It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Humbly requesting your thoughts on something....

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Your insight would be most appreciated, and i thank you for sharing your thoughts in advance.

My boss requested some input on an assignment for one of his classes. Not that it helps me personally with my job whatsoever. It's a rather deep statement, and i'm still pondering and juggling some thoughts around about it.

Do you agree or disagree with the statement: "There is no human activity that does not represent a loss and transcendence of some kind to the individual experiencing it?" (Weenolsen, P. Life and Self Meaning: The process of their creation.) Explain.

I was curious what you think about this statement:

"There is no human activity that does not represent a loss and transcendence of some kind to the individual experiencing it?"

I thank you for contributing your thoughts,
john




posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   
When it asks about 'a loss' AND 'a transcendence'...

...is it basically saying there is BOTH a negative (as in 'take-away') as well as a positive affect inherent to every human action?

Or something else all together??


To be perfectly honest, the best way to befuddle me is to throw the word 'transcendence' into ANY discussion!



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I think you get the gist of the statement just fine love.

Here is the response i sent to my Deputy Fire Chief:


"There is no human activity that does not represent a loss and transcendence of some kind to the individual experiencing it?"

This statement is true. This statement is false. This statement is incomplete.
To provide proof that contradicts this statement would be detrimental to an individual’s psychi. Why? To do so may be outside the realm of human expectations. If I fear, then fear is a crutch I use to measure reality. If I fear loss, then I will manifest defense mechanisms which will serve as a deterant to prevent loss, or prevent me from perceiving such loss, in which case I have forfeited a portion of my own perception of reality, because I feared loss. I wonder what freedoms and what form of transcendence would occur the moment I decided I had nothing to lose. Of course, if I possessed nothing I feared losing, and I had successfully negated any possibility for loss, then transcendence may be the only possible result for any and all activities. In order for this to be possible though, I would have to relieve myself of the burden and hinderence of fear. But, isn’t fear a byproduct of our instincts?

I sometimes wonder if thinking is considered an activity. Does it take energy to think? Do I burn calories while thinking?

"There is no human activity that does not represent a loss and transcendence of some kind to the individual experiencing it?"

I disagree with this statement. There is one activity that may falsely “represent” loss, but provides an actual means for transcendence. The activity is thought, abstract in nature where words fail us (our perception of words), and soley dedicated towards the end goal of speculation. There is a question that can be asked and answered, where nothing is lost which is the epitome of transcendence. However, it all too often is not compliant with human expectations, therefore not sought after.
It is human nature (due to fear of loss) to judge the intentions of others. But, what do we hold our observances of their actions and behaviors up to when we judge? In order for us to have a basis for comparison when doing so, a mandatory pre-requisite would be knowing our own motivations for our behaviors, which are dependant upon our intentions. So, knowing the root source, the seed of our own intentions may be the only way any answer to the inquiry of if we agree or not with the statement is justifiable and acceptable. Whether justifiable and acceptable, or not, I disagree with the statement.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I thought so!

I tend to lean the same direction as you, ET. If transcendence is one result of any given action, then any perceived 'loss' is only such in that the fullest benefit and manifestation (of transcendental affect) is hindered by fear - fear of change, growth, and/or evolution (etc.).

One cannot step forward and step backward at the same time. Unless one wants to split one's britches...



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

One cannot step forward and step backward at the same time. Unless one wants to split one's britches...


Or divide a consciousness that is already divided anyways.

As for the rest of your post, i most certainly was not dissapointed Queen.

Thanks for your existance,
john



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join