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.
Originally posted by telemetry
See how many will catch it 'eh?
Here is mine for the night:
"If this universe is only a projection of myself, what happens when I turn it off?"
I will be back to check on this thread... we may get some goodies
:_
T- out
Are we (the collective ATS) members willing to put aside our friends and foes, and venture into uncharted territories? After all, this is for the betterment... and I am all for jumping in in the spirit of exploration.
Alone we are all flames in the dark. But once joined our embers become one in light and reveal the paths before us."
On a more serious note, I arrived at an epiphany long ago that mankind is far too divided at this point for any real change to take place with the overall displeasure of the state of the world. We're worried about so many inconsequential things that we fail to see the big picture. The majority of the world lives in its own little bubble and the only thing that will save us all is if we collectively step out of that bubble. What will it take? Don't know. But I sincerely wish that mankind could throw the nonsense to the wayside and collectively agree on what is naturally right.
A collaboration would be a great idea but I think that some sort of chat system would be better with the postings being recorded so ideas are not lost. This is because I think that a chat system would be best for exchanging ideas and discussing points, the threads just aren't immediate enough.
That's assuming there is a switch to turn it off. You can't think about that stuff in terms of what we " know" because we don't know everything therefore placing our views of life and the world onto things which we can't explain is not real productive because we will always be stuck in the question and never move towards the answer/....the truth.
Originally posted by Maban
Thsi is indeed how we, The Shard, collectively see Humanity. This is why we do what we do in hopes our "nudging" and slowly rising awareness helps bring about anew era of Human Civilization.
- Maban
Originally posted by ImaNutter
I was kind of aware, basically accepted, that there just has to be people who thought this as well. This line of thought gives me so many questions though, perhaps you can help? Having the understanding that this is the way things are, it becomes almost depressing. I speak a lot to my brother about these kinds of things, I think he listens. He is really the only one who I feel comfortable sharing with the full extent of what I think/feel. I've tried talking to my mom (would try my dad too if he was around) and she gets that funny look in her eye and tells me I shouldn't be so cynical. I try talking to who I consider friends about things like this, and they get that same funny look in the eye. I can feel what they think, sometimes they say it, but most of the time they don't have to. It's just what I consider the 'standard' response all the time. That it's nonsense, things are fine for me, I've got my own things I need to worry about, I'd rather get tanked than consider any of this, I'd rather just complain about something I don't like than consider solutions, etc etc. It's very trying.
I read through a good portion of your Shards thread, and I know I shouldn't even ask this, but what can I do? I understand fully that I alone am not capable of creating any change or changing the society we live in. But I want to do something.
I have a hard time dealing with this. I hardly want to participate in society as the way it is because of the complete hypocrisy and downright fallacy of it all. Do I continue trying to talk to people I know about these thoughts? It's not like I shove it anyone's face or tell them how incredibly wrong they are, I may get carried away on here because of the far ends of the ignorant spectrum that appear here, but I am very thoughtful and cautious of how I present myself in the real world.
I don't feel like keeping this to myself is the right thing to do at all, I think participating in the fallacy of our society just facilitates it and is definitely the wrong way to go about it. But what is the right away to go about it?
I struggle every day with my realizations of life, and I certainly do continue to do things I enjoy and make me happy, but the weight of the facade we live in is pretty straining at times.
It is the same with wisdom, enlightenment and truth.
So many foolish people think they know without a teacher.
There are a few human beings who are knowledgeable about
enlightenment and in fact achieved enlightenment. Those that
achieved enlightenment are not going to be on the corporate
media because enlightenment brings contentment,
inner peace and corporate advertisers do not want you happy and content.
They need you to be whacked out, insecure and confused so you
will buy their pharmaceuticals, new brands of beer, soda, car, whatever.
Therefore my friend, find enlightened beings.
I'm not going to be a missionary type person and try to sell you
on one or the other. Just keep in mind that you are looking for
authentic, genuine enlightened beings. Then learn what methods
they used to get there and try to practice those methods yourself.
Originally posted by telemetry
See how many will catch it 'eh?
Here is mine for the night:
"If this universe is only a projection of myself, what happens when I turn it off?"
I will be back to check on this thread... we may get some goodies
:_
T- out
Originally posted by lazy1981
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Early social groups, that came together did not require governing, they were too busy surviving and working for the group to commit deviations that would require the will of the group to be imposed on the individual.
Then what was the need for the Tribal Councils and Elders then? Isn't the truth of the matter that most early tribal councils were made up of the elders, and that this was a right due to their advancement in years. Basicaly saying, "you've made it this far so you must know what's best for the rest of us." In effect that is a form of governance, being that the average person in a tribe had no say in the decisions made or whether or not they would follow the decree of the council. Esentially giving you a Geriocracy (for all intent and purpose). Unless of course you include the best hunter or things of that nature.
Or maybe it starts to look similar to some Native American Tribal Councils where you had the elders and a Cheif, which was the end all and be all. A "Geriocratic Chiefdom?" Not that I have the answer, but I think that a return to Tribalism may well put us back into any form of Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Monarchy, insert any form of Despotism here "_____________." After all that was the natural path it took the first time around.
Originally posted by lazy1981
To some extent don't you feel that just about all leaders whether "Governments" or "Tribal Councils" (if you can see a differance) at some level or another have some particular need to control certain aspects of the populace? At the very least to ensure general order in their social structure.
According to a study by Robin Dunbar at the University of Liverpool, primate brain size is determined by social group size. Dunbar's conclusion was that the human brain can only really understand a maximum of 150 individuals as fully developed, complex people (see Dunbar's number). Malcolm Gladwell expanded on this conclusion sociologically in his book, The Tipping Point. According to these studies, then, "tribalism" is in some sense an inescapable fact of human neurology, simply because the human brain is not adapted to working with large populations. Beyond 150, the human brain must resort to some combination of hierarchical schemes, stereotypes, and other simplified models in order to understand so many people.
Eco-communalism is an environmental philosophy based on ideals of simple living, local economies, and self-sufficiency (often associated with the ideologies of socialism, communalism, and sustainability). Eco-communalists envision a future in which the economic system of capitalism is replaced with a global web of economically interdependent and interconnected small local communities. Decentralized government, a focus on agriculture, and “green economics” are all tenets of eco-communalism.
Originally posted by lazy1981
A Meritocratic form of Governance may be less than desirable also? Yes, logically I would want the best at the helm. Yet, (slippery slope, I know) it starts to push in the direction of Eugenics and all that this train of thought gave us (is my concern). Don't get me wrong I abhorrer mediocrity but I think that if the only people that qualify for postion or title are those that excel in a given feild then we have done away with peoples choice by and large. In affect only allowing them to chose who excels, and not who they see fit to govern accourding to their mind.
We have pretty much tried every system,
we should know by now what works and doesn’t work and why.
First of all you have to remember that we are animals.
the native and indigenous peoples of the Americas for example, that both geronticide and infanticide were practiced by nomadic peoples and in primitive settlements, in times of shortage.
Widespread preservation of the elderly only comes into existence when man adopted more sedentary, agrarian based settlements and the groups had surplus from time to time. Only then did the elderly become productive as a group, as opposed to as the odd useful individual (usually the shaman or medicine man/woman or healer.
I certainly can see no way in which we can overcome the need for a centralised government, but I do think that we can manage with a lot less interference than we currently live under.
Beyond 150, the human brain must resort to some combination of hierarchical schemes, stereotypes, and other simplified models in order to understand so many people.
To prevent hierarchy from forming we need to limit our group sizes.
Such communities cannot be completely autonomous, but with central government support there can be some concessions.
Too much land in the UK is preserved for the simple reason that it is pretty,
You do not get to choose your leader, you are presented with a limited choice and make a vote based on the choice presented.
The way in which you should be represented is by someone you know and trust to make good decisions that benefit the group as a whole, your group. That person would then serve on a wider council and you would trust them to represent your best interests when they select, as a part of that council someone to represent that group. And so on and so forth.
In a meritocracy, to my mind, individuals are valued by their skills and abilities, and the success that those skills bring to the group.
limit spheres of influence without limiting social mobility and individual choice. I also think that you need to encourage dynamism into the system, where new ideas, blue skies research are welcomed and supported in all areas without a basis in creating profit.