When Truth's are lies...and lies are...

**Silver Guard** · October 22, 2006, 03:49 PM

Lies

We see in our world today the largest information network known ever in history, there is scarsely a movement we make not seen or recorded by someone. Yet it is also an age in which this information on each and every person is the most easily fabricated or subverted, where identities are made and destroyed, where you can be one person in one place, and at exactly the same time be someone different in other places.
How much of what we see is real? What can we trust to be more then an illusion? How much is manipulated by man, or worse, by more then man alone. We can assume, we can hope, but how much can we trust?
The TVs and internet we so worship as a section of modern culture for all we know could be entirely false, the goverment may be in a position to fabricate stories and advantures in far off places which don't actualy exist, tales of holidays and voyages cast from the blue to fool us into feeling content in the world, which in actuality could be an arid wasteland outside the small area you live in. You go on holidays, or do you? When memories can be thrust into your cranium how do you know that you once basked in rich egyptian sun, or shopped in the exotic malls of India?

We don't, we think, therefore we are, but who else thinks but us?

**mongoose** · October 22, 2006, 07:26 PM

It's all a giant, secret, evil media conspiracy, and we need to live in constant fear of it.

*Adjusts tinfoil hat*

**Silver Guard** · October 23, 2006, 01:12 AM

Ah, I seem to have missed some 'could be' and 'might be' sections, please bear with me while this technical mishap is ajusted...

**MoROmeTe** · October 25, 2006, 06:36 AM

Well, as long as anyone reading/hearing/seeing the news knows to take it with a grain of salt, use as many sources as possible and try and also reason for himself, we shall all be fine. In fact, throughout most of humanity's history most of the people have been misinformed or uninformed or subjectivly informed...

It seems a misconception to me that today there are more lies or more baltant ones that in the past. I truly believe that for the intelligent, self thinking, coherent individual modernity offers many chances of learning the truth. As for the non-intelligent, easily influenced ones, they shall live in darkness thinking they know things as they always have been...

I could go on saying that it is probably better for society and humanity that some, even most, people are slightly misinformed, but that would be extremely political uncorrect and I do not have the time to make the argument right now...

**Siblesz** · October 25, 2006, 08:28 AM

Living in lies is an essential part of society. And there's no conspiracy about the fact that nations and governments are inventions of man that play on the ignorance and faith of their followers to ensure the stability of the state. I find it entertaining, really. Sometimes, I even find myself playing into the game they have set up for us. But I always come back to my senses and realize that there's no real point in getting angry or passionate about illusions of the mind.

I can't blame people for getting passionate about these things either. I now think of it as a game. I often wondered why I got so excited when I passed a difficult level of Mario, or why I slammed the remote on the floor when those ****ing turtles killed me, but life is like that. It is a play on one's emotions. Deny yourself that, and you deny yourself life. And the funny thing is, when it comes down to it, there's little difference between a game of Mario and a game of politics.

**MoROmeTe** · October 25, 2006, 09:51 AM

I beg to differ. There's a world of diference betweeen a game of Mario and the game of politics. And I am hoping that those that pay the game of Mario and those that play the game of politics know this. Because the welfare of men and even the lifes of men are at stake in the game of politics. And as such it does require a bit more responsability when playing it that Mario...

**Siblesz** · October 25, 2006, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by MoROmeTe

I beg to differ. There's a world of diference betweeen a game of Mario and the game of politics. And I am hoping that those that pay the game of Mario and those that play the game of politics know this. Because the welfare of men and even the lifes of men are at stake in the game of politics. And as such it does require a bit more responsability when playing it that Mario...

You can debate plenty, and of course, using morality and emotion will always be the basis of your argument. Most people will agree with you, but most people fool themselves into thinking that:
A.) They can change things
B.) There's a distinction between good and evil
C.) The World gives a **** for what they're doing

Reality check: None of the above are true. Call me a fatalist, call me morbid, a nihilist, or whatever you want to call me. I call it common sense. These illusions of fervor always rip man's mind apart, always fooling him into following the desire of change, only to bring those dreams crashing down upon his conscience and his guilt. And the sad part about it is that man is a tragic creature. He believes that he is guilty for the sins of the world. He asks for forgiveness, torturing himself for what he has witnessed and done. It's foolish to live like that. Even great men change nothing in the greater cycle of things. We can but observe and question our realities, and that's as good as it gets.

And no, I'm not saying one should live one's life in complete fatalism, but to understand that the world will always be like it is today, and that there's pretty much nothing that one can do to change it is a fundamental paradigm of human thought. Sure, fight for what you think is right, but don't fight to save the world, but to save a person, or maybe two or three. That is noble and realistic enough. It will lift your ego, make you happier for who you are and for what you've done, but it won't change much.

So, play your game of politics, root for America or against it, condemn the Nazis and condone Mother Theresa, but I prefer to observe and to live my own life to the best of my abilities as an individual, and not as part of a group who live in delusions of thought. I prefer to have desire for matters of proximity, to realize that life is simply a transition, and to have great experiences during my time here. Be my guest. Waste your time away on petty illusions, but I'll be smoking weed and playing Mario instead.

**Silver Guard** · October 30, 2006, 05:32 AM

This sounds remarkably like destiny to me, before I spin off on the wrong track could you affirm this is indeed the form of system you speak of?

**Siblesz** · October 30, 2006, 05:34 AM

Originally Posted by silver guard

This sounds remarkably like destiny to me, before I spin off on the wrong track could you affirm this is indeed the form of system you speak of?

It is destiny and fatalism, yes. And not a destiny as extensive as to say that EVERYTHING is planned, but that all things come to the same conclusion and that the cycle repeats itself throughout eternity.

**Tom Paine** · October 30, 2006, 05:39 AM

Stop me if I'm wandering down a false alleyway here, but what you are saying is that in the end things end up the same, when the cycle or wave has reached its conclusion; but this does not affect human affairs, in the end, as mankind is but a blip in the universe. Furthermore you yourself say that human actions affect the wave, just not its conclusion; so free will exists within limitations imposed by the wave, yes?

**Siblesz** · October 30, 2006, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by the Grim Squeaker

Stop me if I'm wandering down a false alleyway here, but what you are saying is that in the end things end up the same, when the cycle or wave has reached its conclusion; but this does not affect human affairs, in the end, as mankind is but a blip in the universe. Furthermore you yourself say that human actions affect the wave, just not its conclusion; so free will exists within limitations imposed by the wave, yes?

Yes, but admitting oneself to the above also reduces the meaning of everything that is human-made, and even of life itself. It is nihilism that we are afraid of facing, yet it is precisely meaninglessness that I am attempting to portray through the eternity of the cycle. It reduces the scope of one's life to a simple repetitous game. It makes one realize that in the end and according to universal law, there is not one bit of a difference between a game of Mario and a game of politics. And the only obstacle that keeps us from completely understanding what this really means to all of us are the human inventions of society and morality.

**Tom Paine** · October 30, 2006, 05:48 AM

Single, repetitious, but still variable. You seem to dismiss the ability to affect its process, although not the conclusion, as irrelevant, despite the fact that it is an alteration, albeit irrelevant in the long run.

**Siblesz** · October 30, 2006, 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by the Grim Squeaker

Single, repetitious, but still variable. You seem to dismiss the ability to affect its process, although not the conclusion, as irrelevant, despite the fact that it is an alteration, albeit irrelevant in the long run.

Speaking in universal terms, if the conclusion is always the same, the process has no real standard of measurement. The standard we have to lead our lives by is a human standard, one that we invented with the coming of civilization. But in universal terms, if there is no standard, it means that you can live your life as you like, whether acting like Mother Theresa or like Hitler, and nothing will result from that in the end. Your life will be easier if you act like Mother Theresa, you'll help a lot of people along the way and live a happy life, but when your time comes, you'll join the universal flow of all things as everyone else will, and all things will be renewed as if neither you nor Hitler had never even existed.

**Tom Paine** · October 30, 2006, 05:56 AM

But it matters during your life time; yes, in the long run one's actions are futile, but if we look at it in a less longterm manner the actions have a definite purpose, a definite effect, and thus, they are not purposeless; the end is the sum of all the parts, and though we do not change the end, we change how it comes about, we change the process, without changing the conclusion, in however small a way, and that is still important.

**Siblesz** · October 30, 2006, 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by the Grim Squeaker

But it matters during your life time; yes, in the long run one's actions are futile, but if we look at it in a less longterm manner the actions have a definite purpose, a definite effect, and thus, they are not purposeless; the end is the sum of all the parts, and though we do not change the end, we change how it comes about, we change the process, without changing the conclusion, in however small a way, and that is still important.

It's important solely to you, of course. Importance is created and destroyed as we like. That's the point I've been trying to staple from the beginning. But that doesn't detract of the fact that what we consider important is actually not very much so. We fool ourselves into thinking things are important so that we may live according to a set of limits and boundaries in our lives and so that these boundaries may keep us coordinated in our limited trajectories.

**Tom Paine** · October 30, 2006, 06:00 AM

No; its important to the process as well. You presume that the conclusion is all that matters; and yes, this is a valid perspective, but I would posit that it is a flawed one; the process is as important if not more so than the conclusion, and if the conlusion is immutable but the process mutable, I'd say the process took precedence.

**Siblesz** · October 30, 2006, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by the Grim Squeaker

No; its important to the process as well. You presume that the conclusion is all that matters; and yes, this is a valid perspective, but I would posit that it is a flawed one; the process is as important if not more so than the conclusion, and if the conlusion is immutable but the process mutable, I'd say the process took precedence.

You're repeating my words, but you're adding unwanted value to the process.

We can create and destroy the value of the process as we like, but we cannot create nor destroy the cycle. Death will always be death. We may not change death's coming. It will come. However, we may delay death. We may postpone its coming for 10 years if we live healthily enough. But we may not stop death's coming. It is intrinsic to the cycle and it is an immutable conclusion. The process, therefore, is what matters. But what we do within the process is up to us. There is no standard by which we must regiment our process, for the conclusion will always be the same.