start date: 08.03.2010
up date: 21.2.2017
The world is beautiful, but human life is suffering.
start date: 08.03.2010
up date: 21.2.2017
As long as violence happens, it happens with all of us.
As long as violence happens, we must act immediately to stop it. It is horrible that we fail to do it even indirectly and with terrible delays.
x x x
We try to take ourselves seriously so that we are able to take everything else seriously. It is not easy as similar activists, prophets, and emphatic adverts are bustling around us. A glittering cyberspace floats above the bloody world and tidy internet pages flourish on the sky of the apocalypse. It is hard to say anything. A stream of squandered lifes cascades into the deep and the heart has long become deaf in its blustering. Fear and anguish guides people in the world of power struggle. So here we are in the carnival crowd of humanitarian business.
Our worst news is that there is no longer bad news. Boring, unpleasant and tiresome, so it went out of fashion. We had warned each other with bad news for centuries, but those have overflowed our capacities by now. Posh people do not make life difficult. All this is so trivial. ’Don’t be so serious!’, ‘Don’t be so lofty!’.
It would be more than enough for us to facilitate more benign, more intelligent, and stronger generations. Then leave the rest to them. Instead children and the young are conditioned by aggression, so more and more of them runs away from inner freedom, religious freedom, and the freedom of speech. The power sanctimoniously untwisted the grandparents’ victory from the grandchildren’s hands. The barely increased freedom is already ebbing away (and not because of the fought off liberalism that defines freedom inaptly). The future is just as stupid and brutal as the past and it has been delving in the present for many millenia.
We are rebellious devils in hell and not caring about fashions or even the fashions of revolting against fashions does not make our mission any less difficult. This is a tiny atoll in the distant corner of cyber world without any fame-engines or popularity-containers. We fawn upon the Browsers in vain. :)
Take a look around. Thanks for stopping by.
We want to belong to those who do not form their opinion prematurely and who do not have prejudice against others. (Not even against themselves or against those who are thought to be prejudicial.)
The root of being biassed against preconceptions is quite possibly the fact that we solely emphasize the damage being caused by them, on the other hand they plainly quicken comprehension and make the developing of the broader contexts easier. It is neither theoretically nor practically possible to revise each and every starting point of each and every conclusion.
The determinant problem is obviously the question that whether or not we unconditionally isolate ourselves from rectifying our opinion. Our main concern is not that – by seeing our circumstantiality and ‘mince’ speech (or maybe just because of the names and symbols mentioned) – we may cause some bad impression, rather the possibility that our viewpoints would not even be given a fair chance.
All this for the simple reason that we would by no means want to do any harm to the cause we wish to serve.
Briefly speaking, our opinion about the known ‘solutions’ is that they do not work. As a matter of fact, instead of easing the problems, they rather deepen them.
The most comprehensive and serious problem (i.e. along with all the world religions and the political ideas influencing hundreds of millions) is that they regard each other as irreconcilable enemies, and they obstruct the evolving of a higher synthesis, which would summarize all their sensitivities and avoid all their insensitivities.
The ideas that were meant to be healing the problems have started an independent life, because we care more about protecting and spreading them than about solving the original problems themselves. One by one they all became merely the tools of power struggle so neither do they bring our attention to the power struggle nor do they help us turning against the parasitical game of power struggle.
Similar to other ideas, the globally popular theories about the world also derive their powers from a fragment of the truth. They typically have some sort of special and virtually indispensable sensitivity, with which they can effectively fight against competing theories and wield an arresting criticism upon their ‘enemies’. Besides the problem that the overwhelming majority of people uncritically follow the ideas they were taught, even the thoughtful ones are confused by the seemingly contradictory, but still parallel ‘superiority’ of the various truths.
Each and every seemingly indispensible theory about the world puts a given fragment of the human mind’s truly indispensible operations in center and reducts or even neglects all the others.
The various theories about the world rightly emphasize the indispensibility of their own operations and mutually and rightly point out the insufficiency in the sensitivity and views of all the other theories’ operations. The fight between the different theories and the unblissful debate continues so long as the evolution of thinking is dominated by power struggle. We are all too satisfied with our actual sensitivity and we seldomly or never strive for newer and newer syntheses of sensitivities.
Religions and political theories do not value and often do not even pay attention to the treasures of their ‘enemies’. They do not believe that every one of them is also engaged in understanding the same reality, but only with a different approach. It does not even occur to them that none of them is identical to a higher viewpoint from where the special and relevant place of every one of them would be visible. (The all-permissive pluralism itself is just another half-solution and does not substitute the real synthesis.)
For the sake of example and without a claim for completeness:
So tell us who is right (is in truth) when for instance Buddhism explores the way of developing inner freedom, but chooses solitary escape and do not turn against injustice; when Christianity explores love (other-centeredness), but does not care enough for striving for inner freedom and for the elimination of injustice; when Islam explores the significancy of justfulness, but does not pay enough attention to inner freedom and to the anti-violence compassion.
Out of all the strongest political theories the conservatives who are sensitive to ‘fraternity’ (that is cooperative and secure inequality) do not care enough for equality (that is social and legal equality) and freedom; the liberals who are sensitive to ‘freedom’ do not care enough for equality and fraternity; the socialists who are sensitive to ‘equality’ do not care enough for fraternity and freedom.
Methods that aim for a change are from the very start captives of some theory or system that is incomplete, similarly to the above theories. Besides serving wrong goals, the artistic, scientific, and religious ways are also incomplete as methods, because they all get lost in the details and they mutually disvalue each others’ logics. Both the real cooperation and the synthesis of theories are missing.
At times they neglect artistic empathy, another time the scientific logics or the religious desire for completeness or they even directly avoid them as non-navigable routes. When they unavoidably and ultimately get stuck, they inconsequently and exquisitely concede the ground to another method (which by the way contradicts to their own views).
Instead of the religious desire for completeness a religious ‘incomprehesibility’ and obscurity is more popular, with which an authoritative and irresponsible evasive speech can be established anytime. Instead of the scientific logic an uncritical, ‘value-free’ formalization that ‘gracefully’ steps aside from the relevant matter is more attractive. Instead of the artistic empathy that reaches towards progress the ‘creative’ talent of a detail-oriented garnishing is in more demand.
Even though religion, art, and science that have deteriorated from being methods of searching for truth to being merely the tools of power struggle, still serve together, instead of real cooperation and methodological interconnection, they simply exchange each other inorganically in their impotence.
They all follow methodological aspects that rule each other out and are non-organized (i.e. the priority of detail or whole and the priority of contradictionarity or non-contradictionarity) yet they all pass on the word to each other. Only in that way it is possible to avoid facing the truth of some kind of higher synthesis, facing the direction of evolution and facing the unmasked inhumanity.
Although the ultimate synthesis is unachievable, each and every synthesis puts the development of alternatives to a higher level and the world could sure enough do with a new one already. All of today’s theories about the world present an ‘alternative’ while they do not work out a synthesis, do not exceed their opponents’ level and therefore none of them is radically new. They are not solutions to the problems.
The world still has not had enough of violence yet.
Echnaton, Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Jesus, Muhammad, Immanuel Kant,
Karl Marx, Erich Fromm,
Family, Friends, Enemies.
All this is not Their fault.
('Rather to help orientation than to give ground to stigmatization.')
Without a claim for completeness, the following definitions focus on the meanings of the given keyword and they emphasize aspects that are different from the conventional approach.
(1) - one of most popular and most obscure term and tool of the human conflicts, basic reference of enforce interests and human power
(2) - universal personalising of the totality [a: regulated by universal law / b: authocracy over any rule]
(1) - knowledge in practice of the government of lenguange and cooperation of the social mind and behavior (proportional and limited by authomony and selfimprovement)
(2) - learned superiority of mindmanipulation
– aggressive action to gain superiority and to assert interests
(1) - logic value
(2) - unreachable but approximable
(3) - less selfcontradiction from more universal viewpoint
– isolation from cooperation in a conflict