Peace and harmony amongst all of mankind

Originally posted by Starrman
I think youre missing the point. I'm not saying that art can't be produced at other points in time, nor that humanity is not prone to acts of greatness. However, if you took conflict away totally there would be a removal of one of creativity's most powerful inspirations.

You make harmony sound like the beep when a patient flat-lines.

Harmony is simply when things are in tune. It is achieved not through the removal of conflict but the reconciliation of opposites, a "lover's quarrel" leading to concord as blissful as it is short-lived. Permanent harmony doesn't exist; at some point the members of the cathedral choir have to go outside to piss.

But don't you want a harmonious traffic system?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You make harmony sound like the beep when a patient flat-lines.

Harmony is simply when things are in tune. It is achieved not through the removal of conflict but the reconciliation of opposites, a "lover's quarrel" leading to concord as blissful as it is short-lived. Permanent harmony doesn't exist; at some point the members of the cathedral choir have to go outside to piss.

But don't you want a harmonious traffic system?

I'm referring to the original poster's use of it as some Utopian bliss. Co-operation between men is essential, but I took his post to intend a permanent cessation to dischord.

Originally posted by Starrman
I'm referring to the original poster's use of it as some Utopian bliss. Co-operation between men is essential, but I took his post to intend a permanent cessation to dischord.

I wonder whether that was his intent. If so, I disagree with him.

Metaphors of harmony from tension abound, compare a tuned guitar to one that is untuned.

I guess achieving harmony takes a lot of practice.

But art flourishes best in times of peace.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You make harmony sound like the beep when a patient flat-lines.

Harmony is simply when things are in tune. It is achieved not through the removal of conflict but the reconciliation of opposites, a "lover's quarrel" leading to concord as blissful as it is short-lived. Permanent harmony doesn't exist; at some point the members of the cathedral choir have to go outside to piss.

But don't you want a harmonious traffic system?

Very poetic.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
But art flourishes best in times of peace.

I think there may be a debate here, both about what causes the creative process and what times of peace entail (inner, outer, majority, macro/micro).

Have you read 'The Destructors' by Graham Greene?

Originally posted by Starrman
I think there may be a debate here, both about what causes the creative process and what times of peace entail (inner, outer, majority, macro/micro).

Have you read 'The Destructors' by Graham Greene?

Eminently debateable topics.

I haven't. Great writer though.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You make harmony sound like the beep when a patient flat-lines.

Harmony is simply when things are in tune. It is achieved not through the removal of conflict but the reconciliation of opposites, a "lover's quarrel" leading to concord as blissful as it is short-lived. Permanent harmony doesn't exist; at some point the members of the cathedral choir have to go outside to piss.

But don't you want a harmonious traffic system?

Sometimes the turmoil is just in that nagging question, for which one would like to have an answer. Some questions may have no objective answer, others may.

From my absurdist point of view—in which the universe discloses only facts, relationships, patterns; while we would like it to disclose some existential “meaning”—whatever meaning we come up with, we come up with out of the engagement of our consciousness with the world. Since our consciousness arises from and in and of the world, it is reasonable to expect it to be coherent with the world, while not necessarily being exhaustive. Camus will have none of the existential “leaps” that attempt to escape the tension of the dilemma.

Is the natural world not “in harmony” because the hawk feeds on the rabbit? Or because the male parent tiger will kill the cubs? Even if the human consciousness, which loops around to create a realization of self-identity, is able to also realize its ultimate non-separability with the world, would that necessarily result in a sense of harmony that is banal and tensionless? The Zen masters testify, “Not.”

Whatever harmony there is seems to always be not only a harmony in tension, but a dynamic—perhaps dialectic—process whereby the current situation breaks, and a new one is formed. Harmony ought not to be confused with (a comfortable) stasis. Ultimately there may be the Tao, but the nature of the Tao is to engender yin and yang...

The notion of harmony being a situation of balanced tension goes back (at least) to Heraclitus.

Human social existence, I suspect, will always be one of both conflict and cooperation. At the moment, I suspect that the quest for moral understanding is more akin to the quest for meaning, than it is to the quest for factual knowledge...

Originally posted by vistesd

Whatever harmony there is seems to always be not only a harmony in tension, but a dynamic—perhaps dialectic—process whereby the current situation breaks, and a new one is formed. Harmony ought not to be confused with (a comfortable) stasis. Ultimately there may be the Tao, but the nature of the Tao is to engender yin and yang...

What I thought I was getting at.

Stasis cannot be productive of harmony.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
I don't think most actual criminals think that way about themselves, they just don't care.

And if there are some absolute versions of these values, what are they and why.

Why is your truth better than my truth?
Why is your justice better than my justice?
Why is your love better than my love?

I hope you understand that not all transgression are considered "criminal" in this society.

Someone once said, "No one thinks they're a bad person." I think this is true of the vast majority of people. A while back I saw a documentary on Joel Rifkin, the serial killer. After Rifkin recounted how he had sex with one victim and dismembered her body, the interviewer asked him if he ever had sex with the corpses. Rifkin gave him a seriously indignant look as if to say, "Now I may have done some bad things, but it's not like I'm some kind of sicko."

Originally posted by Varqa
Well said.

If [we] agree upon a subject, even though it be wrong, it is better than to disagree and be in the right, for this difference will produce the demolition of the divine foundation. Though one of the parties may be in the right and they disagree that will be the cause of a thousand wrongs, but if they agree and both parties are in the wrong, as it is in unity the truth will be revealed and the wrong made right.

Is unity the foundation or is truth? Without ego, the parties are much more likely to arrive at the truth and thus have true unity. It is the ego that keeps one blinded to the truth.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
And do you ever foresee that happening?

I think it has little to do with ego, and more to do with need. Is it egotistical to fight over food or water when you are hungry or parched?

Yes it is. Think about it a while.

Originally posted by Starrman
I would have thought it was fairly obvious that the most amazing creations humanity has come up with were in response to some of the worst things. I am not saying it is a necessary condition of greatness, afterall some of the worlds most amazing buildings are religious ones, created under only a belief in god. But when conflict arises, you can be guarante ...[text shortened]... ion and peace, war and survival, struggle and success; these bring about the best things in man.

You might want to consider the idea that greatness is borne of understanding. No doubt some have been driven to attain that understanding because of conflict, but it's myopic to think that that understanding would have never been attained without it.

The idea that "breeds banality and averages" is similarly myopic. Man's desire for truth is what brings about the best things in man.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What I thought I was getting at.

Stasis cannot be productive of harmony.

What I thought you were getting at, too. Just wanted to try to expand it a bit, see if it fit within my notion of Camusian absurdity...

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You might want to consider the idea that greatness is borne of understanding. No doubt some have been driven to attain that understanding because of conflict, but it's myopic to think that that understanding would have never been attained without it.

The idea that "breeds banality and averages" is similarly myopic. Man's desire for truth is what brings about the best things in man.

I disagree with both the premise that greatness is born of understanding and with that of the desire for truth bringing about the best in man. I am not even happy agreeing that man even has a desire for truth.

Originally posted by Starrman
I disagree with both the premise that greatness is born of understanding and with that of the desire for truth bringing about the best in man. I am not even happy agreeing that man even has a desire for truth.

Well to give you the benefit of the doubt, it certainly seems that you have no desire for truth. 😉