Imagine there are no books..and no movies..

[blazeofglory]

I often wonder we again live in prehistoric times with no books, no TVs, no cinemas. Doing things instinctively. No stress, no complexities. Life goes on and on without sophistication.

We work on farms using simple implements. Come home and you will find it cozy and stress-free playing with little ones. No noise pollution. You express things when you like, never dramatizing things. You live simple homes, and use firewood to warm yourself and your family members.

You will never a flower from somebody's point of view the way you do now, analyzing the beauty of it not the way it is but from some aesthetic or philosophical or poetic point of view.

You do not rationalize things the way we so called intellectuals do. We can not enjoy things. There are always doubts, skepticisms. We can not believe in what others said for mostly ideas or informations are fabricated or fictionalized.

We will be in touch with nature. We will be be more with rivers, farms, animals, trees, mountains than with TV's Cinemas, Discos, books, and videos and the like.

For man's life is too short, and we keep on amassing things endlessly. We build houses that are not properly lived in, we occupy so much land and we need but a very little of it. We may say for security's sake. But can these things secure us?

Now we are really complicating life more and more. There are disharmonies, inconsistencies everywhere.

We have invented religions and cultures yet they are dividing us more than before. Racism, fundamentalism and so many things are there to divide us, to fragment us and to disintegrate us along divisive lines.

[Big Al]

No thanks.

[aswelch]

talk about my worst nightmare...and so boring

[crazefest456]

well, the absence of such media only makes us look for other ways to express/discuss ideas...it's our nature to find such tools (not restricted to books and movies)..But it really would be boring without them.

[Midas]

I think you are getting your ages a little mixed - prehistoric - then agrarian.
Anyway, that off my chest, I do understand what you mean, or the point you are making.

However, as to them being 'stress free' whichever age you are in, I would say from my understanding through reading and research, I conclude that for the common man, at least, they were anything but stress free.

Sure, they didn't concern themselves with some of the problems we have, or are told we have, from the ubiquitous media in all its forms today. But they had others we don't even think about.

Generally, though, it seems, the one thing in their favour, was that they did not have as long as we have to suffer their stresses - they died younger.

In which age would you have preferred to live? Be honest.

[adampearson]

Are you kidding me?? You don't not often imagine that, you just want to seem mysterious. Also, hunting a woolly mammoth with a spear, no wheel? You're right, problem free.

[blazeofglory]

Are you kidding me?? You don't not often imagine that, you just want to seem mysterious. Also, hunting a woolly mammoth with a spear, no wheel? You're right, problem free.

My friend, I am not kidding at all. Life is getting complexer with time. Now people distance themselves from nature. We are indeed stormed with more and more challenges and life is getting more burdensome, more challenging. Children are pressed to read and be successful. Maybe this does not apply to your circumstances in your country. But in Nepal and in entire South Asia life is getting really increasingly more complicated with more advancement in technology and the like.

[Oniw17]

As long as there's language, the majority of people will continue to think in the words of others, and as long as there's discussion, there will be intellectuals. Without books there would still be oral history, and oral teacching and investigation of science. I don't think anything would be much different actually, society-wise I mean. Lots of other stuff would be different. Don't forget, it was already like that at different points throughout history, and we ended up where we are today(which I think is inevidable, provided that language exists).

[blazeofglory]

As long as there's language, the majority of people will continue to think in the words of others, and as long as there's discussion, there will be intellectuals. Without books there would still be oral history, and oral teacching and investigation of science. I don't think anything would be much different actually, society-wise I mean. Lots of other stuff would be different. Don't forget, it was already like that at different points throughout history, and we ended up where we are today(which I think is inevidable, provided that language exists).

Indeed there would be discussions, and oral teachings. Yet people have limited memory power and they can not remember things always, and greater parts of human traditions, achievements would have been lost. People could not have understood so closely as we would have today.

The other side is a romantic side. People would be a little freer, and will not live with the burden of books. People would be more in proximity with nature. In a sentence they would be more themselves.

[bibliophile190]

I think I'd like society to stay the way it is now.

[jon1jt]

i generally agree with what you're saying, blaze. you make some valid observations of human life today, what has in a sense become the human condition. it wasn't always this fast-paced, or the people so innanely disconnected. yet, i don't think life during any period of human history was stress-free as you say. people were wracked by the whims of nature, so there was an immediacy to things. to let tasks linger could be disastrous on entire communities, today, there's a tendency to put things off. we are imbued with a sense of having endless tomorrows, which creates a lethargy in people who end up accomplishing little to nothing. this has become a way of life though we are disinclined to see it that way.

nature was never viewed by whole populations with a sense of appreciation as you describe. the land was there and viewed in terms of what could be extracted from it. there was no intellectualizing about that. certainly the natives along with some other indigenous cultures had a heightened appreciation of the earth, but even they saw it in terms of what it offered. the mythologizing native was too, part, exploitive. we must be cautious about glorifying a past that never existed, or romanticizing a world that will never be. there's still a great deal of land to love, and enough trees to string up a big hammock between and connect the stars with your finger. go west, man. :)

[blazeofglory]

i generally agree with what you're saying, blaze. you make some valid observations of human life today, what has in a sense become the human condition. it wasn't always this fast-paced, or the people so innanely disconnected. yet, i don't think life during any period of human history was stress-free as you say. people were wracked by the whims of nature, so there was an immediacy to things. to let tasks linger could be disastrous on entire communities, today, there's a tendency to put things off. we are imbued with a sense of having endless tomorrows, which creates a lethargy in people who end up accomplishing little to nothing. this has become a way of life though we are disinclined to see it that way.

nature was never viewed by whole populations with a sense of appreciation as you describe. the land was there and viewed in terms of what could be extracted from it. there was no intellectualizing about that. certainly the natives along with some other indigenous cultures had a heightened appreciation of the earth, but even they saw it in terms of what it offered. the mythologizing native was too, part, exploitive. we must be cautious about glorifying a past that never existed, or romanticizing a world that will never be. there's still a great deal of land to love, and enough trees to string up a big hammock between and connect the stars with your finger. go west, man. :)

I indeed subscribe to your views. Of course people in primitive times hard times to fight against natural forces. Nature was very cruel. There were tremendous threats from the wilderness, for men lived in caves and in caverns and every time they had to protect themselves against agressions.

Since I too am from an agrarian society. My father was a farmer. I too used to work on farms using only primitive implements. Life was indeed much harder than the one I am having now. There was not enough money to buy things the way now I can do or my family members can do.

Yet despite everything life was much stress free then. Life was really easier . with all kinds of scarcities. Maybe from some other perspectives I maybe wrong

[Bakiryu]

It'd be beautiful yet not. Life is easier right now but still but still cruel from a humane view point. Maybe If we could just cleanse the whole slate and begin anew. (Flood, anyone?)

[Midas]

"...........Maybe If we could just cleanse the whole slate and begin anew. (Flood, anyone?)..............."

This is a thought of many. However, I do not believe it is a perspicuous one.

Why?

Let me sow a few seeds of thought for anyone with the mind to turn over.

(1) What would stop us from committing the same follies - again?

(2) Could it not be even worse, next time?

(3) If we pride (deceive) ourselves into believing we live in a democracy does not that mean if the majority are unhappy with the way things are, we can change it?

(4) Can we really blame it on countries that are not so called 'democracies'
The 'Western' civilisations who claim to be 'democratic' have held the most powerful, and influential, position for a very long time.

(5) Have we really set a good example for others to follow? Really? You believe that?

(6) Is it not our duty if we want people to follow our ideals, that we ensure our own house is in order to set that role model example?

(7) Nations, and societies are only a collection of people. Therefore do we not start by making ourselves, individually, a good role model.

(8) Are YOU (WE) a good role model, if not, are we prepared to make required changes?

(9) Nature, untainted by man, and created by G-d (God) (or is it all just a big accident?) Whatever we believe. Does it not also appear to have 'cruel' aspects - survival of fittest, big fish eating little fish......

(10) If life held no apprehensions, if all was sweetness, and perfection, would that really make us happy? There have been societies that were reasonably happy with their lot, and stress was kept down to a minimum, by comparison.

However, when so called accepted 'western' ideals were forcibly introduced, and their way of life changed, they became just as, or almost as, prone to the afflictions that pervade our life.

In my humble (yes, ever so humble, almost to make Uriah Heap look as conceited as Kenneth Graham's Mr Toad) limited capacity I do not have the answers, well, at least not all of them ( I did stress I am humble). I therefore pose questions.

Here comes another 'however'. I have observed that there is a requirement for a positive, and a negative force in certain energies (perhaps all, I don't know not being a particularly scientific person, though my last name is Newton) So maybe what is really wrong, and where we should be concentrating our 'energy' is seeking the balance of life to ensure that nothing gets too far out of sync.

In other words, it is the imbalance of that which we have come to term good and bad (which in themselves are only words) that is the real cause of our problems?

I leave those thoughts with you.

[JCamilo]

Life was complex back them. People disagreed with each other and that is why they killed each other (before agricultors we are hunters. And Human meat was nice).
I do not know if you really understand but Cinema, as we know, is so new that people in the guiness book of record are older than cinema.
Other thing - Cinema and Literature do not create society, neither its complexity - It represents it. As all art. To eliminated human complexity you would have find a a world without humanity.
Capacity of Aesthetic examination of an object is a way to add complexity and not simplicity. And it is what started all arts.
The primitive humans had a lot of doubts and questions, hence the reason why the started with the myths, seeking for answers.
Racism was born there. Your tribe, my tribe.

You are very confusing and a man with more capacity of argument that you showed here once wrote a book defending in some ways the return to nature. Then another man, which capacity of argumentation is superior to all of us, read the book and asnwer "Very interesting, but no thanks. I have spent 80 years walking with two legs it would hurt me a lot trying to walk on fours again". It was Rousseau and Voltaire.

[Gadget Girl]

Life with no modern stuffs like we have now will make life a living hell. I don't know, I like the way it is now. Maybe if I haven't known of these things, then maybe I will choose the simple life with no worries, no TV, no cinemas, no books. But as the time goes on, the world evolves. It is becoming more and more complicated and so problematic than the times in the past. I long for those, but we cannot bring it back. Yeah it will be so relaxing, but we are just going to go with the flow, you know. Enjoy life as it is and be merry.

[blazeofglory]

Life with no modern stuffs like we have now will make life a living hell. I don't know, I like the way it is now. Maybe if I haven't known of these things, then maybe I will choose the simple life with no worries, no TV, no cinemas, no books. But as the time goes on, the world evolves. It is becoming more and more complicated and so problematic than the times in the past. I long for those, but we cannot bring it back. Yeah it will be so relaxing, but we are just going to go with the flow, you know. Enjoy life as it is and be merry.

I like the way you put forth all that you have to say. This is indeed a positive way of looking at things, and of course you and me and the rest can not imagine living without the stuffs we are stuffed with. It is impossible indeed.

Yet Gadget Girl, we all are secretly feeling sad at all that goes on today. We distaste war, we repulse extreme modernism. Of course we want to save fewer moments for ourselves in seclusion and aloneness in nature. Don't we?

[mazHur]

Life existed without books and movies in the past, it will continue to do so in future even if these things were not there any more.

[blazeofglory]

Life existed without books and movies in the past, it will continue to do so in future even if these things were not there any more.

Yes MazHur, imagine how different it will be without books and movies, life will not be confined within rooms and libraries. Life will be so wildly in the open, not in the confinement. Of course people will indulge themselves in different things from what they do. People will live simpler lives.

Of course I often romanticize that kind of life.

[mazHur]

I totally agree with you.
Notwithstanding its blessings, modern science has pulled us away from nature and its beauty. Life has become so artificial and bland.

[Gadget Girl]

I like the way you put forth all that you have to say. This is indeed a positive way of looking at things, and of course you and me and the rest can not imagine living without the stuffs we are stuffed with. It is impossible indeed.

Yet Gadget Girl, we all are secretly feeling sad at all that goes on today. We distaste war, we repulse extreme modernism. Of course we want to save fewer moments for ourselves in seclusion and aloneness in nature. Don't we?

Yes, we are indeed, Blaze. That's the disadvantage of life today. It's full of problems and everything. We can hardly have time to breathe.

[Midas]

"........Yes, we are indeed, Blaze. That's the disadvantage of life today. It's full of problems and everything. We can hardly have time to breathe..........."

But you had the time, ability (through books and reading), and opportunity from modern technology, to express your thoughts here.

A little 'openmindedness' (my word), and less misplaced sentimentality would permit the 'sufferers' of this malady to have a far more objective view of life to permit them to fully enjoy the era in which they are living - it comes but once, and flits away all too quickly.

[mazHur]

It reminds me of how Wordsworth felt when he saw ppl engrossed in reading books ( now internet) and got away from the beauty of nature. Here is his poem and would quite appeal to minds if read in modern context:

Wordsworth
The tables turned

Up! up! my friend, and quit your books;
Or surely you'll grow double:
Up! up! my friend, and clear your looks:
Why all this toil and trouble?

The sun, above the mountain's head,
A freshening lustre mellow
Through all the long green fields has spread,
His first sweet evening yellow.

Books' 'tis a dull and endless strife:
Come, hear the woodland linnet,
How sweet his music! on my life,
There's more of wisdom in it.

And hark! how blithe the throstle sings!
He, too, is no mean preacher:
Come forth into the light of things,
Let Nature be your teacher.

She has a world of ready wealth,
Our minds and hearts to bless -
Spontaneous wisdom breathed by health,
Truth breathed by cheerfulness.

One impulse from a vernal wood
May teach you more of man,
Of moral evil and of good,
Than all the sages can.

Sweet is the lore which Nature brings;
Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:-
We murder to dissect.
Enough of Science and of Art;
Close up those barren leaves;
Come forth, and bring with you a heart
That watches and receives.

[Midas]

And how he conveniently forgot how he could have written that poem, or allowed others to share his walk 'beside the lake and beneath the trees' to see his crowd of daffodils 'fluttering and dancing in the breeze', had he not read books, and wrote down his experiences to be published. And, of course we also being able, and wanting, to read.

Not being in his head at the time, I cannot know for sure (nor can anyone else) but perhaps he was drawing attention to us maintaining a balance in life. For which I agree, as this was a lesson passed to me by my father.

Read, write, do many things, but always maintain a balance so that we can keep in touch with nature, and friends. Otherwise, how can we share our esperiences with others.

Wordsworth, and others apparently did both.

[mazHur]

We OUGHT to keep BALANCE but how many of us are REALLY doing that?

BTW Most of the great writers, thinkers,sages and prophets never read any book ---Plato did not even bother to write one---yet they contributed greatly to us, to this world of ours.

[Midas]

Plato was not a writer? .....think you had better check that.

Some people who have influenced our life may not have been writers themselves - Christ was one, and Socrates another,but they had scribes, or as in Socrates case, a student (Plato), who made written records either at the time, or later, from what was passed down, or supposedly passed down, as being their thinking and/or teaching.

In others words, it was from someone's writing, and being printed and published, that we, today, have been influenced.

[mazHur]

you ssem to go round,,,,,,
I meant to say that none of them went to universities or received proper education either through books or whatever,,,,

Scribes gave us a second hand information that eventually led to myriads of controversies ,,,,,, moreover, there is no record of Jesus's early life,,,,,,,
Hitler, for example, was not a WRITER yet he wrote!

[Midas]

You meant to say...? I am wondering what that is. In fact it reminds me of a book by Lewis Carroll in which there was a kind of 'mad' tea party.

".......Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on.

`I do,' Alice hastily replied; `at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know.'

`Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter. `You might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see"!'

`You might just as well say,' added the March Hare, `that "I like what I get" is the same thing as "I get what I like"

`You might just as well say,' added the Dormouse, who seemed to be talking in his sleep, `that "I breathe when I sleep" is the same thing as "I sleep when I breathe"!'

`It IS the same thing with you,' said the Hatter, and here the conversation dropped, and the party sat silent for a minute, while Alice thought over all she could remember about ravens and writing-desks, which wasn't much......"

I will leave it there. Either you get it, or you don't.

[NikolaiI]

Saying what you mean and meaning what you say ARE (virtually) the same thing, however.-IF you've said something, that is.

I didn't say what I meant.
I didn't mean what I said.

So they mean virtually the same thing, except in the first sentence you could have not said anything. (I didn't say what I meant. I meant to say something, but I never said it. OR it could mean the second sentence: what I said is not what I meant.) In the second sentence, you did SAY something, but it definitely WASN'T what you meant to say. You see the bigger flaw here is not to say those are the same (which they very slightly aren't) but to say that TO SAY they're the same is the SAME as saying all those other sentences. Do you see?

Oh; but Maz, I would call mostly anyone who's written a book a writer; and Hitler wrote Mein Kampf so I'd call him a writer as well as a mass-murderer, etc., and all his other titles.

As long as we're having so much fun; what reason do you have to believe Plato wrote anything? I mean to believe it's true? Just because he's listed as the author of the book? Or because certain/many historians have studied analyzed it an said it's historically accurate? Which I don't even know that they have or anything; but even if they had, it's still not reason at all for me to think this. Perhaps there were 50 people working in collaboration on the project. Or 10. Etc., etc.

[Midas]

Nicholai As you feel it is just 'fun' which, of course, it could well be,. Do I, therefore, assume that you really do mean what you say?

If so, then I must tone my response in a like manner and not take your disjointed argument too seriously, in fact, not at all seriously.

But then again, you might not say what you mean, well not always that is, even though you maintain that they both mean the same. And I could extend that statement and run us round in a never ending circle. but that can lead us into another argument that will have you putting forward a premise that a circle can have an end - for instance, when it's a social circle.

However allow me just one serious comment. I mean it to be serious, and that applies whether I am saying what I mean, or meaning what I say. (which, as you say, could well mean the same if.......only let's not go round that tree again.

You say:-
'Oh; but Maz, I would call mostly anyone who's written a book a writer; and Hitler wrote Mein Kampf so I'd call him a writer as well as a mass-murderer, etc., and all his other titles.'

Here (accepting you mean what you say) that you are accepting Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. So I return the question you posed to me. How do you know he wrote it? Assuming you are not over 60 years old, how do you know anything about him except what you have read, have seen presented on the movies, TV, or told to you by some grandparent who may have been alive at the time, but still not have met him personally. I too, only know anything about him from the same source so will decline argument.

All I know is that there are always two sides to the same coin. (I know that as being factual from personal observation, as well as it being generally, and mathematically, accepted).

One day Saddam is our friend and ally against Iran, the next he is the 'beast of Baghdad'. And we will dutifully echo how we are programmed.

With regards to 'meaning' Carroll himself wrote the following to a friend in America, when being asked about the meaning of 'The Hunting of the Snark':

"I'm very much afraid I didn't mean anything but nonsense. Still, you know, words mean more than we mean to express when we use them; so a whole book ought to mean a great deal more than the writer means. So, whatever good meanings are in the book, I'm glad to accept as the meaning of the book." (source: Collingwood, "The Life and Letters of Lewis Carroll")

This could apply to 'Alice in Wonderland' and to many books, and, I guess, in the same way with abstract art.

"If any one of them can explain it," said Alice, "I'll give him sixpence. I don't believe there's an atom of meaning in it."

However, I maintain it is impossible to write without meaning, because no matter how much nonsense one writes, there is always some meaning to that which motivated it because writing takes effort.

The meaning may be just the writer saying I have confused thoughts, and my reasoning is faulty, as you proved in your humorous (?) view presented in your above response where you question how I accepted someone as being a writer, yet, at the same time, you presented an example which works against your argument, or else, perhaps, you do not consider it applies to you.

[Lily Adams]

Reading over these posts, I really can't say which I think is easier: (I'm a very indecisive person) life in the past, or life now. It seems to me that they all had their own special difficulties. But I think I might be leaning a little more towards the past being easier because I've heard of "primitive" civilizations in near-uninhabited portions of the world where researchers have found that they only spend about two hours doing actual work and they lay around on the beach the rest of the day. Plus there's that one saying...what is it? Another thing is solved and two more problems come up from that problem being solved. Something along those lines. Like a hydra having its head cut off.

But I dunno, if your play your cards right today, and are just lucky, life can be pretty good...but it's usually at the expense of others, unfortunately. :( You can't get something for nothing.

[mazHur]

You can't get something for nothing.

I agree with you but it was never like that in the primitive world and even today they observe some sort of bartering system.

[NikolaiI]

True, Lily; but think about it another way. If you went back in time you'd have huge advantages with all the knowledge we have now. For instance drinking and driving wasn't a crime until the late 60's, so, here in America, if a cop pulled you over and you were really drunk, he might just tell you to park somewhere close and sleep it off, and let you go. Imagine going back to the 1950's with the knowledge we have now of Identity theft. :D

[Dark Star]

Notwithstanding its blessings, modern science has pulled us away from nature and its beauty. Life has become so artificial and bland.

I have to wonder how a methodological study of the natural world pulls us away from nature and its beauty.

[Midas]

I have to wonder how a methodological study of the natural world pulls us away from nature and its beauty

Modern science is an all encompassing term. I believe here, he is meaning modern technology, in particular with its inventions designed to keep us housebound, and/or taking us into a world of virtual reality as opposed to the real thing.

He has a point. However, to me, it's importance is in bringing us to be ever mindful of keeping balance in life. We can have, and enjoy, both.

It also brings to the fore not to be too analytically narrow minded when we view something. By this I mean there is technology which can disconnect us from the natural world, but there is also that which has made it more accessible - certainly in a wider perspective.

Advances in modes of travel have opened not only one's own country, but the whole world to many for whom it otherwise would have been denied.

The coast, often termed in the UK as the 'seaside' was undeveloped, and unknown to many who lived barely 50 miles from it before the train was invented.

I have been watching recently some very interesting programs on our Television - usually BBC about the British countryside, and the coast line. It included walks across the moors, climbing into the mountains and gazing down on the lakes, or Lochs depending on which side the 'the border' you were. This has got me excited about my country and seeing its true beauty.
It is enhanced by the new large screen TV's we have today.

I now want to spend more time travelling and seeing for myself.

I was born on the edge of what is known as 'Bronte Country' (home of the Victorian, novel writing sisters). The bleak, rugged moorlands almost ringed my hometown. It was said that one could walk along those moors known as the backbone of England right over the Scottish border without seeing a house. Perhaps that was a slight exaggeration, as I am sure one would see a 'Wuthering Heights' farm somewhere on the way. But it was not far from the truth.

I saw a program recently which featured this area. It actually made me see it in a different light - a romantic one, and though I live now in London, it made me want to go back and walk those moors as I did with my school chums, or my father.

Point being made - it can work both ways. Lets look to maintaining the balance in what all life affords.

[sreeja]

I can't imagine this.I thought there will be no existence for the world without cinema ,poems etc

[Midas]

I can't imagine this.I thought there will be no existence for the world without cinema ,poems etc
__________________
sreeja r nair

Now, I am not commenting on your English in any way, as I believe it may not be your native tongue. However, your knowledge is good enough to get your point across, and to understand word meaning.

Think about what you have written, I mean the logic, or lack of, it contains.

Did life, or as you say 'world', not exist before cinema and poems? (cinema and poems, what strage bedfellows).

Now if I have not understood your point, then please correct me.

[Zelly]

Hem, no books??? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[crazefest456]

okay, I retract my statement...I wouldn't mind expressing myself using shadow puppets and some weird music/dance ritual to tell stories. It would promote more of a communal society that relies on its inhabitants for more than just their citizenship-- it would give importance to the preservation of identity and culture. It seems fun, but still, I can't abandon books altogether.

[AuntShecky]

Everyone at one time or another becomes nostalgic for the past, especially at holidays, when folks want to "re"-create the Norman Rockwell or Charles Dickens Victorian
Christmas, neither of which ever really existed.

The stresses of contemporary life,the pace of complicated technology, the loss of both individual identity AND more-tightly knit communities ( the pair are not mutually exclusive) make us feel somehow emotionally bereft and thus we yearn for a simpler era.

Realistically speaking, however, how many of us would be
able to cope without such modern (in)conveniences as
antibiotics, more-easily accessible food, education,
central heating, electricity, bathing.
And we do, don't we, seem to have selective amnesia about the historical brutality of the past: slavery, religious persecution, lack of democracy, and so on?

[wilbur lim]

I often wonder we again live in prehistoric times with no books, no TVs, no cinemas. Doing things instinctively. No stress, no complexities. Life goes on and on without sophistication.

We work on farms using simple implements. Come home and you will find it cozy and stress-free playing with little ones. No noise pollution. You express things when you like, never dramatizing things. You live simple homes, and use firewood to warm yourself and your family members.

You will never a flower from somebody's point of view the way you do now, analyzing the beauty of it not the way it is but from some aesthetic or philosophical or poetic point of view.

You do not rationalize things the way we so called intellectuals do. We can not enjoy things. There are always doubts, skepticisms. We can not believe in what others said for mostly ideas or informations are fabricated or fictionalized.

We will be in touch with nature. We will be be more with rivers, farms, animals, trees, mountains than with TV's Cinemas, Discos, books, and videos and the like.

For man's life is too short, and we keep on amassing things endlessly. We build houses that are not properly lived in, we occupy so much land and we need but a very little of it. We may say for security's sake. But can these things secure us?

Now we are really complicating life more and more. There are disharmonies, inconsistencies everywhere.

We have invented religions and cultures yet they are dividing us more than before. Racism, fundamentalism and so many things are there to divide us, to fragment us and to disintegrate us along divisive lines.

I acqueisce of your perspective,blazeofglory.The complication,stress,envy,so on ad infinitum is not emancipating us.Global warming is discernibly getting more acute in light of humanity's unfeasible and foolhardy thinking.I do not know the legitimate reason of why humanity must advance into a loftier pace.

My life is inept and virtually melancholy everyday beacause I feel envious and marvel how to become a not reprobate and vital person.Behold at my stress,it's going berserk for me and others.People harm themselves because of being stupid or not attaining their dream.

Filial piety is the dominant but lacking situation.Within this century,misdemeanour is apparently lacking.Likewise,I do not know where magnanimity is.

[wilbur lim]

Hem, no books??? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I perceived that books would hitherto exist,but not others which we have currently.Computers and internet is likewise non-exist.