Re: Irreversible Civilisation Collapse...

[Stargate]

There is a book out there called things fall apart, I don't want to go into the content so much but focus on things falling apart. How does decay start? I do not think there is much to say on the building up of cultures, or empires, we do not really see how it was built and why it always fall apart until it is breaking down. It is in the breaking down that we realize evolution itself has a breakdown process built in its foundation. What I have read from the quotes seems to me that everyone is talking about a part of that break down. The earth itself moves in the form of a sinus wave, it rises and falls. There is a natural rise and fall phenomenon that dictates the movement . To some degree I see what AG, is saying because there is always a struggle from one paradigm to the next, patterns are left to follow, if not, the line will be broken. Technologies are the same, we move from one to the other but they are all linked.

Yes I think the Roman Empire at least part of it is present today, as it crumbled this one will also crumble. If you look at the energy patterns, energy is energy, the same energy must be transformed into another energy for it to be used for something else, we cannot get rid of the energy.

PS. please take into consideration that English is not my first language there might be some grammatical errors. I did not learn it in school, but taught myself from books and places like the forum.

[Agartha]

What's your mother tongue, Stargate?

Mines are Spanish and Italian, English is my 3rd language.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Martin Luther's Definition of Faith

Faith is not what some people think it is. Their human dream
      is a delusion. Because they observe that faith is not followed by
      good works or a better life, they fall into error, even though they
      speak and hear much about faith. ``Faith is not enough,'' they
      say, ``You must do good works, you must be pious to be saved.''
      They think that, when you hear the gospel, you start working,
      creating by your own strength a thankful heart which says, ``I
      believe.'' That is what they think true faith is. But, because
      this is a human idea, a dream, the heart never learns anything
      from it, so it does nothing and reform doesn't come from this
      `faith,' either.

           Instead, faith is God's work in us, that changes us and gives
      new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us
      completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits,
      our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with
      it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this
      faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't
      stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone
      asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without
      ceasing.  Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an
      unbeliever.  He stumbles around and looks for faith and good
      works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are.
      Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many
      words. More......


http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt

He was a brave, wise man and I agree with him, except believing in the gospels as those, to me, were only created and written by men.

I don't believe in God as some do, I do believe in an energy, a power, and that energy and power is pure love........love is what glues the world together, and us, and all other creatures......and all of nature and the universe.

I said I am an agnostic, not an Atheist, as there are too many mysteries out there to simply discard.... but I believe in what I think it's evidence, what satisfies my soul and mind, not what satisfies you or others. I believe in souls and I believe I have seen proof of that, when that lady knew her husband had died and there was no way she could have known.

But you haven't answered my question: you said the Bible is about who we are......so who are we, VM?

 

I'll get back to you......later. lsol

[Agartha]

I'll get back to you......later. lsol

Okey dokey  

[Monk (in hiding)]

Just like whitty, tomorrow I will have your answer.   

[Stargate]

What's your mother tongue, Stargate?

Mines are Spanish and Italian, English is my 3rd language.

My first Language is Patwa, which is mixed with Twi, ( from Ghana) my second is German, I am pretty fluent, and my third is English. I do speak a little dutch but not enough to call it anything. I found English very difficult to learn, I am still struggling but I manage somewhat.

[Agartha]

Just like whitty, tomorrow I will have your answer.   

I'll be here........you can't hide from me!
LOL

[Monk (in hiding)]

What's your mother tongue, Stargate?

Mines are Spanish and Italian, English is my 3rd language.

My first Language is Patwa, which is mixed with Twi, ( from Ghana) my second is German, I am pretty fluent, and my third is English. I do speak a little dutch but not enough to call it anything. I found English very difficult to learn, I am still struggling but I manage somewhat.

Jah Rastafari

[Monk (in hiding)]

Just like whitty, tomorrow I will have your answer.   

I'll be here........you can't hide from me!
LOL

Oh that look!

[Stargate]

What's your mother tongue, Stargate?

Mines are Spanish and Italian, English is my 3rd language.

My first Language is Patwa, which is mixed with Twi, ( from Ghana) my second is German, I am pretty fluent, and my third is English. I do speak a little dutch but not enough to call it anything. I found English very difficult to learn, I am still struggling but I manage somewhat.

Jah Rastafari

LOL, I am not a Rasta VM, although I think they are the best thing that has happened to Jamaica. I am strictly me, I listen and learn from everyone, and enjoy it.  

[Stargate]

Just like whitty, tomorrow I will have your answer.   

I'll be here........you can't hide from me!
LOL

I do not think there is anyone in the world that would want to hide from you.  

[Agartha]

I do not think there is anyone in the world that would want to hide from you.  

LOL....... I could make you a list, I think! lol
I thought you spoke Patwa, but I thought English was also taught in Jamaican's schools.
I know a couple of words in Gha, not many though.


VM....what do you mean 'oh that look'??? hahahaha

[Monk (in hiding)]

EvIl!

[Agartha]

EvIl!

hahahaha  I'm glad my avvie scares you......lol

[Stargate]

I do not think there is anyone in the world that would want to hide from you.  

LOL....... I could make you a list, I think! lol
I thought you spoke Patwa, but I thought English was also taught in Jamaican's schools.
I know a couple of words in Gha, not many though.


VM....what do you mean 'oh that look'??? hahahaha

Ag, there is a whole history of what happened in Jamaica and I will say is still happening.
When I was a boy, if you did not have money you had or could not get anything. people used to sell pot in England to get an education, and those people are the rulers of today's Jamaica.

We can get into that some other time if you remind me.

[Agartha]

We'll leave it for another time then, Stargate!
 

[Rockhopper]

Arnold Toynbee, proposed that civilisations on the way to history’s scrap heap always fail in the same general way. The most important factor that makes a rising civilization work, he called 'mimesis'—the universal human habit by which people imitate the behaviour and attitudes of those they admire. As long as the political class of a civilisation can inspire admiration and affection from those below it, the civilisation thrives, because the shared sense of values and purpose generated by mimesis keeps the pressures of competing interests from tearing it apart. Scanned this from his book:

Civilizations fail, in turn, because their political classes lose the ability to inspire mimesis, and this happens in turn because members of the elite become so fixated on maintaining their own power and privilege that they stop doing an adequate job of addressing the problems facing their society. As those problems spin further and further out of control, the political class loses the ability to inspire and settles instead for the ability to dominate. Outside the political class and its hangers-on, in turn, more and more of the population becomes what one could call internal proletariat, an increasingly sullen underclass that still provides the political class with its cannon fodder and labour force but no longer sees anything to admire or emulate in those who order it around.

It can be an unsettling experience to read newspapers or wide-circulation magazines from before 1960 or so using Toynbee’s analysis. Most newspapers included a feature known as the society pages, which chronicled the social and business activities of the well-to-do, and those were read, with a sort of fascinated envy, very far down the social pyramid. Established figures of the political and business world were treated with a degree of effusive respect you won’t find in today’s media, and even those who hoped to push aside this politician or that businessman rarely dreamed of anything more radical than filling the same positions themselves. Nowadays? Watching politicians, businesspeople, and celebrities get dragged down by some scandal or other is a nation’s most popular spectator sport.
When imitating the examples offered by the privileged becomes a dead end, in other words, people find other examples to imitate. That’s one of the core factors, I’m convinced, behind the collapse of the reputation of the sciences in contemporary society, which is so often bemoaned by scientists and science educators. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, say, may waffle on about the glories of science, but what exactly do those glories have to offer children huddling in an abandoned house in some run-down suburb, whose main concerns are finding ways to get enough to eat and stay out of the way of the latest turf war between the local gangs?

Now of course there’s been a standard kneejerk answer. That answer was that science and technology would eventually create such abundance that everyone in the world would be able to enjoy a middle-class lifestyle. That same claim can still be heard nowadays, although it’s grown shrill and hollow. In point of fact, for the lower 80% of people by income, the peak of prosperity was reached in the third quarter of the 20th century, and it’s all been downhill from there. This isn’t an accident; what the rhetoric of progress through science misses is that the advance of science may have been a necessary condition for the boomtimes of the industrial age, but it was never a sufficient source in itself.

Tim.

[Stargate]

Arnold Toynbee, proposed that civilisations on the way to history’s scrap heap always fail in the same general way. The most important factor that makes a rising civilization work, he called 'mimesis'—the universal human habit by which people imitate the behaviour and attitudes of those they admire. As long as the political class of a civilisation can inspire admiration and affection from those below it, the civilisation thrives, because the shared sense of values and purpose generated by mimesis keeps the pressures of competing  interests from tearing it apart. Scanned this from his book:

Civilizations fail, in turn, because their political classes lose the ability to inspire mimesis, and this happens in turn because members of the elite become so fixated on maintaining their own power and privilege that they stop doing an adequate job of addressing the problems facing their society.  As those problems spin further and further out of control, the political class loses the ability to inspire and settles instead for the ability to dominate. Outside the political class and its hangers-on, in turn, more and more of the population becomes what one could call internal proletariat, an increasingly sullen underclass that still provides the political class with its cannon fodder and labour force but no longer sees anything to admire or emulate in those who order it around.

It can be an unsettling experience to read newspapers or wide-circulation magazines from before 1960 or so using Toynbee’s analysis.  Most newspapers included a feature known as the society pages, which chronicled the social and business activities of the well-to-do, and those were read, with a sort of fascinated envy, very far down the social pyramid. Established figures of the political and business world were treated with a degree of effusive respect you won’t find in today’s media, and even those who hoped to push aside this politician or that businessman rarely dreamed of anything more radical than filling the same positions themselves. Nowadays? Watching politicians, businesspeople, and celebrities get dragged down by some  scandal or other is a nation’s most popular spectator sport.
When imitating the examples offered by the privileged becomes a dead end, in other words, people find other examples to imitate. That’s one of the core factors, I’m convinced, behind the collapse of the reputation of the sciences in contemporary society, which is so often bemoaned by scientists and science educators.  Neil DeGrasse Tyson, say, may waffle on about the glories of science, but what exactly do those glories have to offer children huddling in an abandoned house in some run-down suburb, whose main concerns are finding ways to get enough to eat and stay out of the way of the latest turf war between the local gangs?

Now of course there’s been a standard kneejerk answer. That answer was that science and technology would eventually create such abundance that everyone in the world would be able to enjoy a middle-class lifestyle.  That same claim can still be heard nowadays, although it’s grown shrill and hollow. In point of fact, for the lower 80% of people by income, the peak of prosperity was reached in the third quarter of the 20th century, and it’s all been downhill from there. This isn’t an accident; what the rhetoric of progress through science misses is that the advance of science may have been a necessary condition for the boomtimes of the industrial age, but it was never a sufficient source in itself.


Tim.

I totally agree Tim, science did not deliver the main thrust of their propaganda. The majority of the people could not follow science at the speed it was moving. Science can become a shackle if it is not understood and used by the masses. If the masses are not able to keep up, then abuse will overtake.

[Rockhopper]

You're right to a degree Star. Science has two weak points; It's full of jargon that can be hard to understand. And scientists aren't always clear with what they are talking about.

There is a ground-swell of religious believers that are getting into control of the people and want their particular brand of religion imposed on everyone. That's not science it's a belief system.

Tim.

[Stargate]

You're right to a degree Star. Science has two weak points; It's full of jargon that can be hard to understand. And scientists aren't always clear with what they are talking about.

There is a ground-swell of religious believers that are getting into control of the people and want their particular brand of religion imposed on everyone. That's not science it's a belief system.

Tim.

Yes Tim, religion comes in many packages, we just need to identify them when they arrive..

[Sponsored content]