Thread: What distinguishes Civilization and Wilderness?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Wow way to be nitpicky!! Can you tell when somebody is joking?

Not normally but I can tell when people are being stupid. Or have you changed your mind? Or are you just trolling me?

They really should have higher standards for moderators if you guys are gonna be allowed to ban people for trolling. How could you catch a troll if you can't even spot basic inconsistancies and stupid assumptions?

And for the fifth time, as OP has already agreed with, a dictionary definition is not an answer.

I would expect a moderator to at least have basic reading comprehension.

Wow - ok, well obviously it's time for somebody to be the adult here and stop arguing. Guess it's gotta be me. This isn't really worth getting all bent out of shape over.

Don't worry about it, he gets that way with everyone.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Wow - ok, well obviously it's time for somebody to be the adult here and stop arguing. Guess it's gotta be me. This isn't really worth getting all bent out of shape over.

As near as I can tell, you haven't been arguing to begin with. You've only been ineptly interpreting information and claiming that that makes you right.

Do adults typically ignore information which proves them wrong?

Almost everybody does.

*whistles innocently*

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

As near as I can tell, you haven't been arguing to begin with. You've only been ineptly interpreting information and claiming that that makes you right.

Do adults typically ignore information which proves them wrong?

As near as I can tell, you're so hung up on right and wrong you've lost sight of the discussion.

I think this kind of proves my point that we haven't really seen civilization yet. We get asked our opinion, we give it, we start discussing it friendly, and then we start fighting. Fighting over a difference in the opinion given on a thread where the OP asked something kindly out of curiosity. Really?
Now, I'm not pointing my finger at who started it, and I have no intention to. If you guys want to disagree with me it is fine. But don't try to pick a fight with me over 'zomg lol he called us uncivilized'. I'm not calling u guys personally uncivilized, so don't pick a fight. Only pick a fight over this if you want to prove me completely right with a practical example.

This being said, I'd like to add that people here on DV tend to be a lot less agressive and a lot more thinking than the average human being. So congratz to you guys for being part of a community that is on average much more civilized than the rest of the world!

^ This idea of civilization is an impossible ideal - complete nirvana in which there's no strife, no conflict and no aggression.This is obviously impossible for any type of society. I can understand using it as one end of a sliding scale with complete savagery at the other end, but no animal grouping can ever actually achieve absolute peace and contentment.

That's an idea that's useful for individuals to strive for, and many can achieve it from time to time, but never as a permanent condition.

Interaction with other beings will always be complex and can never be free of conflict, unless we evolve to some perfect level of consciousness.

Stupid hairy monkeys could never achieve it.

I see no reason why a group of organisms that had liberated itself from certain genetic impulses couldn't achieve it easily enough. It would just have to be conciously engineered instead of being tossed together by essentially random evolution.

That's true. Of course the only thing that prevents us from achieving it is believing it is impossible for any meaningful period of time.
But some will just never realise that it is possible, so we will never achieve it.

I know that sounds contradictory, but it's really not, because one is based on nothing whatsoever, while the other is rational observation.

This however, is completely contradictory.

I think this kind of proves my point that we haven't really seen civilization yet. We get asked our opinion, we give it, we start discussing it friendly, and then we start fighting. Fighting over a difference in the opinion given on a thread where the OP asked something kindly out of curiosity. Really?

....I'm not calling u guys personally uncivilized, so don't pick a fight.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

^ This idea of civilization is an impossible ideal - complete nirvana in which there's no strife, no conflict and no aggression.This is obviously impossible for any type of society. I can understand using it as one end of a sliding scale with complete savagery at the other end, but no animal grouping can ever actually achieve absolute peace and contentment.

That's an idea that's useful for individuals to strive for, and many can achieve it from time to time, but never as a permanent condition.

Interaction with other beings will always be complex and can never be free of conflict, unless we evolve to some perfect level of consciousness.

I agree, but it is definitely worth trying to get close. That is, close to no agression etc. I don't think we should get to the point where there is no competition, competition makes us try to get better and evolve further and further, which is a good thing.

Originally Posted by tommo

That's true. Of course the only thing that prevents us from achieving it is believing it is impossible for any meaningful period of time.
But some will just never realise that it is possible, so we will never achieve it.

I know that sounds contradictory, but it's really not, because one is based on nothing whatsoever, while the other is rational observation.

This however, is completely contradictory.

Seems you're right, allow me to explain what I meant. I was judging the behaviour and human race in general to be (rather) uncivilized, but I didn't mean to personally offend the people who did it. While typing it, I realized that it could easily be understood as a personal offence, and therefore added the last part. So I was saying that the picking of a fight over that was proving my point, and uncivilized, etc., but I did not mean that the persons in question were uncivilized. I hope this makes sense I think the fight was caused by a case of misunderstanding of each others reaction, thus having it escalate into a fight.

I have a new thought to add to this debate

The Ancient Egyptians used the snake to symbolize duality because the slithering motion of the snake represent the first duality in existence, the wave, which has peaks and troughs.

I find it interesting how in human civilization we feel it necessary to cover everything in rectangles and straight lines. But in nature, everything is wiggly, imperfect and random. The natural world has a sort of order to it, but it's the feminine sort of order. The power of nature does not work with direct force, rather it works like water. Pressure builds up in equal distribution until it finds the weakest point, and that weakest point becomes the road. Because of this, the rivers in nature are not as straight as the roads in civilization, but they take less energy because the find the easiest means to go forward. In this way, the shortest distance between two points may be a straight line, but the easiest journey is not. It's wiggly and crooked.

In sacred geometry, the feminine is considered as circles and the masculine is considered as lines. The platonic solids would be the masculine formation, and the circle formations such as the seed of life or fruit of life represent their feminine counterparts. The circle represents the whole, and it also represents equalized pressure distribution. Consider the way water disperses equally in all directions when you turn on the faucet. If you place an object upon the surface the dispersion is taking place, you disrupt the circle but the water flows around it, finding the easiest possible way to surmount the obstacle.

When you consider this concept of initial duality, it also represents good and evil, or in reality, self and other. See, there's some things that make sense, that we can understand and fit into our concept of reality. They are organized, categorized. Then, there's the 99.9% of senseless chaos that surrounds this organized structure. And to us, it appears quite wiggly. And we are competing with it, trying to retain structure and functionality which is constantly being eroded. We are an object surrounded by pressure creeping in through the weakest point. The paved road always gives way to weeds creeping in through the cracks. Though it may take time, every structure as a weak-point and the pressure will continue to build against it until it finds a way through.

To conclude here is a picture of the flower of life (feminine) with its masculine counterpart, the tree of life

Omnis I hate the terminology but that's a deep post. I'll have to sober up before I decide if it's in response to anything or not.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I have a new thought to add to this debate

The Ancient Egyptians used the snake to symbolize duality because the slithering motion of the snake represent the first duality in existence, the wave, which has peaks and troughs.

I find it interesting how in human civilization we feel it necessary to cover everything in rectangles and straight lines. But in nature, everything is wiggly, imperfect and random. The natural world has a sort of order to it, but it's the feminine sort of order. The power of nature does not work with direct force, rather it works like water. Pressure builds up in equal distribution until it finds the weakest point, and that weakest point becomes the road. Because of this, the rivers in nature are not as straight as the roads in civilization, but they take less energy because the find the easiest means to go forward. In this way, the shortest distance between two points may be a straight line, but the easiest journey is not. It's wiggly and crooked.

In sacred geometry, the feminine is considered as circles and the masculine is considered as lines. The platonic solids would be the masculine formation, and the circle formations such as the seed of life or fruit of life represent their feminine counterparts. The circle represents the whole, and it also represents equalized pressure distribution. Consider the way water disperses equally in all directions when you turn on the faucet. If you place an object upon the surface the dispersion is taking place, you disrupt the circle but the water flows around it, finding the easiest possible way to surmount the obstacle.

When you consider this concept of initial duality, it also represents good and evil, or in reality, self and other. See, there's some things that make sense, that we can understand and fit into our concept of reality. They are organized, categorized. Then, there's the 99.9% of senseless chaos that surrounds this organized structure. And to us, it appears quite wiggly. And we are competing with it, trying to retain structure and functionality which is constantly being eroded. We are an object surrounded by pressure creeping in through the weakest point. The paved road always gives way to weeds creeping in through the cracks. Though it may take time, every structure as a weak-point and the pressure will continue to build against it until it finds a way through.

To conclude here is a picture of the flower of life (feminine) with its masculine counterpart, the tree of life

Awe man this is beautiful! This is totally how I see the world. Society being this structure of attempted order. Within nature. Just waiting to be consumed by the chaos of nature!

It's interesting how well this can be applied to so many things.

For instance when meditating the masculine perception of meditation is that "I am going to do this" but meditation is about allowing, is it not? Certainly there is the masculine there, as one must focus a little bit so they can remain alert. But of Buddhism, it is taught that one should give up on desire, they should be detached. Correct? And yet, this creates a paradox that you desire to be without desire, and so you don't get anywhere. You just keep doing this and doing that and for some reason enlightenment escapes you. But what is the middle way? In reality? It is which ever road is easiest for you, which ever road will enable you to travel with the least amount of suffering. Hedonists run from pain and aestheticists chase pain as a means to dull themselves to it. And they both find themselves trapped by a desire and a fear.

If the feminine energy represents a collection of circles on sacred geometry, and masculine energy represents a collection of straight lines, then that means what feminine energy is, is to allow rather than act. Or react. Or any term you can come up with that has the mind attempting to direct exactly what it ought to be feeling. And any word I gave to describe its counterpart would be just that, an attempt to define what it is supposed to be so we then direct ourselves toward this concept of what we are supposed to feel when we're meditating. And the problem there is everything then feels wrong, because of course we've immediately lost the point of the meditation.

I think that's why I took to meditation so well. I'm sort of lazy.
Which means I don't push it too hard. If I just can't quiet down one day, I just stop straight away.

I figure I'll eventually start doing it almost every day, but I'm not going to stress myself out about routine to get to that point.

I think this should be applied to all aspects of life.

I often just look at people and ask why they're in such a rush.
If we all just calm down a bit, it might stifle progress by a few years, but it couldn't matter in the slightest when you think about it relative to the timescale we're on.
In fact, we'll probably have more time if we slow down a bit, coz at the rate we're going now, we're headed for complete destruction.

But OH NO!
If the GDP drops we're all doomed! DOOMED! Don't you see!????