UNITY & the way to it:

[Shanalorm]

[In case you wonder, I've put this piece of prose here, because it is
verry philosophical. Moderators, feel free to move it if you feel like, as
long as it is clear that this is a philosophical piece.]

_________________________________________________

UNITY
& THE WAY TO IT
_________________________________________________

Statement:

True evolution is the way, paved by logic, to a symbiotic
unity of things, where individuality is only a tool to completion
and perfection of the harmony of all, which represents the
many parts, pieces, views and thoughts of this unity.

__________________________________________________

1

Humanity is in conflict.
Not only among it's many factions, religions, political views
idioligies and other beliefs, but also within itself.

Take Darwin. If you believe his theory you would acknowledge
the fact that we descend from apes and primates. You would
also acknowledge the fact that we have instincts. After all,
how would apes be forced to survive?

In the animalworld these insincts drive animals to survive, they
have to in order to reproduce. They have to reproduce in order
to physically evolve. When an animal dies his matter wil be
efficiently recycled back into the animalworld. They will be eaten
by microbes and insects which in turn are eaten by bigger
organisms. That is called the chain of life.

A chritian or a muslim would also come to the same conclusion
but believe that those instincts were the seed of evil that tries
to destroy in order to gain.

2

Now take humanity. Humanity has no natural enemies anymore
and when an individual dies his matter will be severely protected
by painted wood and soft materials to 'make the body feel
comfortable' or it will be burned. When burned the body will be
heated, which needs an awefull amount of energy and the gasses
that we become are harmfull to trees and plants. Our race has
outgrown the chain of life, so to speak.

Sadly enough we still have the insinct that drives us to make
the best sircumstances for mating and reproducing. Since there
is no natural enemy we are free to reproduce and we no longer
need to make everything as easy as possible. (Granted, mating
is still hard to some, including me, because of genetic
incompatibility, but that is now irrelevant.) Sadly enough we still
try to, and destroy more than we create.

3

We have no natural enemies.
How can it be that humanity has outgrown the chain of life if we
still are subject to our instincts? Simple. We have insight where
other animals do not. This gave us the ability to create tools we
could use. We also became more trained in outwitting other
animals.

Because of the combination between the insight that makes us
evolve and the restriction of the instincts that force us to
destroy anything that can be of threat to our life we make our
loves too easy and break anything that has no place in it.
To evolution those two, instinct-insight, are completely
incompatible and in combination careless combination become a
threat to the entire life.

If we are to stop breaking and to survive the destruction already
caused we will have to stop trying to live with both and choose
one of these two as a guide throug life.

4

Essentialism.
If humanity would return to a state of complete subjection to
only instincts, we all would be reverted to animals and have
denied our psychological and spiritual evolution. I consider that sad.

As I stated in the beginning I believe that true evolution is the way
to balance and unity of all where we, humans, forget our instincts
and start thinking of 'we' instead of 'I'. That way a human collective
would be born where every individual only serves the entire world and
works as a tool to completion of the balance among all. A true global
symbiosis would be born. Every being would sustain every other and
not denie the life of others. We will freely acknowledge the fact that
each thing deserves a life of his own and that an other individual
will have to sacrifice a part of his freedom.

When he thinks rational and peacefull he will do it with deligh in
his heart, knowing he contributed to a peacefull, balanced world.
An individual would eventually lose the abillity to harm other things in
order to gain more.

The way to that is the way of logic and peacefullness.

5

Simple examples how you can already change.
After all, change the world but start with yourself!

I] When you have to go with the bus or train or any form of public
transport, try to force yourself to step in last. You might discover
that there are no seats anymore, but hey, what does that matter?
A seat is only a non-essential luxury. Be aware that by stepping in
last you gave others a chance to get a seat and enjoy this luxury.
Do not feel agitated or irritated because of rude people or people
with loud music. Simply be glad that you have no need for beeing
grumpy.

II] When walking in a busy street, say hello to EVERYONE and give
them a good smile. People will look at you as if you are a mad
person but when you do this for a week or two people will start
saying hello back. Eventually they will smile back and if you continue
long enough they will even start saying hello to all the other people
in the street. After a year the street will be a filled with people saying
hello and everyone will be a little more happy on their way to school or
work or whatever destination they have.

III] When a beggar asks you for mony, offer him your lunchpacket.
(Only if you can miss it.) After all, he will not be capable of using
the money to buy alcoholic drinks or drugs and you can buy new lunch
any time. You will even have a reason to buy something you like more
than your normal lunch.

VI] Take a box of the cheapest cookies you can find to work and offer
one to everyone. When they ask you why simply say because they look
nice or because you find them good people. If need be make a joke like:
"I want to impress my boss!" *wink wink*
Do not feel bad if no one else does, they simply don't have the money
or are still too much subject to their egoistic instincts. Remember that
by your actions you have found a way to show them that being friendly
can be very easy.

[Shanalorm]

The question now is: Do you agree?

[XxFake_Rebel77]

The "We" most likely become "I", power is seductive.

[Shanalorm]

I believe that the We- to become -I problem is purely an instinctive
part of behaviour. Control the instincts, control the problem.

[XxFake_Rebel77]

Who...you?

[Shanalorm]

We, everyone for themselves, and yes, me too

[XxFake_Rebel77]

It is not our instincts that leave us misguided, if anything they defend the very nature of what makes us. Yes, some are driven by greed, hate, and a destructive will, but not all destroy, kill and indulge in vainity, they care, they love,they protect all that is around them and by doing so oppose such forces that are inhuman and they do this instinctively.
You do have some intresting points, instinctive or insight it could translate to emotion or rationality. But i think this argument is a false dilemma for it suggests that the only way not to engulf the planet with our sinful ways is to become dehumanised where we are but rational automotons i.e a vulcan, you do come from a good perspective wanting change of our selfish cycles of life, but only a tyranny would suceed in removing our individual needs and asperations, we just need to be less materialistic and follow our gut to get to the truth.

[Shanalorm]

It is not our instincts that leave us misguided, if anything they defend the very nature of what makes us. Yes, some are driven by greed, hate, and a destructive will, but not all destroy, kill and indulge in vainity, they care, they love,they protect all that is around them and by doing so oppose such forces that are inhuman and they do this instinctively.
You do have some intresting points, instinctive or insight it could translate to emotion or rationality. But i think this argument is a false dilemma for it suggests that the only way not to engulf the planet with our sinful ways is to become dehumanised where we are but rational automotons i.e a vulcan, you do come from a good perspective wanting change of our selfish cycles of life, but only a tyranny would suceed in removing our individual needs and asperations, we just need to be less materialistic and follow our gut to get to the truth.

I do not plea dehumanising, nor the complete losing of instincts. As I too state in the piece, it is not about shutting down any instinctive impulses, but to think about it, and make the right decision. That way the wrong and harmfull effects of our instincts can be suppressed and the world would become a better place. I think we are slowly going that way, but sadly not fast enough if we wish to survive.

The emotion versus reason dilemma is one completely different. Yes, emotions are effects of our instinct, but not hurtfull in most cases. As a matter of fact even anger can be quite constructive. I do not plea for the complete banishing of any emotion. I merely plea for trying to
controll these impulses by thinking them through propperly before acting upon them. In my opinion most people don't and are simply unconsciously extremely egoistical.

I believe that by being aware of the unconscious effects of our instincts, we can controll their effect and repress any negative effect on the collective of earth. In fact I even say that it is in our verry nature to do so. The problem is that it might not be going fast enough. The speed of us destroying and unbalancing the cyclus of nature is faster than the speed of the growth in awareness.

Indeed, sadly only tyranny would be capable of getting all of us to make correct decisions. The biggest trouble with that would be that we would only do it out of fear and not because we know, and reason accordingly, that it is the good thing to do. But that is a complete different dilemma:
Is tyranny allowed if it makes everyone live a good life and make the best decisions?

[XxFake_Rebel77]

Any such notion of a social-decision maker should makeone jump out of their skin, have you ever read 1984?

[Shanalorm]

Never read it but I do understand it's moral, which makes the discussion one of great interest. Who are the mad ones?

Are you mad if your moral feelings differ from that of the majority? Even if the Majority believes killing someone from another country should be allowed if they are a threat?