Power

[outis]

So you are saying he is just somehow unaware of the impending anger that watching Fox news is about to cause him? You think he expects it to make him happy? You'll have to run that by me again.

It's all realtive.
It could be he'd be even more miserable without a TV program to shout at. Or he might be afraid to be miserable without something exciting to do. You might think this is a poor sort of adrealine high (so to speak) but it's also cheap and easy.

Wow, I definitely don't like this guy now. He thinks we all pursue God? Is he somehow unaware of atheists? Further, I submit that there have been many murders committed that had absolutely nothing to do with a pursuit of peace. Also, peace is not happiness for everyone. Some people absolutely thrive on conflict. I like how he equates peace to happiness and then jumps right to love as if desiring peace and happiness is automatically a pursuit of God through love. I suppose that may have been discussed elsewhere in his writings as to why he thinks that way. In any case, he lost me at the first sentence.

Semantics. This is a translation of what someone wrote like 700 years ago. It may well be it's the translator you don't like.
When he's translated as saying God or peace, he probably doesn't mean what you think.
Then again when you can't understand what someone is saying without picking definitions carefully and filling in the blanks, maybe what's been said isn't all that meaningful. And maybe nothing all that meaningful can be said about the topic to begin with.
Try to think of it as abstract art perhaps.

 

[Sir Doom]

It's all realtive.
It could be he'd be even more miserable without a TV program to shout at. Or he might be afraid to be miserable without something exciting to do. You might think this is a poor sort of adrealine high (so to speak) but it's also cheap and easy.

Do you mean that being angry makes him happy?

Semantics. This is a translation of what someone wrote like 700 years ago. It may well be it's the translator you don't like.
When he's translated as saying God or peace, he probably doesn't mean what you think.

No, these are the words of contemporary writer, Eckhart Tolle.

Then again when you can't understand what someone is saying without picking definitions carefully and filling in the blanks, maybe what's been said isn't all that meaningful.

No, definitions are malleable for a reason. So we can present what WE mean instead of what everyone normally means. That's why I specifically defined what I meant by power, and had no problem providing my definitions for control and reality as well. I don't want people to misunderstand what I mean by using a cookie-cutter definition instead of what I'm thinking. This is the proper way to conduct oneself in this situation, if I'm not mistaken. Why you think this would destroy the meaning is beyond me.

And maybe nothing all that meaningful can be said about the topic to begin with.

Feel free to embrace this philosophy. I think I'll keep discussing this topic until everyone else is tired of it. That is, when I stop getting responses to this thread.

Try to think of it as abstract art perhaps.

What? Why would I do that?

 

[outis]

No, these are the words of contemporary writer, Eckhart Tolle.

I can't be bothered to check but the quotation was introduced as being something by "Meister Eckhart"... not the same guy at all. One of you is wrong.

So we can present what WE mean instead of what everyone normally means. That's why I specifically defined what I meant ...

Meister Eckhart is known for discussing topics a good bit more... uh, far out than the topic of this thread. With that kind of litterature, language comes short and some assembly is required. Statements are not intended to be verifiable or even (in some cases) logically consistent.

 

[Sir Doom]

I can't be bothered to check but the quotation was introduced as being something by "Meister Eckhart"... not the same guy at all. One of you is wrong.

It's me. I assumed "Meister" was a term of endearment by the poster. Ah, misunderstandings.

Meister Eckhart is known for discussing topics a good bit more... uh, far out than the topic of this thread. With that kind of litterature, language comes short and some assembly is required. Statements are not intended to be verifiable or even (in some cases) logically consistent.

Yeah, that does change things quite a bit. My response to WyattEarp for one thing. Which will be changing shortly.

 

[atanu]

And further:

The Will to Power of Neitzsche (which is a modification of "World as Will" of Schopenhauer).

Will to power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have been meaning to read more of his works. I have often been told that I should. I did like what I read on the wiki link you provided and it seems very close to what I'm talking about. Of course I can't have an original thought! Damn that Neitzsche and his predated birthday! Haha, thank you for the link.

Ha ha. Yes. We are in the same boat. Damn that Neitzsche and many others.:yes:

 

[WyattDerp]

So you are saying he is just somehow unaware of the impending anger that watching Fox news is about to cause him? You think he expects it to make him happy? You'll have to run that by me again.

What's so hard to imagine about that? Not that he's unaware it causes anger, but that he prefers it among what he considers his options to be, and thinks that's the best reaction to how he sees the world?

And about the Meister Eckhart thing, I wasn't trying to make a point about God, but what's God to Meister Eckhart is power to you, same point: your neighbour prefers the known and easy instant gratification of shouting at the TV, and being a know-it-all (I can't believe they censor smart ***) towards people who can't talk back, over doing something more constructive... but it's still an ego power game ^^

 

[Sir Doom]

What's so hard to imagine about that? Not that he's unaware it causes anger, but that he prefers it among what he considers his options to be, and thinks that's the best reaction to how he sees the world?

Yeah but are we describing happiness here? Following one's 'best reaction' just automatically means happiness? I just don't get that. Quacks like a duck and so on.

And about the Meister Eckhart thing, I wasn't trying to make a point about God, but what's God to Meister Eckhart is power to you, same point: your neighbour prefers the known and easy instant gratification of shouting at the TV, and being a know-it-all (I can't believe they censor smart ***) towards people who can't talk back, over doing something more constructive... but it's still an ego power game ^^

I see what you are saying, but I don't really think its the same. From the example he gives, the murderer desires peace and happiness which he equates to love of god. Accepting that for the moment, we have to say that the murderer was not specifically intending to demonstrate love of god and was only intending to find peace. He is suggesting that the love of god is an underlying goal, but this goal could never be achieved by the means employed. If it's both unconscious and unsuccessful, I can't see how it could be a goal at all. If I don't intend to do something and then don't do it... how can this be something I'm ultimately striving for?

Power, from my perspective, is quite different. Accepting again that the murderer has done so in pursuit of peace and happiness which I equate to a pursuit of power (instead of love of God). The acquisition of power has happened regardless of the acquisition of peace or happiness and regardless of the intentional goal for either. It must be gained in order to carry out any actions in furtherance of any goal. One who desires peace and wishes to take steps to make peace a reality will intentionally gain the ability to perform those actions (if they haven't already). The very act of murder is a pretty clearly an act of controlling reality (by my definition anyway). Even if the goal of peace is a miserable failure, the act of murder wasn't. And therefore the alteration to reality that the murderer intended to make is 'successful' to that point proving that they did, in fact, acquire the power to do so at some point prior to doing so. Success if not intention. But sometimes intention, too.

To sum up:

From the "Power" perspective, power is sometimes pursued intentionally and always gained (however inadvertently) by murder.

From the "Love" perspective, love is sometimes pursued intentionally and never gained by murder.

But, why so serious?

From the "Power" perspective, power is sometimes pursued intentionally (albeit this must be rare) and always gained (however inadvertently) by brushing one's teeth.

From the "Love" perspective, love is sometimes pursued intentionally and may be gained by brushing one's teeth?

EDIT: I wanted to add, I think the difference between me and Meister Eckhart is that I'm trying to accurately describe the human condition as I see it and Meister Eckhart is trying to promote the idea of unity through God (unless I miss my guess, which I've heard can happen >.>).

DOUBLE-EDIT: And I also wanted to add that Meister Eckhart and I (cwutididthar?) could both very well be wrong, as well. They aren't exactly competing ideas.