knowledge of the past and ambition of the future | INFJ Forum

knowledge of the past and ambition of the future

Lark

Rothchildian Agent
May 9, 2011
2,220
127
245
MBTI
ENTJ
Enneagram
9
In the most recent version of the time traveller to be adapted to film there is an AI which speaks to the time traveller about the evolution of the human race into the seperate eloi and morlocks, with the morlocks treating the eloi like sheep and eating them, he states that the reason for this is that the eloi have no "knowledge of the past and ambition for the future", what do you think about this because this is effectively the opposite of buddhism's zen states or pop cultural equivalents which recommend or validate the "now" and living in the "now" without being disturbed by the past or future.

What are your opinions about this or is there a kind of category error in place, that to be preoccupied with either is mistaken but instead to seek balance is the goal?
 
In the most recent version of the time traveller to be adapted to film there is an AI which speaks to the time traveller about the evolution of the human race into the seperate eloi and morlocks, with the morlocks treating the eloi like sheep and eating them, he states that the reason for this is that the eloi have no "knowledge of the past and ambition for the future", what do you think about this because this is effectively the opposite of buddhism's zen states or pop cultural equivalents which recommend or validate the "now" and living in the "now" without being disturbed by the past or future.

What are your opinions about this or is there a kind of category error in place, that to be preoccupied with either is mistaken but instead to seek balance is the goal?

This is predictive programming

H.G.Wells was a member of the fabian society who are social darwinists who have for decades now been trying to create a two tier world where the many are ruled by the few

This is shown in a number of films for example: the hunger games, divergence, oblivion etc which are all seeking to plant this idea in our collective consciousness whilst they set about making it a reality

If you look at the so called 2008 financial crisis for example the banks failed and should have been allowed to crash but they were kept alive through the 'bailouts' which used public money to pay for the bankers crimes

In this process society got poorer whilst the bankers and politicans and global investors behind the crashes got richer

Money doesn't dissapear in a crisis it just changes hands

This is why occupy wallstreet started chanting about the 99% v's the 1% because the globalist cabal (fabians) are creating their morlocks and eloi

They are platonists and subscribe to platos vision of a world where the many are ruled by a handful of 'philosopher kings'

Orwell knew about the fabians and warned us of their plans in his books '1984' and 'animal farm' and Huxley knew the fabians as well and warned us of their plans in his novel 'a brave new world' in which he called the cabal 'the world controllers'

If their aim is to centralise power more and more under increasingly 'globalised' infrastructure then any freedom loving people who believe they should not be ruled as slaves should oppose centralisation of power and wealth and push instead for decentralisation of power and wealth
 
In the most recent version of the time traveller to be adapted to film there is an AI which speaks to the time traveller about the evolution of the human race into the seperate eloi and morlocks, with the morlocks treating the eloi like sheep and eating them, he states that the reason for this is that the eloi have no "knowledge of the past and ambition for the future", what do you think about this because this is effectively the opposite of buddhism's zen states or pop cultural equivalents which recommend or validate the "now" and living in the "now" without being disturbed by the past or future.

What are your opinions about this or is there a kind of category error in place, that to be preoccupied with either is mistaken but instead to seek balance is the goal?
It seems that depending on who you are you can have a vastly different take on what it means to “live in the now” or “be in the present moment”. I also think it’s safe to say that many might reject the general idea because they believe it requires passivity or inaction and even demonstrates a lack of responsibility or a dismissal of any form of consequentiality. But that’s not necessarily the case.

I think there is a kind of “resting” and “syncing up with the unfolding” that’s possible, and in this approach one doesn’t find it necessary to “push the universe” in the way in which the context for the above quote, “knowledge of the past and ambition for the future” might imply. Likewise, what looks like passivity and inaction might actually be a purifying of intention, and what looks like a lack of responsibility might actually be attention applied only to that which is in fact within one’s control, while what looks like the dismissal of any form of consequentiality might actually be acceptance of what is and allowing the process.

On a side note, I think there is indeed a “living in the moment” that is all about escapism, but there is also a “living in the moment” that is all about being present, and I find it interesting that the theme of consciousness is what they have in common.
 
It seems that depending on who you are you can have a vastly different take on what it means to “live in the now” or “be in the present moment”. I also think it’s safe to say that many might reject the general idea because they believe it requires passivity or inaction and even demonstrates a lack of responsibility or a dismissal of any form of consequentiality. But that’s not necessarily the case.

I think there is a kind of “resting” and “syncing up with the unfolding” that’s possible, and in this approach one doesn’t find it necessary to “push the universe” in the way in which the context for the above quote, “knowledge of the past and ambition for the future” might imply. Likewise, what looks like passivity and inaction might actually be a purifying of intention, and what looks like a lack of responsibility might actually be attention applied only to that which is in fact within one’s control, while what looks like the dismissal of any form of consequentiality might actually be acceptance of what is and allowing the process.

On a side note, I think there is indeed a “living in the moment” that is all about escapism, but there is also a “living in the moment” that is all about being present, and I find it interesting that the theme of consciousness is what they have in common.

This is one thing that would demonstrate the importance of the translation, as for many of the Buddhist concepts, there are words for things which may imply more than the translated version would suggest. The mindset of the translator determines how they will translate things, and important pieces might go missing or change... obviously an area that causes religious conflict, if only verbal.

There were warrior monks, and there were also those who used the teachings to attain peace, e.g. Angulimala. IIRC, it is noted that it's important to teach morality alongside the teachings, as the "now" is just a tool use.