A state of uncertainties [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

Midas

11-04-2007, 06:58 AM

Some centuries ago, a certain King Canute in England who, as kings were thought to be all powerful, had himself sat on a chair to act as a throne on the beach. There, watched by many, he commanded the sea to go back.( It was flood tide, not ebb).

The objective was to show, probably both literally, and metaphorically, that
there are 'forces' in this world greater than Kings. Today our so called 'democratically' elected leaders are 'ruled' by powerful forces of which they are well aware, even if we in our naivety, and blind stupor, are not.

So, what is my point? It is simply this

History shows us that life survives by adapting, not resisting or fighting against forces over which you have no control. You test the ground, if you must, but once you assess the power against you is too great, then accept, but adapt yourself. This is not defeatism it is pure common sense.

I could cite many, many examples throughout history.

One in particular was when the world changed from Agrarian to Industrial. This was an immense change at the time, far greater than we today can understand.

People did not like it because it uprooted them from their small intimate communities, and families, and plunged them into new towns and cities and to a totally different life to which they had been accustomed. Many resisted and died in the process.

All to no avail.

There is a second stage of that revolution taking place now.

However, moaning about the present, bemoaning for the past, gets us nowhere. It is what old people when they see their hopes unfulfilled, and time running out, or life's failures, tend to do. It is negative. It has no constructive, positive, value, but by its contageous, negative nature infects others.

" God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things that can be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish one from the other”

oracle13

11-04-2007, 09:58 AM

I'm sorry, but telling people that 'moaning about the present...gets us nowhere' is simply foolish. These 'forces' that you're talking about aren't some kind of superhuman process that none of us can understand. The industrial revolution was brought about by the discovery of steam power and mass production and all that stuff - all brought about by HUMAN endeavours. While it's true that many people at the time were totally unaware of WHY the changes were happening, that doesn't mean that there was no human cause, it just never was passed on down to them.

Moaning about the present is the ONLY way for human progression. Otherwise we would just be in a constant state of stasis! Technological, political, and social shifts don't just happen, they are brought about by people, or big groups of people.

Midas

11-04-2007, 10:44 AM

I believe you need to understand the meaning of moaning, and the general theme of this thread which is a moan for the past, and against change.

Now, if I had lived in the time of the quill pen, I could very easily have expressed, in expletive terms, my dissatisfaction at having to keep sharpening it after every few lines, and the fact that it could be messy. So much so that I decided to do something about it.

However, not by saying that life was so much better when we didn't have to write, but just hunted for food, but by seeking a way that would lead to the metal nib pen, then the fountain pen and the ball point. Later others would have employed their mind to the typewriter, the word processor, then the computer.

This is employing forward thinking constructive criticism or dissatisfaction with
the present, not moaning for the past. If your ball point runs out, or your computer freezes nothing is gained by longing for the days of the quill pen, or life before we even needed to write. In fact many people around a hundred years ago lived their lives without ever having to write, or being able to if they wanted. Is that what we want to go back to?

The visionaries, the inventors that brought about all that made the industrial revolution possible, were not moaners for the past. They knew they would bring change, and that change would upset many.

If they had been people who wanted to maintain the status quo, they would have not applied their minds to bring about change.

I suggest you apply a little more common sense to your argument.

But if you wish to be a moaner, you will find you have plenty of company.

Visionaries, and inventors are few in number, moaners of the present, and bemoaners for the past, are plentiful.

The negative sells far more papers, or attracts far more TV news watchers, than the positive.

NikolaiI

11-04-2007, 01:03 PM

This is hilarious, but Midas, you posted on the wrong thread! This has NOTHING to do with moaning about the past!!! lol, all blaze started this thread with was something vague about his forefathers being believers in a different sense than he was. Just because he's also on the other thread you displace all of that on to this one?

It wasn't started as an insight of Blaze's conflicts with our industrial/technological, society, but his conflict with otherworldly, heaven, true believer, etc., and he is more oriented to this world.

Midas

11-04-2007, 07:15 PM

I see this thread merely as a variation on a theme - the poster's theme elsewhere. The similarities, though, perhaps to some, couched differently, amount to the same. They both ooze dissatisfaction with change. But, change is constant, only the pace of change varies.

The following post to the leader refers to 'political' change 'capitalistic society' and to social changes. What greater social, political, and economic change was there than the move to an industrial society?

When observing life and attempting to make meaningful comment, you cannot divorce one part of it from another it has to be viewed gestalt. How we change as individuals beside the physical ageing process, we are influenced by all the other changes with which we must engage and respond. For instance, political, economic, social, education, material, etc.

From what I have observed and learned from the past is, we can in some cases modify by slowing or speeding, lessen or heighten change, but cannot stop.

I also observed that the living elements being it plant or animal which survive are the ones which adapt to change.

You do not have to agree with my argument, in fact I would be surprised if you did from your response in another thread, but I maintain its relevancy.

As for meaningful point to the thread, The first line opens:-

' We are indeed in a state of uncertainties and we do not know where we are heading. '

Is this something singular to our age? If it is a religious based comment, as it may seem as we read further, there are more people living today who believe they are going to heaven when they leave this life than at any long past age. This is if only because there are more people alive today than in any other period of history, and though they may not be practising any religion, I would guarantee that if you could see into their minds they would reveal they had some idea of where they were going.

Life has always been full of uncertainties. There are only three certainties - we will age, die, and until we do - pay taxes.

But, if you see the thread theme as profound and enlightening for you, then so be it, and I accept the thread has not been in vain.

NikolaiI

11-05-2007, 01:37 AM

Midas

11-05-2007, 05:47 AM

Midas, I have no desire to convince you argue anything with you. I don't know why you can't say what you have to say simply, without typing so many paragraphs out.

The only reason I confront you at all are the vague and annoying comments you make about people being too negative. If you're going to say anything like that, then you'll get opposition from me; albeit in a politic, diplomatic matter. None of this is personal to me in the least, but I will point out inconsistencies (or whatever) that I see. I'll debate anything with you, but I suspect you'll back out before anything meaningful is said.

Cheers, Daddy-O

Nicholai, In my first ever response to you it appears I gave you undeserved credit as being someone credible in profound thinking and presented you a compliment, That was an error, you have since proved to me.

I guess, truth will eventually out.

As for backing out of an argument, I will leave that to you as in another thread where you had challenged me with what you believed 'smart talk' to poke fun at my post, I pointed out your very glaring inconsistency, you so far have failed to address yet you contributed further to that thread.

Yes, I do make comment to posts preaching negativity based on illogical reasoning - not all, as there are, I fear, too many. There are more negative thinkers, than positive thinkers around as the media which feeds off people's inability to reason, and develop a positive attitude testify by their daily (hourly?) offerings.

I also make comment to those who present themselves as knowing better, but who jump in with both feet to defend those who don't, and in the process
leave themselves wide open with their equally flawed logic, thereby compounding the affront to sound argument.

You open your response with telling me that you have no desire to convince me and argue with me. There appears to be an element of untruth along with stating the obvious in that comment, with the very weak, inconsistent argument you presented. The desire was obviously there, the ability to carry it to fruition obviously is not.

I had thought you younger from your avatar, however, your use of an outdated (from the 60's/70's?) American vernacular in your signing off could well indicate otherwise.

You are free to challenge my posts as you wish. So far they have really, to the unbiased, open minded, and positive, added weight to the point I have been making

No hard feelings, nothing deep, salutations

NikolaiI

11-05-2007, 11:40 AM

I was just making a comment!

Unlike you, I don't feel it my job to try to take people down a peg, hardly ever. Dunno why you seem the need to do that with me. Just leave me alone, for goodness' sake. I'll do the same for you, nor say that you lack thinking ability or God knows what else goes through your mind.

oracle13

11-05-2007, 06:37 PM

I believe you need to understand the meaning of moaning, and the general theme of this thread which is a moan for the past, and against change.

I believe you need to think more closely about your definition of 'moaning' which, continually shifts throughout this message:

This is employing forward thinking constructive criticism or dissatisfaction with
the present, not moaning for the past.

The visionaries, the inventors that brought about all that made the industrial revolution possible, were not moaners for the past.

Visionaries, and inventors are few in number, moaners of the present, and bemoaners for the past, are plentiful.

You say that I need to be aware of the theme of this thread...I'm afraid that YOU were the only one who brought up this 'moaning for the past' doctrine (despite you're argument about it being implied by blaze's mention of 'uncertainties.') Nowhere do I state that this is something that should be practised (have a read).

What I am disputing is your ridiculous linking of 'moaning for the past' and 'moaning about the present' - which is, of course, 'dissatisfaction with the present.' (your words). The visionaries that you're talking about - you're right, most of them probably weren't too keen on moaning about the past - but they were CERTAINLY looking around them at the present, thinking about what could be improved. They were dissatisfied - they were moaning...

I'm also not sure how you can possibly quantify your earlier claim that the leaders of the world are 'ruled by powerful forces.' Its silly to try and magnify these forces into something unhuman. They're not.

To sum up, here's what I'm arguing about, NOTHING ELSE: your claim that moaning about the present is useless and doesn't bring about change. No-one, except you, mentioned anything about moaning for the past being beneficial.

crazefest456

11-05-2007, 08:32 PM

um.... I'm sorry you guys...uh, I'm the one who introduced the whole capitalistic society thing (because I live in the US) and I guess I sound pretty pessimistic when I'm really very happy and I really do have hope that there is good in this world (a very little amount, but still good)..
I hope I haven't caused any misunderstanding between everyone, and in the end, isn't this discourse a means to some spiritual betterment? So that we can use these different ideas to reevaluate ourselves and our surroundings, or even bring in better ideas (and pass them around in real life) so that our societal attitudes become better. I know I have no credentials to be even commenting about these sort of topics, but I'm pretty much here to learn from you all...so criticism is welcomed by me. Please don't think my thoughts and beliefs are written in stone. I don't want my superficial comments to be the cause of unnecessary fuss between great minds of lit net. :)
Lets shake hands and get along people!

Midas

11-06-2007, 04:01 AM

To sum up, here's what I'm arguing about, NOTHING ELSE: your claim that moaning about the present is useless and doesn't bring about change. No-one, except you, mentioned anything about moaning for the past being beneficial.

Let's deal with this first, it being your summary.

To moan has more than one meaning, however, it was fairly evident, or should have been from the general context, that I was referring to moan as being to 'lament.'

Bemoan has the same meaning more or less, where moan is being used with its lament (as opposed to say -'cry') meaning and to some extent is interchangeable, however one would tend to use it more in a situation connected with the past.

I therefore, here used moan, and bemoan to distinguish one who 'laments' all what is wrong with the present, and draws comparison with the past inferring that it somehow, in their eyes was better than the present.

I also explained, fully, and clearly, to those who read objectively and not to find something on which to 'nit-pick' that people who innovate, and invent something to improve life act constructively to do so, and do not moan about their dissatisfaction with the present condition. They do not want to take us back to the past because they are dissatisfied with what they see wrong with the present. They look forward, not backward.

There is a saying that the real difference between age is that the young look forward, and the old look backwards. In other words, it's a mental state, not a physical one. Well, it makes a point.

Ones who are dissatisfied with something tend to fall into three classes - ones who do something to bring about change (they act, or invent something better); they accept and adapt; or they moan (complain).

In the latter it invariably brings about a lamenting for the past which is often based on an illusion of how things were. It is common among older, and negative, people who find it harder to adjust, and accept change.

Now I went to great lengths in at least one of my posts to give you an example (the quill pen) by way of explanation. But you chose to ignore this as it would not support your argument.

I also explained fully why I viewed this thread a variation on a theme posted as another thread by the same poster. I also had to consider the follow up post by another poster.

If you do not see it, that's OK by me. If you do not agree with me, that is also OK. I post merely to make people think - and that, before you jump on your high horse, does not correlate with - 'think like me'.

I also did address what this particular thread appeared to present as it's theme which other than, again another comparison with present and past was not too clear. There seemed to be a religious inference as in some belief in a final spiritual destination - something people had, but don't have now. But, as I say, it was a little grey.

It is there for all to see if they have open, unbiased, minds. If they don't no amount of explanation will suffice.

Midas

11-06-2007, 04:25 AM

CRAZEFEST1456 Stop worrying. No need to apologise. You did nothing wrong.

However, I have noticed a lot of negativity coming from that side of the pond
these days, In fact I have never read so many posts on various forums from Americans who want to 'escape' to some other country.

When you have a media oriented to bombarding you night and day with negative news it is hardly surprising. Even AmericanTV entertainment doesn't help.

We can't stop it, we can't go back to how things were before TV, and I would not want to. But no one forces us to have it on round the clock. We can pick and choose our programs. And you can do like I do, have a number of old DVD's of those 'Happy Days' if you like, of America. What I call the Norman Rockwell's America.

I have a library of favourites like 'The Honeymooners'; Abbot and Costello,
'Munsters' etc.,and of course old Brit Comedies. They are my antidote if I have suffered too much negative exposure. Taken, especially at night, before going to sleep seems to do the trick.

Excuse the digression. You see, there are things I like about the past, but I would never want to go back to it. Nor believe it was better. Would I want to be without my computer?
No way!

oracle13

11-06-2007, 11:01 PM

After re-reading the first post of the thread, I admit that there is a connection with this whole 'don't look back into the past thing.' You definitely didn't just randomly bring it up, my apologies.

But, you didn't really address what I was saying at all. All you did was weasel your way around the problem (you telling people that moaning about the present is stupid and useless) by pointing out the ambiguity with the word 'moan.' If there was an ambiguity, the fault lies with you; you didn't define what you meant. I'm not sure why exactly you think that making associations with various words and ideas (moan...lament...the past) allows you to call their association 'fairly evident.'

My problem, as stated above, is you telling people that moaning about the present is stupid and useless. Now, as you explained in your follow up post, that's not really what you meant to say. But that's what it sounds like, and that is important. You need to clarify your expression or risk having people point out inconsistancies. And you need to be able to accept these inconsistancies and redress your statements. If you want to make a broad statement such as you're making, its YOUR responsibility to define your terms.

What I don't want to see in response to this post is another broad, generalised statement about 'visionaries.' Please stick to the issue that I'm raising. You might see it as nit-picking, but I'm going to ignore your previous remark and any further remarks you might have about nit-picking, for reasons that should be obvious.

I ignored everything you said about the quill, because it was an example supporting your argument against moaning for the past - an argument I didn't address (see summary of last post). If you want to create a conflict that doesn't exist, be my guest.

I think there's a lot of merit in some of the things you've said. We don't have any ideological differences (from what I've read so far), you just seem to be incapable of taking criticism.

And please, let's not resort to name-calling. (high-horse thing...what was the point in that??)

crazefest456

11-06-2007, 11:30 PM

When you have a media oriented to bombarding you night and day with negative news it is hardly surprising. Even AmericanTV entertainment doesn't help.

It's more of the false paranoia created by the media that makes me so pessimistic...I feel that the American attitude is at a standstill right now, because we're so afraid of EVERYTHING. No one is motivated to take up a cause right now, sincerely (I don't mean putting a bumper sticker on your car), and we are all bickering about the most insignificant things (like which candidate's doing what's right or wrong...imagine a debate on a potential president's hairstyle!). Our scientific endeavors have declined, really quickly. And I admit, people (like me) are just complaining, because we are to frustrated to even look for a solution.
But the US should be applauded for its tendency to not be too unjust, compared to some developing countries (I immigrated here, I should know).
I love how the system of law enforcement works, and how the (ideal form) of checks and balances (between the exec, legislative, and judicial branches) has the potential to work (again), under a more responsible, moral-minded administration. If just the latter ideal is fulfilled, i know Americans will start to get positive about the future.
But for now, I expect a revolution, really soon, if not now, in the next generation...
P.S. Don't worry I have an antidote, I still watch cartoons :D

Midas

11-07-2007, 07:47 AM

ORACLE13 I really do not know what you are on about. My posts are perfectly clear. I do not 'weasel around; anything. I addressed your 'summary' as that was what you stated was your main point.

Nowhere have I said, or inferred 'that is not what I meant'. Every word, every sentence, I meant. If you have seen something that supports what you say, then please post it in quotes. Otherwise please retract your assertion.

I understand both dictionary word meanings and also equally as important -word connotations. I was most fortunate in having a reasonably good education in England right from my 'elementary' school where we had an excellent English teacher. Yes, I do say this with some pride (and no cracks about it going before a fall, I am way ahead).

My problem, as stated above, is you telling people that moaning about the present is stupid and useless.

Nowhere have I used the word 'stupid'. The points I made where you have assumed equate with your word - 'stupid' is where I point out that 'moaning as in complaining, or merely decrying how things are now by drawing comparison with an illusion version of the past, that recorded history does not support, is non productive as in positive or constructive.

This view point is held by many who are wll educated, and would be classed as 'sane', and should really know better. However, even they do not always apply logic and reason to all conditions. Nurture, as well as nature, can play some awful tricks.

I gave you a further enlargement on my point where I wrote ' Ones who are dissatisfied with something tend to fall into three classes - ones who do something to bring about change (they act, or invent something better); they accept and adapt; or they moan (complain).

In the latter it invariably brings about a lamenting for the past which is often based on an illusion of how things were. It is common among older, and negative, people who find it harder to adjust, and accept change.'

Now if you enjoy seeing the past as better than the present, and you would like to go back to it, and believe that lamenting for it will bring this about, or even achieve anything positive, except provide you with something to moan about, then who am I to deflect you from your purpose and what makes you happy.

I merely presented an alternative view fo the few open minded free thinkers
out there who may care to balance the point of view expressed, or implied, by the thread. They can then make up their own minds on how they may wish
to set their course - looking back with sighs, or enjoying the present and all it brings - good, bad, and the ugly. Because, the present is all we have.

I knew before my fingers touched my keyboard that more people will see it your way than mine, even though they may stay on the sidelines in this verbal exchange. Why? Because, as I also said, there are more dissatisfied and negative people in this world than positive. The media knows that, they cater for it and are far quicker to tell you what is wrong, than what is right.

Please do not quote words as being mine that are not. Or state that I said things I did not.

Once again, I did not retract anything, use the word 'stupid', 'weasel' around anything, or say - 'that is not what I meant.' On the contrary, I meant everything I said, and as Nicholai, in support of 'Alice' will tell you that also means I say everything I mean (though the mad Hatter would disagree on the correlation)

Maybe, if as a few believe, there comes a nuclear holocaust, this may send us all back to the stone age. And there are those who go through the life worrying about this possibility. While, the seconds, minutes, hours, years of their life ticks by.

To the positive I say:- Carpe diem! and Enjoy!

And, on that, poster friend, I leave you to dwell in, or at best, lament for, the 'Wonderland' of the past.

Granny5

11-07-2007, 08:24 AM

We are indeed in a state of uncertainties and we do not know where we are heading.

Today I can not be a beleiver the way my ancestors were. They as a matter of fact were believers and I am not. They lived righteously indeed. They wanted to reserve space in heaven and they were indeed more otherworldly.

I am more oriented to this world.

I often wonder what will be the state of posterity?

Blaze, I think this is a generational thing. All generations feel different from their ancestors. It was that way in the late 60's and early 70's and I believe that it was that way with my Mother's generation. We all search for the meaning of our lives and wonder about what will come and what we will leave behind. A lot of us spend our lives searching for meaning and trying to figure out religious meaning. We grow and we survive. And it start again with our children.

oracle13

11-07-2007, 09:31 AM

Nowhere have I said, or inferred 'that is not what I meant'. Every word, every sentence, I meant. If you have seen something that supports what you say, then please post it in quotes. Otherwise please retract your assertion.

Alright, if you need me to point it out for you:

To moan has more than one meaning, however, it was fairly evident, or should have been from the general context, that I was referring to moan as being to 'lament.'

Your attempts to show that it was 'fairly evident' that moan meant lament are totally fallacious. You said, in your original post, 'moaning about the present, bemoaning the past, gets us nowhere.' Its actually pretty difficult to 'lament' about the present, because its not something you can look back on. So yes, you definitely mean what you say. But I'm afraid you don't say what you mean. What you said is confused and can be interpreted in several ways. Its not my fault if you can't clarify what you really mean to say, which is that 'lamenting for the past gets us nowhere.' I'm afraid its just not 'fairly evident.' If I point out a glaring inconsistancy, you can't just point to 'context' as a way of explaining what you really trying to say. You have to SAY IT RIGHT!

Moving on, you're right, you never said the word stupid.

This is what you said:

moaning about the present, bemoaning for the past, gets us nowhere.

I'm referring ONLY, I repeate ONLY, to the 'moaning about the present' bit. I don't know why you keep saying things like this to me:

Now if you enjoy seeing the past as better than the present, and you would like to go back to it, and believe that lamenting for it will bring this about, or even achieve anything positive, except provide you with something to moan about, then who am I to deflect you from your purpose and what makes you happy.

That's not what I think at all, and if you read every post I've written, I make no kind of comment on your assertion that lamenting for the past 'gets us nowhere.' In fact, I think you're right!

Here is where you're going wrong:

Ones who are dissatisfied with something tend to fall into three classes - ones who do something to bring about change (they act, or invent something better); they accept and adapt; or they moan (complain).

In the latter it invariably brings about a lamenting for the past which is often based on an illusion of how things were. It is common among older, and negative, people who find it harder to adjust, and accept change.

No, I'm afraid moaning about the present DOESN'T mean that you 'invariably' start bemoaning, or lamenting for, the past, no matter how you think they relate. That's not what it literally means. And that's all I'm saying. I am perfectly happy moaning about the present - I think the Israel vs. Palestine conflict is absolutely ridiculous, for example. That doesn't mean I want to go back to the days of the Persian Empire so they can be united again!!

If you really mean to say that 'moaning about the present gets us nowhere,' you will find people all around pointing out the error. There's really no two ways about it.

Midas

11-07-2007, 10:53 AM

Oracle13 Why I am bothering to respond to you after all the explanations I have given as they should not be needed to anyone having a reasonable knowledge of the language with which one communicates.

In fact, I am only doing so, not for your benefit as you obviously permit your desire to defend your stance to overlook what should be common sense in applying that which should be taken for granted.

I am doing it only because of others who may read here who are trying to come to grasps with this wonderful language that permits such a wide range of colour to be applied to the writers canvas.

The English language has far more words than any other - far more. This permits the writer to infuse shades of meaning which permit the reader to see the picture more vividly - as the writer (artist) intends.

I have always contended that writing is painting a picture with words.

However, it does require that the writer, or communicator, is aware of one or two points which often trip up the non-native who comes to the language from the outside, or the native one who has not been blessed with the right
teachers in his/her formative years.

To most, this comes natural, but, as you illustrate in your responses to my posts, obviously not to all.

Look in your dictionary. and thesaurus, you find many words that have a variety of meanings. Some are interchangeable, some closely related and some, though spelled the same, have completely different meanings - like 'well'

(I used an online translater once to an Italian friend. I asked if her mother was well. It was translated as - 'I hope your mother is a hole in the ground filled with water')

It should be common sense, and to most people it is that you apply the meaning that fits the context. If a writer had to explain every time he/she used a word which meaning was meant when it should have been obvious (unless someone wanted to nit-pick and be argumentative for the sake of it), reading could become very boring, and to many- insulting.

Connotation in word use has to be understood also, so that even if the dictionary may say it is correct, what it may connote may not. For example, would Wordsworth still have written - 'A poet could not but be gay in such a jocund company.' if he had written 'The Daffodils' today?

Nor would he have done so and then added,- oh by the way I don't mean........I mean.....

He did not mean that admiring daffodils meant it would have you heading for a certain part of San Francisco or pracitising your 'hello sailor'.

Your example you quote from my post to support you believing I was retracting holds not a drop of water. You may see something as obvious, just as you might have said to Wordsworth - ' It was obvious what you meant
(because some think poets are a bit like that)'.

The point I have been making so far is - I should not have to explain the word. The whole context gave you all you needed to know.

Drawing a comparison of the present with the past where it's presented as a lament for the past as somehow having a better quality of life is what this thread was about. It was in a slightly more masked way than in another more obvious one by the same poster - hence my saying it was a variation on a theme.

What you believe is up to you; however, it was you who jumped on me (not the other way round) to defend the theme, and argue against my view put forward that leads me to assume that you support it. Also most of your comments also lead to this assumption. I feel my assumption a reasonable one.

Just one last point. From the same poem by Wordsworth (saves you looking up any others to check) he writes - 'A host of golden daffodils'. Would you hold him to explain the word 'host' and that he didn't mean the 'hotel manager'
army, band, sociable person.......... Well, if you wanted to argue with him, I suppose you would. But I doubt he would have had the patience with you as I. Unless, he was thinking about the many who come here to improve their knowledge of this great language.

Oh. I am still learning, and will, until the day I leave this life.

In some ways, I appreciate your feedback because it lets me know how some people think and reminds me not to take reaction, and understanding by a reader, for granted.

oracle13

11-07-2007, 11:07 AM

Well, you provided absolutely nothing of substance in that response.

Comparing yourself to Wordsworth is absolutely pointless. In a debate, you don't use language to paint a picture. You use language to make a point. I'm sorry that you've got so worked up about this, but the fact of the matter is, you said something that was totally ridiculous.

'moaning about the present...gets us nowhere.'

Are you or are you not in agreement with this statement?

Very simple question, no need for pointless allusions and ridiculous ad hominem attacks.

Midas

11-07-2007, 11:54 AM

'moaning about the present...gets us nowhere.'

Are you or are you not in agreement with this statement?

Oracle13

No this reply is not for you, as, to me, you are beyond help (I appreciate that may be a personal view)

I answer it for others.

First, the question is badly phrased to invite the simplest of answers ie yes or no

Thinking anything will tend to get you somewhere. There are people who can get you saying, and thinking, you are going to die. And die you will.

"For as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." (Solomon)

So your thoughts and beliefs will get you somewhere.

However unless your dissatisfaction that would prompt in some, just to moan and complain is viewed in a 'constructive' (positive) way, or, if there is NOTHING constructive you can do about it you accept and adapt to the change then it will not only get you nowhere of benefit, but it will affect others also in a negative way.

Necessity is the mother of invention, not moaning and complaining.

Then your question can refer to things which are outside the meaning of this thread. So there needs to be qualification.

For example. If your broadband sevice gives you a problem you inform the provider. And you complain, or set out your grievance to a higher authority if there is one. And you take all the action you can until it is put right.

But that is constructive.

However, if you sat back and did nothing except moan and post on the internet how much life was better before we had computers and all we had to do was go into the fields and grow corn, or tend the cattle, then that will get you 'nowhere' as in positive results. No, you did not trap me into a yes or no answer. I am oh too familiar with the 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' answer me - yes or no.

I say again, I take time to answer purely for others as an Oracle is supposed to impart wisdom, so I want them not to be misled - or at least have a balanced view upon which they can decide.

Midas

11-07-2007, 11:56 AM

Sorry it posted twice and I am trying to delete it

The main text of the duplication has now gone

NikolaiI

11-07-2007, 01:17 PM

(Post deleted to spare undue stress to moderators.) Midas, forget what you think you know or have intuited about people like Oracle and me. Don't start posts where you've classified your opposition into "Negative Thinkers" and yourself in "Open-Minded and Positive Thinker." Just some advice. In other words, leave people alone.

Midas

11-07-2007, 01:42 PM

Nicholai You are entitled to your view, and as far as I am concerned to express it.

You must remember I was called a 'weasel' yet you did not seem to pick that up. I assume metaphorically a weasel is someone who weasels.

No, I do not think this thread should be terminated, or you or anyone banned. That would be over, and a totally unnecessary, besides plain unjust, reaction. I would offer to stop posting before I would agree to that happening.

Thank you for any kind words you managed to drop in here and there.

I wish you well.

If my posts bother you there is a simple antidote - don't read them.

NikolaiI

11-07-2007, 01:43 PM

Midas, I wasn't asking you not to ban me. As far as I know, you're not a moderator.

In this post you're not actually insulting my intelligence, so it doesn't give me as much of a headache, but I'm suspecting you're still viewing yourself upon some pedestal and talking down to me somewhat (in your mind).

Again, the bottom line is: on both these threads you've been consistently starting threads out with derogatory comments about your opposition; you've mistaken them for intelligent, is the most glaring one; disjointed and god-knows-what else you're not putting in because you know it'd be too ad hominem. These posts which went from just talking about things to slandering people who (sometimes) were actually not in disagreement with you.

When you say these things about people, and make your tone condescending and rude; it begins a spiral of unlogic and vulgarity which is not easy to step out of with dignity. When, at the same time you're doing this, you're praising yourself for all your good qualities, including intelligence and open-mindedness, it makes me :sick: why would you compare yourself and your mental states to anyone else's?

Midas

11-07-2007, 01:49 PM

I did not see anything offensive in your post.

But you must remember something too Nocholai and Oracle, look back on your posts and you will see that in both your cases you jumped on to me first
and put me in a position to respond. In no case did I first challenge any of your posts - either of you.

Regards Midas

Midas

11-07-2007, 01:53 PM

I wasn't asking you not to ban me.

Nicholai You see things which are not there.

oracle13

11-07-2007, 02:25 PM

see below for post, weird double post occured.

Granny5

11-07-2007, 02:33 PM

I am certain the Beatles give every person a reason to live. :)

Nikolai, this is the most reasonable post on this thread so far. I also believe it to be true.

NikolaiI

11-07-2007, 02:37 PM

No, I do not think this thread should be terminated, or you or anyone banned

then....................don't ban me? ok, thx.

Granny5

11-07-2007, 02:40 PM

It's more of the false paranoia created by the media that makes me so pessimistic...I feel that the American attitude is at a standstill right now, because we're so afraid of EVERYTHING. No one is motivated to take up a cause right now, sincerely (I don't mean putting a bumper sticker on your car), and we are all bickering about the most insignificant things (like which candidate's doing what's right or wrong...imagine a debate on a potential president's hairstyle!). Our scientific endeavors have declined, really quickly. And I admit, people (like me) are just complaining, because we are to frustrated to even look for a solution.
But the US should be applauded for its tendency to not be too unjust, compared to some developing countries (I immigrated here, I should know).
I love how the system of law enforcement works, and how the (ideal form) of checks and balances (between the exec, legislative, and judicial branches) has the potential to work (again), under a more responsible, moral-minded administration. If just the latter ideal is fulfilled, i know Americans will start to get positive about the future.
But for now, I expect a revolution, really soon, if not now, in the next generation...
P.S. Don't worry I have an antidote, I still watch cartoons :D

"You say you want a revolution" In the late 60's and early 70's, the country (US) was changed by the youth of the country coming together and making a stand against the Vietnam War. I have wondered where the protesters are now, but realized that they are out there but the media chooses not to show them. I guess it's not politically correct now days, that is unless we make it so. Every generation must decide what they are going to stand up for and how they are going to do it.

oracle13

11-07-2007, 02:53 PM

You say that my question was badly phrased.

Here's HOW I phrased the question. I took something that YOU said:

'moaning about the present...gets us nowhere'

Then, I asked you if you still agree with your own statement.

In NO WAY is that question anything like your 'do you still beat your wife' trap.

So much of what you've written, all throughout this thread, has been irrelevant.

I did like this part of your response, though: 'For example. If your broadband sevice gives you a problem you inform the provider. And you complain, or set out your grievance to a higher authority if there is one. And you take all the action you can until it is put right.'

You then quantify this with 'but that is constructive.' But here's the point - why does moaning necessarily have to lead to something 'negative' (I'm using this word in the sense that you would use it). Moaning about things - telling other people the problems you face - is one of the best ways to look more closely at them and figure out a way to redress them!

As you've also shown, it can be used in a negative, destructive way. But that doesn't mean it always has to be! and that, I'm afraid, is what you've said in:

'moaning about the present...gets us nowhere.'

Your statement. Would you make it again, or not?

Midas

11-07-2007, 03:32 PM

Ah! now I have had my evening meal, I feel better.

ORACLE I have spent enough time on this with you. Stop taking some snippet out of context to try and cover up your weak argument.

Taking something out of the context is one of the oldest tricks in the book.
and I don't play along.

I made it clear what it meant in the first instance. I subsequently, for yours and others benefit wasted my time explaining again along with other snippets
you took out of context.

Because I used Wordsworth whose works most who come here are familiar with you accuse me of 'comparing' myself with him. I also quoted Solomon, was I comparing myself to him?

You accused me of being a weasel - as in one who weasels (metaphorically, that is.)

Do I take offence - no. If you have to resort to this in desperation you only let yourself down.

Now we have both gone on here long enough, well. at least, I have.

Our posts putting forth our arguments so far will stand, or fall on their merit.

People will see in them what they wish.

Midas

11-07-2007, 03:48 PM

Nicholai Are you paranoid, or just argumentative for the sake of it. Or may be you like to get in the last word.

Get in the last word by all means but not by twisting my words.

Originally Posted by Midas
No, I do not think this thread should be terminated, or you or anyone banned

then....................don't ban me? ok, thx.

Now, it was you who brought up the subject of banning. I made that comment because of the fear you expressed, to let the moderators who ever they are know that I would not wish that, I could see no reason for it, don't even know why you mentioned it in the first place, and I am sure the moderator, who ever it is, doesn't either.

I also added that I would quit myself posting if that would ease your mind and save you from that fear you injected.

No one pays me to post. I lose nothing if I don't post. When I post in many cases I am reinforcing my own beliefs to myself, and it is an exercise. Some like them, some don't.

C'est la Vie

oracle13

11-07-2007, 05:05 PM

NikolaiI

11-07-2007, 05:52 PM

Post deleted...

Midas

11-07-2007, 07:09 PM

ORACLE: Thank you, most sincerely, for reposting my post, It is nice to get double exposure, and it says all I am going to say on the matter, and that is more than I feel your comments are worth.

However, my posts are to reach the silent majority,who never, or rarely, post, to be evalued as they may so wish. They will make up their own minds and whatever that is, is fine by me.

Again thank you.

oracle13

11-07-2007, 07:20 PM

'However, my posts are to reach the silent majority...'

No, I'm afraid there is no silent majority. No-one cares about this thread - this entire argument was fully pointless. I don't think you grasped what I was saying this whole time. All I did was point out a glaring inconsitancy, and you had the stupidity to try to argue that I had made some kind of mistake. There is no big issue here, no conclusion that will have any effect on anyones life.

This is just you and me, having an argument. Two inflated egos duking it out over something completely trivial.

Midas

11-07-2007, 07:46 PM

Everything we do, and say affects many lives. Just to stop someone in the street and ask the time changes their life completely and irrevocably - FOREVER.

And as they engage in some way with the people they meet, or are close to them so their life is changed, and this reverberates around the world.

No, not just the same day, it goes on endlessly. Your life was changed, and continues to be changed by people you have never heard of, and will never meet some of whom are now no longer in this life.

In responding to my posts, I have changed your life, and all the people to whom you will set off chain reaction. You may not like that, but there is nothing you or I can do about it.

C'est la Vie.

oracle13

11-07-2007, 07:57 PM

I wouldn't say that any kind of social interaction CHANGES your life. I think that's too strong a word. A small act, like asking someone for the time, has an effect on their actions of that day. But who's to judge what's changed, specifically. Without knowledge of what would have happened without the action taking place, you can't call something a change if it isn't consciously rationalised, in my opinion. Its just emphasising things that shouldn't be emphasised.

Something like reading The Catcher in the Rye changed my life - not because it meant that by reading a book I wasn't cooking some chicken - but because it made me consciously question the my values and opinions on life, art, and growing up.

I think saying that everything changes your life irrevocably, even though it may be true in a sense, is just putting emphasis on things that don't need emphasising. No?

This argument, for example - yes it had an effect on my daily routine, and these effects all add up to have a bigger effect on your subsequent actions. But will it have forced me to consciously re-evaluate one of my beliefs?

Midas

11-07-2007, 08:37 PM

You have done what most people do, seeing only the outstanding emotional happenings as changing your life - like the message in a book you read.

You overlook the subtle causes that produced the effect, that produced the affect - that caused you to be in a certain place at a certain time, that triggered off a thought, that triggered off an action, or reaction the chain of cause and effect is endless.

How did you come to read the book that influenced John Lennon's killer, and that figured in a conspiracy movie with Mel Gibson? Think of all the cause and effects that occurred in other peoples lives that brought you to that book/

Think of all the people you influenced by telling them about it Think about the time you took out of their lives while you held their attention to tell them about it. They could have been somewhere else at that time. They altered their lives to go to the bookshop to buy that book, and changed the book sellers life.....and......

You have heard that expression when someone lost their life for no apparent reason - no motive. It was just their misfortune to be ' in the wrong place at the wrong time'. 'A couple of seconds earlier, or later..............'

You see, it is not just the contents of a book that can change a life. That only supplies the emotional focus that causes you to say the book changed my life.

I could quote you many examples, but it is unnecessary. The people with free unfettered minds will see all they need to see to understand. Those who lack
the imagination will not no matter how much one expands, and explains.

In spite of my opening sentence, I believe you have the ability to see it, and you do. But, admit it? - No, certainly not to me.

As Catherine Tate would say - 'Am I bovered...watch my face, I ain't bovered

oracle13

11-07-2007, 08:53 PM

No, I don't like the way you put it. What you're describing sounds way too much like fate. Everything I do, and everything that anyone does to me, has an effect on my life. But I think people throw the phrase 'it will change your life' around too much. I want to try and differentiate between an effect on your life and a change.

Obviously there were a huge number of events that led to my reading of the book, but looking at life from a causal perspective only leads to one question - what was the first cause. This unanswerable question is such a huge problem that I prefer to emphasise the conscious changes that I undergo, rather than the subtle shifts caused by other people, shifts that I have no control over.

I think the fact that you place these subtle, inexplicable changes that underlay society higher in importance than the conscious changes that really effect your own perspective, goes a long way to explaining your attitude to change, and the future, as inalterable. Hence your idea that the best humans adapt rather than complain. I choose to place emphasis on the things I can control - my thoughts, the way I behave, the choices I make. Life has more meaning, for me, this way.

symphony

11-07-2007, 09:22 PM

I'll just ignore the heated arguements going on above since i dont have the time or energy to read them all up and comment, and i'll like to address the original post only.
We are indeed in a state of uncertainties and we do not know where we are heading.

Today I can not be a beleiver the way my ancestors were. They as a matter of fact were believers and I am not. They lived righteously indeed. They wanted to reserve space in heaven and they were indeed more otherworldly.

I am more oriented to this world.

I often wonder what will be the state of posterity? I think we can also see it the other way round- as time going on, the new generations are giving birth to new faith as they go. I dont really think there can be a world without beliefs, faith is like a phoenix, born anew every other moment from ashes of the predecessor. The new generation may not think the way our ancestors did, but they can discover new kinds of beliefs all the while. New beliefs, or just modified ones, are arising everyday. Perhaps the no. of religious or pious people is decreasing rapidly but the "impious" ones do claim to have their own way of thinking. Everyone has a cause, an explanation, an individuality- approved or not.