The word 'Nature' is rooted in the idea of 'Birthing' - not in 'Winning' or 'Dominating' and in truth, these are opposing concepts. The fact that there has been a great imbalance on Earth for a long time is not proof that balance is not the correct way and that balance cannot be found.
Generally, people who refer to 'survival of the fittest' have not really thought through the idea in enough depth to know if what they are describing is accurate or not.
'Fittest' does not mean 'more able to overpower and control'. The path of domination and control is the path of heartlessness and death. By definition, survival is not death. Survival is living in a balanced way. It can be discerned through simple logic, then, that 'the fittest' are those who cause balance and the fact that the dominators have attempted to repeatedly erase those who cause balance and then dare to deceive others into thinking that the dominators are the 'fittest' is probably one of the biggest perversions of truth in human history.
Balance is the key to reality in all that we do. I agree with that but again I'm not being metaphorical when I say survival of the fittest is the only Natural Law. Everything else is a human invention. I'm excluding humans from Nature. The Right of Conquest is the first of the human laws and we have built on that since the beginning of humanity.
Humanity is not separate from 'nature' - humans are birthed, thus are nature. I can agree that survival underpins much of what could be called 'Natural Law' - however, my point is that conquest is in no way the 'fittest' activity and in no way results in guaranteed survival. Balance DOES result in guaranteed survival. It is balance that underpins legitimate Natural Law.
Should I let someone else do it ? But what is right moral or ethical is a function of ficticious law. Again if you feel something is out of balance in the US you don't need to attempt to de legitimize government, to effect change. Ruling from the ashes isn't much fun. Just ask the freedom fighters of Hamas; one day they won the election and couldn't even figure out how to dispose of their garbage properly.
I am just saying that where you stated that there is no right or wrong, but that which was invented by humans - you are also a human who is defining the whole situation.. So by calling into question the nature of the accuracy of human definitions here, you are also somewhat potentially negating the value of everything you have said. That in itself is fine, but I am just pointing to an error - which is the idea that there is no right or wrong in 'nature', yet nature itself cannot survive without right action and a balance, so what is right in nature is what keeps the balance and maintains life.
What is right needs to be FELT - and that is what has been missing in men's minds for aeons. Is it right to stone a woman to death for not cleaning the house? Hmm.. I'm not sure, let's think about it - debate it - discuss it.. let's pray..
For those who can FEEL, it is immediately KNOWN whether or not that action is right.
if you feel something is out of balance in the US you don't need to attempt to de legitimize government, to effect change.
It is not me doing any delegitimisation - they have already done that themselves over and over again - at most I am just pointing at it.
Yes, radical change in a world populated by imbalanced and often hostile people is something that needs to be taken seriously and arrived at in the right and balanced way.
The word 'Nature' is rooted in the idea of 'Birthing' - not in 'Winning' or 'Dominating' and in truth, these are opposing concepts. The fact that there has been a great imbalance on Earth for a long time is not proof that balance is not the correct way and that balance cannot be found.
Natural Law: Survival of the fittest.
Everything else are elements of civilization not Natural Law.
Generally, people who refer to 'survival of the fittest' have not really thought through the idea in enough depth to know if what they are describing is accurate or not.
'Fittest' does not mean 'more able to overpower and control'. The path of domination and control is the path of heartlessness and death. By definition, survival is not death. Survival is living in a balanced way. It can be discerned through simple logic, then, that 'the fittest' are those who cause balance and the fact that the dominators have attempted to repeatedly erase those who cause balance and then dare to deceive others into thinking that the dominators are the 'fittest' is probably one of the biggest perversions of truth in human history.
Balance is the key to reality in all that we do. I agree with that but again I'm not being metaphorical when I say survival of the fittest is the only Natural Law. Everything else is a human invention. I'm excluding humans from Nature. The Right of Conquest is the first of the human laws and we have built on that since the beginning of humanity.
Humanity is not separate from 'nature' - humans are birthed, thus are nature. I can agree that survival underpins much of what could be called 'Natural Law' - however, my point is that conquest is in no way the 'fittest' activity and in no way results in guaranteed survival. Balance DOES result in guaranteed survival. It is balance that underpins legitimate Natural Law.
Our ability to create and comprehend fictions separates us from Nature.
Have you ever seen a dog attempt to mate with a human's leg?
Absent right and wrong there's no judgement from me in taking plessure in that but I wouldn't advertise it much if i were you. This is a public forum.
In the natural world there is no right or wrong. Humans invented it.
It is you that is defining what is and what is not within the natural world.
Should I let someone else do it ? But what is right moral or ethical is a function of ficticious law. Again if you feel something is out of balance in the US you don't need to attempt to de legitimize government, to effect change. Ruling from the ashes isn't much fun. Just ask the freedom fighters of Hamas; one day they won the election and couldn't even figure out how to dispose of their garbage properly.
I am just saying that where you stated that there is no right or wrong, but that which was invented by humans - you are also a human who is defining the whole situation.. So by calling into question the nature of the accuracy of human definitions here, you are also somewhat potentially negating the value of everything you have said. That in itself is fine, but I am just pointing to an error - which is the idea that there is no right or wrong in 'nature', yet nature itself cannot survive without right action and a balance, so what is right in nature is what keeps the balance and maintains life.
What is right needs to be FELT - and that is what has been missing in men's minds for aeons. Is it right to stone a woman to death for not cleaning the house? Hmm.. I'm not sure, let's think about it - debate it - discuss it.. let's pray..
For those who can FEEL, it is immediately KNOWN whether or not that action is right.
It is not me doing any delegitimisation - they have already done that themselves over and over again - at most I am just pointing at it.
Yes, radical change in a world populated by imbalanced and often hostile people is something that needs to be taken seriously and arrived at in the right and balanced way.
There is no right or wrong only results that you want to live with or not. Feelings??? It's probably gas. Drink an alkaseltzer