Christoph Reuss wrote:
Try giving water to a dead person, and get back to me if that gives life
back to the person.
NK---Cute. Electricity often works. Perhaps the two together could
someday do a better job!
You can see what a great job the two together do, by throwing your
running hair-dryer into the water while taking a bath.
(Caution: Superstition can be lethal! Not only for "witches"...)
*Chris, I was /joking /about the water and electricity. This you label
superstitious, and keep it up below, thus making references to
superstitions which utterly confuse the issues.
*
NK---What are you going to say about all this when /science/ proves that
everything we see or detect has no life until it is actually observed?
Such nonsense won't happen. Of course we are alive, even while we are
not being observed.
*That is not possible, even in the context of science which claims only
reproductive physical beings have life. Consciousness entails observation.*
What will you say to the possibility that all physicality is the
projection of mind?
Mind requires life.
*Agree, but not for the same reason. But perhaps there is both physical
and non-physical life, or perhaps just non-physical, or just physical,
as you are relying on older science to continue to believe. *
Puppets, so to speak, thereby
leveling the field, and having that rock be intrinsically no different
from the athlete.
If you declare "Gaia" to be a living organism, where does that put humanity,
which "is destroying Gaia"? Humans are a part of this "organism", so you
can only declare humanity as a cancer of "Gaia". Do you realize that such
a dogma leads to genocide? Exactly "the coming cull" advocated by the
billionaires (who of course exempt themselves from belonging to that cancer,
although they're the biggest polluters / responsibles for pollution!).
And that corner happens to be where the "Gaia" concept comes from.
*You're making the presumption that Gaia functions with the same
consciousness as its cancer, or that all upon Gaia must think just like
her because she gave them form. Do you think in the same way as your
mother or father, of the same DNA? But, Gaia is doing something about
the imbalances. She is reacting. Dogma is an inappropriate term here. I
do not expect you to believe anything unquestioningly, nor do those who
choose to see our world in this light. The idea is about protecting the
delicate systems which work interdependently. The billionaires' cull, as
you like to put it, could take many avenues to achieve that end. It
doesn't mean you should cast aspersions on something that aims to save
our butts. But you have great difficulty disentangling the predators
from most everything. And I sympathize. They have a controlling hand in
everything. But just because they do, does not mean you should fail to
be respectful of the earth's needs, or fail to eat organic produce now
becoming big business, or fail to ride your bike, now produced by big
business, or fail to read good books, now published by big business, etc.
*
No, that's a different question ("Gaia" is the composite of all kinds of
materials, as opposed to the single-molecule H2O). But you are right that
"Gaia" is another esoterical concept invented by Predators...
Not at all different. Just that science is telling you its version of
reality, and you believe it out of fear. Like religious people believe
they must believe in God or else he'll punish you.
Your projection is outright laughable, and your superstition is NOT helping
to advance environmentalism, because it requires a belief in "Gaia" -- a
concept that doesn't make sense.
*David Suzuki, who believes in Earth's consciousness, must then also be
called superstitious. He's done a great deal to awaken those who have
been ignorant and insensitive. Now, I'm not saying you have to believe
Earth has a consciousness, but you're so hung up on scientific evidence
of its 'life' that you end up negating the good that has come about from
this venue of acknowledging that pollution is destroying our only home.
Being hung up on the form in which we will achieve balance is like a
strict parent who insists on obedience, or the religious zealot who
demands fealty to dogma. In fact, obsession with science has actually
slowed the momentum of awareness needed to avert disaster. Everyone had
to have science expensively and unanimously declare we're hurting the
earth. Well, Duh! In that delay, predators played a key role, before and
after global awareness, only at the cost of, oh, life.
*
I would rather we look to other avenues, with all the expected
experimentation and pitfalls, than to accept unquestioningly the current
system of thought that pervades society.
Straw-man. If you ever read my postings, you'd know that I do anything but
"accept unquestioningly the current system of thought that pervades society".
But that doesn't mean that I swallow esoterical nonsense.
Again, you're using that shallow Tweedledum/Tweedledee trick to get me to
accept unquestioningly YOUR system of thought. Won't work.
*I meant the above in the respect that pertains to your purported
scientific approach to truth. Science is the realm of predators, your
most frequent topic. Predators get scientist to twist findings to suit
their own ends. Scientists work for these predators knowingly, then cry
afterwards that they were forced to do something against their will, or
were ignored. Scientists will change facts to suit the demands of the
predators. The digitized society believes there is science behind
everything. Well, in one sense, that's true. Most scientists can be bought.
Gaia consciousness is hardly esoteric, since it has been a global issue
for quite some time now, though you can call it nonsense if you wish.
*
You may ask, how can science be corrupted? Well, it isn't corrupted
BY science but by power (money). You can counter this corruption only
with science (debunking the frauds) -- not with superstition! By
advocating superstition, you are helping the Predators.
*Yeah, no scientist ever dreamed that the nukes he helped develop would
ever be used to kill thousands! They just did it for the science of it
all. Where you have atomic research, I'll allow that there are sundry
purposes for its use. But specifically designing for armaments--yes, it
is the scientist. Franken foods--yes. Pesticides, Fertilizers--yes. They
know what it's all going to be used for, and what effects it will have.
*
Even the
greatest scientific minds in recorded history belonged to esoteric
circles, for which they were often persecuted. Today, you consider their
work to be scientific laws.
No. Science progresses by taking up new findings, not superstition.
It was superstition (the church) who persecuted the scientist Galileo,
not the other way around.
*I didn't say it was the other way around. What I said was specialized
knowledge usually takes time to become common knowledge. Persecution
always occurs, then science accepts what it previously rejected.*
Homeopathy is NOT "experimental science". It hasn't even progressed in
200 years. It's superstition that has not even acknowledged the
Avogadro constant!
*On this, I tend to agree. I favour herbals and foods, and alternative
therapies.
*
And that "little guy" was fooling little old ill ladies with "advice"
that was outright harmful, so your pity with the guy is inappropriate.
*I have no pity for any con. I was simply observing how you squabble
about little guys ever so much more passionately where it comes to
pseudo-science. which science also participates in.
*
Naturopathy is not
considered scientifically verifiable until science performs several
double blind studies on any given treatment or remedy or food.
Of course "naturopathy" is scientifically verifiable (as it works with
active ingredients, instead of water often diluted beyond Avogradro) --
and has been verified, in the very rare cases that funds are available
for this kind of research (unwanted by Pharma).
*You said it. In the very rare cases science funds the research. And
usually, those findings disappoint the naturopath. Though I consider the
science to be usually tampered with to arrive at such unfavourable
outcomes, there really hasn't been much proper research to justify the
scientific mind's use of such substances. It's mostly about wanting to
believe the logic used and anecdotal evidence. The naturopath's research
will suffice because everyone knows that scientific research is too
costly. And that belief is often enough. Note: I'm not saying that if
science were to conduct proper research, naturopathy would lose.
*
But as you should have figured out long ago on this
list, I'm not a person who thinks egoistically.
*Say what??
*
*Natalia*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword
"igve".
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
