Selfishness/Manipulation (Change/Take) is NATURE, should we use Law of Attraction or Accept what is?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
Death is stronger than life. The moment life exists it is already being broke down. It takes so much energy to produce something but easier to destroy it. Death is also change as one thing dies its resources are used for something else (manipulation/taking) such as an animal eating another and absorbing its energy.


True. However, for social animals (such as humans, even particularly so) cooperation is also necessary for survival. It is part of our natural tendencies as well. There is a push-pull between the two biological imperatives.


Originally posted by arpgme
Selfishness also seems to be natural, it seems like the poor people are almost never selfish and the rich people almost always are (studies show they also have less empathy).


Those that are poor have more need for cooperation for survival. Those that are wealthy have less need for support from the larger human group and so can indulge the selfish imperative, and therefore have far less need to develop or maintain empathy.


Originally posted by arpgme
Accepting what is does NOT seem natural. I tried to do it but even when I accept what is the body doesn't. It still desires to eat if it is hungry. It still desires to sleep if it is tired. It is selfishly trying to survive.

Law of Attraction - focusing on what you want and going after it - being selfish - taking seems natural and it seems to agree with the law of nature that things are always changing.


Please see above. It is also your specifically human nature to be generous and cooperate to facilitate your own survival. Both impulses exist in the same being; albeit to varying degrees dependent upon environmental pressures, and the intrinsic nature of the individual. Both impulses do conflict from time to time.

While it is true that the primary law of nature on this planet is that all living things must consume energy to survive, and even further that (nearly) all living things must consume other living things to survive (which is inherently selfish). It is also true for us that we must avoid conflict to survive. In humans this manifests (in part) in ways that encompass more than our own species.




posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by redhorse
 


You are saying "true, however..." as if it is an exception when it isn't. The co-operation is for self interest too. So that is NOT a exceptional situation ("however...").

And avoiding conflict is not an "exception" either. It makes sense that one would avoid conflict, because conflict takes energy and some conflict is a waste of time/energy an can be voided so that one's SELF can feel better.
edit on 27-2-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
There is no such thing as death. There is only life. This is but a dream. And its not vamping or eating energy to be here, unless you are cut off from your Source, like the regressing pyramid side does, so that it grows by doing just that.

This is akin to a computer, the energy exists but is reshaped like clay. We're all in soul, energy workers.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by redhorse
 


You are saying "true, however..." as if it is an exception when it isn't. The co-operation is for self interest too. So that is NOT a exceptional situation ("however...").


No.

I am only saying that you only have half of the picture. Both impulses are present and true.


Originally posted by arpgme
And avoiding conflict is not an "exception" either.


I never said that, and I'm not sure how you got that either, but never mind.


Originally posted by arpgme
It makes sense that one would avoid conflict, because conflict takes energy and some conflict is a waste of time/energy an can be voided so that one's SELF can feel better.
edit on 27-2-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)


Ah... The old "There is no such thing as altruism" argument. Which may or may not be true. I honestly don't know, but it wasn't really what I was arguing for or against idea anyway. I don't see why that matters. It is a moot point in terms of survival and behavior.

I will say that the biological imperative for cooperation is first and foremost adopted for the survival of the individual, so it is selfish in the end; but it is a far more positive force than "consume or be consumed." If you are only looking at it from either point of view you only have a fraction of the algorithm regarding human behavior and motivators. That's all I was saying.
edit on 27-2-2013 by redhorse because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Nature balaces natural balancing systems in to make sure one species doesnt get to completely devour another species. Replace specifies with energy beings and the same applies. Therefore a system of unbalance is where a beging/beings are consuming too much. Its nots evil but measured against the broader system the consumption may be extravagant and damaging.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
Death is stronger than life. The moment life exists it is already being broke down. It takes so much energy to produce something but easier to destroy it. Death is also change as one thing dies its resources are used for something else (manipulation/taking) such as an animal eating another and absorbing its energy.

Selfishness also seems to be natural, [color=cyan] it seems like the poor people are almost never selfish and the rich people almost always are (studies show they also have less empathy).



Accepting what is does NOT seem natural. I tried to do it but even when I accept what is the body doesn't. It still desires to eat if it is hungry. It still desires to sleep if it is tired. It is selfishly trying to survive.

Law of Attraction - focusing on what you want and going after it - being selfish - taking seems natural and it seems to agree with the law of nature that things are always changing.

The Earth will keep absorbing energy from the sun and it will take it to do its own thing (grow its own trees, fruits, soil) and then humans and other life forms will selfishly take what they can to absorb energy and survive.

What do you think of all of this?
edit on 27-2-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



@What do you think of all of this

1 feels that YES cycles DO EXIST.

It seems though here in this realm/dimension/Energy Containment Zone(s) LOCATIONS, Prey and Predator /[color=cyan] Oppressor and Oppressed -INTELLIGENCE is based off of the best subject evaluations of what Objective Reality TRULY is.

Now how activities upon others MAY/may not Matter and resonate ELSEWHERE seems evaluated or understood as best possible by those AWARE of the whole Above/Below survival aspect - - I am hungry therefore I must EAT and if not then? What is the Answer otherwise to STARVE? Again cycles do Exist and 1 feels then it comes down to how the AWARE evaluate their own activities and if they the AWARE take STEPS further with their AWARNESS to think what if I was in THEIR shoes how would I feel, [color=cyan] to find ALTERNATIVES - - just as they/the would be asking themselves/ourselves how would I feel in the shoes of that which I have been enhanced genetically/spiritually to Intake? Which [color=cyan] some of them DO its just there seems to be no CLEAR - Answer so your POV(s) ARE understood

... Just got to WONDER does it stop with intake intake of FLORA? to THEY Intak intake to ?? ? or is there ????????????????? ?? and fear doubt mass blocks that if too considered, destabilize potential conscious/physical structures HERE as to prevent further CONSIDERATION. Therefore it to 1 it seems to be Still based on Combined subject evaluations of what Objective Reality TRULY is to truly know.

To answer a Question of many related to interest of arpgme, OP

( OMNI BROADCAST ) INT-UNIV-EXT-TR/PR

In the END its ALL based on FREE WILL do you or don't you and why or why not what makes you not care or care is it FEAR or that something IS SENSED OUTSIDE of HERE - HERE- HERE - HERE and so some question NOW if not before is this why WE remain and continue to GAIN why others seem to Disappear EVEN THOUGH WE ALL KNOW THE ENERGY IS ETERNAL? And SOMEWHERE.

NAMASTE*******
edit on 2/27/13 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


The lion will have to eat, and it will eat the sheep and the sheep will be in fear and suffer that it has to become the lion's lunch. The flora is absorbing the sun's energy. The sun will lose energy in the far future. Everything is taking from something else.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
When we talk about foods, the attention is always about us as humans eating those foods.

But recently I start to realize that by feeding myself some foods, I also help the growth of the lives inside me, to help their survival, although some will die if I feed them medicine or antibiotic or yoghurt.

Our bodies is a universe to those lives.
edit on 27-2-2013 by dodol because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-2-2013 by dodol because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-2-2013 by dodol because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
It seems Love is the answer to everything, the natural progression of consciousness.


Male lion kiss and hugs a woman in zoo

The duality testing ground is coded black and white squares and we have to make choices how we see things, and act with integrity if we want to move beyond this illusionary zone.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Can you accept what does not accept you? In unity, acceptance and any other attitude is seen as a two way street. Either acceptance is there, or it isn't. If there is conflict, there cannot be acceptance. So of course you're not being accepting when you go get food. But that doesn't mean the idea of acceptance should just be tossed out the window completely. Be accepting whenever possible. Try not to be a source of conflict. Try to resolve issues in ways that will establish future grounds of acceptance. When someone has an issue with you because of something you do, do what you have to do to help them resolve it. This doesn't necessarily mean stop doing what you do, it can also mean beat the crap out of that person and then let it be over with after that. Do what you gotta do to get respect. But sometimes changing your behavior is what is necessary. That depends on whether their un acceptance is irrational or if your actions are unacceptable. You have to get rid of your ego to be able to tell the difference.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 

Focus on Osmosis or Balance.

There were people here once who did,and they still would be here in greater numbers if religion and other factors which divide people and things from one another didn't somehow hold precedence or some # like they do now.

It's a human thing,to be human is to be an animal that arrogantly sets itself above it's peers somehow,and you know people like that are rather annoying.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


In other words, you are saying it is conditional instead of unconditional. People advocate actually living through "acceptance" but unconditional "acceptance' would be unnatural as it would allow anything to happen. Why? Because I agree with you, there can't be conflict in acceptance, because acceptance is ALLOWING things to happen while conflict is resisting them.

If you are saying do not accept nonacceptance ("it's a two way street"), then that is similar to "an eye for an eye' (treating others like they treat you).

Turn the other cheek is a dangerous philosophy. If you accept that someone is beating you up then you'll just keep getting abused. You have to NOT be accepting of the situation - resist it - either fight back or get out of there.

reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner
 



I don't think balance / tranquility is natural. Emotions happen and it is natural to express them. All humans do it until they are "trained" not to express themselves, and so do animals. Staying in a state of "balance/calmness" is something that is trained, not natural. It is not the way of nature. Even most humans can't even achieve this if they wanted to, because it is natural to not stay that way all the time.
edit on 27-2-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:19 AM
link   
It`s not selfishness, is a sponge selfish because it absorbs water when it comes into contact with it? can a sponge decide to not absorb the water the next time it comes in contact with it? can you make the sponge not absorb the water ?
Your body is a non thinking object just like the sponge is, your body does what it was designed to do it has no ability to decide whether to feel hungry or not feel hungry, just as the wind has no ability to decide which direction it will blow.
your body is just a vehicle that your consciousness rides in just as your car is a vehicle that your body rides in.
your consciousness has no ability to decide whether your body feels hungry or not feel hungry,just as your body has no ability to decide whether the vehicle it is riding in (car) will break down or continue to run. is the car selfish because it won`t run without gas?

I don`t think a non conscious object (like your body, a car or a sponge) has the ability to feel or be selfish.
edit on 28-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 


The body is still taking and the sponge is still absorbing - if you don't want to call it selfish, that is your choice but it is still take, take, take. That is the way of nature.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 





The body is still taking and the sponge is still absorbing - if you don't want to call it selfish, that is your choice but it is still take, take, take. That is the way of nature.



When i think of a sponge lifeform it invokes images of simple life like cancer cells or Jellyfish, things floating around in fluid and sucking things by omosis througha membrane. These types of lifeforms are floaters because they have no verbate. The point im making is some creatures are designed to sponge and some probably arnt.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


All creatures are designed to "sponge" in the sense that if the body doesn't absorb energy (via sunlight, plant-life, or other animals) then it will die.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 





All creatures are designed to "sponge" in the sense that if the body doesn't absorb energy (via sunlight, plant-life, or other animals) then it will die.



are you certain there isnt creatures that can let energy go straight through them so the only energy they ever own is their original energy. Death cant even touch them.






top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join