Can Knowledge Save Us.

William,

First, I just wanted to say I'm honestly thrilled at your joining of this community - you are intelligent, seemingly well-reasoned, and most important of all respectful.

Regarding abortion and sexual promiscuity, I didn't mean to make it seem like I knew the greater problem, as I don't. The ideas I threw your way also came from my own reasoning and no further collaboration. We disagree in this direction, as I don't believe that sex should have the taboo applied. I don't believe it is the standard PC rational to not force a child to perform a certain way; in fact, I think the common rational is to force. We should educate our children on the consequences of sex, but not with a moralistic barrage of imperative statements. We should not force, but inform. Now, I understand your point on the girl seemingly having more common sense in your day, and I can't really comment on that. The cause may be the 'Women's Rebellion' you speak of, but it really doesn't matter. What matters is focusing on the present and finding a solution.

Let me please clarify once again - I wasn't making the assumption that harmony is peace. I was actually making an effort to differentiate the two. The definition of "Harmony" I began to use in my text was a more quantum-physics usage of the word. That is, all matter is in harmony unless in total chaos. So, my point was that we do live in harmony without a choice, as it is impossible otherwise (I believe the only example of this ultimate chaos we have is theorized to be in black holes) . We do have power over whether we live peacefully, however. Again, I understand your definition of both and it was just semantics...

Now, to comment on the contents:

You say that you will not equate our existence to that of a physiological animal we resemble. Well, here is a fundamental viewpoint in which we disagree. How can you say that we have far surpassed the nature of the beast, when a moment ago you said we didn't know the nature of humans? I refuse to believe our species is special, just as you refuse to believe this is natural selection. We may be unique relative to the other species of living organisms on our planet, but I don't necessarily believe in the ultimate 'point' you bring up. Let me clarify by pointing out that I'm agnostic - while I don't necessarily believe in a 'point' to our existence, I am not discrediting that there may be one. What makes more sense to me, at the moment (and boy do I have a long way to go on this journey), is that we shouldn't place ourselves on a pedestal. It appears you hold a more spiritualistic guide than I.

Now, even with this said, I do value human lives over most other living organisms. Not because I believe we are any better but because it is unreasonable to worry about every living organism. Even if we are no better than that tiny ant, I can't be worrying about everywhere I step whenever I walk down the street. Nor can I worry about destroying an amoeba everytime I scratch my face... these are just unreasonable things to do.

Regardless, I don't quite understand what you mean when you say we are just surviving. Again, what I was probing in my initial questioning was the point at which you believe we are unified. What exactly are you seeking? You say we are divided when it appears to me we are as unified as ever. With the advance of technology ideas and knowledge can spread instantaneously... I don't have to tell you this, though, as you already know. You seek something more profound than just a tolerance of one another, correct? Even if there is no war and every human tolerated one another, it appears you wouldn't be satisfied. You want some kind of psyche-bonding, one which brings everyone to a very common intellectual level? Now, I'm not saying this is impossible, but it is a tad farfetched.

See, I'm satisfied with tolerance, and having everyone think like me, or any one else, would take the beauty out of life. The various viewpoints, differing of opinions, are beauty to me. Now, we can have common goals and peace, but it appears the unification you're seeking is almost brainwashing. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I think I just need more clarification.

Regardless, it's a pleasure sharing my ideas with one so respectful. Take care,

Zetherin,

Thanks for your understanding. I have a hard time expressing what I want to express. It is so beyond common thought, I need the patience of those like you to reel me in if only to teach me how to communicate better. I honestly think we are much closer than either of us think. Its just grasping the language I have a problem with as I have said it has been many years since I have been in school and I really don't have a clue as to what they are teaching. Just a quick note on the evolution thing. If I was not that clear as if it seems I contradicted myself concerning my statement of not realizing what "human nature" was as we are still defining it, I didn't mean to imply we were not capable of astonishing things. I have often made the comment, "..show me a ape that can build a Kool-Aid stand and then you will have my attention as far as equating man to animal. I was talking about the way we treat our fellow man as it relates to human nature. That in my opinion is far more meaningful that any physical matter we bring into this reality. How we treat our fellow man is not a part of "natural selection" though we now are on the fringe of thinking about using genetic engineering to "improve" those "mutant and unfit variants" that are a result of man's abuse of man and has absolutely nothing to do with anything "natural". Animals treat themselves far better than our species treats itself. It is my belief we too, as humans have an "instinct" we must follow, but unlike the animal who has no choice, we are equipped with that reasoning ability to reach that "harmonic instinct" ourselves. Whatever it may be. Then we will treat humans like humans, much like a lion treats a lion like a lion. It is how the universe operates and that is the question we must seek answers too. How do we arrive at that harmonic existence for I feel we cannot survive unless we do.

Later, I'm beat
Thanks again. Your patience and understanding is greatly appreciated.
William

Too much 'head' (ego), not enough 'heart' (soul)!
Look around and see the 'results' thereof.

Einstein said that 'intelligence' is not defined/measured by 'knowledge' but by 'imagination'!

"Never give a sword to a man who can't dance" - Confucius

"Knowledge" and "intelligence" are different to each individual person. To some it is faith in rationalizations of the unexplained, to some it is humility in the face of the world, and to some it is the ability to process material knowledge.
To say what "intelligence" really is, as well any other issue of varying perceptions is ultimately up to the individual perspective to fully define. Therefore each person's idea of an intelligent conclusion and way of life will be different, in, at the very least a few ways. This is what makes the human species so diverse- the ability to take in such enormous amounts of information, and to document, and pick it apart, creating for them an individual ultimate conclusion of it all. Of course it is not simply reasoning ability that comes to play in this-emotions, hope, 'faith', and whatever the particular person would rather believe plays a rather dominant role in the processing of information in the brain- some chemicals influence others in different, stronger, or weaker forms than in another.
So, to your question of whether of "Can philosophy, science, intellect or knowledge save the world? Can intellect reach a consensus that power will listen to?"
No. The 'saved' world you wish to see will never come into being as long as the human populace remains diverse in nature. As long as there are differences, and disagreements there will be those who choose violence, and war as the chosen approach, as well as separation, inequality, and discrimination. The best we can do is to unite the people with a common goal for the better of the world, and promote peace, and tolerance within this diverse world.

The words I have highlighted are the heart of how you feel. Rather than saying: No, as long as.... if you would have said Yes, but only if....would have indicated, to me at any rate, your understanding the depth of the problem we are facing. It is easy identifying the problems, it's the solutions we must focus our attention on. Diversities and differences are good things if they are used in complimentary ways that will reach an end that will enhance both. It is only when people are force to use those differences and diversitities to defend themselves, is when trouble begins. Separation, inequality, and discrimination are consequences of no effort to reach a "compatible" understanding. There are always "strings attached" that always necessitate a "defensive posture".

Thanks for your imput. I appreciate it.

William

Np...?
The defined form of these problems, and this intellect is only a matter of your oun opinion. Each person has their oun view of the world-yours is only your oun. It is not up to you to deside for them, and untill you can, what do you really think that chances are that these things will change in the way your perspective deems prudent? It would certainly be a change for the better in our opinions if the human populace overall descided to result in peacful, productive, accepting resolutions of their differences, but to some it is the exact opposite of this that is going to change the world for the "better". However you put it, it is only your opinion. What "needs" to happen to achieve this end you imagine is different for every person. Only if you ever could conform each individual person to side with you as to what is the positive outcome, and philosophy will this world be "saved" in the way that you please.
Btw, as for your "highlights" what exactly is the difference in saying "yes, but only if this changes", and "no, as long as this stays the same" different?

ad,

It's a "half empty", "half full" kinda thing.

William

It means the same exact thing.

How does that change my understanding?

I apologize for not addressing your entire post. I fully realiize what you are saying. It was not my intent to group "philosophy, science, intellect or knowledge" into one basket. That would be absurd. Hitler was smart. I meant to appeal to those who realize the downward spiral we are on globally. There are those who truly ae "smart" who just don't care and are profiting hugely from the state of the world and it was not my intent to reach that bunch simply because they don't care. Many of those fall into those paramenters you are discussing.

Many of intellect are under the thumb of power and cannot see the forest for the trees. My inquiry was to see how many were aware of the seriousness of the problems in which we find ourselves and to offer, what, in their minds, could be done to reach those powers who are responsible for continuing a "status quo" that is going downhill at an exponential rate.

Your response, IMO, was inviting a debate and that was not my purpose. Knowledge and the misuse of that knowledge is the problem and I was curious to find out from those who have a knack for "learning", what they thought. As you read the responses, they were not of a "debate" nature.
I personally think the answers are there within man's grasp if he will just focus on changing the staturs quo, rather than being ambivalent to it.

You accurately have recognized the problem, but I must disagree with your conclusions as you state it is the "populace" that must change, when most of the populace doesn't have the power to change as they two are under the thumb of power.

I hope this clears it up a little for you as to my intent.

William