#nawsk

[nawsk]

For those who don’t quite get into the KIK scene, we have unveiled our alternative chat group (complete with forum). This will enable those with ideas that flow and stories to tell to freely express themselves and their experiences. Everyone is welcome and invite your friends. You can join in our chat room or even create your centered around a topic you’re more familiar with.

[seven-sister-stars-blog]

Come share your brush with the strange and unusual

[nawsk]

Selfishness: Materialism, Survival Instinct, or just plain Human?

We all know of the conflict of materialism, and as humans, we are often comforted and soothed by our possessions; little objects meant to remind us that we are real, and that we matter to ourselves and to others. 

Publicly, many spiritualists, officially and otherwise, rebuke the collection of physical possessions. Whether or not they are right to do so is an academic debate of which it is not my place to judge-- but it does pull into light a question that maybe we SHOULD be asking of ourselves. 

Materialism is an easy thing to chastise. There are thousands of sites and organizations, and millions of everyday people judging others for their addiction to the spoils of success. 

But does truly releasing your need for the possessions in your life really make you a better person? 

And if you are proud and admit to your love of your belongings, does that make you 'bad' or even just worse than average? Evolutionists would argue such behavior demonstrates a need for self-value and self-esteem, because, again, all evolution draws into self-preservation. But in those terms, we are normal and human for behaving as we do. 

So I ask an abstract question: Who is the greater? He who abandons his belongings for a life of poverty but free spirit? Or the man who has everything, but gave up his life for another?

Is our greatness measured by our success? Or by our willingness to give it up?  

Sacrifice of oneself for another is a type of martyrdom we both pity and aspire to. But what if we were asked to sacrifice our own family so that a hundred others could live?

To save our lover, or save our best friend? Could we choose one with a clear head and even temper?

In a world where happily ever afters are only in storybooks, and no one comes out without scars, are we any less selfish than the consumers we chastise? 

And more importantly, if truly faced with the demand to sacrifice of ourselves for the betterment of others:

As humans, being what we are, are we even capable of making the selfless decision?

  -Tali

NAWSK Scribe

[nawsk]

I think, therefore I am.

For anyone who has ever read "Hamlet" (and managed to get through it without a map, a compass, and a global tracking system), that short sentence packs a lot of punch. If you want the short version of the multi-paged monologue, Hamlet reflects on the comparisons of sleep and death, and the meaning of what it is to be alive. 

The conclusion, in less cryptic terms? "If I think I exist, then I must, for I must exist to think."

It's a very simplistic way to look at life as a timeline of existence, but it reduces us, as humans, to souls, rather than physical beings. Life lives in our thoughts, and not in our bodies, since our bodies decay without the function of our brains, and separately, the soul. But here is where discrepancies between us and the rest of the Animal Kingdom begin to widen the species gap.  

Evolution is the well accepted (though, still classified as a) "theory", but at what point did life take a turn for the complex? Let’s be fair, even the smallest of organisms can be complex, but Humans are perhaps the most complicated beings on the planet. Though we share similar traits to animals (desire for self-preservation, reproduction, and social structure), we have the capacity for more than any other species on the planet. 

We are the only ones with the *ability* to speak. That is not to say we are the only ones to communicate, but we are the only ones with the vocal chords even capable of spoken speech. Even primates do not have the properly formed organs to do so. 

We are the only ones to so frequently desire the destruction of our own kind. 

And we are the only species to tell themselves, over and over: "We can become better."

Appreciating Humanity brings a sort of respect for the beauty in our own kind, even for its flaws-- and that is, in larger part, because of that last standing point. 

That desire, that drive- it's not just about survival. It's not always about materialism, but instead, a mere *need* to succeed, to struggle and climb, and to prosper. 

We are historically unsatisfied with the status quo. We, like the planet itself, and by extension, the universe, demand change. For most species, this will only happen naturally, over the course of centuries. But we challenge ourselves to evolve in a single lifetime. Or, if we're lucky, inside a single generation. 

Is it Evolution? Or Resolution?

Is it Science? Or Nature? 

Are we merely animal, or a mammal of a sophisticated elite class?

As society progresses, evolution is failing us. "Brains" are starting to beat "brawn". Survivability is measured by intelligence, adaptability, and not (as frequently), blood lust. 

Granted, a lethal blow to the modern age, and once again, the natural way of things would reclaim its venue-- but is that to imply that the path of our society now is "unnatural"? 

We abandoned our views of "Alpha Males", or even standard gender roles. We are not a tribe, we are a people. And as our society grows in complexities, so do our minds, racing to conceptualize new ideas, and aspire to self-induced development. 

These are humans. The people who look in the mirror and focus on their eyes, rather than their bodies, and find themselves lost in memories, thoughts, and self-reflection, more often than in freckles. These are the humans, who are knowledgeable of their own insecurities, their individual nature, their weakness... these are the humans that now we classify as our strongest. 

We respect, and respond to humans who know themselves, more than we do the, by evolutionary standards, "prime" specimens. 

These are the humans that are self-aware. 

Which is more important, having instinct? Or understanding your instincts? Being able to defend yourself against an attack, or to feel the threat coming on before it even arrives?

And at what point does intuition become “precognition”?—two words so similar in meaning but with one small, but stark, difference.

This is what we’ll discuss and study here: human instinct, the natural awareness of the human psyche, and ultimately, the recognition of the human psychic.

We are human.

It’s time we recognized it as a good thing. 

  -- Tali

NAWSK Scribe

[nawsk]

Come in and chat live with the people of NAWSK. Feel free to discuss anything pertaining to Aliens, UFOs, Paranormal, Spirituality, Metaphysics, Science, or Humanity in general.

http://tinyurl.com/nawskchat or http://chatwing.com/nawsk for mobile users.

[nawsk]

Origins - by Phoenix Alarius

I was sitting back talking to a friend, when something astounding hit me. What if what we are is everywhere around us? That which binds the universe together.

String Theory teaches us that closed circle energy, unlike all other energy, cannot change form. The only energy of this type is to believed to be Gravity. No matter what, it's always gravity.

Some fluffies would argue and say its about light and dark, or hell, even balance. But things such as Light are not the most powerful things in the universe. Pure gravity is the only thing that nothing can overcome, as witnessed with black holes.

In my pondering, I'm thinking that perhaps even the soul is some sort of variation of in itself gravity or this closed circle energy. When a person dies, they instantly lose a certain amount of weight which cannot explained why. The only way I can seem to wrap my head around reincarnation is if the soul does not dissipate and change into a different type of energy. Rather it must remain constant such a graviton.

Many seem to believe that planetary bodies and such have souls, such as the Earth. A very large, mothering soul. This makes sense in ways, makes it heavier, drawing things to it.

They say all souls are from the beginning, then they spread throughout the universe. If souls are, in essense, gravity then this should explain a lot. And perhaps this can even be plugged into the Big Bang, where the entire universe exploded from one central point.

The Source, Collective of Souls as some call it, drawn together by themselves, gravity. If in the beginning everything came from nothing and we're all pieces of a single source, we blasted and over time parts of this unchanging energy began to development a sense of awareness, of consciousness.

And if this form of energy was that which is known as gravity, then it achieves immortality because it can avoid and choose at it pleases where it goes and what it does because closed circle energy does not change form and cannot be destroyed or transferred to a different form.

Could it be that very thing that holds everything together, this invisible force called gravity that defies the pattern of every other type of energy, be God itself? Have we not learned yet that the answers may be in front of us the whole time? Perhaps in the beginning science was something that seemed to discount God and the notion of a higher power, but as time goes by can science be the very thing that proves a force beyond our understanding's existence simply by accident?