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.

 

Mankind is Awakening or has it already Awoken??

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, my answer is the same. What subject? ALL of them, and more. You're here posting on the psychology, philosophy and metaphysics forum, I would do some philosophical reading if you want an in-depth answer to this question, as to what "subject" it is that "wakes people up" to reality, because there is not a simple answer. That would make things easy, wouldn't it? Every single man-made subject is simply an attempt to understand the single underlying mystery that is "reality" or the "universe," both singular terms that represent the whole of existence. RAW's "Quantum Psychology" in my sig below is a good read. So is "Prometheus Rising." All of them are, really, but RAW has a knack for the modern reader.


Of the three subjects, philosophy is by far the most interesting to me. I read that less than history, but not by much.

I believe that there must be some underlying simplicity to the universe and existence. I'd also say that our even approaching it is so far off, so as to make it irrelevant to modern discussions. I only ask because I don't agree and wondered what you thought.


What this just boils down to, is you keep looking for the bad things people do, and I keep looking to the good things. I'm fine with that, it's just a reflection of attitude more than anything else. If you think today is really so bad, what other time period would you rather live in and why?


Actually, I don't think today is so bad. I don't really think it's all that much better or worse than it's ever been, technological gadgets aside. I tend to take a balanced view of people, but also understand that most folks won't rise above their own relative area of existence. That's not a "bad" thing, just a normal thing.


Books are not education. The internet is what is increasing education more than anything else today, and it's working.


I disagree fundamentally, sort of. No, books are not an education in themselves, but can (provided an interest) provide quite a nice education to the right people. I am primarily a self-educated man, who has gotten more value from my library card than my formal education.


People eventually get tired of blogging about mundane things and tweeting about their bad day at work eventually, especially when people such as myself and most others on this forum are constantly posting things such as what's on these forums, instant messaging similar links to friends, bringing all this up in face to face conversation as I'm sure most people that frequent this forum's discussions do, etc. There is something about human nature that will eventually attract even the most stubborn mind to higher awareness.


We are and have been the minority in human history/society. I rarely have a civil and lengthy discussion with people even here (which I am thankful for, so thanks for the discussion). Most degenerate into utter garbage.

Perhaps modern and future scholars will make use of the internet, but if one did a pound for pound comparison of internet traffic by subject/activity, I think the trend wouldn't be to your advantage.


Mass amounts of angry people were also responsible for winning the American Revolution, French Revolution, and every other successful revolution in the history of the world, none of which would have been successful without critical thinkers such as your Paines and Jeffersons and Voltaires.


In a sense this is correct, large groups of angry people are generally a dumb blunt instrument, easily swayed predominantly by emotional appeals rather than enlightenment. The positive revolutions are outweighed by the negative ones, and even the french revolution had it's nasty periods.


Again, you seem to always seek to look to the pessimistic position here, so if you think I am still wrong then you are entitled to your opinion and I won't contradict you. I am simply saying if you turn your head to a different perspective, you will see what I see, it's only a positive vs. a negative attitude regarding humanity, and when you interact with society your attitude towards it will determine the exchanges. If I only wanted to look for the bad things people do, I know as well as you do I would have no shortage of material. But there is also no shortage of positive things we can focus our consciousness on. Which do you think is healthier? It isn't just a matter of facts either because you also know facts are always spun 10 different directions depending on who is wielding them, without changing the facts themselves. The glass is either half empty, or half full. Or 50% its maximum capacity. There is no logical argument that will appeal to any of these attitudes; they are all equally right and simply reflect the intention/attitude of the observer.


This isn't a matter of perspective, but earnest reflection upon history, at least in my case. Philosophy and history are interesting counterpoints, and I'd suggest it's a matter of which you hold to be more important rather than simple positive/negative.

I view history as the great indicator to human behavior, while philosophy is what humans aspire to (rather than are). Human institutions generally are corrupted as a reflection of our own corruption.

I do not believe we will overcome our main flaw, or even to accept it (major step in enlightenment).



Not always, but what times and places in history would you say were more educated and knowledgeable of the universe than people are today and why?


True, not always. It is true we have public education, which they say is a good thing (and in part is). I say knowledge is generally a zero sum, and while we are educated and knowledgeable in things of the day, we are ignorant of things we once knew.

This isn't an important point though.


So when I say ignorance is not any greater today than it has been, and you agree, how are you still trying to make the point that knowledge is limited and too many people are ignorant today to do something? You know there is no logical argument anyone can make that will change an attitude (mental habit) unless one decides to change it for their own self.


I say that because I don't believe we are moving in a positive or negative direction. It's not about the limitations on knowledge, it's about the limitations humans place on themselves.

I see little desire to adjust that.


I also think that is just your attitude and not a realistic reflection of what the average man knows today compared to what the average man knew in 1900, 1800, 1700, 1600, etc. You might make it a common mental habit to internally criticize others for appearing less intelligent than yourself, as opposed to admiring those who have achieved great things, no?


No, I study, share, and admire greatly those who have achieved. I am saying that what the average man knows now and what he knew in centuries past is different, only more important now because we live in this time and it's seen that way.


Balance is always maintained, yes, and it has been in their favor long enough for the balance to swing again and reset itself, just as it did a couple hundred years ago. That is my position. It's their position that they have not had power long enough. And you agree with "them," right?


You might take a look at my signature to know I am generally disgusted with the government I live under. There are great men of character and knowledge (Bruce Fein is one of my favorites), however the modern American has been poisoned for a long time.

I have worked my entire life to educate myself and share the knowledge I have found. I have made some small success, but the abundances of failure greatly outweigh the success for reasons I have already outlined.

I have found that people, in general, do not wish to see.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by KrazyJethro]

[edit on 31-12-2009 by KrazyJethro]




posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
If we are moving into a new age, it's a very slow process. The transition likely started generations ago, and will continue on for a few more. There will be no 2012 global enlightenment or any other childish belief.

Funny how it seems we may collectively reach enlightenment only as we face oblivion.


What a waste.



new topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join