Would you tolerate a bomb in your body, waiting to detonate if you deviated from the needs of society?
(media.communities.win)
💊 RED PILL 💊
Comments (117)
sorted by:
Why is this stickied? Because it's thought provoking, and I was wondering how long a sticky like this will last with our top researchers hunting things down.
Awesome, thanks! I think it will be greatly enriching for all to ponder the thoughts presented, so, to see you agreeing and helping them reach more of us seeking the truth is quite an encouraging sign!
Ever wonder why they want young blood?
It's a literal marxist argument. You all see that right?
It's saying that acting in the interests of the self is something that must be punished with death for the 'greater good'. Marxists lack morality and therby assume it's absent in all. They don't understand consentual exchange or that inequality of outcome can arrive from unequal contributions.
They want to frame you as a bomb to justify lining you up against a wall and shooting you.
It’s literally the polar opposite of Marxism you idiot.
Communism doesn’t line up and shoot those who don’t contribute, they allow them to keep leeching off of others.
I think the mark of a good question is that more than one side of the debate sees fervent truth, even if their expression of that truth is at odds with that of their debater’s
Are you saying communism allows bums? Are there lazy people who don’t work in China, and just suck up off the system? Legit question.
Yes.
Yes.
China has a 15% total unemployment rate and a welfare system for nationals.
Search keywords “unemployed” or “homeless” with “China”.
Communists absolutely line up and shoot the wealthy. The cell is one that has taken more than it 'deserves'. Anything that is in opposition to the organism's greater good is to be excised.
Rich? Up against the wall
Wrong politics? Up against the wall
This is what Marxists argue. This is an example they use. If it's good for the body, it's good for society.
Communist don’t even line up and shoot wealthy you idiot.
The cells are becoming destroyed because they are cancerous and stealing from others. Literally what communism allows.
Holy fuck you are dumb. I can’t believe how frustrating it is arguing with such retards. Keep pretending whatever is an argument for Marxist no matter how much of an idiot it makes you look like.
Communists believe the rich have stolen from the poor. That's one of their axiomatic principles - that wealth is zero sum so for someone to get money that means someone involved in their production flow is NOT getting that money and one can infer any disparitiy in compensation as theft - they believe 8 hours is 8 hours, and make no distinction for skill or scarcity.
How do you not know what a communist is?? Where the fuck do you live that you've never interacted with them even on line?? Don't call me retarded, I can out IQ you any fucking day of the week.
I'm starting to think I'm arguing with closet marxists here. "Communism only executes the cancerous" holy shit that's the sort of revisionist apologist shit only the profoundly naive or a literal symnpathizer would assert.
“Don't call me retarded, I can out IQ you any fucking day of the week.”
Lol the faggot got butthurt. Keep crying about a post with cancer regulation being an argument for Marxism you absolute idiot.
When you have all these avenues of response available to you and the strongest one you can think to use is name calling, you might as well admit to yourself that your argument doesn't have any ground to stand on - Because that's all I read from it.
Everyone here hates marxism and all the degeneracy it spawns. You seem to be bringing a massive pair of vision-restricting glasses to your analysis here however.
It is a question posed to the reader, and almost every person I’ve got an answer from agreed with my own inclination that p53 is an agent of the Light. So the fact you read into this that the suppression of tumors is “bad” and that the analogy drawn to wider society such that human-analog “cancer suppressors” are deserving of being “lined up and shot” is rather absurd to me.
It’s not even a Marxist concept. Marxism and communism would allow the one feeding off of others to live, not destroy it once it stop contributing to society. It’s literally the polar opposite of Marxism.
It's because it's an actual argument that actual marxists use.
I almost envy the naive comfort you must live so far from them. But I'm surrounded by theire sort, and I'm giving you a heads up. Piss on it if you like, but you're agreeing with the marxist ideal that the selfish cell should be lined up and shot by p53 for failing to put the whole before the self.
You keep saying selfish, but every cell is “selfish”, like every gene and every person is - to a degree. The story is discussing cancerous cells. Cells SO selfish, that they not only cheat, but “capture the rules of the game” (which is to say, break the rules of the body, and metastasize into a tumor) such that their cheating can GROW unabated. This is not mere selfishness, this is the root of all evil.
p53, in a just society, would eliminate the oppressor, not the oppressed. Thus I hoped to evoke a more thought provoking discussion, along the lines of, how are these things determined beyond the “simple” scope of the network of cells we call a body?
I'm not arguing any merits, but framing those this was written in. I'm explaining to you naive sheltered folk who are fortunate to live in comaprably lovely places that this is a piece of Marxist dogma written to justify the dehumanization of people they deem not to be living in accordance with the state, to justify the need and righteousness of lining them up against a wall and shooting them.
That's what this is.
You see a biology question, I immediately recognize it as Marxist dogma. I've seen this exaxt argument before. I recognize the rhetorical framing of the inserted questions on morality and the way it sets up extrapolating up onto society at large.
I'm trying to warn you. Please don't try and fight me just to fight me. Please allow yourself to be warned and raise your guard just a little.
your name is objective reality, but you refuse to look at the objective reality of how nature functions.
I'm not arguing nature, I am informing you that the above example is one that marxists use to justify marxism.
Violence proportional to success (???)
(Up against the wall)
^ "It is immoral to work for yourself rather than the state" - That's literal communism that's being argued in the picture. An actual Marxist image was stickied on GA and you all can't see it. It's framing you (an individual) as 'a bomb' if you ever deviate from 'the needs of the state' to justify lining you up against a wall and shooting you.
Now I know how Yuri Bezmenov felt. You're repeating a marxist argument and internalizing it without realizing. I'm trying to warn you. Someone stickied a marxist argument on GA.
yawn, dude. the p53 comparison is perfect for dealing with a global parasitic elite that absolutely is cheating and breaking what any normal society would consider basic human rights. That's what we're talking about here. Self interest is the prime purpose but as soon as a person begins cheating/murdering/stealing which is exactly what we're dealing with, there are universal karmic consequences. Sorry.
So you believe in Marxism.
Your only problem is that the Marxists are picking the wrong people to put up against the wall, and IF YOU had been at the head of one of the last communist dictatorships it totally wouldn't have failed because you would have chosen the correct parasites to execute.
How nice to know that you think that you get to decide who is acting 'selfish' and 'not in the interests of the state' and believe you (or someone else) should be empowered to deal with that self declared selfishness.
You're a Marxist. This thread is filled with closet Marxists because apparently no one has warned you about where that thinking leads.
Man one day you'll realize how deep the propaganda runs in your brain. The NWO is a "capitalist" wet-dream. Calling for free markets while a cabal of capitalists control all corporations and through lobbying world governments.
https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/New_World_Order We hide the truth in fiction.
You really think you're right and yet do not understand any of what's actually going on on this planet. The global enslavement apparatus thinks the divide people like you put on capitalism vs communism to be comical.
Thank you for outing yourself as the anti-capitalist marxist that you are
It's framed as a rhetorical question, which is an argument. And it's one Marxists make because they mistakenly think you can extrapolate mechanics necessary in absence of consciousness, to scales where that awareness is abundant.
It’s really not rhetorical, neither in the context I posted it, nor in the context it was written.
It is a Rorschach test in some ways. You have seen “rich people” in place of the blob that looks like a tumor. Do you harbor feelings of resentment or envy for “the rich”? Because most people I’ve talked to see the cancerous blob not as “the rich”, but the parasitic entity that feeds off the blind greed of their “rich” cattle.
If nothing else, just remember that everyone views things through their own lens of understanding.
You posted literal marxist dogma that they jerk over. Congrats.
It’s literally the background story for a video game lmao
That doesn't refute my assertion.
Do you even know what your point is?
As part of God's Great Design, more proof that God works in mysterious ways... Fail safes abound in life..
It's a maxist argument that those acting in self interest are akin to a bomb, framed as justification for lining you up against a wall and shooting you... just like the body does.
So something STOPS working in your body, and then your body doesn’t allow it to live off of others. That’s the opposite of Marxism you absolute idiot.
Killing those who act for their own interests rather than that of the greater whole is core to the communist ethos. The argument is that because it is right for the body it therefore follows it is right for society.
Makes too much money? You're not working for the body anymore, up against the wall
Wrong politics? You're pulling in the wrong direction of the body, up against the wall
It is blowing my mind how none of you have encountered this argument before.
Are policemen necessary? Why or why not?
I'm not arguing the merits or not of any position. I'm explaining to you that this is an actual Marxist argument. Marxists post this. They use it to justify dehumanizing those they feel aren't living for the state, and dreaming of executing them - afterall the body does it so it's perfectly right for me to as well. This protein is a savior for the body, and so I shall be a savior of society executing those I deem cancerous.
All the rest of you seem to be so ashamed that you found yourself tricked by marxist theory that you're trying to pretend it actually hasn't anything to do with marxism.
You ever seen the movie taxi driver? This is a valid discussion, quit shitting all over it.
The discussion is irrelevant, you're not even reading what I wrote.
But if I were to take a stance on that discussion, I would not take the marxist position that those I view as cancerous can be morally executed 'for the greater good'
But if you want to be one of those "Communism would have worked if only I had been the one deciding who to execute" you go ahead and be wrong.
This raises the fundamental (and exploitable) error in the statement, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
This statement sounds very reasonable. You put two things of the same substance on a balance, the one with the most weight is greater. Specifically, if I put 10 oz of gold on one side of a balance, and 1 oz of gold on another, and ask you to choose one, you will almost certainly pick the 10 oz of gold, because it holds more value.
The problem (and exploit) is when we start weighing different things. For example, what if we change the wording slightly to, "the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the individual."
Here we aren’t even talking about “a few” but just one person. The calculus is simple. The many are more important than any individual when weighed in the balance. I’ve just changed one word really, and put even fewer people on one side than we had before. The one changed word, what we are weighing, is “right” v. “need”. Those seem close enough to the same thing that we can just move on. Our decision calculus is done.
Or is it? Do these words really mean the same thing? How close are they? Are we really weighing the same thing?
In order to clarify this, we need to look at what these words mean.
A need is something that must be supplied to achieve a specific state of existence. To put another way, without supplying what someone needs, a specific state of existence cannot be attained.
From Black's Law Dictionary (6th edition):
A right is intrinsic and cannot be removed (inalienable). A need must be supplied, which means it comes from an external source. It is by definition alienable. So however they should be looked at in a decision calculus, looking at them as the same thing is completely inappropriate.
Back to the balance analogy, it would be like putting 10oz of silver on one side and 1oz of gold on the other. Now which would you choose? The answer is not so simple. We would have to look at the current exchange rate, the supply and demand curves, etc. Its a completely different calculus. Thus equating the two becomes much more difficult. At the least it shows that a balance is the wrong tool to use to make a decision.
It becomes even more difficult when we think of who determines the "needs of the many" and the "rights of the individual." If the needs of the many is determined by the few at the top, have they correctly assessed those needs?
In the case of biology, the needs of the many are determined by the many, or more specifically all of the others together, each with their individual voice, not just a few at the top. It gets a little more complicated than that, since its largely determined by the immune system (the few at the top) and the immune system is respondent to the many (by a molecular voting system), so the parallels aren't all that dissimilar when you get into the nitty gritty. Nevertheless, the decision calculus for the "needs of the many" is not calculated the same on the social scale as it is on the cellular scale.
Lets look at the "rights of the individual" on the cellular scale. The cell has all sorts of individual rights, but stealing nutrients from other cells, or polluting the local environment (all things that happen before p53 is upregulated), or replicating without restriction and taking up all the available space (cancer) are not among those rights. Therefore, what we are really weighing in this case is the desires of the individual cell v. the needs of the many as determined by both the other individuals (whose needs cease to be met when a neighboring cell goes haywire) and the all the others needs (actual needs, determined by themselves) that make up the rest of the system when a cell becomes cancerous.
So in the case of the cellular example, the needs of the many are determined by all of the individuals of the many, putting in their individual voices that their needs are not being met because one cell is violating the natural constraint on their rights, which says "thou shalt not steal from thy neighbor cells, nor from the whole." Its actions will result in the death of all the neighbors, and eventually the whole organism. Therefore the individual cell has forfeited its right to live by its own action; a violation of the contract that it has with its neighbors not to actively harm them. (The word "actively" is incredibly important here.)
In the society case, the needs of the many are determined by committee, not by the individuals themselves. A committee that in this case was founded by the Rockefellers, and influenced by the Rothschilds, and who knows who else is involved. I suggest that the needs of the many on the one side of the scale are not in fact the needs of the many at all, but the desires of those at the top. They are being weighed against the rights (inalienable, can't be taken away) of the individual. The balance is weighing two completely different things, and therefore a balance is not the best tool for the job of making sound decisions.
Truly insightful post, I’m so glad you were inspired to share it
u/slyver
That’s a nice thought exercise and a great response. Although on the surface it seems like it’s a Marxist argument as in the collective needs to be protected from the individual, in reality the “elites” are the real cancer and have camaflouged themselves as part of the “collective” and aimed the destruction at those who raised the alarm bells. Much like real life cancer cells that evade the bodies defense system.
Would anyone argue that the corrupt elites need not be removed from society?
Another comparison for P53 would be the role of policeman. If the police was limiting the rights of a gang member, of course he would be a worker of light vs if the police were enforcing draconian rules on citizenry that would be different.
Checks and balances are needed.
Interesting point. What is one of our most “feared” diseases? HIV, which infects the bodies own immune cells, effectively guaranteeing its eventual success unless some other measure is taken
Very insightful comment, thanks for sharing it
Yeah, it's a marxist argument framed to justify lining up those they deem 'selfish' against the wall to be shot. Can't believe it was stickied.
Us debating and explaining the flaws in these arguments are among the most important things we can be doing. It is only after analyzing and debating such arguments that we can inform others of the errors in their reasoning. IMO it is exactly these types of topics that should be stickied (presented for debate) over all other topics. The results of such debate are the red pills needed to change the world.
"Hey guys, it's totally a good to put people up against the wall if they aren't acting in concert with the needs of the state right?"
This isn't a debate, and it wasn't posted with critique. This is someone stickying actual marxist dogma on great awakening and leaving it to people like me to be downvoted for pointing it out.
I didn't downvote you. I almost never downvote, and I certainly never do it because someone disagrees with me, or says something I disagree with.
Now that that is out of the way, the ONLY way to wake up the world is by showing people the truth. You can't tell them the truth, they have been brainwashed. That is why it must be shown. You can only show people the truth if you understand where they are coming from. You can only understand where people are coming from if you really try to understand their arguments.
You are welcome to call this "Marxist propaganda", that doesn't mean I agree. I think it is a legitimate question. Not everything Marxist is illegitimate in theory. That is why it has power. If it was all obviously wrong, it wouldn't be threatening to take over the planet. It is the misapplication of reasoning in the details that makes it so evil. In order to address those evils that have infiltrated the minds of the sleepers you must look at them, debate them, and understand them completely.
The search for truth when using reason, logic, science, law, etc. is always a debate.
Always.
Dude don't be obtuse. I wasn't saying it can't be debated, I said it wasn't framed as a debate - it did not come with critique or comment. And I never accused you of personally downvoting me. Quit inventing goalposts.
And yes, marxism is inherently wrong. Cells are a constituants of a body, societies are composed of individuals. One isn't conscious so can neither decide for itself, not be tyanized, the other can. They aren't comparable. There is nothing of value extrapolating up and marxists do NOT have a point here or anywhere.
Posting without critique or framing is NOT the examination you describe. It's dogma and propoganda subtlely slipped knowingly or otherwise, no different than if I slipped without comment some cleverly disguised Thomas Sowell quote into a commy sub on Reddit.
Marxism allows leeches to feed off of others. They don’t rid of the non-contributors. It’s literally polar opposite to Marxism. Can’t believe you’re commenting this everywhere.
You're noting what marxism is in practice, I'm noting that this is a marxist justification for their priciples - Kill the rich because anyone that doesn't toe the line and takes more than they 'need' is a disservice to the greater organism. The body does this, therefore so ought society they argue.
It's an actual marxist argument that actual marxists use.
Cells get more than they “need” every day, in most humans living in the industrialized world. More salt than they need, more sugar than they need, more of all kinds of things than they need. These “selfish” cells are not being “lined up and shot”. The short story is discussing cancerous cells. Cells which break the very laws that raised them. These aren’t mere trespasses or transgressions, they are distortions so great that their greed and corruption spreads beyond themselves and poisons the entire being. It rewrites the laws themselves to ensure its undiminished growth.
Although, that’s just my interpretation. Isn’t the proof that it’s a genuine question evidenced in our vastly different answers?
I'm not arguing the marxist interpretation. It's not mine. I'm not arguing it's right or has merrit. I'm trying to explain to you that it IS a marxist argument. A marxist infographic was stickied to GA without critque or comment.
I had one jab. I have also had Stage III cancer. If I get cancer again from this I will, well, I don't know. I won't be happy about it. I was stupid and trusted the doctor, never, ever again. I pray that doesn't happen. My cancer was genetic, I have the BRCA gene but I have to wonder if that is even exits or fake. I need to look into it. I was also in a clinical trial and I will never be someone's experiment again. I would slap these people if they were next to me.
It is sad but many of them are trapped in their own mind prison. Some may say they are doing it for the money. But sadly I believe many of them truly cannot see an alternative point of view. They truly believe in the lies. It’s not greed as much as arrogance. They cannot see a reality in which they could be wrong.
But it’s not just about indoctrination or the medical profession. Just look at the simple marital dynamics. So many of today’s marital problems are the result of the inability to see from the spouses’ point of view. The whole “I can do no wrong mentality”.
Thank you so much. I will read psalm 23.
Very thought-provoking!
The naked mole rat lives long, cancer-free lives.
A little striking in the aesthetic department though.
Interesting you bring them up, as far as I know, they have some very unique features that set them apart from the vast majority of the animal kingdom. They are effectively blind, they almost never see the sun, and they are community oriented to a degree not seen anywhere else amongst the mammals (as far as I’m aware).
A quick trip to wiki reminds me that their metabolism and breath-rate are far lower than comparable animals. What is it that the yogis and monks of old aim for? Is it not similar in many ways?
Interestingly, if we didn't develop cancer, we wouldn't have the need for apaptosis. There are a good number of creatures on Earth that have been observed to basically never get cancer naturally, however, they also live incredibly long lifespans. Which could lead to population stagnation and limited cultural and biological growth/evolution
Which makes me wonder if cancer an evolutionary benefit, as by killing a species earlier it might promote the species to reproduce more often and, in effect, create faster and faster generational evolutionary and epigenetic changes.
Pros - Faster and consistent genetic and epigenetic change via more frequent and quantitative breeding sessions resulting in rapid generational changes versus species with no internal pressure to breed rapidly, relying solely on external environmental conditions to impact breeding habits resulting in evolutionary change that is slow and inconsistent.
Cons - It's literally cancer.
That's not true at all. Apoptosis is required for all sorts of cellular problems, not just cancer. Similarly p53 has many more functions than just its role in apoptosis. Cell biology is a complicated thing. Nothing is really a simple "this applies to that" in any exclusive, or even primary sense.
All of these creatures have apoptosis as a fundamental part of their cellular processing.
I assert that this is a fear without any evidential support.
Cancer is probably caused mostly by diet. Therefore its probably less of an "evolutionary benefit" than it is a result of poison.
Any speculations on the fitness benefits are inappropriate as presented imo, because they assume the premise of fitness (in the genetic meaning) is a clearly positive thing. Not to say the concept has no merit, but it suggests that it is something good, something to be striven for, where that is not necessarily true, or is at the least very debatable.
I stated that in my post.
No they don't.
I assert it's not a fear, that it's a natural reality. Population stagnation and genetic stagnation have been observed in nature countless times. Our planet tends to favor the ability to adapt and seems to crave novelty considering the harsh natural punishments for lack of genetic diversity.
On a related note, I'd like to point out a few of the species that don't naturally get cancer tend to avoid UV exposure.
Starting a discussion on the costs and benefits of such a relationship was the intent.
Of course they do. Apoptosis is fundamental to all multicellular creatures, even plants. It is essential from zygote to ultimate organismal demise for every creature on this planet.
I assert that this happens when there is no need for change. Most of our adaptations are epigenetic which happens as a response to our environment on the individual scale. Some of these epigenetics are then passed on to our offspring.
I should have said the implication that "population stagnation", and "limited biological evolution" are bad, along with your statement of "limited cultural evolution" (whatever that means) are also bad is a fear without evidential support.
The lack of cancer is not necessarily a resistance to cellular damage, but rather the ability for cells to take care of the damage. For example, one of the most highly cancer resistant species is elephants. Elephants are in the sun all the time. However, they have an extra copy of p53, which means their cells are more likely to enter apoptosis upon damage. This ease of apoptosis is what is thought to be the cancer resistant mechanism of elephants. This also suggests apoptosis inducing agents (for those cells on the cusp) would be an excellent path towards cancer prevention and therapy.
Naked mole rats, while they are not exposed to UV are thought to be protected from cancer because of a molecule called hyaluronan which adds additional structure to the extracellular matrix, preventing cells from unrestricted growth. In both of these cases the anti-cancer mechanism is something that takes care of the cancer. It doesn't prevent it.
When I say that cancer is dietary I mean something similar. It isn't that our diet is intended to prevent cellular damage, but to allow the cells (and ECM) to function at optimal capacity when cellular damage happens.
They literally fucking don't, look it up.
Hmm. Apoptosis is something that I study. In years of studying it, I am unaware of any multicellular creature's cells that do not have apoptosis (programmed cell death) as part of their functionality. I even linked two papers that support that assertion. If you are aware of any study that shows that there are animals who do not employ apoptosis, please show me the evidence.
I mean, its fundamental in development (during gestation) for all animals. Every single one uses apoptosis to delineate tissue boundaries. What you are saying is ludicrous to the extreme unless you can provide evidence to support it.
Insightful post, the one thought I could possibly add is that (in humans at least), in almost all cases (historically speaking), cancer was a death that would occur after breeding age. This makes it harder to argue that it serves any benefit. This (admittedly simple) analysis, combined with the fact that SO MANY cancers have been proven to be caused by gene-mediated environmental factors (e.g. childhood lymphoma and high voltage transformer stations, and breast cancer rates directly linked to BPAs released from consumer plastics) leads me to conclude there is nothing possibly good about it, and it is largely a result of TPTB slowly poising their herd of chattle
Well at that point, we delve into the different types of cancer. As well as naturally occurring cancers vs relatively recent unnaturally occurring cancers, while talking about the potential advantages or disadvantages from an evolutionary/genetic standpoint.
It's literally almost like you didn't read my post, because I mentioned that.
Buddy, have you heard about this thing called Congress?
Or are you going to pull the “no true” fallacy out and say there aren’t any “properly organized societies” that exist in the world today?
P53 is an agent of death.
Hmm...
Is death an agent of the Light, or the Dark? Or does Death supercede both and bow only to God?
On a similar note, what of the times God uses death as a righteous punishment? And surely the opposite is reflected in the first murderer, the cursed Cain? Which would indicate that by labeling p53 an agent of “death” you’ve merely pushed back the question. Thoughts?
u/graphenium
But isn’t that even true in Christianity? The premise that when people die (if they believe) they return back to the Lord or heaven? Without death, people would be in this mortal/material world for ever away from God? So would death still be evil if it brings you to God?
I suppose the concept of duality can be thrown in and thrown out with occult beliefs but at the same time, are things really black and white? Water is essential for life but too much and it could kill you too. Same reasoning with technology, the internet is great but in the wrong hands it can be used for evil.
You raise excellent points. From my burgeoning understanding of my own faith, I understand the Bible refers to what could effectively be understood as our “remaking”, when and if the gates of Heaven have been reached upon our death, [edit: also, there is at least one person I know who was raised up to Heaven “whole”, Enoch, as stated in the Book of Jude] but like I imply I’m hardly a theologian others should turn to for questions about dogma or doctrines. Maybe c/Christianity would have some interesting answers to the questions you raise however.
“Are things really black or white” is a question I continue to struggle with, in many realms lol
Interesting take... the way I always perceived the “trans humanists” was as a group fixated on the physical - they would rather “live” “forever” on a sterile microchip than live forever as subdivisions (sub-divine-sons) of God.
Can you imagine a definition of “transhumanism” that seeks a return to the pristine physical-spirit bodies of man before our fall? I feel like the battle of our times will be one fought between the physical-transhumanists and the spiritual-transhumanists, though these terms feel rather blunt and thus not particularly useful.
Thanks for sharing your compliments and insights!
Not tolerating jack shit.
Genes are not alive, so they are not agents of darkness or light.
You may be interested in the idea of “the selfish gene”
I'm quite familiar with the idea... Which fact do you wish to imply?
Just to elicit the questions “what defines life?” “Are genes in any sense alive?”, that kind of thing
No, they’re not.
Thoughts on Rupert Sheldrake’s work on genetic memory / morphic resonance?
Not familiar with that sorry.
Where is this taken from in the first place?
https://www.ishtar-collective.net/categories/book-unveiling
Might not be a standard source around here lol, but I recommend you check it out, some profound ideas. Entry #6 specifically, but all of those linked are quite interesting, and they present somewhat of a microcosmic view of existence
Interesting website. What is it? I’m kind of confused. Is it a writers forum?
It’s....
The story to go along with the hit videogame series (lol) Destiny. Much of the story is conveyed in these bite-sized “shorts”. This “book”, unveiling is a look at the conversation between the Gardener and the Winnower, the primordial “Light” and “Dark”.
Lol
Here’s another one I find quite cool:
https://www.ishtar-collective.net/cards/ghost-fragment-darkness-3
This sounds like something encouraging people to be afraid. Are you saying we all have a bomb in our bodies that eventually lead to death? Well, duh. I never heard of anyone that lived forever.
Basic problem of morality? Come on. Genetics and theology may mix but this little “talking ball” doesn’t really mean anything that I can see.
Sorry, I don’t mean to put down the writer, but it’s a weird distraction. If there is more clarification here, feel free to educate me.
There are several creatures on Earth that can naturally live forever, or at least, until something else kills/eats them. Lobsters, for example.
The cells in our body naturally undergo a process called Apaptosis when the things mentioned in the pic happen old age/mutation/etc, that's the "time bomb" in our bodies. Quite literally.
Is it really needed? Is it good? Is it bad? That's the question posed.
Not my intent in sharing...
No, not really. The linked story is talking about the tumor suppression function built into our body. It is drawing an analogy between those tumors and what drives them, and what we can readily observe in many realms of human society. “Cheaters”, “gorging on the surplus of the body”, “rewriting the rules of the game to ensure their cheating not just continues, but grows unabated”
Look deeper, grasshopper
Simple answer to your last question.
Yes.
I have seen this argument, before, and have always considered it flawed. A skim of the top counts talking about Marxism and Capitalism and rights vs needs, but I see a greater flaw than that.
Cells aren't individual, they are organic sums of their constituents. A cell doesn't "act" except as a result of what it's components do.
The cell in this write out is more analogous to a social city. Every individual running about and doing what they want (a.k.a. free commerce). We can draw a generalization about that cell or city, such as 'its a skin cell and protecting us from the elements' or 'its a liberal stronghold that doesn't penalize criminals'.
P53 In this interpretation represents an enforcer agency. If we go with the city example, say it's a state police function. When the city government officials get corrupt, it swoops in and chops the head off. Then immune cells swoop in and gobble up the detritus. The analogous actions would be the state coming in and arresting the corrupt head of the city and disincorporating the municipality. The people (or nutrients) are then released to nearby 'cities'.
Thus the question asked is really, "should we have a police force that removes the corrupt from power?"
Everyone says yes when framed this way because federalism and checks and balances are hallmarks of a well functioning government.
Just my, probably banal, two cents.
Hey, sometimes common cents is surprisingly lacking in online discourse, so thanks for staking out a space to share yours. I agree with your overall theme, but I wonder why that makes you see the question as flawed? Is it because no “governing body” for the “enforcement” is outlined, which is why you identified government/police? Or is it because it lacks the discussion of “checks and balances”?
Anyway, I’m glad it motivated others, and in turn you, to share
I just believe the fundamental interpretation of the situation is forced upon the reader. Leading, if you will, to a "correct" answer.
Let me demonstrate with another phrase: "Blood is thicker than water."
Straight forward, right? Your family comes first. But this is a forced perspective. The original phrase means the opposite: "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb."
Suddenly, it means that family isn't as important as the friends you've been through shit with.
I believe the same simplification is at work in the posted scenario by changing who is what in the metaphors.
Fair take!
What does your comment even mean, handshake?
Looks like someone touched a nerve. Two permanent bans here.
were those two spam bots that been plaguing now dot win platform (mostly on thedonald) or "reees" ?
The handshake couldn’t muster more than the solitary word “fake” lol. So you’re right on both counts