Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Infinite Potentials
"Everybody has a secret world inside of them. All of the people of the world, I mean everybody. No matter how dull and boring they are on the outside, inside them they've all got unimaginable, magnificent, wonderful, stupid, amazing worlds. Not just one world. Hundreds of them. Thousands maybe." ~Neil Gaiman
crdt-R.Davison.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Real problems in Guatemala
For clarification, Banrural is Guatemala's largest bank, which this man is claiming supports ghost projects. A bank that the president and his cronies use to launder resources.
He's calling for the Guatemalan people to stand up against what they know is already true, instead of living in fear of taking action. The fear of taking action against the wrong doings that are occurring, is allowing for people to be murdered "when they stop being useful, in a deal between thieves."
THEY HAVE A LOSS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH THAT IS APPARENT:
"Crackdown Begins in Guatemala
A Twitter user was arrested today in Guatemala, as thousands of people took to the streets for the third consecutive day, calling for President Alvaro Colom to step down. Mr. Colom, his wife, and his private secretary are accused of orchestrating the murder of a whistleblower attorney. The lawyer, Rodrigo Rosenberg, was murdered near his Guatemala City home on Sunday. He left behind a video in which he accuses the president and his lackeys of using a state-owned bank to launder money and defraud taxpayers. Twitter user “Jeanfer” wrote a post on Tuesday suggesting that people who have money in that bank should withdraw it, in order to drain the resources of the corrupt mafia. He was arrested during a police raid of his home on charges of “inciting financial panic.” His arrest has sparked another form of protest among those who fear this is the beginning of a crackdown on freedom of speech in the country: they are retwitting Jeanfer’s post." (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/crackdown-begins-in-guatemala-/chilling/)
Facebook group with more information and public accounts in the comment sections
I feel that America needs to stop interfering with other's business because the USA is not a clean country either, we're increasingly socialist and interventionalist.
I feel that by including the USA in the issues, things could actually worsen, as maybe they try to "export" democracy etc. hardly any of the guys up there in the top understand sound economics, they will make larger problems.
I'm not sure how to take action to help
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Trust
Trust comes with great risk. When you trust another for anything, you are allowing someone else to have a part of something valuable, you are incurring the potential for incurring a cost that you don't want to incur. Whether it be linguistic or monetary, you are trusting wealth in someone else.
Trust, and be trust worthy.
Trust, and be trust worthy.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Why Do We Live, or rather, Why Do We Care?
Why do people want to learn, even if they see that they don't understand, why do they care?
Once they are aware of what it means to not act,once they realize "that those who are served are limited in their freedom," then they see the consequences of their action is that they lose their freedom. But ...who cares? They're just dependent, someone else will take care of them: think for them, develop for them, their understanding, take care of their needs for food etc.
But we know that we live in a world of relative scarcity. Do the same consequences of the loss of freedom of property occur with intellectual property?
Yeah progress slows, stops, we become inert, do we feel purposeless? Do we begin to hate ourselves? Why? If we do, then we feel unease with not living purposefully and we choose to take action, to learn, to explore- to share, to live dynamically.
Do we prefer the patterned state, between stillness and insanity? Why?
Is it all a part of reproduction? Does the desire to learn and progress, have to do with the ability to survive? and is intellect, beyond the ability to make shelter and get food, a deciding factor in reproduction? Is the exploration of ideas and truth a desire to know more in order to make life easier? To make time usage more efficient? In order to better make shelter and get food and enjoy living. Or to make life more meaningful, but I don't see how. Why do we live? Why!?
Why do we value solving conflict peacefully? If the only reason to do so is to respect others, and to learn from the conflict? What if we do not care about learning? Can we not care? Some people express a lack of concern for ideas, how can they do that? Why do we shy from the difficult? Why do we detest stagnation? Is it, once again, only out of a will to survive?
Wondering what it means to be human, trying to figure out why, or if, we value learning. I do not understand the root drive for progress. Do we just feel meaningless while inert? Do we as humans prefer dynamic interaction? But maybe these questions can’t be answered, I can’t explain why we live, why we desire, I can’t say why we love or question. It’s simply because we’re human. So I guess my job is to express how I see those things supported. But how do I know those things are there, and is that a question I need to even ask? I feel those things, I am human, so do all humans feel those things? Sometimes I don’t feel the drive. What makes us uneasy with being wrong? Why do we fear being wrong? More questions that I’m not sure I could ever answer.
Why would we care if all things were predetermined, only because that would mean that our actions may not actually achieve our idea of a preferred state?
If you don't give life meaning, then life is meaningless. How is it that we give life meaning? Why must we give life meaning? If it is given by us, and exists only because we exist, then blah, all of our actions, are, so strange. and it comes down to
Do we live because we do not know what it means to die? Why do we live with a purpose if we do not know what comes next? Do we act and learn and share, live “peacefully” only out of a desire to feel accomplished and good? Does that feeling of accomplishment stem from a love for others?
And here is where, if I did not choose to recognize that I am human and do have desires that are meaningful because I make them so, and that I do affect those around me, then I could shoot myself, but even to die is a desire to not live, it is a trap we as humans live in, a trap of self-determined meaning.
Even by asking these questions I am expressing that which I do not understand.
You see what I mean?
The very fact that I ask, implies that I find a purpose to asking.
Is that because I fear inertia and death as a consequence of not reproducing, or because I find life meaningful in that I am generating something that would not be here if I were not here?
If we understand the will to reproduce and survive then mustnt we above that cognatively?
Some how there is something there, our ability to give life meaning, is what makes life more than chemical, this element of choice and rationality, above the will to survive, this love for others, and meaning found in interaction, or in gazing at the sky with another.
Once they are aware of what it means to not act,once they realize "that those who are served are limited in their freedom," then they see the consequences of their action is that they lose their freedom. But ...who cares? They're just dependent, someone else will take care of them: think for them, develop for them, their understanding, take care of their needs for food etc.
But we know that we live in a world of relative scarcity. Do the same consequences of the loss of freedom of property occur with intellectual property?
Yeah progress slows, stops, we become inert, do we feel purposeless? Do we begin to hate ourselves? Why? If we do, then we feel unease with not living purposefully and we choose to take action, to learn, to explore- to share, to live dynamically.
Do we prefer the patterned state, between stillness and insanity? Why?
Is it all a part of reproduction? Does the desire to learn and progress, have to do with the ability to survive? and is intellect, beyond the ability to make shelter and get food, a deciding factor in reproduction? Is the exploration of ideas and truth a desire to know more in order to make life easier? To make time usage more efficient? In order to better make shelter and get food and enjoy living. Or to make life more meaningful, but I don't see how. Why do we live? Why!?
Why do we value solving conflict peacefully? If the only reason to do so is to respect others, and to learn from the conflict? What if we do not care about learning? Can we not care? Some people express a lack of concern for ideas, how can they do that? Why do we shy from the difficult? Why do we detest stagnation? Is it, once again, only out of a will to survive?
Wondering what it means to be human, trying to figure out why, or if, we value learning. I do not understand the root drive for progress. Do we just feel meaningless while inert? Do we as humans prefer dynamic interaction? But maybe these questions can’t be answered, I can’t explain why we live, why we desire, I can’t say why we love or question. It’s simply because we’re human. So I guess my job is to express how I see those things supported. But how do I know those things are there, and is that a question I need to even ask? I feel those things, I am human, so do all humans feel those things? Sometimes I don’t feel the drive. What makes us uneasy with being wrong? Why do we fear being wrong? More questions that I’m not sure I could ever answer.
Why would we care if all things were predetermined, only because that would mean that our actions may not actually achieve our idea of a preferred state?
If you don't give life meaning, then life is meaningless. How is it that we give life meaning? Why must we give life meaning? If it is given by us, and exists only because we exist, then blah, all of our actions, are, so strange. and it comes down to
Do we live because we do not know what it means to die? Why do we live with a purpose if we do not know what comes next? Do we act and learn and share, live “peacefully” only out of a desire to feel accomplished and good? Does that feeling of accomplishment stem from a love for others?
And here is where, if I did not choose to recognize that I am human and do have desires that are meaningful because I make them so, and that I do affect those around me, then I could shoot myself, but even to die is a desire to not live, it is a trap we as humans live in, a trap of self-determined meaning.
Even by asking these questions I am expressing that which I do not understand.
You see what I mean?
The very fact that I ask, implies that I find a purpose to asking.
Is that because I fear inertia and death as a consequence of not reproducing, or because I find life meaningful in that I am generating something that would not be here if I were not here?
If we understand the will to reproduce and survive then mustnt we above that cognatively?
Some how there is something there, our ability to give life meaning, is what makes life more than chemical, this element of choice and rationality, above the will to survive, this love for others, and meaning found in interaction, or in gazing at the sky with another.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
A taste of emergent truth. A more complete experience of this will soon be available.
"For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." —Thomas Jefferson.
While scanning through a book called Dwell in Peace, Applying Nonviolence to Everyday Relationships, by Ronald Arnett, I found segment of text asking the question of what was needed for an individual to “accept a nonviolent peacemaking position” (33). Arnett says that maintaining the peacemaking position cannot rely solely upon the effectiveness of the peaceful efforts made, and that “for many nonviolent peacemakers truthfulness, not effectiveness, is the primary criterion” (34).
Because of this view, Arnett then begins to write about the three different ways to view truth, the dogmatic or absolutist, the relativistic, and the “emergent conception of truth” (35). Mahatma Gandhi, who spent his life trying to discover the best nonviolent means, is said to have been a proponent of the “emergent conception of truth.” Gandhi’s stance on truth “required him to immerse himself in dialogue with the situation, in order to apprehend the truth that emerged ‘between’ him and the situation” (35).
Maurice Friedman, a professor, expanded the language used to define emergent truth, bringing forth the term “touchstone” reality, which “means that an individual will probably not remain forever on the same ground that affirms a truth; a person is open to new understandings of truth” (36). The main importance, Gandhi points out, is that you can be on the wrong path seeking truth, and thus, as Arnett paraphrased, you must “live a double action of commitment and openness to new revelations or touchstones of reality” (37). This view of truth, where each individual stands strongly and as clearly as possible on their touchstone until realizing their own mistake, is a view that allows all to use their own understandings with comfort, and makes people willing to engage in dialogue, a view that makes each individual responsible to be clear thinking and willing to learn.
While scanning through a book called Dwell in Peace, Applying Nonviolence to Everyday Relationships, by Ronald Arnett, I found segment of text asking the question of what was needed for an individual to “accept a nonviolent peacemaking position” (33). Arnett says that maintaining the peacemaking position cannot rely solely upon the effectiveness of the peaceful efforts made, and that “for many nonviolent peacemakers truthfulness, not effectiveness, is the primary criterion” (34).
Because of this view, Arnett then begins to write about the three different ways to view truth, the dogmatic or absolutist, the relativistic, and the “emergent conception of truth” (35). Mahatma Gandhi, who spent his life trying to discover the best nonviolent means, is said to have been a proponent of the “emergent conception of truth.” Gandhi’s stance on truth “required him to immerse himself in dialogue with the situation, in order to apprehend the truth that emerged ‘between’ him and the situation” (35).
Maurice Friedman, a professor, expanded the language used to define emergent truth, bringing forth the term “touchstone” reality, which “means that an individual will probably not remain forever on the same ground that affirms a truth; a person is open to new understandings of truth” (36). The main importance, Gandhi points out, is that you can be on the wrong path seeking truth, and thus, as Arnett paraphrased, you must “live a double action of commitment and openness to new revelations or touchstones of reality” (37). This view of truth, where each individual stands strongly and as clearly as possible on their touchstone until realizing their own mistake, is a view that allows all to use their own understandings with comfort, and makes people willing to engage in dialogue, a view that makes each individual responsible to be clear thinking and willing to learn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)