Natural states?

Forums: Philosophy, Social Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I've been kicking around an idea for a couple of days. I'm sure some equally brilliant (I'm joking here) philosopher has already come up with the idea, sometime, somewhere. Anyway, I'm not so sure I believe it to be true myself. I'll try to explain it as clearly as I can:

There exist in the world these things called "natural states," for lack of better words. These natural states are things that don't necessarily require any action to be taken on the part of man. These states are things like, decay, peace, and some other stuff I haven't fully thought out yet.
Anyway, take peace for example, if one just allows something to be peaceful, it is. But war requires man's active involvement. War's not to be confused with violent death. A predator killing its prey may be unpleasant to watch and it's certainly unpleasant to the prey, but it's still peaceful-in the way I'm defining peace here. A flock of Grackles' constant, annoying chatter may drive you nuts, but it's peaceful, by this definition.

Mankind may be inclined to resist these natural states, but it will require constant attention and ever increasing resources to fight it. Maybe it's worth fighting the natural state sometimes and maybe it's not, but one should fully consider the consequences first.
So, is it a load-o-crap or what? :whistling:

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 887 • Replies: 8

No top replies

@chad3006,

Hello Chad. Interesting post. Though before I examine your post, I might offer what you are asking "is this a load of crap or what" can be identified as a very "un-natural state" as you use the words "peace & decay".

chad3006;85627 wrote:

I've been kicking around an idea for a couple of days. I'm sure some equally brilliant (I'm joking here) philosopher has already come up with the idea, sometime, somewhere. Anyway, I'm not so sure I believe it to be true myself. I'll try to explain it as clearly as I can: There exist in the world these things called "natural states," for lack of better words. These natural states are things that don't necessarily require any action to be taken on the part of man. These states are things like, decay, peace, and some other stuff I haven't fully thought out yet.

I am assuming 'decay' as a synonym for 'war', right? It appears this is the context in which you are using it, which if I am correct means if there were peace man would need to take "no" action that would lead to war. In that context to imagine a "natural state" has never existed, only respites from war hence the "load of crap" comment at the end or un-natural state.

chad3006;85627 wrote:

Anyway, take peace for example, if one just allows something to be peaceful, it is.

Who is it, exactly, you think "allows" for one to be peaceful? If it is not a natural state, then it must be "ordered" state, like what can be assumed as a "one world order", right? Who orders that? What man has such notions of peace for if it were true, man would not need to be "ordered"? If it were indeed true there would be no need to create a military to enforce it for all would readily comply.

chad3006;85627 wrote:

But war requires man's active involvement. War's not to be confused with violent death.A predator killing its prey may be unpleasant to watch and it's certainly unpleasant to the prey, but it's still peaceful-in the way I'm defining peace here.

I see. Contrary to what your definition means to offer, war is extremely violent. Though in lieu of what it has meant in the past, perhaps you have a new definition. As far a the predator killing a prey, that IS natural if you are an animal and would be a natural occurrence. In that respect, I think you sincerely think the human being is one. It is the common notion though an ancient and much misunderstood one. As for me, I have a different opinion. But it is reflected in that animal nature man often resorts to to defend his notions. But in keeping with what you are saying, I think it prudent to ask who is predator and who is prey?

chad3006;85627 wrote:

A flock of Grackles' constant, annoying chatter may drive you nuts, but it's peaceful, by this definition.

Chad, you are definitely from Texas. I think the Grackle is why man invented the shotgun ............and earplugs, Ha?

chad3006;85627 wrote:

Mankind may be inclined to resist these natural states,.......

In summary, those resources, including man, we use to engage in war, is because of the inequitable use of those resources as they are the very leverage used by those who allow peace to "order" that peace. There are other ways such as only communication, cooperation and understanding that will accomplish such a state, in my opinion.

chad3006;85627 wrote:

.......but it will require constant attention and ever increasing resources to fight it. Maybe it's worth fighting the natural state sometimes and maybe it's not, but one should fully consider the consequences first.

IMO, if it requires fighting, there will never be a natural state. Perhaps there is a truth that can only be found on the other side of war? Hmmm?
But considering what that might be, we must understand we are not fighting with sticks and stones anymore.

chad3006;85627 wrote:

So, is it a load-o-crap or what? :whistling:

Please consider what I have offered, then you tell me?:whistling:

William

1 Reply

@William,

William;85651 wrote:

I am assuming 'decay' as a synonym for 'war', right? It appears this is the context in which you are using it, which if I am correct means if there were peace man would need to take "no" action that would lead to war. In that context to imagine a "natural state" has never existed, only respites from war hence the "load of crap" comment at the end or un-natural state.

No actually, I mean real decay. That is once we are born we start to decay. We can resist with plastic surgery or something, but as time passes, more and more resources will have to be dedicated to this resistance. We may build infrastructure, but it must constantly be maintained and at some point we may consider it not worth saving.

[QUOTE=William;85651]Who is it, exactly, you think "allows" for one to be peaceful? If it is not a natural state, then it must be "ordered" state, like what can be assumed as a "one world order", right? Who orders that? What man has such notions of peace for if it were true, man would not need to be "ordered"? If it were indeed true there would be no need to create a military to enforce it for all would readily comply.[/quote]

I think I see what you mean and perhaps it should be better stated that no action is required for peace, but action is required for war.

[QUOTE=William;85651]I see. Contrary to what your definition means to offer, war is extremely violent. Though in lieu of what it has meant in the past, perhaps you have a new definition. As far a the predator killing a prey, that IS natural if you are an animal and would be a natural occurrence. In that respect, I think you sincerely think the human being is one. It is the common notion though an ancient and much misunderstood one. As for me, I have a different opinion. But it is reflected in that animal nature man often resorts to to defend his notions. But in keeping with what you are saying, I think it prudent to ask who is predator and who is prey?[/quote]

I think you misunderstood my position here. I literally was referring to preditors (including man) and yes it is natural. This assumes that the prey is to be utilized as food, but you may bring up a valid point in that sometimes prey may be utilized differently or "unaturally"

[QUOTE=William;85651]Chad, you are definitely from Texas. I think the Grackle is why man invented the shotgun ............and earplugs, Ha?[/quote]

Yes.

[QUOTE=William;85651]In summary, those resources, including man, we use to engage in war, is because of the inequitable use of those resources as they are the very leverage used by those who allow peace to "order" that peace. There are other ways such as only communication, cooperation and understanding that will accomplish such a state, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

[QUOTE=William;85651]IMO, if it requires fighting, there will never be a natural state. Perhaps there is a truth that can only be found on the other side of war? Hmmm?
But considering what that might be, we must understand we are not fighting with sticks and stones anymore.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I think the natural state requires no fighting only keeping unatural things propped-up requires fighting.

[QUOTE=William;85651]Please consider what I have offered, then you tell me?:whistling:

William[/QUOTE]

I think my whole idea is probably true, but pretty obviously so. Which ultimately makes it a load of crap.

1 Reply

@chad3006,

chad3006;85655 wrote:

I think I see what you mean and perhaps it should be better stated that no action is required for peace, but action is required for war.

Were you saying that peace is a natural state and war is not?

During peace-time, action is required for war. In the middle of a war, action is required to attain peace.

Conflict is normal for humans (one assumes) since they're socializing mammals. Unless they're profoundly different from other mammals, stable groups are created through competition for social dominance which creates heirarchy. The heirarchy gives the group the ability to coordinate its efforts. Humans are different from other mammals in terms of the size of their groups and the sophistication possible in their coordination. War entered human life along with agriculture, which among other things, created a sense of home to fight for, and increased the human resources to throw into war.

By and large the effect of war is exemplified by what we saw in Europe during the 20th century. The European Union is the natural outcome of war. War leads to unity.... ultimately. So it would stand to reason that at the point that globalization is complete, war will stop. But conflict won't end because it's part of our nature.

Now my reply may be crap if I totally misunderstood what you were saying. But the OP made me think, so it can't be crap.

0 Replies

@chad3006,

William;85651 wrote:

I am assuming 'decay' as a synonym for 'war', right? It appears this is the context in which you are using it, which if I am correct means if there were peace man would need to take "no" action that would lead to war. In that context to imagine a "natural state" has never existed, only respites from war hence the "load of crap" comment at the end or un-natural state.

chad3006;85655 wrote:

No actually, I mean real decay. That is once we are born we start to decay. We can resist with plastic surgery or something, but as time passes, more and more resources will have to be dedicated to this resistance. We may build infrastructure, but it must constantly be maintained and at some point we may consider it not worth saving.

In my opinion that is a personal perception but an accurate one if history is any judge in the matter. A derivative of the word decay is decadence and here are some interpretations of that I would like to share with you:

"Men first feel necessity, then look for utility, next attend to comfort, still later amuse themselves with pleasure, thence grow dissolute in luxury, and finally go mad and waste their substance." Giambattista Vico

"Every civilization when it loses its inner vision and its cleaner energy, falls into a new sort of sordidness, more vast and more stupendous than the old savage sort. An Augean stable of metallic filth." - D.H. Lawrence

"Decadence is a difficult word to use since it has become little more than a term of abuse applied by critics to anything they do not yet understand or which seems to differ from their moral concepts."-Ernest Hemingway

"The goal of every culture is to decay through over-civilization; the factors of decadence, -- luxury, skepticism, weariness and superstition, -- are constant. The civilization of one epoch becomes the manure of the next." -Cyril Connolly

Though I to some extent agree with them all, Vico's, in particular, is the one I most subscribe to, personally.

William;85651 wrote:

Who is it, exactly, you think "allows" for one to be peaceful? If it is not a natural state, then it must be "ordered" state, like what can be assumed as a "one world order", right? Who orders that? What man has such notions of peace for if it were true, man would not need to be "ordered"? If it were indeed true there would be no need to create a military to enforce it for all would readily comply.

chad3006;85655 wrote:

I think I see what you mean and perhaps it should be better stated that no action is required for peace, but action is required for war.

I whole heartedly agree.

William;85651 wrote:

I see. Contrary to what your definition means to offer, war is extremely violent. Though in lieu of what it has meant in the past, perhaps you have a new definition. As far a the predator killing a prey, that IS natural if you are an animal and would be a natural occurrence. In that respect, I think you sincerely think the human being is one. It is the common notion though an ancient and much misunderstood one. As for me, I have a different opinion. But it is reflected in that animal nature man often resorts to to defend his notions. But in keeping with what you are saying, I think it prudent to ask who is predator and who is prey?

chad3006;85655 wrote:

I think you misunderstood my position here. I literally was referring to preditors (including man) and yes it is natural. This assumes that the prey is to be utilized as food, but you may bring up a valid point in that sometimes prey may be utilized differently or "unaturally"

That is exactly what I mean. As the strong overpower the weak, the intellect over ignorance, the haves over the have nots, the rich over the poor, as the former in these scenarios serve up the latter's to appease their opulent appetites basking in the glory of their power and success, all at the sacrifice, blood and sweat of those they rule. These are indeed predators. Hmmph! Emphasis on opulent for there are those of the former who will fall under different definitions.

William;85651 wrote:

Chad, you are definitely from Texas. I think the Grackle is why man invented the shotgun ............and earplugs, Ha?

chad3006;85655 wrote:

Yes.

Ha!

William;85651 wrote:

In summary, those resources, including man, we use to engage in war, is because of the inequitable use of those resources as they are the very leverage used by those who allow peace to "order" that peace. There are other ways such as only communication, cooperation and understanding that will accomplish such a state, in my opinion.

chad3006;85655 wrote:

I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

Sorry, I worded that badly. Let me fix it: In short, those resources and the inequitable use of them you mentioned that are needed to engage in war, including that resource that is man of lesser means who is put on the front lines and is the first to be sacrificed, is that leverage of those who would allow peace as they "order that peace" of those of lesser resources. I sorta answered that in the post above it as the strong overpower the weak to obey what they perceive as "peace" giving license to the inequity that provided that power. This also can be understood in the statement "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely ending in decay, if you want to use your word. Decadence would suffice also, IMO.

William;85651 wrote:

IMO, if it requires fighting, there will never be a natural state. Perhaps there is a truth that can only be found on the other side of war? Hmmm?
But considering what that might be, we must understand we are not fighting with sticks and stones anymore.

chad3006;85655 wrote:

Yes, I think the natural state requires no fighting only keeping unatural things propped-up requires fighting.

Now I don't understand what you just said, ha!

chad3006;85655 wrote:

I think my whole idea is probably true, but pretty obviously so. Which ultimately makes it a load of crap.

Well said, and that brings back the last quote of the four I mentioned:

"The goal of every culture is to decay through over-civilization; the factors of decadence, -- luxury, skepticism, weariness and superstition, -- are constant. The civilization of one epoch becomes the manure of the next." Cyril Connolly

IMO, it is time for a change in what we call "civil-ization"

William

---------- Post added 08-25-2009 at 08:53 PM ----------

Arjuna;85661 wrote:

Were you saying that peace is a natural state and war is not?

During peace-time, action is required for war. In the middle of a war, action is required to attain peace.

Pardon me for my assumption, but is what you are saying: war is a natural state? As I stated earlier, if history is any judge, it can be assumed as a "natural state", well enough; but one must consider those weapons we are now "fighting with".

Arjuna;85661 wrote:

Conflict is normal for humans (one assumes) since they're socializing mammals.

Excuse me, but the animal thing is really hard to shake, isn't it?

Arjuna;85661 wrote:

Unless they're profoundly different from other mammals, stable groups are created through competition for social dominance which creates heirarchy.

Yes, that would define the nature of an animal, though I think competition is a wholly "human trait" only if it is treated as a "game" where fair sportsmanship dictates the rules of the game and all are armed with equal resources.

Arjuna;85661 wrote:

The heirarchy gives the group the ability to coordinate its efforts. Humans are different from other mammals.......

In all due respect, hierarchy? Who is it that is capable of such authority and who bestows such power? Wealth? Intelligence? Status? Greed?

Arjuna;85661 wrote:

.......in terms of the size of their groups and the sophistication possible in their coordination.

Please consider the sophisticate, in his worldly knowledge, could instill a ploy that would "use" the ignorant to enlarge their groups. You know, that could be a possibility if not a fact indeed such as the master over the slave and the rich over the poor, for instance?

Arjuna;85661 wrote:

War entered human life along with agriculture, which among other things, created a sense of home to fight for, and increased the human resources to throw into war.

May I ask why, if indeed that is a fact? Though it is evident in today's reality (society?) as an individual has to "pay" of the food he needs. A very "un-natural" state of affairs, IMO. For if someone is starving for the lack of it, they sure as hell can't put up much of a fight, can they!

Arjuna;85661 wrote:

By and large the effect of war is exemplified by what we saw in Europe during the 20th century. The European Union is the natural outcome of war. War leads to unity.... ultimately.

If that were only true. It could be only a respite as they arm for another one. If that is so, then Einstein was more that correct for if we do have another war in the scope of those of the 20th century, the one after that will be fought after that will be with with stones. What goes around comes around.

Arjuna;85661 wrote:

So it would stand to reason that at the point that globalization is complete, war will stop. But conflict won't end because it's part of our nature.

I fail to see the logic, it all due respect; unless of course you are still maintaining we are animals? Then it would be logical. Don't you think it about time we got past that erroneous assumption?

Arjuna;85661 wrote:

Now my reply may be crap if I totally misunderstood what you were saying. But the OP made me think, so it can't be crap.

Thank you for your offering Arjuna, it made me think also. and I really hate to do that. Ha! It can be so stressful and I like ease much better.

William

1 Reply

@William,

William;85665 wrote:

Pardon me for my assumption, but is what you are saying: war is a natural state? As I stated earlier, if history is any judge, it can be assumed as a "natural state", well enough; but one must consider those weapons we are now "fighting with".

Touche. You're talking sense. Good sense seemed to be in short supply during the Cold War. It haunted my adolescent thoughts that people said that every military technology had been used to its fullest. They asked: what would make us think nuclear weopons would be different? It seemed to many people that the real threat to our well-being was our nature... and as I recall there was wide-spread pessimism. It seemed that the challenge before us was to change our nature. I could digress for a while about what happened next, but long story short: I think we came to the conclusion that war is not our basic nature. It may have been the preferred mode of conflict resolution in the past, but it's time let that mode go and find another one... some sort of UN type arrangement. Obviously, we're still striving along those lines.

William;85665 wrote:

Excuse me, but the animal thing is really hard to shake, isn't it?

Are you saying that you don't believe humans are animals?

William;85665 wrote:

In all due respect, hierarchy? Who is it that is capable of such authority and who bestows such power? Wealth? Intelligence? Status? Greed?

Humans want government. Otherwise, it wouldn't exist. We want it because we know that the greatest expression of our potential can only take place in the context of government.

William;85665 wrote:

Please consider the sophisticate, in his worldly knowledge, could instill a ploy that would "use" the ignorant to enlarge their groups. You know, that could be a possibility if not a fact indeed such as the master over the slave and the rich over the poor, for instance?

The only society that hasn't been corrupted by the agendas of short-sighted, malignant, soulless liars is an imaginary one. This is why every human, even a slave, has the natural right to defy his government (according to Marcus Aurelius.) This is civil rights. I still maintain that conflict leads to unity... and I also appreciated the quotes about the inevitable disintegration of human society... the one that most matches my outlook is the one that said every society is manure for the next.

0 Replies

@chad3006,

Arjuna, You're right about conflict being a natural state. Primates and other creatures have conflicts, but I consider full-fledged war to be a different thing (at least for this definition). These conflicts are usually short lived, but do sometimes involve violent deaths, but as William said, mankind has created weapons that can kill many who are not involved directly in the "conflict." This is what I believe sets war apart from conflict and therefore makes it "unnatural." But of course one could argue that man is a natural creature and all he does is necessarily natural, so perhaps that's where the load of crap comes in.

I'll stand by my original statement that war requires action, but peace does not. In the middle of war, stop the action that creates the war and peace will return.

This brings up a point of clarity for me. Perhaps I could distinguish the differences between these natural and unnatural states with their respective sustainability. That is, natural states are more sustainable, while unnatural ones are not. War requires ever increasing resources, which eventually becomes unsustainable. Like the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
The house I've built for myself may or may not be sustainable in my lifetime, but it certainly won't be sustainable forever. It will require maintenance during my lifetime, and I've tried to keep it simple enough for my meager resources to maintain, but perhaps I miscalculated, maybe a mud hut is more suited to my resources.

William you bring up a good point about civilization, perhaps civilization itself is unsustainable. An ant den is a civilization I guess, but its simplicity makes it more sustainable than a society with highways, levees, and the like.

Here's the heart of my point. Perhaps man must have war, but does he consider the resources required to sustain it, and will the resources gained be worth it? (I personally think war always is a losing proposition, but I don't make these decisions). Perhaps man must have a civilization, but can he keep the levees in place and for how long? Will the tax base sustain the infrastructure? On a personal level, can an individual sustain a particular lifestyle, is it worth it? Is any thought given to such choices? You're going to be fighting mother nature the whole way, so be prepared and don't be surprised when she takes it away.

---------- Post added 08-26-2009 at 09:15 AM ----------

Oh yeah, I just thought of another example of a natural state, and that is truth. I seem to remember reading a quote from Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, which went something like: A government that chooses to tell a lie, must devote ever increasing resources to maintain that lie. That is certainly true on the individual level, and there are countless example of it. Truth, being a natural state will continue to creep back in, slowly and patiently, just as rain will continue to pound on roofs and eventually break them down.

1 Reply

@chad3006,

Arjuna;85684 wrote:

Touche. You're talking sense. Good sense seemed to be in short supply during the Cold War. It haunted my adolescent thoughts that people said that every military technology had been used to its fullest. They asked: what would make us think nuclear weopons would be different? It seemed to many people that the real threat to our well-being was our nature... and as I recall there was wide-spread pessimism. It seemed that the challenge before us was to change our nature. I could digress for a while about what happened next, but long story short: I think we came to the conclusion that war is not our basic nature. It may have been the preferred mode of conflict resolution in the past, but it's time let that mode go and find another one... some sort of UN type arrangement. Obviously, we're still striving along those lines.

Thank you Arjuna for your kind response. Yes we need a "United Nations" for, IMO, the one we have is "not" united simply because they are competing with one another economically, intellectually, technologically, socially, ethnically, morally, linguistically, etc., what can be conceived, to obtain more control not only as it relates to their own nations resources (human, natural, and renewable) to supply the energy to sustain them that is determined by "costs", but those of other nations as well. As we evaluate everything based on it's afford-ability in determining our action to "do" or "not do", each and every nation has to consider "at what costs" they must pay as they argue what has "value and what doesn't" often leading to the disposal of their most valuable resource, the human being itself and that is what wars are made of. It all "boils" down to costs, to be perfectly "blunt". What we call a "united nations" is not; it is a house in which nations gather to "argue and debate" that causes "friction" that creates heat and discontinuity of purpose the can lead to hell giving definition to the phrase "war is hell".

Arjuna;85684 wrote:

Are you saying that you don't believe humans are animals?

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Any attempt to equate the human being to that of an animal I find personally appalling. Again, yes there are physiological similarities, but that is where the distinction ends. Period. Again, yes as we observe those behaviors "of man" to be indeed "animalistic", I have long concluded those are the "consequences" of man's effort to survive as he rebels to the control his fellow man tries to "impose". It is by no means a genetic characteristic, by any interpretation. The notion that we are "animal" gives license that justifies man to be a "predator" as those who are such rationalize "only the strong survive"! How so very "warlike". When treated like an animal, man will most definitely, if able, sink his teeth into you. Does that mean he is animal? No! He is just force to act like one in order to survive. Can it be defined as sub-human? My answer is yes; for we have not truly realized what it is to be human, yet and the potential we are indeed capable of. We have only scratched te surface and we can only hope in our scratching we don't gouge a hole in which we will all fall through. Hmmm? There is "some" mythological evidence that has happened before and if we are not "careful" it will happen again, and again and again until we eventually get it "right". Nietzsche went nuts trying to figure that out as Vico had it nailed as did Epicurus long ago, as always IMhumblebuthonestO. (Sorry, ttm, if you are per chance reading this; I couldn't resist, Ha! Please receive this with the humor in which it was sent, thanks.)
.

Arjuna;85684 wrote:

Humans want government. Otherwise, it wouldn't exist. We want it because we know that the greatest expression of our potential can only take place in the context of government.

Humans "want" government"? Are you so very sure about that? Pardon me, but I am of a "different nature". To illustrate this, let us observe the word "govern" itself and it definitions:

To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise sovereign authority in.
To control the speed or magnitude of; regulate.
To control the actions or behavior of.
To keep under control; restrain.
To exercise a deciding or determining influence on.

Now let's observe the antonyms:
acquiesce, allow, consent, give way, permit

IMO, the word "government" creates conflict itself. In our great constitution, it was made mention "the consent of the governed". To br very realistic "how" can a people offer knowledgeable consent to those who effort to control/govern/make/force/command rule "over" them, huh?
As an effort to "restrain" them? Hmmm? Do you or anyone else desire to be "restrained"? I don't think so, or at least "I" don't, personally. I would much rather address those antonyms more. Ah, but "costs" do get in the way, don't they, hmmm?

Now let's look at one alternative to "government": Leadership.

The position of a leader: ascended to leadership.
Wisdom to lead: showed strong wisdom in decision making pertaining to the whole.
A group of leaders: Unified Global consortium of the wise and knowledgeable.
Guidance; direction: The world prospered under the wise leadership of the consortium maintaining global harmony.

Now if you will forgive me, I change those definitions a little from their original texts I gathered at Answers.com. which gives them a new meaning IMO. The only way affective leadership can be established is when "costs" are NOT a part of those equations; at least as it is defined by the chaos of the economic structure we now have in place. A new one MUST be established that is not based of objective value or rarity. This is a very important matter that MUST be discussed in all forums, consisting of all people as to what is truly valuable in all their lives. Only those who are "profiting" from this current, insane, economic structure will offer protest and of course their "slaves", IMO. Let the masters beware, IMO. of their impose "animalistic" nature, and the numbers they represent. Hmmm?

Arjuna;85684 wrote:

The only society that hasn't been corrupted by the agendas of short-sighted, malignant, soulless liars is an imaginary one.

Ah, how so very blunt you are here, and I might add, correct. What is the imagination, exactly as we ponder the phrase, "what a man can conceive, if believed, can be achieved"! Makes you wonder, doesn't it. Perhaps this reality is a "self-fulfilling prophecy" giving credence to "what goes around, come around" huh? Perhaps it is time we 'imagined a new reality" and there is some measure of truth in wishes do come true as we wish upon a star. Please forgive my reverie, for I am a hopeless dreamer but not a beautiful one, I might add, Ha.

Arjuna;85684 wrote:

This is why every human, even a slave, has the natural right to defy his government (according to Marcus Aurelius.)

Thank you my friend for that quote from a very wise man who was all to aware of his human frailties even as a god as some declared him to be. A position he felt very uncomfortable with, IMO. An Emperor who was human, but indeed very, very alone. A man who could have literally everything on the perceived Earth at that time if he so chose. Your mentioning of this man and his philosophy, I think is very timely concerning the nature of this thread as this short clip illustrates from the "virtual university"

Arjuna;85684 wrote:

This is civil rights. I still maintain that conflict leads to unity... and I also appreciated the quotes about the inevitable disintegration of human society... the one that most matches my outlook is the one that said every society is manure for the next.

Arjuna, we can only hope to lessen those conflicts for I shutter to think of what the manure of this time will offer to our posterity for I do believe that some contributions and those who espouse them to those that follow are indeed 'full of sh*t'. Please forgive me my vulgar humor here, Ha!

William

0 Replies

@chad3006,

chad3006;85757 wrote:

Oh yeah, I just thought of another example of a natural state, and that is truth. ...

Truth, being a natural state will continue to creep back in, slowly and patiently, just as rain will continue to pound on roofs and eventually break them down.

This is a perspective I understand... and it gives cohesion to all your statements. If you imagine that war is like a man who hates his neighbor. His frustration builds until he explodes and walks next door with a shotgun and commits murder. An observer takes this as assurance that murder is natural for humans. Another view, though, is that murder only happens when other natural impulses were denied. This denial builds up the frustration that explodes into violence. Since this violence arises from previous denial of nature, it is labeled unnatural. It's also unnatural because the man never intended to be a source of violence and sorrow in his world. He's allowed the most monstrous of his possibilities to become actual. (I was introduced to this notion by a book called 'Seth Speaks' by Jane Roberts.)

In regard to cultural disintegration: where I live, summer isn't sustainable. About this time of year the world starts looking ragged and exhausted. The first autumn breeze is welcome. The leaves will fall and the trees will stand bare like skeletons reaching up into sky. The ground will be buried in snow and the world will sleep. This is natural.

And to William: Marcus Aurelius is one of my favorite people. I have more to say... but I gotta go! More later. Smile

0 Replies

Natural states?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know