It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Military Misconceptions

page: 10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 12:41 PM
reply to post by GambitVII

Interesting response, always open for the taoist perspective, the yin and yang.

And you're quite right, up to a point. The only correction I would make is that life moves from negative TO positive, from absence to completion, from chaos to order. Or vice versa. I see it as a consolidation of energy. Positive and negative fold in and out of each other, but do realise there is a choice here. You can either focus on the positive or the negative, but do realise that if you focus on the negative you will be going backward, and while some positive will no doubt come out of it somewhere, for you there will be negatives, you will be the compost for someone else's growth.

If we could go out (or in) and see the full picture, yes positive and negative would probably balance out, there is a binary structure that fractals out from the singularity (whatever it may be). But it's a path, not a wall. At least the way I see it, your mileage may vary.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 07:11 PM
The two sides to the balance are not necessarily right and wrong. Both sides work to undermine the other. If there was no balance, than no progress can be made because there would be no objective to work against. Both sides will forever be evident and will always give each other purpose.

This balance always exists on all levels of life and society. This is why war will always be necessary, just as peace. In my opinion, it is wrong to try to stop war because the world will be dominated by positive forces, which will inevitably turn negative themselves leading to a huge crisis.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:18 PM
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

No, the two sides are obviously right and wrong, chaos and order, fear and love. It's a progression. Sure, you can only define one in reference to it's opposite, but that does not mean that you can chose war and be "right". You either chose love and live on or chose fear, well, succumb to fear in it's many dimensions is more accurate, and, eventually, lose your soul.

This is how I see it. The value system is not some human dream, it's hardwired into the very physics of the universe, there is thermodynamics to emotion and emotion manifests reality.

And I'm being pragmatical, I've been on various points of the fear - love scale in my lifetime, and know that where you are effects how the universe interacts with you. While the whole system might be balanced, so to speak, there is a progression to be made for the individual soul. Not following any religion, I believe it to be a personal path. But there is something to this idea, in my experience, and it dosen't let me accept evil without becoming evil. You can't stay neutral just because there is a positive and a neutral pole, you'll always be dragged one way or the other, the middle is a fractal phenomenon, you can't balance there.

My 5c.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 09:52 PM
Hello OP.

I was wondering if you would mind if i posted a few chopper photos for id.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 11:59 PM

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
This is why war will always be necessary, just as peace. In my opinion, it is wrong to try to stop war because the world will be dominated by positive forces, which will inevitably turn negative themselves leading to a huge crisis.

I concur to an extent.

But that's' okay, your right in a way that suits your perspective such as my own.

From here, I see that peace and war not as opposites but rather each a part of a whole. The one cannot exist without the other.

I suppose I imply that the two are opposites. But I really mean as I say, parts of a whole.

Think of war and peace as individuals but can only exist mutually.
Why I say that is because peace reaps what it can of off war, and war does the same with peace.

The reason to have peace is reason alone to promote war, and there reason enough for peace because of war.

The reason the two MUST exist together because good and bad are relative. God knows that. And it's the simple fact that good and bad aren't gods and they can't rule over God himself. But that's another story.

One persons good will not always be the same as someone else. And that's proven fact.

And if anyone want's to find an alternative to war, they must FIRST find an alternative to free-will. And surely anything that removes free-will is something not many of us will be pleased to run through those options.

Heres one thing I will personally say. if a gun-ho, kill them all terrorist captures my family... I will not hesitate to pull the trigger on a person who has decided within them self that it's there way or no way.

The reality is that in a free-world... conflict drives progression.
From my understanding that is.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:00 AM
The only alternative to war against ourselves will be war against something else. If we last long enough, humanity will find an enemy that we can all unite against.

Btw, I'll be more specific on what I meant by how positive and negative force is not the same as right and wrong. I consider right and wrong to be dimensions of force. I know that probably sounds weird but here's how I see it: Those who are clear on what the balance is and respect it do more right, while those who only care about their own objectives do more wrong. To me, it is not correct to call a negative force wrong because it can also be fairly perceived as right by whoever is doing it.

Hopefully that makes sense

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:55 AM
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

No, it dosen't make sense. It's a subjectivism. My view is that right and wrong are objective, part of the mechanics of the system and can't be changed by individual perception.

Only a psychopath can do wrong and think he is doing right, because he is essentially a fear based individual at the low end of the scale.

I will accept that the negative part is as essential to the functioning of the system as the positive, it's the yin yang symbol. But where one is on the scale defines who and what one is, and the objective is to get back to love, not to relish in fear.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:34 PM

Only a psychopath can do wrong and think he is doing right, because he is essentially a fear based individual at the low end of the scale.

That's wrong, a genuine psychopath does not know the difference between right and wrong because they do not have a conscience. They are not evil, they simply do not perceive emotion like normal people, and it is what can make them effective at what they do.

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 07:00 PM
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Well, yes and no. They don't have much emotional response, little or no empathy, low brainwave responses to external stimuli. But they usually do have self preservation instincts, narcisism. They do fear for their own ego. But they don't love. I don't meant to imply that they cower all the time and shake in terror while hiding in the closet, but their emotional profile hints at negatives and not positives.

I see fear as an entropic emotion, that has a scale all the way from complete terror to indiference, while love has a scale from full blown unconditional love of everything to a sincere smile. These emotions reflect order and entropy in the universe. As do the people who embody them. To love is add, to fear is to destroy. Psychopaths destroy, although they do manage to love themselves...

Yes, this is a wide definition of fear, which goes right at the root of the fractal structure of emotion.

We say atoms are bound by weak attractors.
Why not admit the truth: the Universe is held together by love.

(From the sci-fi series Andromeda)

[edit on 6-9-2009 by Mindmelding]

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 07:14 PM
Hate and love make sense, but fear is something else. Fear is just misunderstanding and all fear can eventually be conquered through communication.

When it comes to a psychopath, or psychology in general, I am big believer in Freudian psychology. I see body, mind and soul as ego, superego and id. All regular people have these three factors, and they are constantly working together (either in harmony, contempt (like my own), or total ignorant complacency) . If someone is missing one of these factors, then they will obviously be very different from us.

I don't even think psychopaths have egos, they just live for the purpose of living.

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 09:33 PM
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Narcissim is linked to psychopathy in quite a well documented fashion, and hate is another negative, fear based emotion. They hate what they fear might hurt them in some way, be the threat real or just perceived, imagined. Hate is not the root negative emotion, it's a complexification, a fractality, of fear. Hate is to like as fear is to love. The first two fit within the scale tipped by the other two emotions.

Again we come down to the basic choice, Love or Fear? Many people, when brought down to this level fight it, because they quickly see where they have made the wrong choices. I've made the wrong choice often enough in my own life, but it really is this simple... but a tiny minority of us just dosen't have the hardwiring for love I guess and they mess up the lives of the rest of us, although at the end of the day we are all individuals who are responsible for our own individual choices.

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 10:55 PM
reply to post by Mindmelding

You make good points, but I still disagree about fear being the root of hate. I hate without fear, and I fear who I love. Indeed, fear is negative but it's really not a big deal because fear will go away with experience but hate can remain forever.

And yeah, some people understand much more about what love really is compared to some other people. I used to see love as the thing that made me act like an idiot in front of girls, now I see it as truly devoting yourself to who/what you love.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:07 PM
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

I hate without fear, and I fear who I love.

Well, I still think that the hate is a dimension of fear, not all fear is weak knees terror, some of it is proactive, violent, ego driven superiority seeking fear, and I think this distinction is what you're not accepting in my interpretation. Fair enough. And you don't actually fear who you love, you fear not getting love back because your love is not unconditional, ie, it's not at the other end of the emotional scale, the end where all the energy is

My 5c. I'm not trying to change your mind here, just giving my opinions freely, individual mileage may vary.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Mindmelding]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:06 PM

Originally posted by Mindmelding
My 5c. I'm not trying to change your mind here, just giving my opinions freely, individual mileage may vary.
[edit on 7-9-2009 by Mindmelding]

I can handle any discussion, so no problem

By "fearing who I love", I mean something kind've like a mild case of "Hedgehog's Dilemma". HD is when the closer you get to someone, the more you hurt them (which in turn hurts you more). I try not to always hang around the people I love because of past experiences, which is hard on me and possibly hard on them but in my mind it is the only way to maintain that level of friendship... even if I secretly want something more.

Let's just say that some people are not built to love, but that doesn't mean they don't suffer from it

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 06:50 AM
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

My experience is the more you love unconditionally, the easier it becomes to be loved back. It's a sort of a feedback mechanism.

To love someone and want defeats what love is at the higher end of the scale, where you just love, no matter what. And at the higher end you get ressonance phenomena, and things work out better, while at the lower end, because of much lower frequency emotions, ie, lower frequency energy, things work out worse.

If you fear losing the ones you love then that fear based emotions taint the relationship and it degenerates. If you just love, statistically things tend to work better. It's not a magic bullet but this illustrates what's going on imo.

Either way it's always bad to have our happiness depend on the emotions of another. It makes us passive in life and we can do so much more if we're proactive.

Everyone, except perhaps the psychopaths at the very low end of the scale that can't express many real emotions, is built to love. But many don't know how. I know in theory, but just because I realise what I wrote above dosen't mean I'm any closer to living it than you or anyone else is, I'm not.

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:44 PM
Awesome stuff, I'll put your theory to the test. I've realized it all along but opportunities are always lost on me.

Unconditional love, the cure to all of man's grievances?

<< 7  8  9   >>

log in