> I do not deny you your belief that the sages of old
> whom you revere had everything sussed out. It's just
> that I prefer to believe that they were ordinary
> human beings trying to figure things out, just as 
> we are. Their scribblings are no more definitive 
> than our own. Mystery remains intact.


The whole post was excellent but this paragraph really stands out.
 
Being absolutely sure about how the world works is a powerful
seductive drug.  I am just really glad I got that needle out of my arm.


--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], bob_brigante <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm sorry to be so negative here, but I'm still reeling
> > > from Bob Brigante blaming the floods on "wrongdoers" in
> > > the affected communities. That's as insane as Christians
> > > blaming 9/11 on gays and lesbians and liberals, and 
> > > someone should say so.
> > 
> > ********
> > 
> > I'm sorry to have tempted you to be so negative here, ...
> 
> LOL. Thanks...I needed that. :-)
> 
> > ...but I should 
> > point out that I did say that poor planning was responsible for 
> > much of the damage seen currently in Iowa (although being stupid 
> > more or less amounts to wrongdoing because every human should 
> > develop his full mental potential and not be a burden on the 
> > earth):
> 
> "Should?" 
> 
> Isn't that a tad...uh...presumptuous? That you know 
> fersure what every human being "should" be doing?
> 
> I'm asking because you honestly come across as if 
> you know fersure. I'm curious as to how you know.
> 
> > from post 180033:
> > 
> > "...for instance, Cedar Rapids had the hubris to put its city hall,
> > courthouse and jail on a small island in the center of the river:
> > 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/us/13flood.html
> > 
> > Those who decline to appreciate the holistic nature of the universe 
> > are certainly entitled to think whatever they want, but it's a very 
> > limited understanding of the world-as-it-is.
> 
> "Limited?"
> 
> And your understanding is not?
> 
> Again, I'm asking because you seem so *sure*, man.
> I'm curious as to how you know this.
> 
> > Nature reacts to man's doing, good or bad, and every sage there 
> > ever was has said so ...
> 
> Is *this* how you know fersure? Sages said so?
> 
> > ... -- the universe is a machine that sends impulses of 
> > correction when humans go out of balance (or support when people 
> > do the right thing), just like good parents do when their kids 
> > go wrong. 
> 
> Dude, do you realize how many "fersures" there were
> in this sentence?
> 
> First, fersure that what these sages said was true.
> Second, that there is such a thing as "balance" that
> is NOT present at every moment. Third, that humans
> should not "go out of" this theoretical state of 
> balance. Fourth, that "Nature" or the universe feels 
> it has a parental relationship with its "kids" and 
> reserves the right to whup their asses when the kids
> get out of line. 
> 
> I don't know about where you live, but where I live
> if some guy who called himself "Nature" took it upon
> himself to spank his kids with the occasional earth-
> quake or flood or pandemic, Child Services would be
> all over his ass in a heartbeat.
> 
> > If you want to put your faith in some science guys in lab coats 
> > who pooh-pooh any such holistic notions, that's fine with me, 
> > but that is a religion of scientism ...
> 
> As opposed to a religion of sage-ism, right?
> 
> > ...that is much more primitive and illogical 
> > than you imagine holistic thinking to be.
> 
> I guess I'm suggesting, Bob, that your "holistic 
> thinking" feels a tad dogmatic and authoritarian to 
> me. Essentially you seem to be saying 1) that good 
> and bad exist, 2) that sages in the past knew which
> was which, and 3) that Nature is in such agreement 
> with what these sages wrote that it's prepared to 
> smite those who don't live the way that the sages
> said they "should" with floods.
> 
> > To blame 9/11 only on gays and lesbians and liberals is an 
> > attempt to scapegoat, and I am certainly not doing that in 
> > saying that natural disasters are the reaction of Nature to 
> > wrongdoing. 
> 
> We're going to have to agree to disagree about this.
> 
> > When the majority 
> > of people in society engage in behavior that causes unhappiness, 
> > nature reacts. You don't buy that, fine, but life will continue to 
> > operate on that basis regardless of anybody's recognition or not.
> 
> Or not.
> 
> My bet is that life will continue to operate in the
> same mysterious way it has operated for eternity,
> and that no one -- neither the sages of the past nor
> those who follow their holy words in the present --
> has ever or will ever have a definitive clue about
> How It All Works, much less Why. 
> 
> I do not deny you your belief that the sages of old
> whom you revere had everything sussed out. It's just
> that I prefer to believe that they were ordinary
> human beings trying to figure things out, just as 
> we are. Their scribblings are no more definitive 
> than our own. Mystery remains intact.
>


Reply via email to