It sometimes seems ťo me that people myself includeď live in some kind of though up future, a dreamland of some sort instead in the present moment. We live in a sort of a simulator of life instead of living the live itself. So many people just look into their mobiles, maybe you just now. And is there something wrong about it? The technologies should help us live a better life, but do we really live a better live or do we become prisoners of those that should have been subdued and serve us? If you saw the movie vanilla sky, you can imagine how things that should help us live a better life, or a new life instead of the old can turn the dream into a nightmare. There was a great utterance which covered completely the problem of choosing the easier path, the lucid dream instead of reality: the sweet is never so sweet without the sour. Maybe it is better to live a painful life which has a meaning instead of a neverending dream. Richard Rohr, a spiritual catholic preacher said in one of his books that we only find God either through love or pain. So if we only live in a fantasy world, then there is no love nor pain. Love is usually accompanied with pain and maybe that is why love is so much valued. And pain to be effective must be bore with love for someone, something, overcoming myself is usually painful but to be meaningful must be carried out with some sort of higher, deeper purpose. If we get to the hyperreality stage as defined by Jean Baudrillard, a state where we can no more distinguish between real and unreal, or hyperreal, then we can easily fall into the net of falsi illusions, relativizing everything, upholding freedom of morality and incapability of finding the truth instead of trying to find the truth with the truth in mind that the truth shall never reveal itself. There is a major difference between giving up trying to find the truth and looking for it and having hope and faith. Without faith the world would be hopeless, without hope for truth out lives would be meaningless. If we believe that there is no truth, that everything is only a simulacra, a copy of a copy then we are too easily deceived. There is a vital difference between truth of the dogmatics and politicians, ideologies etc and the universal truth that can be achieved only by knowledge that we may never reach an absolute consesnsus about what is right and wrong. The absolute consesnsus is measured only by our own conscience, nothing else, it is the only truth that we may arrive at. The truth is in discussion, in a dialog between people of good will, those that do not want to hold the truth but know that the truth is elusive and that our purpose, the meaning of our lives is not to think that we may grasp it, but that we are here in order to look for it.
Poslané z Fast notepad