Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > The Global Awakening

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-04-2011, 06:33 PM   #1
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default Quantifying Wisdom

The world of economics seems to be based on greed, which has lead to the unhappy state in which the world finds itself. How about individuals everywhere consciously agreeing to base their decisions on wisdom instead? How can we define wisdom? I put forth the idea that that which supports life tends to be wise. A very simple concept, but sometimes those are the most potent.

Some of the most powerful changes we can make are also the easiest. On an individual level things like growing more of one's own food and eating less processed food are an excellent way to start. Extrapolated to all facets of life everywhere on Earth the potential is unlimited. The problem becomes how to quantify wisdom or how to create an algorithm of best practices that is obviously true.
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 06:37 PM   #2
knightofthegrail
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,646
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by supertzar View Post
The world of economics seems to be based on greed, which has lead to the unhappy state in which the world finds itself. How about individuals everywhere consciously agreeing to base their decisions on wisdom instead? How can we define wisdom? I put forth the idea that that which supports life tends to be wise. A very simple concept, but sometimes those are the most potent.
What would the world be like if nothing died?
knightofthegrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 06:51 PM   #3
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by knightofthegrail View Post
What would the world be like if nothing died?
Is that what you get out of the statement "that which supports life tends to be wise" in the context of consciously creating a better world?
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 06:54 PM   #4
knightofthegrail
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,646
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by supertzar View Post
Is that what you get out of the statement "that which supports life tends to be wise" in the context of consciously creating a better world?
If wisdom is that which supports life, it would end up being wise to have nothing ever die, which would rapidly fill the world up....

There is wisdom in mortality as well as in life.

Last edited by knightofthegrail; 05-04-2011 at 06:55 PM.
knightofthegrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 06:56 PM   #5
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by knightofthegrail View Post
If wisdom is that which supports life, it would end up being wise to have nothing ever die, which would rapidly fill the world up....

There is wisdom in mortality as well as in life.
Pedantically speaking, yes. If you really think hard about what I am getting at you'll see that is not what I mean. We're not protesting death itself here.

Last edited by supertzar; 05-04-2011 at 06:58 PM.
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 06:59 PM   #6
knightofthegrail
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,646
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by supertzar View Post
Pedantically speaking, yes.
No, literally speaking.

If no creature ever died, in the history of the world, imagine what the world would be like now!

You cant really define wisdom straight off. It has to be defined in relation to a situation. So "wise" for humans involves acting in accord with our nature, for example.
knightofthegrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 07:13 PM   #7
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by knightofthegrail View Post
No, literally speaking.

If no creature ever died, in the history of the world, imagine what the world would be like now!

You cant really define wisdom straight off. It has to be defined in relation to a situation. So "wise" for humans involves acting in accord with our nature, for example.

That which supports life tends to be wise. Let's not go overboard with devil's advocacy, okay my friend? I'm talking about things we can choose to do to create desirable conditions, not hypothetically changing the laws of nature.

I am proposing that it is self-evident that it is wise for human beings to foster life. An obvious example is that if abundant healthy food is available to all humans, health will increase. If we stop using cancer-causing pesticides and microbe-killing salts on farmland, health will increase and the land will be more productive.

Put another way, would you say that that which supports life (in real terms, not hypothetically "ending death") tends to be unwise?

Last edited by supertzar; 05-04-2011 at 07:15 PM.
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 07:19 PM   #8
thoreau
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 291 (137 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by supertzar View Post
The world of economics seems to be based on greed, which has lead to the unhappy state in which the world finds itself. How about individuals everywhere consciously agreeing to base their decisions on wisdom instead? How can we define wisdom? I put forth the idea that that which supports life tends to be wise. A very simple concept, but sometimes those are the most potent.

Some of the most powerful changes we can make are also the easiest. On an individual level things like growing more of one's own food and eating less processed food are an excellent way to start. Extrapolated to all facets of life everywhere on Earth the potential is unlimited. The problem becomes how to quantify wisdom or how to create an algorithm of best practices that is obviously true.
I don't think you can quantify wisdom as it is based on so many differing factors and one persons wisdom is anothers folly.
thoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 07:24 PM   #9
knightofthegrail
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,646
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by supertzar View Post
Put another way, would you say that that which supports life (in real terms, not hypothetically "ending death") tends to be unwise?
No. In the general sense, I would say wise is that which promotes that which is in accord with our nature.
knightofthegrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 07:28 PM   #10
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thoreau View Post
I don't think you can quantify wisdom as it is based on so many differing factors and one persons wisdom is anothers folly.
I'm only concerned with reaching people who agree that fostering life tends to be wise and that unnecessarily destroying life tends to be unwise. Certainly there will be differing interpretations of this, but with this definition in mind it would not be impossible to create an algorithm based on harm to life/benefit to life with the most beneficial practices preferred.
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 07:31 PM   #11
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by knightofthegrail View Post
No. In the general sense, I would say wise is that which promotes that which is in accord with our nature.
In my vision we discover our nature through wise living on an individual level and all collective levels. I say we are human beings and our power is far beyond that which we know. Let us be.
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 07:32 PM   #12
jbnumba1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 165
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I like Edgar Cayce's definition of wisdom, which is basically applying that which one knows to do in any situation. Simply doing your best with what you know at any given time.

How could God, or anyone else, hold you at fault if you genuinely did your best in any given moment?

KOTG, isn't physical death ultimately supporting life, progressing the conscious entity? Also, allowing the earth to "evolve" and grow in its scenery and life forms?
jbnumba1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 07:35 PM   #13
knightofthegrail
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,646
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbnumba1 View Post
KOTG, isn't physical death ultimately supporting life, progressing the conscious entity? Also, allowing the earth to "evolve" and grow in its scenery and life forms?
Yes, which is why you cant use "supporting of life" as a guide because it is too vague and general a notion. It doesnt actually tell you what to do in a situation. Its fundamentally useless as a guide because of that.
knightofthegrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 07:36 PM   #14
thoreau
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 291 (137 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by supertzar View Post
I'm only concerned with reaching people who agree that fostering life tends to be wise and that unnecessarily destroying life tends to be unwise. Certainly there will be differing interpretations of this, but with this definition in mind it would not be impossible to create an algorithm based on harm to life/benefit to life with the most beneficial practices preferred.
I think most people would agree that fostering life is wise and that unessecary killing is unwise the problem will be on reaching a consensus on what is nessecary.
thoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 07:41 PM   #15
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by knightofthegrail View Post
Yes, which is why you cant use "supporting of life" as a guide because it is too vague and general a notion. It doesnt actually tell you what to do in a situation. Its fundamentally useless as a guide because of that.
The movement relies on individuals to consciously develop their understanding of wisdom and to act according to what they have learned. No one needs to be told what to do.
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 07:45 PM   #16
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thoreau View Post
I think most people would agree that fostering life is wise and that unessecary killing is unwise the problem will be on reaching a consensus on what is nessecary.
That is the problem, sort of. It does not require a consensus I don't think. Only examples of practices worst to best. Individuals can choose worst to best what works for them, but I suggest that we begin best practices in earnest to create a better world.
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 07:56 PM   #17
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbnumba1 View Post
I like Edgar Cayce's definition of wisdom, which is basically applying that which one knows to do in any situation. Simply doing your best with what you know at any given time.

How could God, or anyone else, hold you at fault if you genuinely did your best in any given moment?

KOTG, isn't physical death ultimately supporting life, progressing the conscious entity? Also, allowing the earth to "evolve" and grow in its scenery and life forms?
Thank you, jbnumba1. What if we can develop our understanding of morality (and everything else) so that we know what to do?

A small child feels a sense of dread passing nuclear reactors. The child knows it is wrong. Everyone knows, but some forget. They say it is uneconomical to stop nuclear power. Who is correct in the end, even based on the economical argument? The child! Nuclear is the most expensive ever if you quantify the harm done to life. It can be considered worst practice.

Last edited by supertzar; 05-04-2011 at 07:57 PM.
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 09:55 PM   #18
jbnumba1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 165
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
The movement relies on individuals to consciously develop their understanding of wisdom and to act according to what they have learned. No one needs to be told what to do.
Yes! This is, in my opinion, the most important piece to the puzzle. We need to act on the knowledge we have at hand to better ourselves and become the ideal forms of ourselves.

As we apply the knowledge we have, we will be given more knowledge. You aren't shown the way all at once, you are shown the way as you actively take the steps to get there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by supertzar View Post
Thank you, jbnumba1. What if we can develop our understanding of morality (and everything else) so that we know what to do?

A small child feels a sense of dread passing nuclear reactors. The child knows it is wrong. Everyone knows, but some forget. They say it is uneconomical to stop nuclear power. Who is correct in the end, even based on the economical argument? The child! Nuclear is the most expensive ever if you quantify the harm done to life. It can be considered worst practice.
Unfortunately, I don't have strong views on nuclear energy, I've heard some convincing arguments on both sides. Obviously with the current disaster in fukushima I would tend to agree with you.

I do know that the destruction of nature, as in nuclear fission and the burning of fossil fuels, is not in harmony with the earth.

We ultimately need to transcend duality and the divided, bicameral thinking. We need to build unified minds, a mind in which the left and right hemisphere work in unison with each other, rather than chattering back and forth, wasting precious energy.
jbnumba1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 10:08 PM   #19
verndewd
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lands of the american natives
Posts: 14,702
Likes: 15 (15 Posts)
Default

First wisdom must be qualifiable. obviously if it offers harmony and compatibility as well as uplifting knowledge then it can be quantified.
verndewd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 10:34 PM   #20
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbnumba1 View Post
Yes! This is, in my opinion, the most important piece to the puzzle. We need to act on the knowledge we have at hand to better ourselves and become the ideal forms of ourselves.

As we apply the knowledge we have, we will be given more knowledge. You aren't shown the way all at once, you are shown the way as you actively take the steps to get there.



Unfortunately, I don't have strong views on nuclear energy, I've heard some convincing arguments on both sides. Obviously with the current disaster in fukushima I would tend to agree with you.

I do know that the destruction of nature, as in nuclear fission and the burning of fossil fuels, is not in harmony with the earth.

We ultimately need to transcend duality and the divided, bicameral thinking. We need to build unified minds, a mind in which the left and right hemisphere work in unison with each other, rather than chattering back and forth, wasting precious energy.
You are speaking my language, #1. What you described is exactly how I see a Revolution of Consciousness unfolding.

Last edited by supertzar; 05-04-2011 at 10:35 PM.
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.