sunshinenbrick

Coming 2016! The Final Frontier http://www.hrmonline.ca/files/image/Canada/hrdaily/kirk%20and%20picard.jpghttp://www.geocities.ws/mad_typist/girls/trekjwaysmall.jpg Trump Sanders Clinton

So basically, the choice is a case of 'is the glass half empty or half full?'

Perhaps it is the very diversity in the world that drives the competition in our fight to break free from our finite resources - if you never realise what you don't know then you will never be able to attain knowledge. So does the ability to survive take precedent over a moral 'right' and 'wrong'? If so, then what if the species becomes so diverse in its needs that it becomes relatively ever more difficult to survive?

I'm not sure wiping the slate clean is an issue for those who have lots of spare slates. Problem is the debt has to go somewhere... (and by debt I don't mean simply money but social debt and expectation). While they may have 'moulded' the problem, the elite are not the whole problem. What is a real issue are the people in the middle who are aspiring to become part of the elite. So even if we ousted the established elite, we would still have this massive epidemic to try solve - in fact it could be made worse because of the anarchic vacuum created. In fact could this even be the achilles heel of a 'western empire'? (although I am unsure how immune the 'east' is to the future either...). Well, history repeats itself for sure.

And thats why it should never be done... too hackable , even electronic voting machines should be outlawed because they too are too easily hacked, magnets also work. The main reason is there should always be a paper trail of votes that if something goes wrong , they can always be recounted by people of said district or state . As Stalin said " I care not who votes , but only for those who count the votes". If a machine is doing the counting for you , then you the electorate can always be deceived. Which is why States that are passing restrictive Voter ID laws are lying to you. Voter fraud has never determined a national election , but electoral fraud (those who do the counting) has. Are you suggesting that we are all being fairly treated, given a secure assured voting method that is safe and will not be ignored by the electoral college and no one is deceiving us now? No , just that going digital will leave you no recourse to be able to confirm if it was a fair vote or not . No need to make it any easier than it already is. I kinda think it would be possible both ways and, if the people were willing, they could implement an infallible system between us and the ballots (digital or not), if 'they' really wanted to. But I question whether 'they' really WANT to do that because it would make the link between 'one person, one vote' too unavoidable to put an election off if it went really 'wrong'. In other words democracy has become increasingly corrupt over many years, in my opinion. But then 'they' are 'we' (or at least used to be - as in it was an old 'us' who put the systems in place). So one has to wonder if we actually did take the big plunge, and all those people who don't know 'common sense' when they see it cast their vote... 'Could ya' handle it?... Punk!?' :cool:

In all fairness, it was you who asked me the question. Or was it rhetorical? You took my meaning in the wrong way. :geek: I was hoping for a longer and more time consuming discussion so I could learn more about what people think about. :wub: That's cool, I am also keen to discover and discuss what other people think. Perhaps I was a little put out by something else and my humble apologies for my sarcasm :blush: And by the way I very much agree with your point on the whole 'time wasting' (or should I say 'money making') thing. Although it can be hard to come to a consensus among hundreds of millions, if not billions of people, there are those that turn the whole thing into a fan-fare for there own selfish gains and leave the rest of us for 'chumps'...

In all fairness, it was you who asked me the question. Or was it rhetorical?

In my 'defense' I was merely answering some questions and having discussion with another member. I'm sorry if I upset you :sad: Regarding common sense, I think a few people both here and on other topics have expressed their anxiety over things not being so 'common' or 'sensical', so this leaves a good deal of room for debate, other than just assume it simply doesn't exist anymore (which I have also thought about and suggested myself). Just because something is 'common' or 'sensical' does not mean it is necessarily easy to understand, or rather, explain. The very nature of it being 'common sense' perhaps suggests that there is no way to explain outside simply stating it as 'common sense'. ... but then I guess that is just common sense, right? :laugh:

I'd say, for me, nature just accounts for the way things are. Physics, mathematics, life, dreams, whatever... And yeah I'd say even if you don't believe in a 'higher power' there are larger forces at work that likely affect us in ways we are perhaps unaware (moon, gravity, light, temperature)... Which goes back to the 'common consciousness' thing again. Common consciousness? Which does that relate to best, "the collective conscience" or "the collective conscious? I suppose a conscience is perhaps a retrospective view of the conscious. In your opinion then, is there such a thing as a completely good conscience while a person is conscious? I'm not sure I believe in objective morals, but rather more in karma or a sort of balance. So I would say yes and no. It depends which way you want to look at it, but then how you 'see' it may not be how it all works out... As for politicians and those in the 'upper hemispheres' of our society, well they live in a different perspective of the world so their common sense will be different to most of us. But then things can change very quickly, look at Snowden, the US election drama, or the Panama Papers... In your opinion what are some of the differences between a royal, even a newborn of any class, baby's common sense and say, a full grown man's common sense who is a king? Not entirely sure I understand the question, but I would say it totally depends on the situation and the person. Some kids have lots of problems but achieve a lot, some have lots of advantages and get in lots of trouble. Some kings, queens and heads of state are loved by their people, some are not. I asked you to give some examples of the difference of common sense in a child compared to an adult. In your opinion there are differences in situations and common sense applied therein. I did not require an answer involving any situations. Reread the question. Do you see any implication given therein asking you to define anything except common sense? Wasn't sure if you were asking about just kings or not. Either way I would give the same answer anyway. To perhaps put it another way, I think that things simply get more complex the more aware of the complexities we become. For example, if a baby puts their hand on a hotplate it hurts, they scream. The adult does the same thing, it hurts, they scream, and then they start asking questions as to why it hurts, 'how could I be so stupid?', could there be a way to make hotplates not burn you? It's like the wooden chair I referred to before. The chair in its original form and the splintered broken chair. It is the 'same' chair, only becoming more complex. This principle seems to permeate the universe - the most complex of structures are made of ever simpler parts. In my opinion the answer to my question is, "No." There is no difference, age doesn't matter, common sense is the same, only our experiences are different! That's what I think, at least that was what I was trying to explain. Not sure I explained it very well. But you have now :laugh:

I'd say, for me, nature just accounts for the way things are. Physics, mathematics, life, dreams, whatever... And yeah I'd say even if you don't believe in a 'higher power' there are larger forces at work that likely affect us in ways we are perhaps unaware (moon, gravity, light, temperature)... Which goes back to the 'common consciousness' thing again. Common consciousness? Which does that relate to best, "the collective conscience" or "the collective conscious? I suppose a conscience is perhaps a retrospective view of the conscious. In your opinion then, is there such a thing as a completely good conscience while a person is conscious? I'm not sure I believe in objective morals, but rather more in karma or a sort of balance. So I would say yes and no. It depends which way you want to look at it, but then how you 'see' it may not be how it all works out... As for politicians and those in the 'upper hemispheres' of our society, well they live in a different perspective of the world so their common sense will be different to most of us. But then things can change very quickly, look at Snowden, the US election drama, or the Panama Papers... In your opinion what are some of the differences between a royal, even a newborn of any class, baby's common sense and say, a full grown man's common sense who is a king? Not entirely sure I understand the question, but I would say it totally depends on the situation and the person. Some kids have lots of problems but achieve a lot, some have lots of advantages and get in lots of trouble. Some kings, queens and heads of state are loved by their people, some are not. I asked you to give some examples of the difference of common sense in a child compared to an adult. In your opinion there are differences in situations and common sense applied therein. I did not require an answer involving any situations. Reread the question. Do you see any implication given therein asking you to define anything except common sense? Wasn't sure if you were asking about just kings or not. Either way I would give the same answer anyway. To perhaps put it another way, I think that things simply get more complex the more aware of the complexities we become. For example, if a baby puts their hand on a hotplate it hurts, they scream. The adult does the same thing, it hurts, they scream, and then they start asking questions as to why it hurts, 'how could I be so stupid?', could there be a way to make hotplates not burn you? It's like the wooden chair I referred to before. The chair in its original form and the splintered broken chair. It is the 'same' chair, only becoming more complex. This principle seems to permeate the universe - the most complex of structures are made of ever simpler parts.

I'd say, for me, nature just accounts for the way things are. Physics, mathematics, life, dreams, whatever... And yeah I'd say even if you don't believe in a 'higher power' there are larger forces at work that likely affect us in ways we are perhaps unaware (moon, gravity, light, temperature)... Which goes back to the 'common consciousness' thing again. Common consciousness? Which does that relate to best, "the collective conscience" or "the collective conscious? I suppose a conscience is perhaps a retrospective view of the conscious. In your opinion then, is there such a thing as a completely good conscience while a person is conscious? I'm not sure I believe in objective morals, but rather more in karma or a sort of balance. So I would say yes and no. It depends which way you want to look at it, but then how you 'see' it may not be how it all works out... As for politicians and those in the 'upper hemispheres' of our society, well they live in a different perspective of the world so their common sense will be different to most of us. But then things can change very quickly, look at Snowden, the US election drama, or the Panama Papers... In your opinion what are some of the differences between a royal, even a newborn of any class, baby's common sense and say, a full grown man's common sense who is a king? Not entirely sure I understand the question, but I would say it totally depends on the situation and the person. Some kids have lots of problems but achieve a lot, some have lots of advantages and get in lots of trouble. Some kings, queens and heads of state are loved by their people, some are not.

I'd say, for me, nature just accounts for the way things are. Physics, mathematics, life, dreams, whatever... And yeah I'd say even if you don't believe in a 'higher power' there are larger forces at work that likely affect us in ways we are perhaps unaware (moon, gravity, light, temperature)... Which goes back to the 'common consciousness' thing again. Common consciousness? Which does that relate to best, "the collective conscience" or "the collective conscious? I suppose a conscience is perhaps a retrospective view of the conscious. In your opinion then, is there such a thing as a completely good conscience while a person is conscious? I'm not sure I believe in objective morals, but rather more in karma or a sort of balance. So I would say yes and no. It depends which way you want to look at it, but then how you 'see' it may not be how it all works out... As for politicians and those in the 'upper hemispheres' of our society, well they live in a different perspective of the world so their common sense will be different to most of us. But then things can change very quickly, look at Snowden, the US election drama, or the Panama Papers...

I'd say, for me, nature just accounts for the way things are. Physics, mathematics, life, dreams, whatever... And yeah I'd say even if you don't believe in a 'higher power' there are larger forces at work that likely affect us in ways we are perhaps unaware (moon, gravity, light, temperature)... Which goes back to the 'common consciousness' thing again. Common consciousness? Which does that relate to best, "the collective conscience" or "the collective conscious? I suppose a conscience is perhaps a retrospective view of the conscious.

I'd say, for me, nature just accounts for the way things are. Physics, mathematics, life, dreams, whatever... And yeah I'd say even if you don't believe in a 'higher power' there are larger forces at work that likely affect us in ways we are perhaps unaware (moon, gravity, light, temperature)... Which goes back to the 'common consciousness' thing again.

I never said nature wasn't cruel

I know what you mean, and what I am saying is that it can (and has) become distorted. Through excess and corruption, or perhaps even deliberately by some sort of 'elders' - the 'untouchable' people you never even see. Some of it may also be a result of our willing surrender to artificial intelligence before fully understanding our own... I wouldn't necessarily look to the masses or those that try control them to find common sense, as nature is efficient enough at rooting out those who are unable to survive.

I'd say that yes we become 'accustomed' to certain things. We assume the sun will rise through repitition and it allows us to build other systems. When things cause a disturbance in such systems it causes us to have to readjust how we 'see' things. Like with astronomy it can take centuries for ideas to be discovered and accepted... only to change again. And again yes, although I do not draw personal inspiration from the study of Dionysus (although I share an interest in such 'ancient memes' :laugh:). I do believe that the wave, however intense, is just that. That isn't to say not to try ride it though! Well I am a firm believer in a sort of common consciousness - even if it is purely on a chemical basis. However this is not to say the experience cannot be 'misinterpreted' (hearing colours, feeling numbers and other trippy s***...) or even hijacked into creating simulated thoughts and consciousness. Conditioning, if you will. Of course we can take it ever further, to a more primal set of principles, but then we end up essentially bewildered and 'in the dark'. At this level it only becomes useful as a means of basic survival... and at that point everything else is just fanciful. Do you recognize the term, "collective consciousness"? In your opinion is common sense still an essential sense? Yeah, although I avoided the term deliberately to try avoid any particular association to the 'coined' phrase. Good question! To be honest, I personally believe it is relative to your surroundings - is taste necessary to eat? So right now in the world I would say common sense is pretty much at its peak, if not in overdrive. Everyone is hyper-sensitive and it causes a sense of frenzy and confusion. As to whether we are able to embrace and adapt to this heightened sense of intimacy remains to be seen. What world are you living in? In the one I am in, it seems that all politicians have abandoned common sense altogether.... They do stuff that *sounds* good, but, in reality, is about as stupid as you can get..... Like raising the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour, and not expecting it to have an impact on jobs, and prices...... I did say it was relevent to your surroundings and in previous comment that it wasn't always for the 'common good' or for 'truth'. I think my point was that what may seem as common sense - as in a sense that is common - may not be. This doesn't detract from its impact however, as I am sure would agree :wink:

My view on common/collective consciousness is that it permeates more than just ourselves, as humans, animals or even simple composites of the universe. Everything is connected - you cannot destroy a wooden chair, you merely change its shape. I think the very nature of things means that nothing can be contained within a book or even a library - you can never step in the same river, and that river has no beginning or end. Of course you can cross the river, but then that is its 'purpose'. Now one could divert the river, even dam it to make a reservoir. Does this change the nature of the river? It's shape? My feeling (what I would describe as the 'instinct' sense - the number of senses and what they are is a literal 'grey' area ) is that the experience can be 'intoxicating'. We are 'drunk' from the increase of information input/output, reaching a sort of critical mass... waiting for the chairs to start flying.

Well I am a firm believer in a sort of common consciousness - even if it is purely on a chemical basis. However this is not to say the experience cannot be 'misinterpreted' (hearing colours, feeling numbers and other trippy s***...) or even hijacked into creating simulated thoughts and consciousness. Conditioning, if you will. Of course we can take it ever further, to a more primal set of principles, but then we end up essentially bewildered and 'in the dark'. At this level it only becomes useful as a means of basic survival... and at that point everything else is just fanciful. Do you recognize the term, "collective consciousness"? In your opinion is common sense still an essential sense? Yeah, although I avoided the term deliberately to try avoid any particular association to the 'coined' phrase. Good question! To be honest, I personally believe it is relative to your surroundings - is taste necessary to eat? So right now in the world I would say common sense is pretty much at its peak, if not in overdrive. Everyone is hyper-sensitive and it causes a sense of frenzy and confusion. As to whether we are able to embrace and adapt to this heightened sense of intimacy remains to be seen.

Well I am a firm believer in a sort of common consciousness - even if it is purely on a chemical basis. However this is not to say the experience cannot be 'misinterpreted' (hearing colours, feeling numbers and other trippy s***...) or even hijacked into creating simulated thoughts and consciousness. Conditioning, if you will. Of course we can take it ever further, to a more primal set of principles, but then we end up essentially bewildered and 'in the dark'. At this level it only becomes useful as a means of basic survival... and at that point everything else is just fanciful.

Sense is common but it changes, and maybe it's even crafted for a certain purpose... The idea that common sense is also always for the 'common good' or even necessarily 'true', should not to be taken for granted either. And in the vast oceans of information, would we even be able to tell the difference anymore?? Between technology (and our reliance on it), science, and global economics, I think we are all having to learn everything practically from the beginning again.

Lose perspective on what? So far as I can see, the establishment really doesn't have to do all that much to sow division, as the public seems to do it well enough on it's own. This is precisely why we must keep trying to see the whole picture, and not just what we see through Google Glass. I know this is what you were alluding to, and I simply wanted to widen the debate.

Um... should we perhaps not lose perspective here. This is the kind of division among people that the establishment want. Problem, reaction, solution.

I don't think there is much economy left to collapse though. World over. We are all living on borrowed time and it's going to take something short of a miracle to change the tide - perhaps the hardest thing to do is ebb the consumption culture permeating the global capitalist state that has choked us all to the point of seeing the noose as a better option. People are not going to accept the same wages that the corporations offer elsewhere. The economy that surrounds them also means to do it would mean they technically become paid LESS than their 'third world' counterparts. It's economical and political checkmate.

Some sort of civil or class war appears inevitable at this point - there are similar problems in the UK, although not nearly as extreme and the general public's options are pretty much limited to write, strike or protest (and perhaps riots). While the American people may not have the 'gumption', what they do have is plenty of ammunition. This could be an unfortunate mix. With such an increasingly volatile situation, I also see the shifting of such targets to further afield than already has been the case. The pieces are moving.