Logically impossible to prohibit, logically

Post questions or suggestions here.
Post Reply
kjones
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Australia

Logically impossible to prohibit, logically

Post by kjones » Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:44 pm

Enlightenment
Thinking
Consciousness
Thing
Something
Anything



It's possible to make laws against them, but not logically. It's impossible to enforce.

An enlightened person, who (for some odd reason) prohibits enlightenment has to break this law to do so, and continue to break the law in order to keep enforcing it, which would automatically disqualify them as enlightened. So, it's also impossible to enforce.

But this wouldn't stop anyone pretending they're enforcing such laws.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason » Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:52 pm

I can't figure out what you're trying to say Kelly.

kjones
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kjones » Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:00 pm

Look at it this way: no one can logically create a law against enlightenment. That's quite a fortunate thing, really.

If they did (illogically), there'd be all sorts of discussion about it, with people trying to decide why it was so bad. In reaching a consensus, all the bad things enlightened people are supposedly capable of, like expressing highly unpopular views, not contributing or conforming to the standards of human welfare, would have to be compared to an ordinary individual's typical freedoms. An enlightened person would have to be equivalent to a terrorist, to make enlightenment illegal.

This happened to Socrates and Jesus. Kierkegaard "fortunately" died and Nietzsche had a mental breakdown, before either could be arrested and laws made against their type. So neither of them created holy crisis movements under their own names, though they certainly created pseudo-holy movements.

Whenever prohibited, enlightenment is misconstrued. It's possibly an advantage each time this happens, because there is such a public debate, that some kind of understanding of the non-fundamentalist nature of it enters human history. But it usually is diluted to a vague religious, cultural or intellectual phenomenon, such that the follower would fall into a pit, and the rebel would only become a terrorist, neither of them following the path to enlightenment.

The more religious movements, in which the spearhead is punished with death, or really runs gung-ho into the gauntlet of society, the more debate about values, which in turn gives any individual a measure of intellectual freedom. This might prevent misguided rebels or blind followers from being created.

If one gets the death penalty in one's own culture, that raises a real storm. It's a sign of our global weakness of character that the death punishment of a member of one culture (e.g. a Dutch cartoonist) by another culture (Muslims) is horrifying. But when the tribe's values are fractured, and no individual belongs anywhere in it, then one is forced to choose for oneself.

Did that make it any clearer, Jason?

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason » Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:29 pm

Not really. I can't seem to decipher it into a meaningful flow of ideas, and your language is quite unusual in parts.

kjones
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kjones » Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:42 pm

I forbid anything to occur!

Jason, I forbid you to become enlightened!

It is illegal for anything ever to arise in your consciousness, Jason.

You're not allowed to speak truthfully, or say aloud anything that reflects what is happening.

No one is permitted to think deeply about anything, and can engage in meditation only if it is therapeutic.

Everyone must work as hard as possible to adapt to the society they live in, and not disturb the peace.

You may speak freely about the advantages and disadvantages of minor matters only, such as the best ways to adapt to social rules.

And lastly,

Never discuss logic, truth, or reasoning, at any time, as these cause too much stress for human health and wellbeing.

-

I admit I'm being a bit intuitive here, in exploring this idea further. You're free to take whatever you like from it.

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:51 pm

Kelly,

I also struggle to work out if I've comprehended you. I think I've got it, then you throw it to something else, and I no longer know.

kjones
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kjones » Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:12 pm

There's really only two aspects to it:


1. It's logically impossible to outlaw consciousness - at any moment, ever - even though it's quite possible to create the illogical law.


2. Any attempt to be in denial creates either:

- awareness of how illogical it is (and one then runs the gauntlet of society, ie. all that desires to be in denial),

or

- confusion.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason » Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:27 pm

Ok I think I'm getting it now. I don't think it's logically impossible to enforce these things, maybe just impractical to enforce them. What I mean is, that at the current time it's very hard to enforce a true totalitarian system across a population, but not logically impossible. Orwell's 1984 comes to mind. With the right setup, like mind controlling technologies it seems like it would be possible to rid everyone of thoughts that were deemed illegal. I could imagine technologies in the future that would allow widescale and finely tuned mind control.

kjones
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kjones » Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:49 am

Jason wrote:Ok I think I'm getting it now. I don't think it's logically impossible to enforce these things, maybe just impractical to enforce them. What I mean is, that at the current time it's very hard to enforce a true totalitarian system across a population, but not logically impossible. Orwell's 1984 comes to mind. With the right setup, like mind controlling technologies it seems like it would be possible to rid everyone of thoughts that were deemed illegal. I could imagine technologies in the future that would allow widescale and finely tuned mind control.
Partly, yes, you did get it. A system cannot be enforced across all consciousnesses.

However, you partly didn't get it. It is impossible to stop consciousness altogether, which is what a consciousness-outlawing consciousness-controlling technology is illogically attempting to do. This is simply because the stop appears in consciousness.

Lennyrizzo
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 am

Post by Lennyrizzo » Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:55 am

However, you partly didn't get it. It is impossible to stop consciousness altogether, which is what a consciousness-outlawing consciousness-controlling technology is illogically att
And you partly didn't get it either. The way I read it the writer didn't imply "altogether" but specified "everyone [within a specific] population."

But, perhaps I'm only partly getting it, 2

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason » Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:51 pm

kjones wrote: However, you partly didn't get it. It is impossible to stop consciousness altogether, which is what a consciousness-outlawing consciousness-controlling technology is illogically attempting to do. This is simply because the stop appears in consciousness.
A bullet to the head or a H-bomb or two on a city seems like an effective tool to stop consciousness altogether. The stop doesn't have to appear in consciousness, just physical alteration or obliteration of the brain or body can do it.

Post Reply