even if man can tame his anger, this does not mean he will have good and moral intentions. seekers of power, fame, territory and the food of others are not necessarily angry. the consciously void serial killer is not necessarily angry, but may simply not care about the feelings of others while in his pursuit of his sick pleaseure.
by the way, i just heard on cnn that a man from saudi arabia (i believe) who was working in iraq, phoned his wife and left her a text message, 'i divorce you'. the judge at home accepted the divorce...on the other hand a woman there rarely can divorce the man...sorta sad the way women are second class citizens...man has bigger muscles and therefore rules the world...this coming from an animal praised for its brain...tsk tsk On Apr 29, 5:34 am, Rosey <[email protected]> wrote: > No, we wouldn't want Slip on Saturn. I guess Tink, what or how my > frame of mind has come to the conclusion that specific men will > inevitably return to evil tendencies is due to the misinterpretation > of intentions. I have good intentions and have been accused of > thinking or doing things that I would never imagine nor wish to embark > upon. To be quite honest, there are rare occasions where I've even > accused people of having bad intentions. And there have been times > where the accusations were justified, overall people are paranoid. > > Has this paranoia changed much in the last millenium or two? Has the > human being really overcome this obstacle, even by short shot? > > I am not saying this so that I can continue to argue a point that I > doubt collective mentality will ever be a universal objective and take > its course. I say this because we need to find solutions as to how > the human being can evolve into a being negative of paranoia, > jealousy, anger, manipulative tactics for gain, and hierarchial > stance. > > My mother always told me that I am too soft, forgiving, and giving of > a person. A person is weak for having such qualities? The word she > used was Mathhaka, (a person that let's others take advantage of). I > am not weak, as a matter of fact I am quite content with my persona. > Currently facing issues of familial discord where I am in the middle. > Unfortunately being a messenger I find is the most difficult task a > person can enter as it wrings ones soul dry. I don't feel right > having to be in the middle. To me if one feels guilty for their > actions, it's their soul begging them to stop. I am trying wiith all > my power not to make things worse. I am this close to disassociating > myself altogether. I don't have to put up with it. Physically and > mentally exhausting. But situations like this display people at their > worst, I must say when a person is angry they are capable of stripping > a mountain from its peak. > > How can collective mentality curb anger? In Islam, when a man states > to his wife that he is going to divorce her in anger, it is not > regarded as a qualifiable action. Only because one would have to > determine whether it was said in a conscious state of mind, or in > anger. If in anger, then it is forgivable, because it's not something > that one intends. > > Point is, can man tame emotion? > > On Apr 27, 10:39 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Rosey, > > I understand that the people you refer to as purely evil are > > despicable human beings. > > But they are human beings, and they are what they are because of the > > values (or lack of) they have acquired in their Life. > > I just have an aversion to the word and idea of 'evil' because it > > excuses the human from responsibility. > > Psycho/sociopath is as close as a human gets to the idea of evil. > > > We don't have to get through to them. The Collective Mentality we're > > talking about establishing 'will' get through to them. > > We are not talking about selling a bunch of dogma, we are talking > > about establishing a link in our minds that will bring the power of > > our collective intelligence (God?) to bear on the actions of mankind. > > > Slip said, "I think one of the key factors in the collective mentality > > obstacle is > > the lack of insight into "post collective mentality". > > What I think he's saying is you are not looking at the possibility. > > Like a scientist has a vision or object in his mind first, then begins > > to figure ways to make it real. Where would we be today if all the > > scientist had your attitude of "Oh we could never do that". > > > We are looking to bring about an evolutionary leap for mankind. Please > > release your primitive view of the human and look to the possibility > > of overcoming the base mentality and evolving to a truly spiritual > > people. > > Imagine utopia, think from that point of view. What is necessary to > > establish unity? > > > And it needs to happen soon, cause we don't want slip to go back to > > Saturn :-) > > He wouldn't be happy without morning glories. > > > peace & Love > > > On Apr 27, 9:03 pm, Rosey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Tinker, I get what you're saying, but when I mention "pure evil" I am > > > referring to the leaders of countries. Few of them, very few, would > > > agree with a collective mentality altogether. The problem is getting > > > through to them. Yes we the plebians, patrons, citizens... are > > > starving for peace and humanity, but who is listening to us? As long > > > as we have leaders that strive on maintaining power who are unable to > > > equally share in thoughts, borders and resources, we are going to have > > > followers that will believe in them. That's the truth. War > > > unfortunately reigns over sound mind. It's a paranoid caveman > > > instinct which evolution has yet to mutate. Am I for collective > > > mentality? 100%, do I believe it will actualize anytime soon, no. > > > It's going to take time. > > > > On Apr 26, 5:13 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Rosey, > > > > Your thinking that allows for someone to be "pure evil" is the sort of > > > > stuff that is used to justify war. There is fear driven greed that > > > > would apparently be the pure evil that you would substantiate. But, it > > > > is 'purely' fear driven greed. > > > > > The people of the world do not cater to war. We are subjected to war > > > > by the fear driven greedy who have taken control of our government. > > > > > What mother nature does is just fine. If we establish the collective > > > > mentality we will come more in line with mother nature's natural order > > > > and maybe even have a bit of influence :-) For sure we would handle > > > > disasters a lot better. > > > > > The ideas for a Collective Mentality have never made any significant > > > > progress across barriers of Language and Culture. > > > > So we should give up trying to find the way to make a world wide > > > > collective mentality? > > > > > Religions support the fatalistic prognosis. It would not give them > > > > much authority if they didn't teach "there's nothing we can > > > > do" (instill apathy) except follow their dogma. > > > > > A code of rules will never will never establish a collective > > > > mentality. That would be too complex to cross the barriers of Culture > > > > and Language. > > > > > peace & Love > > > > > On Apr 26, 10:40 am, Rosey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Applause Slip, prior to responding to this thread I initially planned > > > > > to agree with the collective mentality idea. As I am not one that is > > > > > pro war. To me war is greed, power and an agenda to eliminate the > > > > > enemy. War is heartache and pain. But when you have too many people > > > > > whose intentions of others are nothing but pure evil, how shall we > > > > > acquire this collective mentality. Although signs of collective > > > > > mentality are already evident, eventually (when I say eventually, I > > > > > refer to a distant future) it will be on everyone's list of > > > > > accomodations. Today's generation has less barbaric tendencies than > > > > > say 1000 years ago. Yet with the attainment of civility we still > > > > > cater to war. War whether we like to admit it or not, maintains the > > > > > ratio of people versus earth's resources. Man is the creator of his > > > > > own demise. Even Mother Nature herself steps in when man does not. > > > > > Now would a collective mentality prevent tsunami's, eruptions of > > > > > volcanoes, weather afflictions, earthquakes and disease? Take the > > > > > Black Plague for example; Europe's agricultural land and food supply > > > > > did not accomodate to the demand of its residents. Many were starving > > > > > and hungry, the black plague moderated the ratio where the survivors > > > > > were able to reestablish a resourceful community. Time and time again > > > > > history has proven the survival of the fittest element. Philosophy > > > > > and collective mentality theories have been developed as early as the > > > > > Greeks. It may be possible that one day citizens of the Earth will > > > > > abide by a code of rules associated through a collective mentality. > > > > > We can only hope. > > > > > > On Apr 25, 11:44 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > What do I think? I think it would not be a "simulation" of a > > > > > > perfect > > > > > > world but a reality that all of humanity created through collective > > > > > > mentality. I think you are wrong about the tolerance of humanity > > > > > > and > > > > > > especially the "straight" path as you put it. It is not a straight > > > > > > path as opposed to a wrong path but simply a unison, a harmony, a > > > > > > semblance of similar thought. I think war is not inevitable but a > > > > > > simple perception, in our human history, as a solution to > > > > > > problematic > > > > > > situations with disregard to amicable solution. War is the easy way > > > > > > out, kill the problem, over and done. War has become so morally > > > > > > acceptable and so every piss ant country in the world thinks the way > > > > > > to peace is through the development of sophisticated weaponry, even > > > > > > though the costs of which result in the starvation and hardship of > > > > > > the > > > > > > citizenry. I think humanity, in spite of technological advances, > > > > > > has > > > > > > not progressed much further than that of the chimpanzee. I think > > > > > > you > > > > > > are terribly wrong about the compassion of humanity and the > > > > > > assumption > > > > > > that one must experience pain in order to appreciate pleasure. > > > > > > Should > > > > > > I chop off my left hand so that I can appreciate the right hand > > > > > > more? > > > > > > There will still be, without war, situations that evoke compassion, > > > > > > such as natural disasters and tragedies. I think there is > > > > > > absolutely > > > > > > no benefit to war other than that which is derived by those who > > > > > > engage > > > > > > in the senseless act of war. > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
