What is more cruel- one who denounces one's right to be creative- but have an underlying motive- or one who celebrates another's denouncement not to be creative. Is survival the very essence of creation or simply that to denounce creation is to survive. The first presumes that man's need to create in order to live a full and fulfilling life- and not to have that need is the very essence of a "lesser" man. The second puts survival at the most basic point and insofar that if creation causes conflict or any form of disruption, it must be denounced- and hence celebrating it's denouncement is almost announcement to the creation of life.
It is very obvious from many points that the second is the bedrock of homogeneity. This means that so long as everything remains the same, creation insofar comes from the collective actions towards a given end. This means that we share the common culture, language and ancestry and insofar that the continuation of the community is the very foundation that our common values continues. The creation insofar comes from the recognition of common values and culture that ensures that our legacy lives through those that comes after us. This means that any threat to the survival of the community hence is consider a threat to it's creation. And then any denouncement to be creative- which then in this case, is to seek say an "alternative" lifestyle is considered as destructive in nature- hence the denouncement and destruction of this alternative is almost creative in nature. The question the comes from: what are we living for? What is this common value? The important question is that: are we animals?
The need to be creative is an innate nature of man and hence it's denial to be creative hence makes one a "lesser" man. What is creative- this collapses with the above often associate with procreation. This means that we can be creative and yet denounced creation simply be creating something in our image insofar that it leads full and fulfilling life. This means that to deny any alternative other than one's way of life is simply creating a predecessor in our image. This means that destroying anything that differs from our image is simply an act of creation while prolonging the "common" values that we share. What if then, your next door neighbor looks and sounds exactly like you but looks just different- would then be considered as creation. This would then become a form of moralizing because it involves nothing more than a form social control beyond with no given end. The creation comes in part then from the progress from societal's image rather than one's personal image.
Hence seen from this perspective the denouncement of one's right to be creative which means beyond survival has the very effect of being creative insofar that the survival is an endpoint of all and not just for some. When not threaten with extermination- man's need for survival often supersedes the need to create and hence it is often that suddenly the above takes over whereby social control is then the very essence of creation- via proxy of the next generation. We then faced with this proposition that to face extermination is often the essence of creation.
The problem faces then, why should we face "extermination" just to lead a full and fulfilling life- wouldn't the consumption of everyday life- the sameness of routine and an occasional blip be more than enough. The siege mentality often faced by "extermination" leads that is "creation" part of human nature.
And by the same very token, if we wish to be creative in every sense of the word, why then do we need ask ourselves this very question since it is ingrained into us. And if so, isn't everyday life faced with "extermination" every single day.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
To love
Can we love something without giving and on the other hand, can we give without loving? This is an eternal cliché but what do we love when we give and what can we give without loving. Love is an intention and not an act. The intention often derived from the act itself.
Love is a risk, love without risk is like water without a cup. When we incapable of choosing one over the other, there is no love but a form of norm. Love is not a norm. Love in itself derive from something internal driven by something external.
When we are incapable of loving, we are incapable of giving. Love is embracing, in a manner which covers everything but not just what one sees. we give everything including ourselves when we love. This means that to love someone is include everything about the person include it's every single thought, action and movement.
To exchange love for something else is to exchange your money for air. It is free, but you wish to pay for it. It is free because it comes from the intention and never from the act itself. A is not B and not B is not A. A is A and B is B- no matter how hard you deconstruct or break it down- that is love.
To risk is human nature for human endeavor and to love means losing something. It means placing something in the hands of others in the hope of better future. Hence to love is to give- to love is to give your hope away in the wish for a better life.
Love is embracing and cannot be compartmentalized. Everything else can be. To give up on love is to add up your sums and it always tallies- goodbye.
Love is a risk, love without risk is like water without a cup. When we incapable of choosing one over the other, there is no love but a form of norm. Love is not a norm. Love in itself derive from something internal driven by something external.
When we are incapable of loving, we are incapable of giving. Love is embracing, in a manner which covers everything but not just what one sees. we give everything including ourselves when we love. This means that to love someone is include everything about the person include it's every single thought, action and movement.
To exchange love for something else is to exchange your money for air. It is free, but you wish to pay for it. It is free because it comes from the intention and never from the act itself. A is not B and not B is not A. A is A and B is B- no matter how hard you deconstruct or break it down- that is love.
To risk is human nature for human endeavor and to love means losing something. It means placing something in the hands of others in the hope of better future. Hence to love is to give- to love is to give your hope away in the wish for a better life.
Love is embracing and cannot be compartmentalized. Everything else can be. To give up on love is to add up your sums and it always tallies- goodbye.
What is right and wrong.
What is wrong- the act or the intention itself is wrong? There are two forms of morality to see, one to be seen in terms of values and the other in the terms of utilitarian. This means that an act is wrong insofar that it is something that contravenes the values of the times or the morality of the social being. The others say no act, no harm. This means that so long as nothing is done, even the "thought" exist, the act is not committed and therefore the greater good rule is not contravene, and therefore it is not "wrong".
The first is based on an absolute good and evil basis which rests on an iron clad morality which presupposes that evil thoughts exist alongside benevolent thoughts. The thought itself is a precursor to the act. But what if we do act the thought out- are we any wrong- this rule itself is also a subset of the utilitarian rule which prevents harm to the majority before the act, just in case the thought is the seed to greater evil.
The second one rests upon practical terms where, the thought must be act out before it can be considered as "wrong". Thinking about it is wrong, but it is a lesser evil than actually doing it. Hence it is condone insofar that it does not lead to an actual act leading to a greater harm. This means that no harm is done, and why should we actually act upon it. This means acting on the thought itself is against greater good insofar that it prevents human agency which is the bedrock of modern society and many inventions and innovations in life.
Both "wrong-ness" is based on context which means that there is no hard and fast rule regarding what is wrong and right and it is based on what is better than what is wrong and what is right. The first ensures that no harm is done to a greater number of people, the second have to balance what is good and what is better.
Good and Evil is rest upon one simple idea which rests upon this that is wrong, is wrong and what is right is right. Then the above rule is not relevant whatsoever.
Who decides and for whose interest then is the question. When broken down, it is no longer morality but a matter of science and art.
The first is based on an absolute good and evil basis which rests on an iron clad morality which presupposes that evil thoughts exist alongside benevolent thoughts. The thought itself is a precursor to the act. But what if we do act the thought out- are we any wrong- this rule itself is also a subset of the utilitarian rule which prevents harm to the majority before the act, just in case the thought is the seed to greater evil.
The second one rests upon practical terms where, the thought must be act out before it can be considered as "wrong". Thinking about it is wrong, but it is a lesser evil than actually doing it. Hence it is condone insofar that it does not lead to an actual act leading to a greater harm. This means that no harm is done, and why should we actually act upon it. This means acting on the thought itself is against greater good insofar that it prevents human agency which is the bedrock of modern society and many inventions and innovations in life.
Both "wrong-ness" is based on context which means that there is no hard and fast rule regarding what is wrong and right and it is based on what is better than what is wrong and what is right. The first ensures that no harm is done to a greater number of people, the second have to balance what is good and what is better.
Good and Evil is rest upon one simple idea which rests upon this that is wrong, is wrong and what is right is right. Then the above rule is not relevant whatsoever.
Who decides and for whose interest then is the question. When broken down, it is no longer morality but a matter of science and art.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
A Gift
What is a gift? A gift is something which is given to the undeserving. It is not a burden when it is used for altruistic reasons, it is a burden only when the gift is used for ends other than itself. This means that in order to fully maximize a gift, you must pretend that it does not belong to you. Because it really does not belong to you otherwise it becomes your nature.
The gift is no more a means to an end insofar that the gift is not an end itself. For example, if you given a gift of the gab, you must not keep talking to persuade people for no given ends but ends you deemed positive.
There are two types of people whom believed that a gift or talent must be sharpened, retooled and molded. One whom believes that values is used to harness a gift, the second is believed that the gift must be pushed to it's potential regardless of it's ends itself.
If a gift is outside of itself, this means the gift must be molded for ends beyond the entity otherwise it will become nothing more than instrumental. This means a person has a gift and not the person is a gift.
Insofar from this perspective, the person can be "encultured" to used it's gifts to ends that it deems positive- therefore the gift is left untouched but person is changed 2) the gift should then be molded and given a proper form for the use of larger context.
A person always has a gift and not anything else. Hence from this perspective, the person whom have the gift have as much agency as the person next to him. Hence this means that the person with the gift of the gab has also the right and not just the duty to do things whom he/she believed that is against it's own volition.
Insofar, the question is: If Spiderman sees someone in need and does not help the person but instead head home for breakfast with the family, does it make any less a Spiderman. The nature of the Spiderman does not always supersedes the need to use it's power to save other's all the time. He might not be so great a man, but perhaps it makes him more of a "man".
Spiderman is stereotype and stereotype is a public property. But Peter Parker has a job to do as a photographer and not just pretend that the whole world surrounds him doing a thankless job. The gift is a public property insofar that it does not infringe his right to perform his duties to people in his private sphere.
The public hence have no right nor have any claim on his gift insofar that he uses his agency in a manner which have performing his public duty to the best of his ability and not over and beyond his private self. Any charge on his private gift is nothing more than abuse of the claim of greater good for greatest number of people and which unless He is THE Spiderman, he is unlikely to lay claim on the sole possession of save Everyone ALL the time.
Spiderman does not exist because there is no such thing as a Spiderman. Period.
The gift is no more a means to an end insofar that the gift is not an end itself. For example, if you given a gift of the gab, you must not keep talking to persuade people for no given ends but ends you deemed positive.
There are two types of people whom believed that a gift or talent must be sharpened, retooled and molded. One whom believes that values is used to harness a gift, the second is believed that the gift must be pushed to it's potential regardless of it's ends itself.
If a gift is outside of itself, this means the gift must be molded for ends beyond the entity otherwise it will become nothing more than instrumental. This means a person has a gift and not the person is a gift.
Insofar from this perspective, the person can be "encultured" to used it's gifts to ends that it deems positive- therefore the gift is left untouched but person is changed 2) the gift should then be molded and given a proper form for the use of larger context.
A person always has a gift and not anything else. Hence from this perspective, the person whom have the gift have as much agency as the person next to him. Hence this means that the person with the gift of the gab has also the right and not just the duty to do things whom he/she believed that is against it's own volition.
Insofar, the question is: If Spiderman sees someone in need and does not help the person but instead head home for breakfast with the family, does it make any less a Spiderman. The nature of the Spiderman does not always supersedes the need to use it's power to save other's all the time. He might not be so great a man, but perhaps it makes him more of a "man".
Spiderman is stereotype and stereotype is a public property. But Peter Parker has a job to do as a photographer and not just pretend that the whole world surrounds him doing a thankless job. The gift is a public property insofar that it does not infringe his right to perform his duties to people in his private sphere.
The public hence have no right nor have any claim on his gift insofar that he uses his agency in a manner which have performing his public duty to the best of his ability and not over and beyond his private self. Any charge on his private gift is nothing more than abuse of the claim of greater good for greatest number of people and which unless He is THE Spiderman, he is unlikely to lay claim on the sole possession of save Everyone ALL the time.
Spiderman does not exist because there is no such thing as a Spiderman. Period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
