Death of “common” ⇒ Kirno Sohochari

Common everything will die because nothing has left in the common’s hand that could save it. Common anything must die due to the upsurge of uncommon. An upsurge uncommon always replace and occupy the previous common; it appeared as replacement of what we called common for all; so it would might the reason for a death of the previous common. Nature’s civilization was common in remote past but manmade civilization appeared there as a replacement for it; the same, now we treat this manmade civilization a common event for us, but it will replace soon due to the upsurge of uncommon artificial intelligent machine; that means a new uncommon has going to be appeared as common for the future generation. Due to the shifting the death of present common is unavoidable; similar, an upsurge of present uncommon as future common is inevitable as well. 

Death of common_4

Source: saatchiart.com: A man shoots a tree: Painter: Unknown

… this grassland, marshland, highlands all are the property of humans only; as well as this forest, river, ocean and all Nature-evolved agents are resources for humans only; they are the property, and we should own this for our better wellbeing. It means the meaning is now changed. Once we were the user of common, but we are from now the possessor of such ecology where all physical agents are unaware of the proprietorship that Nature can be owned by anybody.
… … …

The meaning of life might be like this: —nothing is persistent to its original stature. Life is the most common event in creation but the lifetime of this event is limited and periodic. Nothing is a lifetime in the creation; even the repetition of life in this planet or elsewhere in the universe not the same resonance of the previous repetition. Every new appearance of life somewhat replaces the previous life. In that sense this apparent world maybe it not the same common resonance of the previous world. Every appearance of the world has come along with a new stream of uncommon events so that it can shake the previous world by this. 

Creation doesn’t mean the replication of things; rather it means the timbering of things with bit augmentation. It augmented an uncommon world so that it can replace the common world. An original creation of this world not follows the evolution course; we can explain this world according to it, but it cannot ensure what we said is true. It means life-building elements of the apparent world always augment to bring something uncommon for the apparent world of history. A repetition indicates the presence of common elements in the creation; that we think essential for the continuation of life in this world; however, truth might be this: —nothing contains the same common quality of things in the creation; instead, all common elements of life actually take a new shape when they assembled them for the new appearance. This grounding is necessary to realize why uncommon replace the common for placing it as a new common for us. 

The meaning might be this: every new creation replaces the previous creation. Creation doesn’t mean recurrence; rather it means a denial of the same repetition over again. Every footstep towards the creation denies the repetition of the previous “as it is”. Nothing might “as it is” when creation happened. A new creation of life is actually the destruction of old. Destruction brings the inevitable construction and that is change. Every common element of life exists in a certain length of time after its appearance in the world, and its emission is inevitable because of the placement of new uncommon. 

Death of common_6

Source: Shutter stock.com: Video Clip: Framed of dead tree 

… We were once the member of suchlike common; nobody possessed it but everybody has its own right to use this according to the demand. The economy of this common tried to mean that… everything on this planet is created and evolved in such way so that physical agents can occupy each other through the common sharing principle… The whole notion sounds awkward today, but it was normal on those days when we were literally the forager, have used to live a healthy life through hunting, breeding, and gossiping.
… … …

When we look back through the history we actually back to the past, we back there to see the common event of life in that time. Same as, when we live in the present we actually live in the past; we live there to see how the upsurge uncommon replace the common past and possessed its own possession as a new common in place of the past. This apparent world in its origin a game of replacement; we can call it the “replacement of common”. Here present uncommon replace the past common; soon after the present uncommon treat as common to all; and then, the present common waits for to replace by the future uncommon so that it can possess its position for the next present common. When we look to the current world we’ve might remember the moral, that is, —common doesn’t exist in any extent; no common survive in any peripheral context; either it Nature or Human beings or whatever it is. 

Hence, repentance to think about the fate of common is pointless. Commons are born to die; they must die either this or that way; there is no alternative to protect them from the infallible decadence. We can lament seeing the loss of common that we love so much, that we think was intangible so much, that we cared and owned so much, but an end of the day we are impotent to protect it. That is common it cannot be protectable because of the transition and replacement dynamics of life. Nature is a common phenomenon for all of us, but we cannot resist her death. Reason (?), —we are not the mother of that mother who delivers us in the world at remote past. Thus, who think they are able to save mother’s common they are might reeling in the fancy dream. They are noble but the unrealistic daydreamer. We are the progeny of such common mother whose death is inevitable.

Progenies are not able to prevent the death of Nature like common progenitrix. Nature is such kind of common who protect its common through its own machination; and, it will obviously differ what we meant by Nature’s common in today. Maybe it sounds whimsical for the environmentalists, but we are already on the way; yes, we already destroy her common in excuse of protection. Our steps now sadly affected us, but it could appear as a boon for the original mother of all creatures. The destruction of her commonness might give her a chance to generate her original common according to her own machination. It might appear a shocking event for us because she can destroy the entire planet to take the new course of her reincarnation, but it does matter little because to the basic principle that…, —anything common it must face death for giving a new space to the upcoming common.

Nature’s attenuation indicates our lamentation leads us to nostalgia and nothing more else. Nostalgia sounds sweet but it cannot revive the precious common; we already lost it, so the death of Nature through scientific and political machination can only bring the new uncommon (later it will appear as common) Nature to us, from where the newborn creatures (not necessary that he must be the men) will start their journey with new commons.

What it looks like when Nature recreates its original version after ending of its current common? The answer is difficult to guess. We can imagine everything will go to its pure original state, where it belonged in the immemorial past. Maybe the new everything will begin from that primordial stage or maybe the dice will begin with a different dimension. Whatsoever, we can recite the remote moment for a while from where once we started our journey as a common element. Yes, we can recur the nostalgic moment before this current departure.
… … … 

Death of common_3

Source: reconstellation.com: transforming memories

… What it looks like when Nature recreates its original version after ending of its current common? The answer is difficult to guess. We can imagine everything will go to its pure original state, where it belonged in the immemorial past. Maybe the new everything will begin from that primordial stage or maybe the dice will begin with a different dimension. Whatsoever, we can recite the remote moment for a while from where once we started our journey as a common element. Yes, we can recur the nostalgic moment before this current departure.
… … …

It not fairy at all, this beautiful planet was common for all in immemorial past. The grass leaf was common for grazing. It was the remotest memoir when water steams flows down for all; when a deep forest was alluringly deep for all creatures; and when everything was reeling in this wide landscape just like a nomadic rampage. Yes, life was hard to all and survival was even harder for every stakeholder in distant past; but they were alluring with common despite this hardness. 

An interdependent correlation was inevitable for them because they were common with grassland, mountain peak, rivers, ocean and all other “Natural” phenomenon. Grassland was not separate with animals; rivers and oceans were indifferent with watery organisms; plants and giant trees were equally vibrant for honeybees and woodcutters; and, every animate and inanimate agent was essential to each other. This ecology was common for all; the economy was familiar to all; besides, foes and friends was confederate to the principle that common everything is live for everything. 

It was such upland for humans where they were familiar with all common things. This commonness was not like as we’ve seen today. All common things were just available instinctive on that distant past. It was time for foragers and everything of this planet was reeling with the nomadic jingle: —life is for footing, chasing, fighting, and sleeping under the unlimited vast mystical world. It the world where common appeared as property for the being who literally depends on it and who can possess it for the sake of its own interest. It not like as we mean “common” toady or means “self-interest” today. It as if grasslands are treated common to the Gazelles, and they are common for the Tigers. 

We were once the member of suchlike common; nobody possessed it but everybody has its own right to use this according to the demand. The economy of this common tried to mean that… everything on this planet is created and evolved in such way so that physical agents can occupy each other through the common sharing principle. Charles Darwin once named it “the economy of nature”; nobody is the owner or caretaker of this economy, rather Nature itself the caretaker and rule-maker of this common sharing principles. The whole notion sounds awkward today, but it was normal on those days when we were literally the forager, have used to live a healthy life through hunting, breeding, and gossiping. 

Death of common_2

Source: widewalls.ch: Famous Paintings: The Starry Night by Vincent van Gogh

… The destruction of her commonness might give her a chance to generate her original common according to her own machination. It might appear a shocking event for us because she can destroy the entire planet to take the new course of her reincarnation, but it does matter little because to the basic principle that…, —anything common it must face death for giving a new space to the upcoming common.
… … …

We were free to take the burden on our shoulder that we are the (owner) of all Natural property; this freeness was the real meaning of sharing common in those days. It not what we’ve owned at the stage of settlement by leaving the old nomadic trends. Then we invented cultivation and irrigation and as well started to think, —this grassland, marshland, highlands all are the property of humans only; as well as this forest, river, ocean and all Nature-evolved agents are resources for humans only; they are the property, and we should own this for our better wellbeing. It means the meaning is now changed. Once we were the user of common, but we are from now the possessor of such ecology where all physical agents are unaware of the proprietorship that Nature can be owned by anybody. 

This change-shift is a paradigm where we are abiding now since after the land settlement. Once we were forager but later inventor. Inventor means we are like Nature who can propagate things. It means we can produce things, can manipulate it, and can make a change of it through new invention. This power converts our rule as a forager to the manufacturer. Once we were the mechanical agents of Nature as like other agents; now all other Natural agents are the subject of our self-invented mechanics. The animosity between the human and the rodent animals was not remarkable in the foraging stage, and we were almost similar with the common culture of hunting. Later progress is tremendous since we can hunt them in myriad ways, and now the ability increases ever more; yes, we can industrialize their natural organs through genetic engineering

At once Nature was the factory where Natural laws manufacture agents according to the common sharing principle. However, at now we engineered Nature in the factory. This shifting converts the forager as inventor, then as a manufacturer, as an investor, and now it decomposed him as a trader of all Nature-agents. Question is inevitable, —for whom wellbeing? Answer: —only for human’s wellbeing. Once Nature manufactures common, at now humans do that. Question is expected, —for whom wellbeing? The answer might be the same, it only for human’s wellbeing. This change not only means the replacement of position, rather it goes in deeper. The value is crucial, that is, —the common now has to depend on the men-created morality of common. Common means overtake all other Natural agents so that human beings can take-over Natural agents to serve their personal pleasure, and the demand they created to serve this pleasure.

Death of common_5

Source: videohive.net: camera moves under dead trees

… Hence, repentance to think about the fate of common is pointless. Commons are born to die; they must die either this or that way; there is no alternative to protect them from the infallible decadence. We can lament seeing the loss of common that we love so much, that we think was intangible so much, that we cared and owned so much, but an end of the day we are impotent to protect it.
… … …

This advancement now overtakes the population size of all other Natural creatures. It now overtakes the Nature-refined limit of consumption by creating new demand for goods. Nature evolved wealth now treated as goods where humans keep them liable to increase the wealth through manipulative colonization of Natural resources. Once humans were the part of Nature-governed instinctiveness, but nowadays they are the comprador of such instinctiveness that might be only common for them. This step confined humans to think about the death of common. Death is inevitable because the imbalance of Natural agents crosses its normal limit. Grasslands to oceans are now just suffering the absence of equilibrium amid all living plants and animals, and it as well could be applicable to population and resource utilization trend of the modern civilization. 

We might remember this before goes further on thinking about the common. We are often reeling on the fence thinking that how we can utilize maximum Natural resources by taking the minimalist ways! Is it helps human back to the past where they were equivalent to Nature evolved common? Our every thinking has always started to consider ‘human’ as ‘first priority’ among all other living organisms. Is it rational? Some question might buzz over the head in that context:

Is it Nature a property for humans? Why do we think like this? Who gives us the authority to treat Nature and its agents a property for us, only to ensure our own wellbeing?

The answer might be critical because indiscreet manipulation of common has already blurred the picture with dubious destruction.
… … …

… That is common it cannot be protectable because of the transition and replacement dynamics of life. Nature is a common phenomenon for all of us, but we cannot resist her death. Reason (?), —we are not the mother of that mother who delivers us in the world at remote past. Thus, who think they are able to save mother’s common they are might reeling in the fancy dream. They are noble but the unrealistic daydreamer. We are the progeny of such common mother whose death is inevitable…

Death of common_1

Source: huffingtonpost.com: “Lamentation of Christ” by Andrea Mantegna 
Cover Credit Photo Source: videohive.net: camera moves under dead trees 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.