the only easy day was yesterday
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Paved Paradise/Atomism 2k7
This is one big topic in my mind that I'd like you all to participate in, one that I think will, when answered, clear a lot of things up for myself. And as always, I hope that it will help you in anyway it can;
I have a hard time distinguishing between where things should be considered under the guidelines of humanity, and where, since we are a complicated emotional and conscious species, we should be considering things in the lens of transcending humanity because we are able to accomplish things that make life more pleasent. It's a decievingly simple question and I'll give you a decievingly simple example, until I can think of a more complicated one, which I will post. But for now: People perspire, we smell when we perspire; today we have products which aim to stop the perspiration and the smell of it. Furthermore we have cologne and perfume that aim to make people smell better. It seems that they might be bordering on a hyperreality, but viewed through the right objective eyes, they are enjoyable things. Which way do we consider? Humanity: fuck deodorant, we're humans and we need to respect that that is all we are and will ever be, once we come to terms with that, then we can become happy - at which point we abandon all technology and such and live in the wild (hyperbole). On the other hand if we advocate for the transcendance: So what if we want to make people smell better? We smell bad sometimes? When we finally get over ourselves then we can finally get to the business of discovering the truth in the universe by transcending what it is to be human and looking at the big picture. It's not this black an white when it's applied to more complicated issues, unfortunatley I'm drawing a blank right now, I'll try my hardest to think of a better one than that, I know that one sucks.
It does bring up another closely related quesition, though, that is intergral in answering the moral question. This question is: at what point do things stop being "natural"? We consider a beavers dam part of nature, but if I were to kick the dam and ruin it someone might say I was interfering with nature. Is writing part of nature? Bird calls are. What about this computer? I know of nothing outide of the so called manmade things that I'm calling into question here that are not natural that could've made it or it is made from. When is something not natural? Where is the line? Are we perhaps trying to transcend humanity by separating ourselves from nature? Could this be part of the modern human condition? Are not things created by the human mind and the human body natural creations? Is a death-dealing robot that was once created by a living creature something that is not made by, from, or resembling something from nature?
- ► 2008 (74)
- but why male models?
- im too lazy to actually say anythig
- La Di Da Di
- what should've been. the real super bowl xli, sept...
- its not about joey
- Drop Sneakers Not Bombs
- Thursday will see the 10th aniversarry of the dea...
- From Today's Paper
- peta sent me a self righteous email
- I Have No Idea What To Name This Post.
- dude can jump
- Vick Jukes Legal Blitz
- Plato's Opinion
- some fun thoughts and a few thoughts that came to ...
- This or That
- An Inspired and Complete Meditation on Alchohol, a...
- The Academy
- You Want The Truth? YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
- Battle in the Bay
- The Michael Vick Experience
- New Shits
- Sean Taylor, Sing it Brother
- You, yea you.
- The Possesive Glare
- Paved Paradise/Atomism 2k7
- Goin' Dumb Like The Ringer
- Just Knowin' That the World is Round
- Is Reason Reasonable?
- Of what avail is the proud outcry?
- I Love Football
- The Rational Latte
- Over Population
- The Trolley Problem
- I want to see you when you finally figure out what...
- This sign warning residents of the South Sudan cap...
- and if i wasnt, then why would i say i am
- ▼ August (40)