Difference between revisions of "Past to flove"
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
This is an article reviewing past history using the flove ([[life view]]) as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics hermeneutics] for that.
This is an article reviewing past history using the flove ([[life view]]) as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics hermeneutics] for that.
|Line 263:||Line 263:|
[[Category:]][[Category:From to]][[Category:Life talks]]
Latest revision as of 11:02, 1 April 2019
THIS IS AN OLD PAGE just kept for historial purposes
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Case
- 2.1 Political philosophers rival flaws
- 2.2 Social science lacks
- 2.3 Social flaw
- 2.4 Achademical mess-ups with love
- 2.5 Sarcasm:Love is for locals
- 2.6 Flove and a sciencist flaw
- 2.7 Flove flaws and patches through conversation
- 3 See more
Life has a constant process that is always evolving, every historical time has its own vibrations tendencies and there is a common trace in all of them. Every new revolutionary theory, expressed art or conversation input mostly tried to vibrate the dimensional vibrations that weren't vibrating much at its time.
Being aware of this detail is key to understand how life has past and will pass.
This table rates te flove vibrating of some philosopers from the past
Having a close look at the dynamics of the results, we can see a tendency, perhaps with a common critical ammount of total points that is increasing during history.
Political philosophers rival flaws
Everything communicated could be flawed as an incomplete reality. The point is the intention put to overcome that missing (non observability). It could either be:
1) figth to destroy it because you fear that flawed reality (adversarial, mono duality, scarce)
2) disclouse the flaw with cute joy and-or creating a wiser reality without such flaw
One vs the other and both lacking of x (again).
Kierkegaard and nietszche would fight personally each other if they were to meet because of the adversarial patriarchy trend, but both tried to cultivate the later called existentialism that was not flown by its time mass trends.
K was struggling for cultivating lutheran monoteistic faith and N was so obsessed with wanting to destroy religion. None have exposed its axiology for where is the person, where is society, where is the mind, their components and what to do with natural resources in a logical scheme. They mainly cared about how to crack on the previous crackers.
Nietsche flaws on the objectivizers historical abuse through morality, Rousseau social contract flawing on the abuse of people through society and Proudhon's flaws analisis of the property (exchange abuse) are very lovely, but their proposals to overcome that, taking into account how so many people is already entangled with such fallacies, are not more than a flyer.
They could be already happy with those internal thrills they felt when expressing such new thruths, or they were only too desperate to do more about it, but their wisdom wasn't working for an alternative, it was mostly just for cracking only.
Marx did similar cracking to the exchange and society and almost got to create a better balance of all that because he was much more aware about the present social entangling and had a more rigorous expressivity about alternatives once he flawed, but he was deliberately missing the importance of the cultural joy, personal, local and gift economy vibrating, so he proposed currency monotheism and too much force for managing society. Bakunin prefered flawing Marx's lacks than developing further his proposal of a needed stadistic and correspondence with only 300 rotative core workers organization for governing the whole world. Bakunin permanent networking efforts were too local too.
None of them predicted the first world war of empires, where people went to die for their social nations abstractions. A bit before the second round, the communists and capitalists agreed uppon crashing its too promising anarchist competitor in spain first, and thereafter the naughty germans. They didn't want to be friends, but both were interested in a cold war propaganda that would make their unespecifed axiologies outstanding by rivalry.
The cold war had finally understood the power of hijacking our natural mental denial vibration, the higher parent of rivalry. Capitalism had perfectioned religion more than communism, and religion is only a patriarchy tool for hijacking the natural faith there is in humans due to the unrepliable questions we have to deal with.
Propaganda, marketing nowadays, it is only hijacking pragmatical psicoanalisis and communication theories for the wealth of capitalism. Capitalism would like the psicologists to be the police and it would wish to look like more of a freedom grantor overall, because humans naturally want freedom to be protected. Communism didn't sell banal entertainment (the hijacking of joy) and freedom that well, so it fell.
Liberals axiologic reductivity is “socialism (jacobinism) is the theory that estates than the estate would spend your money-god better than you”, but more importantly they vibrate the mental and rational dimensions for the exchange sake only (all human power for the money, local, share and gift are externalities).
Anarchocapitalist or libertarians (as in the USA) add “my own laws for my own money”, so they are flowing a bit more the local. The zeitgeist movement flaws on the godification of money, proposing the sharing of goods made by the global estate in a hitech society, but sharing from a centralised social power. None of these trends care much deeply about postpatriarcal joy or the power of a more organised and decentralised gift economy in the social “jungle”.
Social science lacks
Now in this 21st century rationality finally starts to see that all social sciences are related but still they didn't find the glue yet to be “integrated social sciences” so "each field could become a higher science". Social axiology should rather only care about explaining freedom and fairness within the rest of other people you directly don't know or trust.
Scientific methodology politely flaws on social sciences being “low level sciences”. At the social sciences achademias, the lack of methodological rigor in the empiric proving there was before Euler is still out there.
"Social", and its marketed "social sciences" term (naturally very much liked by men), can't stand as axiologickly high as "universal". "Social maniatic lovers" should not want to be the title or parent of natural, mental, personal or local vibrations.
Actual (patriarcal) social "social" wrongly tries to put himself above its parents, i.e.
- above "local" (with the "social & personal" duality)
- above personal (society makes you a person)
- above "mental" (i.e. society makes up your thoughts)
- above all (world is a synonim or parent of the universe and nature
Faith and science
Science shouldn't be adversarial with telelogy. Astrology is not a rival of astronomy. Astrological or mithological theories about the infraworlds are still valid for people's necessary cultivating of faith. Dawkins, as any human higher or man of science, has faith. Dawkins has faith in dark energy, in the body as only hardware for the mental software, in the genesis of the universe having been caused by an intentionless luck, and maybe vacuum being the higher universal body and his other bets in many more other field of unknowledge. But he, as the other people mentioned above, is only a ragy paranoid in pain defending his “metaphysical property” trying to crash on others, as any fighter prefers, as myself i am failing in here too.
Scientists have a laugh at teleology, specially when the more faithful stands estate that there was an intention in creating the planet earth or the human life. For an orthodox scientist, that was a matter of luck, or a casual incident, but never a miracle because that will lead us to... (lol here).
Social science achademies created “teleology” as a (episthemological..) field. “Intention” is only a more friendly word for explaining a part of teleology.
Intention is more hot than teleology for the general audience and not too hot for failing in not having enough achademical rigour.
Ethics or psichology could be the hotter social science field trying to touch us with their narratives, but the social centered achademy wants them to be cold lovers the most, so they finally becoming tremendous efforts for decoration purposes only (i.e. habermas).
Sarcasm goes on. The hottest touch is left for the teleological political or economical social science achademy, which are only a hijacking of or patching of ethics where axiology is only a buzzword for a dodgy field created by some pretentious wannabes.
Worldview concept is flawed
The Wordlview (Weltanschauung) concept is flawed since it is yet another of the social-centered productions from patriarchy (as god, lord, society, money, empire...) are.
What is a world? Why not "life"? as Llull, Kierkegaard, Whitehead, etc so well pointed out. The achademical reply is (lol):
-"Life" belongs to "biological chemistry", which despite it being a very dependant field of ours, we consider that an outer externality of our work. Nowadays, we are modernising the "world view" concept with the new sociological field of "world systems theory".
"World", "world view" and "world systems theory" are only yet another patriarchy trick for vibrating the
making of social cores for the exchange dimension mostly (despite that having low flove). Some intellectual vanguardist men choosed the ambiguity of "world" instead of "life", for facing an opposition to the God of the church, but failed in it as they make it "world" act like the "lord" does to their "god".
See more: faith, thruth and science
Achademical mess-ups with love
Love and intention
The sinonym keyword that most social scientists consider a slang whore keyword for “intention” is “love”. Despite love being present, loveology doesn't exist. "Love" is an unofficially keyword for social science, and if any of their fields would freely try to define it, it will be for their own interested scope and they won't take into mandatory account what is love in the other social science fields.
Love and religion
In the other hand, religions are not afraid of saying “prophet, lord and god is love”, but they are afraid of further defining love further than “love is god, prophet or lord”. This causes trouble, one cannot know what is the difference between life, love and god and has to rely too much in faith. Faith is the for the unknown rest but if anyone gets to substitute science by faith when the scientific methodology could already apporach an issue, you are being too lazy and probably want to start the power-over game again for your own selfish interest, which is an intention opposed to love.
Telelogic love and scientists
If any human apart of vanguardist ortodox religious and higher or lower scientific people have to choose between luck, intention and love, (s)he would choose "love". If we are calm enough to think about it, we would view that the “anima” of every animal is drived by a “need of love”. If we are to think even deeper, we will view that a plant doesn't wants to commit suicide and loves itself in its life meantime. If we want to go to the edge of the chemistry or astrophysics issue, we can view love even in the blackholes, but nevertheless this needs a more faithful exercise.
It is very curious than the first gravitational wave (or the first hearsay we got from the outer universe) was luckily identified by scientists due to the inmense light provoked by the merging of two blackholes in one, which was also the first time we could experience that happening. Scientist are delighted with reassuring 100 years later one of the predictions of Albert Einstein.
Albert was also faithful about philosophical monism or vitalism, and one could imagine that if he was not to have that intention that openly culted without taboos, probably he was not going to be able to get to the point he got. Where did his obsesive ideas come from otherwise? Was it only a lucky brain? Which astrophysician does not want the universe to make love to him-her?
One could faithfully believe that gravity is what is lobbying us for constantly pursuing love (love is the air, lol). But another less faithful and more consensual approach could say that love is only felt by humans. The other teleologic universal intention of loving as we do but with its own tools would need another name, hence flove (with void, lovely, far lovely childs) common at every dimension of life, with flow being its lovely expression in the universal (upper) dimension.Flov
Yet another bigger flawing would be to calmly view what is the inner energetic difference felt between expressing “i want it”, “i intention it”, “i luck it” or “i love it”.
Sarcasm:Love is for locals
The stand that love is only felt by humans towards their more close people has the flaw that “if you don't love yourself, you can't love very much anyone else”.
Flove and a sciencist flaw
Flove gets back to bump monist and vitalist theories, quitely deprecated by arrogant scientists, while integrating quantum and multidimensionalism. They named the so permanent and multipresent substance ether in the past or photon or field nowadays and they refuse further intentionalism in them, because they don't consider them a part of “life”, they consider them part of the “observable universe” instead.
That is their approach, which is probably not the best (natural) aesthethical choice for the most of humans, so that could cause in them the sensation that they are not fully alive or smart enough when they are to be sincere with themselves at their dark times.
Why not to call the universal tension as flove? While we try to know more about its flow through us.
Flove flaws and patches through conversation
There are many more daily examples reflecting poor life views appart of the ones we have seen already. Some daily phrases that expose flaws:
(??) --> destroy (adversarial)
(?) ---> patch (hack)
(!) ---> fork (new project)
-I love you, but love, void, etc are too big concepts to be approached with words
(uuh, i am reading youu...??)
(wouldn't we gain something important by vibrating love with words?)
(communicating love is the best thing we can do!)
-Swapping or sharing is wasting time. Emotions, trust or having fun is more important
(yeah, and the universe is more important than our emotions, so let's stop feeling??)
(i don't deny that, everything should have their importance?)
(Gift is more important than sharing!)
-You are not entitled to talk about life this broadly and shortly because you didn't go to university, so you can't be wise enough for that
(excuse me, are you the security guard of the achademy of life, how much??)
(perhaps you can tell what you don't like so i could patch it?)
(i like all previous efforts made for the future!)
-Life and love has one prophet only
(everyone has one prophet only)
(myself is my real prophet!)
-Philosophy of mind is a social science
(if personal or mental are upper than social, why social science doesn't become a field of mental science??)
(one of the highest social sciences)
(and axiology too!)
-World is basically social, see
(so i care more about my nation law than about my family or myself, right??)
(by social, do you mean universal?)
(yes, social flows are guiding us too much!)
-Money is the real phisicalization of love
(so using without paying nor stealing is metalove, right??)
(are you sure you prefer paying for things?)
(and sharing and gifting are metaphysics!)