Diebert van Rhijn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:06 pm
Serendipper wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:35 am They get new dirt, new moneys, and they escape the parasites that have undoubtedly began to thrive over time (why cats typically move about) and they have the added entertaining bonus of building a new house.
To be clear, the concept of "crop rotation" which I referred to does
not mean doing exactly the same thing on another place or to do a very similar thing on the same place. Actually the whole point is to start a sufficiently new activity challenging one self and invoke resourcefulness: overcoming new limits put to you. Which was the very issue the boredom highlighted at first, a lack of overcoming I suppose. Also related to the idea of
conquest, one of those aspects of masculine psychology.
Point noted but really, aren't all problems the same? We break them down according to the scientific method (or whatever) and run it through the mill then churn out an answer. Rinse and repeat.
"There's nothing so disenchanting as attainment." Somebody probably important said that. What if the repetitiousness of needing a problem is a problem?
while the Swiadomy simply move around and spend their day, more or less, doing what they find enjoyable while nature takes care of all the chores. Crop rotation.
It's the relative bliss of any animalistic, infantile stage. But humanity has been so far about suffering, insanity, technology and knowledge of good and evil. It's understandable people are looking for ways to jump the train. Mental fatigue. Longing back for the womb. Retirement projects. Maybe it's just all longing for the end of the ride. However
Christ, the horizon, the next world, is what drives all what is "redeemable" about this particular primate. Why not just support it according to a vision?
Where do we draw the line between the animalistic infantiles and the redeemable primate? The line seems blurred. It's like asking what day it is that we become old. I mean, one day we're young and another day we're old, but nobody can remember the day it happened.
What if there is no line? What if all this flattering about redeemable primates is being just as animalistic? How did you learn to grow thumbs? Evidently you did it because there they are, so obviously you know how, but when and how did that knowledge come into being? And who decided it was a good idea to have thumbs? Who was directing traffic that day?
If nature and especially the animal nature can't be trusted, then how can anything be trusted? I think it was Confucius who said the primal virtues are the real virtues.
Being smart isn't always an advantage that translates into survival
Having merely two legs or opposing thumbs isn't "always an advantage" either. Any property could be discussed that way.
Yes, but it's beneficial to point it out since intelligence is almost exclusively regarded as all-good.
Nothing insists that you have to go on living. If you identify with the ego, then yeah, it would seem gravely important, but if you identify with the universe then why does it matter? The thing goes on in a new way and is perfectly indestructible.
Healthy instincts insist you go on living.
Not for an ant. Ants exist for the colony. The colony must survive; ants are expendable and replaceable.
Of a group, body, cells, anything with some self-organizing principle I suppose. It's not something to agree or disagree with as it's just a major force to begin with.
I agree that instinct is a major force to reckon with, but nothing is written in stone saying life must go on.
Destruction of meaning and importance is always easier than finding something to live or die for.
Yeah, I guess you're right. I suppose that could be motivation to be biased.
Are you sure you are just not taking the easiest route?
It's hard for me to determine.
It's the "ego" which looks for easy routes as to prosper unchallenged, not caring one single bit.
No, I think it's the ego that's responsible for the desire to live for something, especially some cause.
(Comments on your reply to Pam as it might illuminate the first half of this post further)
The more comments, the better!
It really doesn't matter what I put my hand to, the universe is intent on dispatching every resource in its infinite army to fight me.
Not fighting: just creating & destroying you. Or more like Heraclitus and his
strife. To interpret this as mere fighting "you" indicates you're missing the other half perhaps? The challenge is to overcome the limits and become more resourceful. Or change the crops to something more in tune with hungry wildlife.
Yes, that's what the Japanese Zens do... live in harmony with nature, but it's the Western Way to kick nature around lol! For bragging rights I suppose, to put on a good show and say "See? I made this plant grow here :D " That's all I want to do, so why all the fuss about it? It's like a father wrestling with his son who let's the kid hold him down to think he's won. The coordinated resistance I see is statistically uncanny. Dad's not letting me win anymore :(
Or, it could be that I'm simply taking on too much or my expectations are too high. It just seems that all Murphy's Laws are true and that indicates that this place isn't so sterile.
So that's why I say motivation should be for fun because when it invariably falls apart, I at least had a good time doing it. If fiddling with the strawberries is no longer fun, I'll let the weeds have it and go do something else that is fun.
To derive "fun" from breathing, moving ones arms and legs, using the mind to avoid traps -- or perhaps from contemplating truth, causality and the infinite. Then one could get more serious and focused on for example the strawberries. Actually I'd bet that if you took it more serious and had a less, naive "scattered" approach, the deer would never have tricked you that easily. You would have been a bit more suspicious of it. But that needs a more serious mindset to grow some healthy suspicion and contemplate potential disasters?
I'm not sure how to deter the deer other than a big fence and I can't imagine what is coming next other than fire from the sky. It's not that I can't handle the problems so much as to illustrate that when I needed water the most is when helicopters were flying overhead to put out forest fires due to an uncharacteristic drought. Just when one problem is handled, then here comes something from the opposite corner of the universe and the timing is such that I strongly suspect someONE is behind it. It's the lack of randomness, I suppose.
The delusion is in thinking the absolute exists and it's just another way of setting ourselves apart with a sense of accomplishment of having attained something special relative to those who have not.
All we do is setting apart; things, our selves, time and the timeless. Stop pretending that there is some imaginary alternative!
I can't pretend there is an alternative in order to sustain my sense of superiority? :p I suppose playing the game is not optional, but I reckon the only the difference is some know they're playing and some take it seriously.
What is the truth; that there is no truth? If there is no morality, obviously there is no truth.
If you mean values: yes, valuing truth above all else is the condition for truth to arrive and arise in the first place.
So truth only exists if I say so.
But not valuing truth above other things is the condition for truth to disappear and meaninglessness & decadence to enter.
Well, I do have a theory that dogmatic people are a pain to argue with, but are trustworthy for the same reason because they have no mechanism to change their mind about what they hold incontrovertibly true. So the ones dogmatically supporting gun rights are completely incapable of attacking someone not out of self-defense because such action is wrong and it's not open for discussion. Dogmatism could explain why more guns sometimes correlates with less crime since the people who choose to own guns also tend to be dogmatic and "intolerant". Kennesaw (in the heart of the bible-belt) for instance has a law requiring all heads of household to have a gun, yet had only 1 murder in 10 years. While chicago is morally progressive and, despite strict gun laws, is a war zone.
So yes, bullheadedly insisting some things are incontrovertibly true seems to build strong societies like good, solid rules make for a nice game. But we have to take the bad with the good since the people who hold those truths will make you want to shoot yourself if you ever decide to debate with them. Some people value themselves by their determination to retain their convictions while others regard open-mindedness as a virtue.
So the game is like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwQnmAngLns
Who cares if we make up the rules? The important thing is to have them ;)
What if you think the wind feels cold and I think it feels warm; who is telling the truth?
The truth, or more like "commonality" here is that you both have feelings and that it appears to be windy. To ask for truth in the context of experiencing a sensation is just a matter of "wrong place, wrong time" to ask that question.
It's just to illustrate that reality is subjective. A man and woman can sit next to each other and the man will be warm while the woman feels cold. The truth is that they both experience reality differently and have different truths. So is homosexuality wrong and why? Is murder? Lying, stealing? All the truths we hold to be self-evident are only truths if we says so, like rules in a game. No other animal observes such, but we make a game of it.