GENIUS FORUMS

Hi, people. I figure I'll post about some of my favorite topics. Comment as you wish.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civilization is, in essence, very simple. As an ongoing process, civilization is the increasing of non-violence and justice. As an achieved action, civilization is the state of non-violence and justice. These two aspects together define civilization. How can one achieve civilization? One cannot achieve non-violence by effort. Non-violence naturally arises when the needs of a people are met. The same is true with justice. That is the furthest extent that achievement is possible. As an ongoing process, though, civilization is never "achieved". There is only simply a non-dual functioning. People need food, people have food. It is really that simple.

How there might arise more complex non-dual functioning is another question. Society (non-violence) requires things like freedom, fairness, and equality. These things all have their complements. Freedom and duty are in fact the same thing. So are fairness and merit, equality and exchange. These complements are aspects of the same things. These non-dual functions allow for the greater functioning of people beyond simply eating.

As for technology, only non-dual technology supports civilization. Non-dual technology is any technology that supports its own existence. Atomic bombs, which do only one thing, are too simple. They owe all of their functionality to the people which created it. Roads, however, are inherently functional. They allow their maintenance using themselves. Hence, they more than support their own existence. True technology supports itself.

As for high reason, both faith and science compose it. Whereas faith provides the "why", science provides the "how". Were there no functioning of faith and science together, there would be only collective dysfunction among people. That would mean that scientists and faith-pursuers would never function together. Reason, then, is what forms collective force.

Exciplex,

Non-violence naturally arises when the needs of a people are met.

Too simplistic. Violence is also caused when the needs of a people are met. IE: marriage, romantic love, materialism, capitalist ambition, patriotism, religion, and so on. However, generally speaking, the increasing of living standards reduces the frequency of violence, but that is only because people have less pressure and friction implied to them, but they might still be equally unintelligent and emotionally unstable as lets say - people five centuries ago – and therefore still prone to the same level of violence. But the probability of the same frequency of violence is reduced.

It depends on how you define violence.

However, one could make the argument that the acceleration of technology helps to improve the intelligence of sentience over time. Furthermore, its seems that its the combination of both the advancement of technology and the influence of rational philosophers are the two major driving forces in the reduction of violence in the world.

Furthermore, the affect of an acceleration of technology is that it seems to take the friction off the animal brain long enough for reason to penetrate into the neocortex, and cause fundamental changes. However, this change seems to be taking place in only a minority of intellectuals at present.

Exciplex wrote:Non-violence naturally arises when the needs of a people are met.

Not really. Lots of people will initiate violence simply to fulfill various desires, even if those desires aren't actual needs. When people have mutually exclusive desires and they're unwilling to compromise in any way, then violence happens.

Also, a few people like inflicting pain just for the fun of it.

Indeed - but what is a "need", exactly? Most people experience every ego-driven desire as a need, and ego-driven desires are insatiable whilst the ego exists precisely because desire is the ego's essential way of functioning. Of course, where perceived need exists, violence is never too far away.

"If I want your opinion I'll beat it out of you." Chuck Norris

Dan Rowden wrote:Indeed - but what is a "need", exactly?

I used it to mean anything required to keep the body functioning.

Ok, but do you agree that most people experience egotistical "wants" at a level such that they feel like it is, indeed, an absolute requirement, and are therefore capable of violence in their effort to sublimate any such desire?

Dan Rowden wrote:Ok, but do you agree that most people experience egotistical "wants" at a level such that they feel like it is, indeed, an absolute requirement, and are therefore capable of violence in their effort to sublimate any such desire?

Yep.

Sex would be one of those things, for example. :-P

Haha, funny, that's exactly the example I was thinking of when posting. Hard to think of a more obvious one, really.

Good to see you around, btw. Thought you and/or Nat had emigrated to Brunei or something.

Nat has pretty much abandoned boards. He still drops by SW once or twice a week, though.