Ah, bless him. Another flippen romantic.Of course technology is mindlessly indifferent to human welfare. All the more reason to oppose it.
So, you'd like to go back to the Middle Ages then, eh?
Ah, bless him. Another flippen romantic.Of course technology is mindlessly indifferent to human welfare. All the more reason to oppose it.
Leyla Shen wrote:Ah, bless him. Another flippen romantic.Of course technology is mindlessly indifferent to human welfare. All the more reason to oppose it.
So, you'd like to go back to the Middle Ages then, eh?
And yet, here you are, mindfully (as you understand it to be) using your computer to oppose technology.Urizen: Of course technology is mindlessly indifferent to human welfare. All the more reason to oppose it.
Malcom X was a dousche on sterol. needles. Needless, to say....I qoute. John Lennon.Cahoot wrote:Since qualities can be named
and what can be named has form
called a thing when the form is uncertain,
a quality of formless,
since formless has no qualities,
is to have no qualities not even as no qualities,
effectively removing identity
from the realm of is
and the limitations of Arist.
Malcolm X (1992) Dictionary Scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE84dHl5Nr0
Who wrote this book, anyway?
But anyone who actually would have read Krishnamurti books would know he used the word "intelligence" and "sensitivity" to mean various inconclusive things like "learning" , "proper balance" and even "enlightenment". He redefines the common meaning of these words which is fine as long as one reads it in that context. But in the rest of the world people continue being too intellectual or too sensitive often because of an underdeveloped coping mechanism. Like a baby skin is sensitive not because of some error but because it needs to develop by proper exposure and natural processes. Or for example a body with a confused immune system becomes too sensitive. This is the same for the mind and our impressions: somebody confused about what and who they are, like having a weakened self-esteem will become overly sensitive without necessarily being overly attached to anything in particular.Cahoot wrote:To be too intelligent is not possible; to be too sensitive is not possible. What is called “too sensitive,” is actually the repercussions of attachment. Dulled sensitivity is not evidence of detachment.
It is true that one cannot be a beneficial (to the whole) causal spirit without first being deeply sensitive to the sufferings of causality. Why? Because sensitivity to suffering ensures that the wise causal spirit will create a reality that is dedicated to ending suffering. Is such a spirit intelligent? In varying degrees, yes. However, intelligence does not guarantee sensitivity. We need look no further than the psychopathic consciousness, i.e., Ted Bundy, to see the truth in this assertion."Sensitivity in its highest form is intelligence. Without sensitivity to everything - to one's own sorrows; to the sorrow of a group of people, of a race; to the sorrow of everything that is - unless one feels and has the feeling highly sensitized, one cannot possibly solve any problem. And we have many problems, not only at the physical level, the economic level, the social level, but also at the deeper levels of one's own being - problems that apparently we are not capable of solving. I am not talking of the mathematical problems, or the problems of mechanical inventions, but of human problems: of our sorrows, of despair, of the narrow spirit of the mind, of the shallowness of one's thinking, of the constant repetitive boredom of life, the routine of going to office every day for forty or thirty years. And the many problems that exist, both consciously and unconsciously, make the mind dull, and therefore the mind loses this extraordinary sensitivity. And when we lose sensitivity, we lose intelligence."
- J. Krishnamurti