aside from diversity being its only nature, is that no ideology can prevent a culture of thoughtlessness, from creating conditions of tyranny. (neither can anything else, though economics, forms of government, and even some religions, claim to) it's not that i don't believe there are all sorts of neat fun wonderful invisible things, (including possibly one that's bigger then all the rest of them, that gives great hugs and hasn't been reliably observed to micro-manage), it's just that i don't believe any of them, are at all obliged, to resemble what anyone, pretends to know about them.
Expound a little if you will. Are you talking God as the wonderful invisible thing? You "don't believe any of them"? Are you referring to "wonderful invisible things"? As to thoughtlessness creating tyranny - I don't know. It seems that tyranny is usually a well thought out scenario leading to power and wealth for a person or group of persons. Then again - if people don't care what's going on around them and are only worried about their little world and screw everyone else - then yes, thoughtlessness does lead to tyranny.
i believe all sorts of them EXIST, including big friendly and invisible, generally referred to as "god', and that nothing is obliged to resemble what any one or any belief claims or imagines to know about it. as to the other part, my more principal point, that while tyrannies my be created in pursuit of specific goals, it is the norms of the ambient culture that motivate and create incentives for them.
are you saying that people are indifferent to their mode of government so long as underlying cultural drives are met? I could see that German National emasculation after WWI may have paved the way to NAZI domination. The ambient culture of wanting to eat propped up feudalism for a thousand years. The ambient culture of desiring a less shitty life, then of desiring immortality, and the whole time of fearing extreme heat and torture allowed Catholicism [read Christianity] to flourish and dominate. do you have a theory on capitalism?
indeed yes. capitolism as a seperate named specific ideological pespective, did not exist more then a few hundred years ago. like all such, it came about through a sequence of historical accidents, which if we were to rewind the clock prior to their occurance and then let run, would come out entirely differently each time. you could even go back a few thousand years, and start the clock running again, and christianity, islam, and everything else that came after when you reset it to, would come out differently and have their own different names. which of course everyone would be just as mistakenly certain had been just as 'fated' to have come about.
something has set us apart from the rest of the moving (organic) beings on this planet, in that nothing (aside from some isolated incidents) really snacks on us, yet we still receive an imbalanced level of pleasure from sex. we grow like mold across the face of the planet, and continue to act on desires that once served the purpose of aiding our survival. perhaps we have come to a new point in our evolution. perhaps we are on the verge of gaining true control over our base instincts. perhaps it is time to turn off the autopilot.
Reality as a concept or a whole, reality of reality is there iz no reality, if it is it is if its not its not, any thing is some thing some thing is any thing, the rules u chose to adby by governs ur reality, all comes down to perspective and dispoishion, say it another way u might say?
could be reality is defined by the negative . of all existence you can perceive - what part of that do you refuse to relate to , will not explore , and in the extreme will totally deny ? you might not know , because the knowable can be denied .
That I'm reading these opinions seems very real to me. In fact what happens to me is MY personal sensate reality and no one else's. Beyond my nose I'll just have to assume. Humans are not needed for objective reality. The falling tree will make a certain amount of racket whether sentience is aware of it or not. To deny or question reality as a whole, is philosophically jacking off to the age old discussion of relative value of our place and importance in existance. As far as government goes ,any government responds to it's own needs first and only responds to it's citizens when it perceives a threat of losing position, power,money,or threat of violence. A semi-civilized government will face the reality of massive peacefull resistance as in Egypt or India,whereas uncivilzed countries will react as in Iran or Burma.-----------------(Did I understand the postulation correctly? Can't tell)
some reality we have to share - like space , especially home . living in an uncivilized wild space would be especially shared .
To be thought of as a person of substance and worth today, that is what is really hard to do, with all the cynicism and greed. I think any philosophy that supports the worth of the individual is good, and any that degrades it is bad.
why would how you are thought of, beyond the self preservation of staying out of trouble, be a matter of particular concern? personally, i'm much more concerned with the kind of world i have to live in. (and much more interested in things like trains, computers and little furry creatures, then what goes on in human society, other then being frustrated with and by its all too often self destructiveness)
