Sum up the meaning of life in one sentence.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
31 Dec 2009, 2:08 am
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
You can state as fact that having faith faith = gullibility though.
Faith
-noun
Belief that is not based on proof: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
Faith
-noun
Belief that is not based on proof: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
Noah Webster in 1828 wrote:
1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.
Way to use a different dictionary to me....
[imghttp://www.downloads.tripura4u.com/essential-softwares/dic.jpg[/img]
Still , the first definition basically says what I said -)
Not quite. Faith is basically taking someone at their word, such as an authority like Euclid saying "vertical angles are equal". While there is proof of it, you do not need to see it if you can trust the source. Certainly you can attack the character of the source or make all sorts of arguments to disregard. However, it is not accepting with no proof, but on the basis of trust of a source.
Perhaps the first definition you quoted is correct as well, just not in the sense you would like it to be.
You are speaking of the acceptance of validity of authority and, in matters of mathematics, that simply is not done. Nor in science where a scientist has the means and the knowledge to make the proper validation. Science prospers out of doubt since it is out of doubt that scientific fertility arises. Religion suppresses doubt since it rests on authority alone and to attack authority is to attack faith.
See http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/f ... feat/all/1
I am speaking about accepting items on authority which can be shown to be true. Such as the historicity of documents, like those of Cicero, Plato, Euclid, Cassius Dio, et al. Yes, in mathematics and science you should certainly learn how to the proofs are done, do the experiments, etc. As much as Science prospers out of doubting gravitation and magnetism, there is some room for trusting certain factors to work within their parameters.
It is by distrusting those things that are most taken for granted that science makes it's most startling and useful discoveries. It is exactly the opposite with faith which is why faith must rely on the most ancient and unavailable authorities for substantiation and why science has discarded the overwhelming bulk of ancient beliefs long ago.
Assuming you have a friend that you trust and they tell you something, do you require proof of it?
Do you believe that Nebuchadnezzar existed? Darius? Alexander? Caesar? If so, what proof do you have of their existence?
Those guys appear in history books which describe their accomplishments and there are coins that portray some of them. Whether or not they existed has no effect on my current beliefs in the nature of the universe. I grant the possibility of their existence until evidence is presented that they are fabrications. None of them is supposed to be related to an unseen presence that created the universe so it seems reasonable they may have existed.
I have a coin which is about 1700 years old, has a picture of a dude on the front along with the word "CONSTANS". Such is a reference of Caesar Constantine. However it doesn't tell very much about him aside from looks. Do you have any idea where history books, such as in college history textbooks, get their information? Do you suppose that it is all archaeological? Nothing against archaeology, but you are aware that the sources of history are from copies of historical records and compilations of records from throughout the centuries and millennia? Written history is where the mass of information on the past is, and there are some criteria to meet concerning a documents historicity before it is considered reliable. Do you have any idea how well the books of the Bible do in comparison to other historical documents?
All history is questionable. There are still questions going on about the death of Kennedy and the justification for bombing Hiroshima and there are living witnesses to those events and a great deal of documentation. Stuff hundreds and thousands of years ago are very unsure.
History is an account, mostly false, of events, mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers, mostly knaves, and soldiers, mostly fools.
Ambrose Bierce
Concerning things like JFK and people's ability to question, does it really change anything? Without debating too much about the JFK incident, I think the Oswald explanation is correct. And as for the "veering of the magic bullet", that is readily explained if the design of the car is taken into account. But anyway, such is a matter of conspiracy theorizing and somewhat serves to demonstrate how random and skewed people can slant things when they reject, and pick, and choose whatever they like to believe. People would rather believe in a "cover up" and have all the scandal and gossip to chew and regurgitate and chew once again after adding their own flavors to it... but really, the ability of people to randomly question an account does not affect either its veracity or its falsity, but only how people perceive such an account.
31 Dec 2009, 3:03 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
You can state as fact that having faith faith = gullibility though.
Faith
-noun
Belief that is not based on proof: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
Faith
-noun
Belief that is not based on proof: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
Noah Webster in 1828 wrote:
1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.
Way to use a different dictionary to me....
trippy portal of boxes
[imghttp://www.downloads.tripura4u.com/essential-softwares/dic.jpg[/img]
Still , the first definition basically says what I said -)
Not quite. Faith is basically taking someone at their word, such as an authority like Euclid saying "vertical angles are equal". While there is proof of it, you do not need to see it if you can trust the source. Certainly you can attack the character of the source or make all sorts of arguments to disregard. However, it is not accepting with no proof, but on the basis of trust of a source.
Perhaps the first definition you quoted is correct as well, just not in the sense you would like it to be.
You are speaking of the acceptance of validity of authority and, in matters of mathematics, that simply is not done. Nor in science where a scientist has the means and the knowledge to make the proper validation. Science prospers out of doubt since it is out of doubt that scientific fertility arises. Religion suppresses doubt since it rests on authority alone and to attack authority is to attack faith.
See http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/f ... feat/all/1
I am speaking about accepting items on authority which can be shown to be true. Such as the historicity of documents, like those of Cicero, Plato, Euclid, Cassius Dio, et al. Yes, in mathematics and science you should certainly learn how to the proofs are done, do the experiments, etc. As much as Science prospers out of doubting gravitation and magnetism, there is some room for trusting certain factors to work within their parameters.
It is by distrusting those things that are most taken for granted that science makes it's most startling and useful discoveries. It is exactly the opposite with faith which is why faith must rely on the most ancient and unavailable authorities for substantiation and why science has discarded the overwhelming bulk of ancient beliefs long ago.
Assuming you have a friend that you trust and they tell you something, do you require proof of it?
Do you believe that Nebuchadnezzar existed? Darius? Alexander? Caesar? If so, what proof do you have of their existence?
Those guys appear in history books which describe their accomplishments and there are coins that portray some of them. Whether or not they existed has no effect on my current beliefs in the nature of the universe. I grant the possibility of their existence until evidence is presented that they are fabrications. None of them is supposed to be related to an unseen presence that created the universe so it seems reasonable they may have existed.
I have a coin which is about 1700 years old, has a picture of a dude on the front along with the word "CONSTANS". Such is a reference of Caesar Constantine. However it doesn't tell very much about him aside from looks. Do you have any idea where history books, such as in college history textbooks, get their information? Do you suppose that it is all archaeological? Nothing against archaeology, but you are aware that the sources of history are from copies of historical records and compilations of records from throughout the centuries and millennia? Written history is where the mass of information on the past is, and there are some criteria to meet concerning a documents historicity before it is considered reliable. Do you have any idea how well the books of the Bible do in comparison to other historical documents?
All history is questionable. There are still questions going on about the death of Kennedy and the justification for bombing Hiroshima and there are living witnesses to those events and a great deal of documentation. Stuff hundreds and thousands of years ago are very unsure.
History is an account, mostly false, of events, mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers, mostly knaves, and soldiers, mostly fools.
Ambrose Bierce
Concerning things like JFK and people's ability to question, does it really change anything? Without debating too much about the JFK incident, I think the Oswald explanation is correct. And as for the "veering of the magic bullet", that is readily explained if the design of the car is taken into account. But anyway, such is a matter of conspiracy theorizing and somewhat serves to demonstrate how random and skewed people can slant things when they reject, and pick, and choose whatever they like to believe. People would rather believe in a "cover up" and have all the scandal and gossip to chew and regurgitate and chew once again after adding their own flavors to it... but really, the ability of people to randomly question an account does not affect either its veracity or its falsity, but only how people perceive such an account.
_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.
-Pythagoras
31 Dec 2009, 3:05 am
Magnus wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
You can state as fact that having faith faith = gullibility though.
Faith
-noun
Belief that is not based on proof: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
Faith
-noun
Belief that is not based on proof: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
Noah Webster in 1828 wrote:
1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.
Way to use a different dictionary to me....
trippy portal of boxes
[imghttp://www.downloads.tripura4u.com/essential-softwares/dic.jpg[/img]
Still , the first definition basically says what I said -)
Not quite. Faith is basically taking someone at their word, such as an authority like Euclid saying "vertical angles are equal". While there is proof of it, you do not need to see it if you can trust the source. Certainly you can attack the character of the source or make all sorts of arguments to disregard. However, it is not accepting with no proof, but on the basis of trust of a source.
Perhaps the first definition you quoted is correct as well, just not in the sense you would like it to be.
You are speaking of the acceptance of validity of authority and, in matters of mathematics, that simply is not done. Nor in science where a scientist has the means and the knowledge to make the proper validation. Science prospers out of doubt since it is out of doubt that scientific fertility arises. Religion suppresses doubt since it rests on authority alone and to attack authority is to attack faith.
See http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/f ... feat/all/1
I am speaking about accepting items on authority which can be shown to be true. Such as the historicity of documents, like those of Cicero, Plato, Euclid, Cassius Dio, et al. Yes, in mathematics and science you should certainly learn how to the proofs are done, do the experiments, etc. As much as Science prospers out of doubting gravitation and magnetism, there is some room for trusting certain factors to work within their parameters.
It is by distrusting those things that are most taken for granted that science makes it's most startling and useful discoveries. It is exactly the opposite with faith which is why faith must rely on the most ancient and unavailable authorities for substantiation and why science has discarded the overwhelming bulk of ancient beliefs long ago.
Assuming you have a friend that you trust and they tell you something, do you require proof of it?
Do you believe that Nebuchadnezzar existed? Darius? Alexander? Caesar? If so, what proof do you have of their existence?
Those guys appear in history books which describe their accomplishments and there are coins that portray some of them. Whether or not they existed has no effect on my current beliefs in the nature of the universe. I grant the possibility of their existence until evidence is presented that they are fabrications. None of them is supposed to be related to an unseen presence that created the universe so it seems reasonable they may have existed.
I have a coin which is about 1700 years old, has a picture of a dude on the front along with the word "CONSTANS". Such is a reference of Caesar Constantine. However it doesn't tell very much about him aside from looks. Do you have any idea where history books, such as in college history textbooks, get their information? Do you suppose that it is all archaeological? Nothing against archaeology, but you are aware that the sources of history are from copies of historical records and compilations of records from throughout the centuries and millennia? Written history is where the mass of information on the past is, and there are some criteria to meet concerning a documents historicity before it is considered reliable. Do you have any idea how well the books of the Bible do in comparison to other historical documents?
All history is questionable. There are still questions going on about the death of Kennedy and the justification for bombing Hiroshima and there are living witnesses to those events and a great deal of documentation. Stuff hundreds and thousands of years ago are very unsure.
History is an account, mostly false, of events, mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers, mostly knaves, and soldiers, mostly fools.
Ambrose Bierce
Concerning things like JFK and people's ability to question, does it really change anything? Without debating too much about the JFK incident, I think the Oswald explanation is correct. And as for the "veering of the magic bullet", that is readily explained if the design of the car is taken into account. But anyway, such is a matter of conspiracy theorizing and somewhat serves to demonstrate how random and skewed people can slant things when they reject, and pick, and choose whatever they like to believe. People would rather believe in a "cover up" and have all the scandal and gossip to chew and regurgitate and chew once again after adding their own flavors to it... but really, the ability of people to randomly question an account does not affect either its veracity or its falsity, but only how people perceive such an account.
trippy portal of boxes...
_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.
-Pythagoras
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
31 Dec 2009, 4:42 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
You can state as fact that having faith faith = gullibility though.
Faith
-noun
Belief that is not based on proof: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
Faith
-noun
Belief that is not based on proof: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
Noah Webster in 1828 wrote:
1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.
Way to use a different dictionary to me....
[imghttp://www.downloads.tripura4u.com/essential-softwares/dic.jpg[/img]
Still , the first definition basically says what I said -)
Not quite. Faith is basically taking someone at their word, such as an authority like Euclid saying "vertical angles are equal". While there is proof of it, you do not need to see it if you can trust the source. Certainly you can attack the character of the source or make all sorts of arguments to disregard. However, it is not accepting with no proof, but on the basis of trust of a source.
Perhaps the first definition you quoted is correct as well, just not in the sense you would like it to be.
You are speaking of the acceptance of validity of authority and, in matters of mathematics, that simply is not done. Nor in science where a scientist has the means and the knowledge to make the proper validation. Science prospers out of doubt since it is out of doubt that scientific fertility arises. Religion suppresses doubt since it rests on authority alone and to attack authority is to attack faith.
See http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/f ... feat/all/1
I am speaking about accepting items on authority which can be shown to be true. Such as the historicity of documents, like those of Cicero, Plato, Euclid, Cassius Dio, et al. Yes, in mathematics and science you should certainly learn how to the proofs are done, do the experiments, etc. As much as Science prospers out of doubting gravitation and magnetism, there is some room for trusting certain factors to work within their parameters.
It is by distrusting those things that are most taken for granted that science makes it's most startling and useful discoveries. It is exactly the opposite with faith which is why faith must rely on the most ancient and unavailable authorities for substantiation and why science has discarded the overwhelming bulk of ancient beliefs long ago.
Assuming you have a friend that you trust and they tell you something, do you require proof of it?
Do you believe that Nebuchadnezzar existed? Darius? Alexander? Caesar? If so, what proof do you have of their existence?
Those guys appear in history books which describe their accomplishments and there are coins that portray some of them. Whether or not they existed has no effect on my current beliefs in the nature of the universe. I grant the possibility of their existence until evidence is presented that they are fabrications. None of them is supposed to be related to an unseen presence that created the universe so it seems reasonable they may have existed.
I have a coin which is about 1700 years old, has a picture of a dude on the front along with the word "CONSTANS". Such is a reference of Caesar Constantine. However it doesn't tell very much about him aside from looks. Do you have any idea where history books, such as in college history textbooks, get their information? Do you suppose that it is all archaeological? Nothing against archaeology, but you are aware that the sources of history are from copies of historical records and compilations of records from throughout the centuries and millennia? Written history is where the mass of information on the past is, and there are some criteria to meet concerning a documents historicity before it is considered reliable. Do you have any idea how well the books of the Bible do in comparison to other historical documents?
All history is questionable. There are still questions going on about the death of Kennedy and the justification for bombing Hiroshima and there are living witnesses to those events and a great deal of documentation. Stuff hundreds and thousands of years ago are very unsure.
History is an account, mostly false, of events, mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers, mostly knaves, and soldiers, mostly fools.
Ambrose Bierce
Concerning things like JFK and people's ability to question, does it really change anything? Without debating too much about the JFK incident, I think the Oswald explanation is correct. And as for the "veering of the magic bullet", that is readily explained if the design of the car is taken into account. But anyway, such is a matter of conspiracy theorizing and somewhat serves to demonstrate how random and skewed people can slant things when they reject, and pick, and choose whatever they like to believe. People would rather believe in a "cover up" and have all the scandal and gossip to chew and regurgitate and chew once again after adding their own flavors to it... but really, the ability of people to randomly question an account does not affect either its veracity or its falsity, but only how people perceive such an account.
Read this by a man who was a CIA analyst for 30 years. I haven't made up my mind but the article is worth consideration.
http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern12302009.html
Incidentally, your comment applied to the old testament and the two thousand years of comment on Christian history insofar as perception and validity is concerned leaves me to wonder if you are analyzing things rationally.
31 Dec 2009, 6:17 am
"Do you have any idea how well the books of the Bible do in comparison to other historical documents?"
They have no corroboration and many things they say happened can be proven to be impossible.
For example, go outside and count the legs of an insect. If it has more than 4 legs, whoever wrote a certain part of the bible must have been pretttttyyyy ignorant.
The bible is set in a world where insects have four legs, rabbits chew cud and the moon is a light. It isn't even talking about our Earth.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
01 Jan 2010, 3:15 am
TheOddGoat wrote:
"Do you have any idea how well the books of the Bible do in comparison to other historical documents?"
They have no corroboration and many things they say happened can be proven to be impossible.
They have no corroboration and many things they say happened can be proven to be impossible.
Wrong.
TheOddGoat wrote:
For example, go outside and count the legs of an insect. If it has more than 4 legs, whoever wrote a certain part of the bible must have been pretttttyyyy ignorant.
It depends how you define "leg" versus "arm" and if the word for "leg" is including the term translated "jumping leg". Also, it could be a reference to "creeping", by which the insects continually walk on "all fours". I'm too tired to research it or the Hebrew, but the leg count of insects is empirically obvious and there is no one who is ignorant of insects if they have spent any time on Earth, so it is not a matter of your version of ignorance but of defining terms.
TheOddGoat wrote:
rabbits chew cud
They do in the sense that they eat what they have previously eaten more than once. For cows, they regurgitate and chew again, which is the definition we currently use for the phrasal term "chewing the cud", but rabbits also "chew the cud" by eating their own feces and processing it multiple times to gain nutrients missed the first time around.
TheOddGoat wrote:
and the moon is a light. It isn't even talking about our Earth.
Yes, the moon is a source of light for those on the Earth. It does not generate its own light but is a reflective source of light, which by necessity of the nature of reflection/absorption of photons is going to be the "lesser light".
jojobean
Veteran
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk
09 Jan 2010, 12:38 am
no matter how unfair life is, to know how have that one moment when all is well...like the eye of a hurricane
what I mean by this is life is rarely fair, just and honest, but to know how to achieve peace despite it...is all that really matters because you cant change things around you many times, but you can change how you react to it. No one, no system, and no situation can take that away.
09 Jan 2010, 12:43 am
jojobean wrote:
no matter how unfair life is, to know how have that one moment when all is well...like the eye of a hurricane
what I mean by this is life is rarely fair, just and honest, but to know how to achieve peace despite it...is all that really matters because you cant change things around you many times, but you can change how you react to it. No one, no system, and no situation can take that away.
what I mean by this is life is rarely fair, just and honest, but to know how to achieve peace despite it...is all that really matters because you cant change things around you many times, but you can change how you react to it. No one, no system, and no situation can take that away.
Over and over again I hear this bleating for peace. I don't need nor want peace. The world is in continuous interesting turmoil. I just want to be able to handle it.
SporadSpontan
Deinonychus
Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here
09 Jan 2010, 1:57 am
Sand wrote:
jojobean wrote:
no matter how unfair life is, to know how have that one moment when all is well...like the eye of a hurricane
what I mean by this is life is rarely fair, just and honest, but to know how to achieve peace despite it...is all that really matters because you cant change things around you many times, but you can change how you react to it. No one, no system, and no situation can take that away.
what I mean by this is life is rarely fair, just and honest, but to know how to achieve peace despite it...is all that really matters because you cant change things around you many times, but you can change how you react to it. No one, no system, and no situation can take that away.
Over and over again I hear this bleating for peace. I don't need nor want peace. The world is in continuous interesting turmoil. I just want to be able to handle it.
Can I just point out that these two statements are - for the most part - quite similar? jojo wrote that 'you can't change things around you'. This matches up with Sand's 'world of continuous turmoil'. And then jojo wrote that 'you can change how you react to it' which matches well with Sand's 'wanting to be able to handle it'.
But as for the bleating about peace (because I am one of those bleaters!) I would much prefer peace - however dull it could be - rather than chaos and cruelty. But maybe that's why the world isn't becoming more peaceful. Are people afraid that peace might be boring? The people who write the newspapers seem to think so. Do they think conflict is what makes life interesting? We just have to look at the types of movies and games people are interested in. For some reason peace and goodness is not an attraction for people. Perhaps they just need to experience that amazing blissed out feeling you can get from meditation - no drugs, no sex, not even music is necessary for it. It's just a state of mind, man.
_________________
happily reclusive
09 Jan 2010, 2:19 am
SporadSpontan wrote:
Sand wrote:
jojobean wrote:
no matter how unfair life is, to know how have that one moment when all is well...like the eye of a hurricane
what I mean by this is life is rarely fair, just and honest, but to know how to achieve peace despite it...is all that really matters because you cant change things around you many times, but you can change how you react to it. No one, no system, and no situation can take that away.
what I mean by this is life is rarely fair, just and honest, but to know how to achieve peace despite it...is all that really matters because you cant change things around you many times, but you can change how you react to it. No one, no system, and no situation can take that away.
Over and over again I hear this bleating for peace. I don't need nor want peace. The world is in continuous interesting turmoil. I just want to be able to handle it.
Can I just point out that these two statements are - for the most part - quite similar? jojo wrote that 'you can't change things around you'. This matches up with Sand's 'world of continuous turmoil'. And then jojo wrote that 'you can change how you react to it' which matches well with Sand's 'wanting to be able to handle it'.
But as for the bleating about peace (because I am one of those bleaters!) I would much prefer peace - however dull it could be - rather than chaos and cruelty. But maybe that's why the world isn't becoming more peaceful. Are people afraid that peace might be boring? The people who write the newspapers seem to think so. Do they think conflict is what makes life interesting? We just have to look at the types of movies and games people are interested in. For some reason peace and goodness is not an attraction for people. Perhaps they just need to experience that amazing blissed out feeling you can get from meditation - no drugs, no sex, not even music is necessary for it. It's just a state of mind, man.
The world in turmoil doesn't necessarily mean I favor atomic bombs or having my balls cut off with a dull knife. It means working out how to spend my last few dollars on a quart of milk and a block of cheese and what do I do after that? It means finding a hole in my jeans and being able to sew a patch over it. It means watching my wife die of cancer and wondering how I can make it less horrible.I don't live in Iraq or Somalia and my personal turmoils are still manageable.
jojobean
Veteran
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk
09 Jan 2010, 1:26 pm
Finding peace for me is a coping mechanism that recharges my batteries so I can deal with this "interesting" chaos...without it...I would probably nut up and kill myself. It is the best way that I found to deal with Post traumatic stress disorder
Also with all that I have personally seen, this world could stand some obession with peace
_________________
All art is a kind of confession, more or less oblique. All artists, if they are to survive, are forced, at last, to tell the whole story; to vomit the anguish up.
-James Baldwin
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,682
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
09 Jan 2010, 1:47 pm
jojobean wrote:
Finding peace for me is a coping mechanism that recharges my batteries so I can deal with this "interesting" chaos...without it...I would probably nut up and kill myself. It is the best way that I found to deal with Post traumatic stress disorder
I think you hit it spot on - people need a healthy mix of both and those seeking 'peace' are still trying to find more rest time or more 'them' time. On one side you have the person who has a job from hell, can't sit still, goes home and has an abusive partner and with a life like that, even the few hours of sleep they get are likely in bad condition. You can also have a person with too much time on their hands, too little to do, that's not peace either.
SporadSpontan wrote:
For some reason peace and goodness is not an attraction for people. Perhaps they just need to experience that amazing blissed out feeling you can get from meditation - no drugs, no sex, not even music is necessary for it. It's just a state of mind, man.
In a certain sense I think most people have their ways of meditating - and many of those will involve music, hobbies, finding a way to tune out. As for pitching sex, drugs, and rock & roll in the long run though - not going to happen, its another side of the psyche that starves as much as if you remove all peace (ie. we're all self-actualizers more or less, though we do need time to rest and recharge before we go out and do more self-actualizing).
