Moz wrote:Well said. Just recently I had an interesting conversation about state corruption. When people are mad at politicians for plundering the country where people don't have enough money to get by (where politicians are actually guilty) then they have to blame someone and they protest. When that happens in a country where people have enough and even more, they simply don't care about these things even though they still happen, and much much more money is involved in these schemes than in poor countries.
When a man has everything in his reach and more comfort than in any time in history then you have stuff like this. I forgot where exactly I am going with this but I think this behaviour might be biologically programmed in us. What you choose to believe in or put the blame on reflects you, your upbringing and current situation. Sorry, lost my thought, I guess I wanted to say that if stuff like this is out there and people believe in it we have too much comfort. In the past we worried about finding food, staying warm and surviving, and today everything is going so fast and our evolution just can't keep up, these instincts still kind of kick in but in another form which is the need of justifying why your life is shitty.
Rambling. 3AM, still up
In moderately poor countries such as Brazil the common man is already pretty corrupt, so i guess we kind of relate with the corruption? Like a "That's terrible but if i was there i'd do the same" sort of situation. Can't speak for everyone but i think that's it
Moz wrote:Well said. Just recently I had an interesting conversation about state corruption. When people are mad at politicians for plundering the country where people don't have enough money to get by (where politicians are actually guilty) then they have to blame someone and they protest. When that happens in a country where people have enough and even more, they simply don't care about these things even though they still happen, and much much more money is involved in these schemes than in poor countries.
When a man has everything in his reach and more comfort than in any time in history then you have stuff like this. I forgot where exactly I am going with this but I think this behaviour might be biologically programmed in us. What you choose to believe in or put the blame on reflects you, your upbringing and current situation. Sorry, lost my thought, I guess I wanted to say that if stuff like this is out there and people believe in it we have too much comfort. In the past we worried about finding food, staying warm and surviving, and today everything is going so fast and our evolution just can't keep up, these instincts still kind of kick in but in another form which is the need of justifying why your life is shitty.
Rambling. 3AM, still up
In moderately poor countries such as Brazil the common man is already pretty corrupt, so i guess we kind of relate with the corruption? Like a "That's terrible but if i was there i'd do the same" sort of situation. Can't speak for everyone but i think that's it
I am personally convinced that the earth is a square circle.
There are three possibilities in life: to be something, nothing or everything. In the first there is suffering, in the second there is peace and in the third there is happiness and love."
I really wonder what the odds are for Earth having a special different kind of form compared to all celestial bodies that we observe in our sky.
However, there might still be a point here. I always see the Flat Earth Theory as a synonym/paraphrase/plz-help-finding-the-right-word for the Universe being primarily mental, information and consciousness-based from the point-of-view of observers. A "flat" experience from a reference point. The self-simulation hypothesis, as described in hermeticism/gnosticism/buddhism (excuse my simplification). Mind over matter - opposing materialism. Something that recent Nobel prizes in physics have been alluding to, this is often brought up, but this is what so many of the greatest physicists and philosophers have been hinting at long ago already too.
Even the famous bet between Koch and Chalmers has swung over clearly to the latter's side. (I however see how this Universe can create one way within the other and thus support both actually and not need to be mutually exclusive - depending on reference system and point of view. The question of which side is fundamental then becomes irrelevent. An observer doesn't make sense if there's nothing to observe, but something to observe I imagine could exist first before it is observed, unless the existence of something comes from imagining it. I just like to disregard this as it seems like a feedback-loop, a closed system where both are dependant on each other and be fine with that. Yin-yang)
