Archive for January, 2011
During the end of 2010 I thought it necessary to gauge the everyday person’s point of view on spirituality. We too often consume ourselves with elaborate philosophical arguments that may or may not actually represent the real times threats and potential of the subject. While it is typically considered as a irrelevant to the broader philosophical arguments on spirituality, I felt it necessary to ask everyone I could: Why? Because these are the people who carry out spiritual missions (relief, revolts, etc.)
Why is spirituality so valuable. I needed to know from everyone else, “what’s the point?”
It turns our that the point is, according to about 2400 people so far, “to connect us all“. I’ll call it “connectivity”.
Approximately 29% of people think that the point is to provide a “design for life”, and another 20% have “other” understandings.
Per my latest book, I’ll present a logical economic model which suggests that it is not. Further, I think it is necessary to understand that all of the acceptance and tolerance within human and technological ability with not create pervasive harmonies for our species and those that we govern.
A few days ago my new Facebook friend wrote this
“Any individual who attempts to formulate an objective set of values will always fail, because the prism through which they analyze the world will inevitably be marred by their own experiences and perspectives. Therefore, moral standards are actually cultural standards, and nothing more. Cultural Relativism posits that there are no universal ethical truths, only various cultural codes!”
-Alvin MP Delfian-
This is accurate.
Further, as we evolve, humans need to acknowledge mortality (constant) instead of morality (relative). This is the only way to provide an adequate ethical regard for our species as we evolve technologically.
Is it okay to use LOL and smiley faces 🙂 in the most formal texts?…scholarly papers and books? I’m a fan of including all of the most modern cultural cliches in my writings, simply because its representative of this age. I’ve recently received some mail asking about my use of the “LOL”, suggesting that its inappropriate in philosophy. When I read texts from times passed I recognize so many terms and scenarios that are foreign in modernity, and I’m sure that much more than those three letters will be antiquated in due time… And now I am compelled to use LOL whenever I find something funny, just to ensure that my sens of humor is preserved…LOL Down with rules and intellectual protocol!