Quote:Yes, the planet itself is perhaps in no danger. Actually, it's a little strange to even say it. A little like saying, "this mountain is in danger, we must rescue this mountain". If anything, it's our perception that is threatened in such a scenarion.
I believe the real issue of this thread is that perhaps our human societies as we know them are in danger.
Oh, bravo, well done and thanks for clearing that one up for us.
Quote:But history has shown us that compared to the time humans have existed in their current form, all societies have been relatively short lived. All civilizations have crumbled, and humanity has been thrown into chaos from which it would rise and form new societies based on newly revised ideals. Another interesting question to be asked it perhaps; is this a bad thing?
Events of the past are but a 'storm in a tea cup' compared to what could happen nowadays with the global society. Is it such a bad thing to think ahead and consider where we are going? I rather think it is the 'head in the sand/up arse' approach you seem to espouse that caused said civilisations to crumble.
Cyracuz is the living embodiment of laissez-faire or how to make certain the handcart goes to hell.
My opinion is that "he" values nothing because everything that happens/occurs is transient and merely the unfolding of the universal process. It matters not which direction it takes. A kind of fatalism in which "he" perceives "himself" as an impotent and dispassionate observer of a systemic universe. "He" does not accept any self identity and in so doing denies in "his" mind any other. Dangerous...
pswfps
I am interested to know if you refer here to the allegorical "he" of "ordinary man" and that the "danger" is of "sleep walking".
(If so you should note that the "system" implies that "knowledge is not for all" and that mankind in general is deemed to be subject to the "law of accident" :wink: )
No, "ordinary man" generally asserts a self-identity fresco. "Ordinary man" generally cares which direction the flux takes; the patterns which arise and dissipate. "Ordinary man" knows how to influence the flux. "Ordinary man" knows that he participates regardless of action or "inaction."
It isn't necessary to know everything concerning all sub-systems within the flux in order for sentience to spot repeating patterns. To form conceptual relations and mentally model the flux on some, albeit, generalised level. To forsee multiple futures and act according to some definition of desirability. To harness "causality", albeit, limited in scope and accuracy, to bring about the future one desires. In that there is hope. In that there is civilisation.
(Okay...you're obviously not yet into Ouspensky yet.)
No, after finishing Tao of Physics (great book) I was in two minds whether to continue with Capra or move onto Gurdjieff/Ouspensky. I decided to stick with Capra for a while longer ... rightly or wrongly I don't know. I've read a few of the introductory pages in Search of the Miraculous and it does look very appealing though. I had to wait three weeks for Amazon to get that book to me, seems to be a little obscure.
