Ideal

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:21 am

Yes, but without any egotistical attachment to such things, of course.

Borommakot · Post by **Borommakot** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:13 am

But what about the human need for spontaniety, randomosity, and irrationality? I was thinking more along the lines of the ideal, but still possible, human society that we have the capabilities to establish and manage today. It is much harder to approach it realistically.
I guess if it had to be within our capabilities today, that it would hardly be truly IDEAL, but as close as we can come is what I was after.

Borommakot · Post by **Borommakot** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:17 am

Dan said:
Yes, but without any egotistical attachment to such things, of course.

With such attachment, t would seem as if humanity had stepped into the basis of many science fiction novels. :)

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:29 am

Dan Rowden wrote:Yes, but without any egotistical attachment to such things, of course.

Yes, of course - that would only be logical.

Borom asked:

But what about the human need for spontaniety, randomosity, and irrationality?

I believe that rational spontaniety is possible. Example: Two friends are not otherwise occupied. One friend suggests going to the beach even though it is late in the evening. Both friends consider that getting together to go to the beach would be a positive experience. They go and enjoy themselves. That was rational. Enjoyment is rational. It is misery that is irrational.

Randomness - The above is an example of a random thought. Randomness can also be reasonable as an environmental consideration. It is a matter of dealing with it in a level-headed, logical, reasonable and rational manner that makes the difference.

I seriously doubt that humans need irrationality.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:34 am

Borommakot wrote:But what about the human need for spontaniety,

Rationality is not exclusive of spontaneity.

randomosity,

I don't know what you mean by that.

and irrationality?

In what sense do humans have a need for irrationality and from where does that need come?

I was thinking more along the lines of the ideal, but still possible, human society that we have the capabilities to establish and manage today. It is much harder to approach it realistically.

Oh, you mean a pragmatically ideal society? Hmm, that would require a rather lengthy post. Did you really want to get into that in depth?

I guess if it had to be within our capabilities today, that it would hardly be truly IDEAL, but as close as we can come is what I was after.

Ok, well, I'll have to make a list of things that might, as of now, make society better and more able to attain that more distant ideal...

re: non-attachment, you said:

With such attachment, t would seem as if humanity had stepped into the basis of many science fiction novels. :)

Non-attachment doesn't make you a robot, it just makes you sane. But I was always on Spock's side against Dr MyCoy anyway...

Dan Rowden

Borommakot · Post by **Borommakot** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:00 pm

Ezabeth said:
"I seriously doubt that humans need irrationality."
When I say that humans need irrationality, I don't mean their own. Some consider it their goal in life to be smarter than others, and it does not always matter if they are male pumped with testoterone, or a female competing for the more competent man. Some people just think and act like that, even in their own moments of highest neutrality. What I meant, is that they need eachother's irrationality (which is, in turn, irrational. My reasoning seems circular here, so if anybody can point me in the right direction...)
Dan said:
"But I was always on Spock's side against Dr MyCoy anyway..."
The very first person I thought of. :)
Dan said:"Rationality is not exclusive of spontaneity."
It is exclusive of "what the hell" moments, where they know they will get in trouble, but they do it anyway. That is many lessons are learned. It seems like you are saying that life lessons should be known automatically.
By the way, I dont think i should have said anything about randomosity, it does seem a bit extreme now.

Pye · Post by **Pye** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:42 pm

.

Transcendence of psychological gender is the solution.

Dan, what do you mean?

I don't know if you want to have to work this hard here, but these questions come to mind:

1. Are you implying a mind (psychological) separate from bodylife?

2. What is the difference between "psychological" gender and physical gender? How does one "transcend" the one without the other?

3. Are you advocating the transcendence of physio-mental gender-notions or the transcendence of the beliefs about gender? (intellectual transcendence). [Either way, feminists worldwide would be applauding you for this one.]

4. Are you suggesting "psychological" androgyny? -- or "psychological" a-genderism? What happens to the bodylife in this scenario?

5. Do you mean one would stop thinking of themselves ("psychologically") as a "man" or a "woman"? Or stop being bothered mentally by such a notion?

6. What then?

Elizabeth writes:

I propose that such things as rationality, logic, and reason transcend gender.

Yes.

So do emotions and irrationality.

These and more belong to us all.

.

Pye · Post by **Pye** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:50 pm

.

btw, what I liked most about Spock and McCoy was the dialogue between them.

.

Rory · Post by **Rory** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:52 pm

Pye wrote:.

btw, what I liked most about Spock and McCoy was the dialogue between them.

.

I always sided with Spock. McCoy bugged me.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:05 pm

Dan Rowden wrote: Non-attachment doesn't make you a robot, it just makes you sane. But I was always on Spock's side against Dr MyCoy anyway...

Exactly. Spock was not unemotional, he just did not believe in "a flagrant display of emotions." Of course even that much emotional restriction took a toll of the actor (Leonard Nimoy) who played him in the way of unexplainable outbursts of tears. We are humans, not Vulcans.

Logic, reason, and rationality should rule, yet one should recognize the value of all that is without getting too attached to the specifics. Even Spock recognized the value of friendship in Kirk, Pike, and McCoy. Even when he was without the influence of modern Vulcan when he went back in time and fell in love with Zarbeth, he still incorporated logic, reason, and rationality (with some help from his friend and captain) into an emotional paradigm. But this is reality; that was a fictional representation of an ideal.

Certain emotions blend just fine with logic, rationality, and reason. There was another thread not long ago that dealt with rationality of emotions. I add to those thoughts that most humans have emotions just as most humans have hands. We learn not to make fists and to use our hands for more reasonable purposes, we can do the same with our emotions.

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:04 pm

Pye wrote:BTW, I guess this means you are all for those sex-and-love relationships, in contradistinction to your forum hosts?

Yes. Completely. They're the only thing worth living for. If you deny love, you deny life. And to live life in denial of life makes YOU a living extension of death. You're a traitor to human life.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:35 am

Dan wrote

Non-attachment doesn't make you a robot, it just makes you sane.

hmmmm...

so which one is not the sage? You or Kevin?

Isnt being sane, like being a robot?

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:07 am

Isnt being sane, like being a robot?

depends which sage you are talking to I guess.

Rory · Post by **Rory** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:17 am

millipodium wrote:Yes. Completely. They're the only thing worth living for. If you deny love, you deny life. And to live life in denial of life makes YOU a living extension of death. You're a traitor to human life.

Why?
Love is a 'nice feeling' but it has a million negative consequences. Heartache at failed love, irrationality when someone you love requests or requires it of you, misplaced anger, attachment to the idea of a person and the discovery that they aren't that idea, battered women who 'love' their husbands...

All in exchange for... what?

What else to live for? Any number of things. The hope that I might make this world better, a specific goal, or, hell, just because I'm here.

GENIUS FORUMS

Ideal

Great

well said

Re: Great

My meaning

Re: Great

Love?