Coverage

[TW89]

Firstly, nice topic elite, creatin a good discussion  :thumbsup:

I think we have "a somewhat general idea" or not even that at times. I mean some believe all what they read/see/hear in the media and take it all for fact.

new coverage could be created to flower things down for the average citizen to a point to where the story itself is almost completely different than the truth.

Sometimes I think this can be the case, because they don't always want to let millions of people know the truth so they change it, or dumb it down, or leave out specific details, manipulate, etc.

but science aside, speaking strictly about the accounts of events that occur around the world, we'll always be on the outside looking in on things that we really don't understand. how many things can you say you have a 100% understanding of

we can only know and see the surface, if that; i think getting into the thick of things requires direct involvement.

This is what I was trynna say in the ubl thread, you can't be sure, though i still believe jfk was killed by those in the gov. and they didn't want him to expose them, I can't be 100% sure, it could be what the said explanation for the murder was.

Also with the towers, first I thought no way could it have been Bush, but now im not sure really, I now wouldn't be suprised if it was him, but will never know.
But you can say to i believe to a certain extent, or imo etc.

[TheGodEmperor]

just to clarify, Bush doesn't have the vision to pull off any sort of 'plot' like this. Think Cheney/Rumsfeld

although I doubt that there was any cospiracy, all these theories seem too contrived and quite frankly I think them to be bullshit

but thats just me

[TW89]

Yeah, well whatever, you knew what I meant, I do know Bush was a puppet.

[^_^]

i dont consider my own life something that i "view." it's something that i navigate. i can't really be biased towards myself, but i could see how one could consider a self-biased way of life. i do truley understand my life (not neccissarily why or how [again, not the meiosis aspect..] i came to exist [but that's a spiritual thing. spiritual involvement in itself can change the course of any perspective])

but then you consider that same fact; how many things do you neccissarily view without your own personal bias?

my answer would be nothing

therefore anything we view, or anything we are involved in is imbued with an element of bias

so are you saying that your ultimate purpose is existance? Or is it to be sure in your knowledge that you exist?

You lose a lot of loaded words: what is understanding? If you truly understand your life, what does that mean about the larger sphere of existence? Is all exterior understanding reliant on your understanding of yourself? In creating your own understanding of yourself, you create yourself. When you create yourself, you create Man. It is a fundamental principle of existensialism. Who fashions your understanding, if you do not believe that you do?
Assuming you create yourself, this action of self-creation wiuld entail a separate being fundamental to all understanding that could comport itself with its place in the world in order to gain a comprehension of that place. How does that fundamental being, or Dasein, come to be? Are we reliant on some Prime Mover? If so, is It immanent or transcendent?

You see, your statement opens up all kinds of other issues. I could go on for ever

oh the questions and topics are infinite here, there is no question about that :thumbsup:


i don't think everyone's purpose for existence is the same. my purpose of existence, from a practical standpoint, is to take care of my family. in the broad scheme of things, my purpose of existence is to lead a "good life"; whether there is afterlife or not is irrelivant to the way I live (though i believe there is) because certain situations arise that can conflict with a spiritual right. so, essentially, i'm "doing the best i can do given my situation(s)"

in order to truley understand my (your) life is just a matter of acceptance. if you accept things that are unchangeable to you and make informed decisions about the things that you can change, then an understanding of existance is created (a general understanding). of course, the image i hold for myself is the image i created, but creation sprouts from acceptance first, then understanding. however it doesn't neccessarily have to be biased either.

you pose good questions, but answering them all (sharing our opinions on each one) would lead to a discussion wired all over the place.

[TheGodEmperor]

i dont consider my own life something that i "view." it's something that i navigate. i can't really be biased towards myself, but i could see how one could consider a self-biased way of life. i do truley understand my life (not neccissarily why or how [again, not the meiosis aspect..] i came to exist [but that's a spiritual thing. spiritual involvement in itself can change the course of any perspective])

but then you consider that same fact; how many things do you neccissarily view without your own personal bias?

my answer would be nothing

therefore anything we view, or anything we are involved in is imbued with an element of bias

so are you saying that your ultimate purpose is existance? Or is it to be sure in your knowledge that you exist?

You lose a lot of loaded words: what is understanding? If you truly understand your life, what does that mean about the larger sphere of existence? Is all exterior understanding reliant on your understanding of yourself? In creating your own understanding of yourself, you create yourself. When you create yourself, you create Man. It is a fundamental principle of existensialism. Who fashions your understanding, if you do not believe that you do?
Assuming you create yourself, this action of self-creation wiuld entail a separate being fundamental to all understanding that could comport itself with its place in the world in order to gain a comprehension of that place. How does that fundamental being, or Dasein, come to be? Are we reliant on some Prime Mover? If so, is It immanent or transcendent?

You see, your statement opens up all kinds of other issues. I could go on for ever

oh the questions and topics are infinite here, there is no question about that :thumbsup:


i don't think everyone's purpose for existence is the same. my purpose of existence, from a practical standpoint, is to take care of my family. in the broad scheme of things, my purpose of existence is to lead a "good life"; whether there is afterlife or not is irrelivant to the way I live (though i believe there is) because certain situations arise that can conflict with a spiritual right. so, essentially, i'm "doing the best i can do given my situation(s)"

in order to truley understand my (your) life is just a matter of acceptance. if you accept things that are unchangeable to you and make informed decisions about the things that you can change, then an understanding of existance is created (a general understanding). of course, the image i hold for myself is the image i created, but creation sprouts from acceptance first, then understanding. however it doesn't neccessarily have to be biased either.

you pose good questions, but answering them all (sharing our opinions on each one) would lead to a discussion wired all over the place.

Why does the tern 'the good life' soyund so familar? Anyways, if that is your aim for existence, then go for it, I guess...but is that how you would define yourself? Is that your meaning, is your very essence a drive for 'the good life?' I would say that such a meaning would imply that existence is a journey toward contentment of some sort. I would also call that a very static existence. Is there no highr knowledge that we can attain? Or are such truths somehow constrained to a being with infinite comprehension -- can we even scrape the surface of such an infinity? I would say that even if we couldn't, the search is what possesses all the importance. Furthermore, does such knowledge result in contentment or further anguish? You haven't yet adressed the holes in your proposition.

Can we really accept anything as unchangeable or immutable? If so, what gives us the power to render such labels? Can you, in your presumption, really declare that there is anything that we can possibly understand? And does understanding entail acceptance? I will argue against this by saying that we create a notion of a Prime Mover or a deity, an infinite, perfect force that encompasses the finite existence in which we reside WITHOUT FULL UNDERSTANDING OF ITS NATURE. We have no proof as to whether or not such a figure exists (as yet), but many believe that such a being does exist, and they therefore create some sort of manifestation of It in their minds. This is an act of creation -- the creation of something that they cannot hope to understand, being constrained by the limits of language and by their own imperfection.

[^_^]

Why does the tern 'the good life' soyund so familar? Anyways, if that is your aim for existence, then go for it, I guess...but is that how you would define yourself? Is that your meaning, is your very essence a drive for 'the good life?' I would say that such a meaning would imply that existence is a journey toward contentment of some sort. I would also call that a very static existence. Is there no highr knowledge that we can attain? Or are such truths somehow constrained to a being with infinite comprehension -- can we even scrape the surface of such an infinity? I would say that even if we couldn't, the search is what possesses all the importance. Furthermore, does such knowledge result in contentment or further anguish? You haven't yet adressed the holes in your proposition.

Can we really accept anything as unchangeable or immutable? If so, what gives us the power to render such labels? Can you, in your presumption, really declare that there is anything that we can possibly understand? And does understanding entail acceptance? I will argue against this by saying that we create a notion of a Prime Mover or a deity, an infinite, perfect force that encompasses the finite existence in which we reside WITHOUT FULL UNDERSTANDING OF ITS NATURE. We have no proof as to whether or not such a figure exists (as yet), but many believe that such a being does exist, and they therefore create some sort of manifestation of It in their minds. This is an act of creation -- the creation of something that they cannot hope to understand, being constrained by the limits of language and by their own imperfection.

no no, not "the good life," but "a good life"; the latter not being a general term refering to the white picket fence, etc. a good life but my definition and my standard a good. good to me is obviously not a material concept, but one of preserving relationships with those around me, namely, family.

what defines me is an obligation to family, the one's i cherish most and who I hold in the highest regard. to live for myself and myself alone would not be a purposeful existence. though living for oneself is a feasable notion in the broad scheme of things, i find it impossible due to the most practical and simple feelings (love, hate, fear). existence is in fact a drive to contentment, no matter which way you look at it. if you are searching for answers, you are searching for contentment. if you are trying to understand your own existence, you are waiting for contentment. most things we do, we do to be content. i wake up and go to class to be content with my future. you eat when you are hungry to satisfy your most basic needs and ultimately be content. if you look to deep into things you forget just how simple they can be. If there is in fact a higher knowledge to be obtained, would you not be content when you obtained it? if you claim the search contains all the importance, it must go hand in hand with the fact that it would also bring contentment. anguish? it is lack of knowledge that brings anguish, not the acquisition of more.

if you cannot accept something as unchangeable, then change it. give yourself tangible evidence; otherwise you'll be asking yourself the same questions over and over again. find an aspect of your life termed "unchangeable" and figure a way to make it work for or against you. is there nothing that we can understand? i've never said nothing, but i said many things. if we created the notion of a diety, if it has been an idea created by humans and engineered by humans, how can it possibly be that humans do not fully understand the concept? most people that choose to believe in a god often question it's nature, as you say, but if this is the case, then do they really believe? the concept of a being so great is that there is no concept. there is no explanation, there can only be a human using human logic to determine this explanation. thus, if you are to question the nature of this being, you are questioning your own beliefs at the same time. it is something that can be understood as well as you want to understand it. remember, if it indeed has been manifested in the mind of a human, then any human can adopt this belief and insist on full comprehension. is it that far fetched to believe in said diety or "prime mover?" about as far fetched as knowing that we come from bacteria some six billion years ago. sure there is no proof as to how such a being works as thier is proof in our ribosomal similarities with bacteria. has it really been created by us, or where we created by it? when you ask the faithful, they believe in none other than thier diety. in thier minds, there is a complete understanding of the situation, with or without any evidence at all. 

[cigar omar]

I only switch the news on to check the sport scores or if I wanna know what the weather is like tomorrow. Don't give a fuck about politics anymore. Notice every time you watch the news its 99% bad news, I don't need to be seeing that shit. Gotta general idea of whats going on. but as far as following politics and the news I haven't done that in about 3 years now.