanted to create a picture of the situation as I see it.

But please, if I misunderstand, tell me. I write these things to get discussions going because I love talking about this kinda stuff. I never assume that I am Right, and I live for debate, so thanks for the input, and as for disagreements, bring them on my Friend!

Absolutely got it dude. Human kind isn't even anywhere near "adulthood", so to speak. we're prolly about in the terrible twos...ish?

And that last paragraph...couldn't have said it better myself man. Right on. I don't blame people, and I like to believe that they honestly believe what they do. This deserves respect, only I hope that perhaps they will eventually begin to see themselves for real. People are as real as the realities they create, and ultimately are guided by their own laws, no matter what anyone can say. damn, i'm just stretching here, i have too many points i want to say, and can't stick w/one...

 

[WhatAmIDoing]

I just went through re-reading this. and dude, i totally get you. cause i have a bunch of thoughts like that too, and when i try to put them into words, it gets all confusing. helpful to have someone you can actually interact with, personally, because there is so much more to communication than words.

 

[UncleSunny]

I just went through re-reading this. and dude, i totally get you. cause i have a bunch of thoughts like that too, and when i try to put them into words, it gets all confusing. helpful to have someone you can actually interact with, personally, because there is so much more to communication than words.

I hear ya, written communication, beyond the mundane, is tough. It's like when you watch someone talk through a window-you might not know the words they are saying, but watch their face and their hands, and you'll have a good idea of what they are talking about.

Plus, something that fascinates me is language itself. We forget that words are just symbols to represent things. Here's an example: the word "snow" might mean something beautiful and peaceful to some, but to me snow is dark, depressing, and something to be avoided at all costs. The experience of my life made it that way. I hate the cold because I've been stuck without heat, and with heating bills I couldn't afford to pay. I've taken the bus my whole life, and had to stand in it for years before I finally had enough and moved to Southern California.

The facts are easy, but the mood is hard, and the mood changes everything. It only takes one word to confuse, and unfortunately with all the different people in the world, it is very likely that someone is going to misunderstand. It's not ignorance, but difference, that makes that happen.
Anyhow, sorry to go off; I love discussing language. Glad you dug my essay. Thanks for the feedback.

Peace.

 

[WhatAmIDoing]

I hear ya, written communication, beyond the mundane, is tough. It's like when you watch someone talk through a window-you might not know the words they are saying, but watch their face and their hands, and you'll have a good idea of what they are talking about.

Plus, something that fascinates me is language itself. We forget that words are just symbols to represent things. Here's an example: the word "snow" might mean something beautiful and peaceful to some, but to me snow is dark, depressing, and something to be avoided at all costs. The experience of my life made it that way. I hate the cold because I've been stuck without heat, and with heating bills I couldn't afford to pay. I've taken the bus my whole life, and had to stand in it for years before I finally had enough and moved to Southern California.

The facts are easy, but the mood is hard, and the mood changes everything. It only takes one word to confuse, and unfortunately with all the different people in the world, it is very likely that someone is going to misunderstand. It's not ignorance, but difference, that makes that happen.
Anyhow, sorry to go off; I love discussing language. Glad you dug my essay. Thanks for the feedback.

Peace.

It's so true though. The words themselves don't mean anything, it's their association and intended interpretation. Like, have you ever been able to talk in full sentences with complete understanding, yet using only one word? It's one of the most amazing things in the world. (one word, verbed/nouned/shortened, accented, etc.) it's not the words or language, but the sounds, intonations, emphasis, and generally conveyed understanding. Which is so hard with just words.

 

[chewy*barber]

"The reality of Nature is that beautiful things usually get eaten."

Doesn't this say more about what you think is beautiful then it does about the reality of nature?

 

[UncleSunny]

"The reality of Nature is that beautiful things usually get eaten."

Doesn't this say more about what you think is beautiful then it does about the reality of nature?

Sure, I'll buy that. I'm not sure where you are going, and I'd love to hear more of what you mean.
In my defense I will say that "beauty" doesn't exist if someone doesn't see it. People think that Jenna Jameson is beautiful, but not me. Does that mean she is or isn't beautiful?

I only mention semantics because I'm curious about your view on the reality of nature. "beauty" is a tricky concept, and perhaps not the best word I could have used, and I did cheat a little by using two meanings of the word in the same context. I opened using the definition of beauty meaning "wonder and awe" and twisted it the next time to mean "bright and appealing".
You busted me on that, I admit.
But lemmie know more of what you mean. I'm curious.

 

[WhatAmIDoing]

"The reality of Nature is that beautiful things usually get eaten."

Doesn't this say more about what you think is beautiful then it does about the reality of nature?

Well, i geuss you could say that the reality of nature is that nothing lasts forever, and therefore, beautiful things get "eaten". Nature's beauty is in the cycle. And then humans have arrived at the point where they believe they are "above" the cycle. So now what? we create our own cycle, and it competes with the natural one. who will win? ...I'm goin with nature on this one.