"... On Mar 24, 7:10 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: ..."

> It is not a classification across the board, gruff.

Okay, that's a good start.

> Let's wash this down a bit more and let's put aside the word "evil"
> for now.

And I completely agree with that.  "Evil" is a term loaded with
baggage.

> Child A is born with talent, Child B is born with intellect, Child C
> is born with negative personality traits.

Given the way you expand on this further down, can we say  that A has
musical talent, B has academic ability and C has a curiosity that may
appear gruesome to some and not to others.  Especially since, as you
point out, C may turn out to be a fine forensic scientist.  Saying C
is born with negative personality traits is prejudging the content of
those traits.  Yes, C could turn out to be a horrible serial killer,
but he can also turn out to be a fine scientist.

Talent, intellect and personality traits, if genetic in origin rather
than learned, are free of morality.  They are just raw ability as yet
unlearned and untrained.

> Point being that knowledge can be innate, whether positive or
> negative.  True?  (if Yes read on, if No stop now)

How about neither.  I simply don't know if knowledge can be innate.  I
am fairly certain that characteristics can be innate, but as to their
content -- I simply can't say but at first blush feel that knowledge
cannot be innate.  I believe we are born naked, ignorant and in awe.
Much of what we become, much of what we develop out of that innate
talent, is learned or formed by our early surroundings.  If we are
surrounded by a negative, horrific and brutal environment, that
talent, intellect and traits can become extremely twisted and may
easily be judged as bad.

On the other hand, of those innate traits are nurtured and supported
in a loving environment that values such things as awareness,
compassion, empathy, truth, honor and love, then that person is likely
to become someone respected, valuable and highly praised.

> Now, I also believe that there are cosmic forces that exist which can
> influence our lives beyond the physical realm and I think this is
> where the problem for some arises.   We can look at the butterfly
> effect and consider that little Tim Kretschmer killed that pregnant
> woman because the baby she was carrying was going to become a
> monstrous killer of millions of people.  Either way there seems to be
> more going on in the universe than what we perceive here on our little
> planet.

This is true and fits in nicely with Pat's contention that our
judgmental perceptions are based on a naturally limited  understanding
of the entire chain of events and leads to my conclusion that at best
we make ill-informed judgments.

> If you don't believe in positive/negative, good/bad, and other cosmic
> forces and need scientific proof of such then the conversation is
> moot.

I definitely believe in cosmic forces (though not supernatural ones)
but I find it difficult to conceive of them characterized in any
meaningful manner.  They are raw forces and only gain character by the
uses they are put to by whatever creatures they happen to inhabit via
our DNA.

> There is no proof of the existence or non existence of the
> aforementioned forces.

Again I beg to differ.  How do you account for savants?  (as just one
example).

BTW, after more than a year of sparse, bland healthy food, I'm getting
ready for one of those steaks.  You coming out this way soon?

/e

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to