sounds like you have problems then... you might want to work on that before declaring yourself a prophet. Just a thought.
Printable View
sounds like you have problems then... you might want to work on that before declaring yourself a prophet. Just a thought.
lmao you blind?! dont you understand? it is a nessacary evil, we cant get the word across by forsaking the only way to get the word into your minds! we cant just send mail to you, that goes against (at least) my hatred of money (stamps).
i cant use the internet, that goes against my hatred of the internet.
i cant use pigeon mail, i cant get ahold of millions of pigeons let alone copy the same thing a million times, and even then, what are the chances of that working anyways?
how many homeless bums have you stopped and listened to?
sorry, but you gotta look past your own requirements for a politically correct environment. lol
Actually I was refering to this part:
Seems like a problem when you try to "spread the word".Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf
I have no concerns about politically correct, I'm just a fan of consistency.
As in, if you view technology as a problem, then you shouldn't give it your passive approval.
I don't think technology is the problem, I think "saving the world" would be best accomplished through a change of the social outlook.
you see, that's the problem, we cant be consistant with our beliefs and tell ANYONE about it at the same time, like i said, we'd basically disappear into the wild and never be seen or heard from again by the ignorant masses we are targeting.
what part of nessacary evil dont you understand? lol or maybe you can point out what it is im not getting? :P
what is a necessary evil to start with?
Are we still discussing technology? Granted technology helps with the exploitation of the thirdworld, the destruction of the rainforests, the widespread pollution, etc. But it also helps develop treatment for AIDS patients, new ways to create drinking water, better ways to foster communication at the global level.
So technology itself is neither good nor bad. How silly to consider a tool to be evil. Like any double edged sword, the value judgement must lay in the hands of the wielder rather than the actual tool.
By defaming technology, you're outlining one of the problems, but not its source. You're treating the symptoms, rather than the cause of, disease.
What do you think?
the only treatment for any disease is mind over matter, proof is a blind man's game.
when you take something that has been "proven to cure aids", your mind goes into action, first by believing it, and second by "using it" to eliminate the aids, but in truth, your mind can use OXYGEN to cure ANYTHING, if you BELIEVE it.
if you doubt it, or fear it wont work, then so long sucker, i'll dance on your grave.
and i think you're right, im trying to get a larger portion of people to realize how much better off everyone could be if they just went back to nature, and opened their minds; rather than just quitting all together and in doing so eliminate one out of 6 billion defilers, i am continuing to defile in hopes of eliminating 1000 out of 6 billion defilers.
sometimes you cant cure a disease without adequate prior treatement; this is directly decided by the mind.
the mind im trying to cure is called Earth. i can do it only one ego at a time.
Nice post, but I feel that I disagree on the first point. Naturally healing is most effective when it comes from within. But that doesn't mean that it can't be encouraged from another source. Whether its a doctor sewing stitches to allow a wound to heal faster than it normally would, and decreasing the chance of infection, or a friend providing reiki and encouraging the body to heal itself...
I'm not going to play the truth, or proof game. I know the downfalls. But I don't think direct proof is always required. I understand the limits of knowledge but I think ethics can be derived from the intuitions we seem to share.
As such, let me say I admire your project of saving the world. I'm working on a similar project of my own.
I simply don't agree in the use of scare tactics however. Or highlighting technology as the problem. I don't think a return to nature means divorcing ourselves from technology, but rather choosing to always take nature into consideration for our future development. Consider it healing on the planetary scale. We can't simply stop everything and hope the wounds will heal themselves in time. If we simply change our focus we can actually heal the earth.
With that said, I feel I can work in a positive direction and still provide an example. Why would you defile in the hopes of creating the sublime?
It sounds as if you're creating such a violent counterexample of what you want, that you hope people will turn the direction you want out of disgust. This so called hypocrisy we keep discussing. It sounds like creating an archetype that you hope someone else will lead a revolt against.
But if you provided a positive example couldn't you instead be the leader? Be the prophet? Think of Gandhi perhaps. He lived his own philosophy. A hypocrite? Not at all, and he was beloved for it.
Thoughts?
oh, i dont wish to destroy anything useful; just clear the board and start from scratch.
this way we can use zero point energy that is also environmentally friendly, if not directly from the environment in some manner...
technology as it is now is crap lol
Lifestyle of Mass Destruction.
Destruction is an inherent feature of Development.
Progress = Destruction of Nature.
Development = Destruction of Nature.
We can have Sustainable Lifestyle.
We cannot have Sustainable Development.
Development can never be sustainable.
Sustainability and Development cannot exist together.
Development and Sustainability are opposites.
Development and Sustainability are contradictory.
Sustainable Living is associated with consuming less â?? being satisfied with a simple and frugal life.
Development is associated with never ending desires â?? always wanting more.
Sustainable lifestyle requires Constancy.
Sustainable lifestyle requires Sameness.
Sustainable lifestyle requires Repetition.
Development is associated with Change.
Development is associated with New.
Development is associated with Transience.
Industrial Societies can never be sustainable â?? When you make thousands of consumer goods you kill Nature - you kill Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land.
A Society that does mental work [city based] can never be sustainable - it will keep on making consumer goods - destroying the environment moment by moment.
Only agriculture-based societies that do physical work can be sustainable.
The term Sustainable Development is like the terms
Stationary Walk.
Silent Talk.
Wakeful Sleep.
Dark Sun
Gentle Torture.
Dry Rain.
Peaceful War.
sushil_yadav
All bold text my own. Sushil, I remain woefully unconvinced by your point of view. I don't even see how you manage to hold to your skewed perspective without falling over...Quote:
Originally Posted by sushil yadav