We can always make some Holy Water! ;-)
On May 13, 6:47 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
> All very good questions. I have found Covey's idea about our sphere
> of influence to be true. If we focus our attention to goal and action
> to where we can influence effectiveness and change, our sphere of
> influence increases. If we focus outside of our sphere of influence,
> in other words, spend much of our time thinking and talking about
> things we can do nothing about, our sphere of influence shrinks.
>
> There is much that can be done on a personal level in regard to
> homelessness. Every city has an agency that welcomes volunteers etc.
> I spent some time with the commission in Las Vegas, and had very
> insightful conversations with a guy who wrote a couple of books about
> the largest homeless settlement there. Even offered to approach the
> Mayor on behalf of the commission, as the Mayor Goodman has, what is
> perceived to be, very rigid views about the problem. But my help
> wasn't needed there.
>
> I find myself asking why less and less as time goes on. It doesn't
> mean that I don't care, because I do deeply. But a very wise man once
> told me that when my compassion is not enough, I break my own heart.
> After watching myself awhile, I knew this to be a deep truth.
> Sometimes, compassion is all we have and when it is not enough, our
> hearts break. And sometimes, there is truth beyond compassion.
>
> On May 12, 6:16 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You are drawing conclusions based on historical events that are
> > insignificant to this idea. For modernist politicians to address
> > issues in a black and white format does not conclude that we will be
> > experiencing some militant faction activity. I gave a pure example
> > with billions being spent on private enterprise and the financial
> > systems of the wealthy while the people that really matter are
> > ignored. If things keep going the way the are, it is more likely that
> > what you suggest will actually happen, but if the political base would
> > stop dancing around the issues there won't be any need for a militant
> > revolutionary movement. The bank throws a family of 6 out on the
> > street and then the government gives "billions" to the bank that threw
> > them out. Why?
> > I find it strange that when there is some overseas disaster, the
> > government send millions in aid. Why?
>
> > On May 12, 4:19 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > While I sympathise completely with your instinct to call a spade a
> > > spade, Slip, your honest desire to cut through political doublespeak
> > > and your genuine compassion for those whose suffering is not
> > > ameliorated and, indeed, increased by such platitudinous
> > > obfustication, I have problems with your solution in "viewing the
> > > world simply as black and white in order to eliminate the
> > > confusion ..."
>
> > > We have seen too many revolutionaries - with, initially at least,
> > > honest motivation - take this path in the 19th. and 20th. Centuries.
> > > The results were usually horrific. I'm thinking of people like V.I.
> > > Lenin, or the Baader-Meinhoff gang. Don't get me wrong, I don't intend
> > > any direct comparisons with your thinking. But simplification can
> > > easily distort - leading in the end to simplistic, dualistic thinking.
> > > There are all sorts of levels of interconnectivity in our world, which
> > > makes many problems complex - or perhaps only the practical way to
> > > solutions.
>
> > > Francis
>
> > > On 12 Mai, 22:20, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Yaya, that is a generality and may pertain to specific instance such
> > > > as you say with a harmonious and chaotic world perspective or the
> > > > color spectrum. I see homeless people, what do you see, people
> > > > camping? I see war, what do you see, domestic disturbance? I see
> > > > people starving, what do you see, people that might not be that
> > > > hungry? One of the major problems in the world is the sidestepping of
> > > > core issues through a maze of political sophism while societies sores
> > > > fester and spread like the plague. Politicians spew their rhetoric on
> > > > the soap box in an attempt to placate the masses. It is time to view
> > > > the world simply as black and white in order to eliminate the
> > > > confusion and get closer to the collective mentality, which we will
> > > > never accomplish if people continue to find loopholes to negate
> > > > reality. We are experiencing a dissemination of the world via the
> > > > differentiation of views. With black and white we can identify the
> > > > issues, address the issues, solve the issues and later begin again to
> > > > add colors to our world, if you get my drift.
>
> > > > On May 12, 9:19 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Seeing what is before us is a matter of perspective and belief is one
> > > > > big factor in the shape of what we see. Two people looking at the
> > > > > same thing do not see the same thing. Their differences make what
> > > > > they are seeing different to them. If I see the world as harmonious,
> > > > > and Neil sees it as chaotic, it doesn't mean we are seeing different
> > > > > worlds, it means our perspectives are different based on our beliefs.
>
> > > > > On May 12, 5:32 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > You are right about one belief vs another, and that too is a belief
> > > > > > !
> > > > > > <<Vam
> > > > > > It is not a belief it is a fact, all beliefs are beliefs.
>
> > > > > > Clearly any belief to the believer can be the ultimate truth for
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > believer, still, overall and in the context of all beliefs, that
> > > > > > belief, like all others remains a belief, the truth portion of
> > > > > > which,
> > > > > > is subjective.
>
> > > > > > To effect change one simply needs to see, as you say, what is before
> > > > > > us, later we can engage analysis. That is one reason why homeless
> > > > > > people are on the street. Too much time is being spent on the 'why
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > this happening'. The people are there, no home, no food or water,
> > > > > > and what happens? They fix the banks!
>
> > > > > > On May 11, 11:05 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > There are two observations I wish to contribute, SD, if I may.
>
> > > > > > > You are right about one belief vs another, and that too is a
> > > > > > > belief !
> > > > > > > And I do not say this tongue in cheek.
>
> > > > > > > But a belief isn't " just " a belief. The ' responsibility ' of
> > > > > > > holding the belief is immediately upon us. So, if I believe the
> > > > > > > rock
> > > > > > > is spiritual energy, it becomes encumbent that I ' see ' the
> > > > > > > spiritual
> > > > > > > energy the rock is and ' know ' the truth value of my belief. If
> > > > > > > I do
> > > > > > > happen to know that my belief is true, then I also know that the
> > > > > > > contrary belief ( the rock is NOT spiritual energy ) is untrue,
> > > > > > > regardless of how many people are holding that contrary belief.
> > > > > > > Therefore, equating one belief to another, forgetting how beliefs
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > ' rooted ' in individuals, seems facile.
>
> > > > > > > Secondly, without the " Why," how does one determine what change
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > effect. Which leads to whims. However, I do see the importance of
> > > > > > > action at whatever that is before us, even if what is before us
> > > > > > > is not
> > > > > > > the " ultimate " we might be looking for.
>
> > > > > > > On May 12, 4:05 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Content is irrelevant, probability is equal in regard to the
> > > > > > > > suppositional base of all religious beliefs. Without empirical
> > > > > > > > evidence to establish validity of one belief over another the
> > > > > > > > probability remains equal. Perhaps we can edit out 'ultimate
> > > > > > > > truth'
> > > > > > > > which seems to be the catalyst for the focus on belief content.
> > > > > > > > So I can rephrase in saying "the probability of one belief
> > > > > > > > being valid
> > > > > > > > is equal to that of any other belief".
>
> > > > > > > > You think you are going to dissect commentary and take thoughts
> > > > > > > > out of
> > > > > > > > context in order to challenge them?
> > > > > > > > You cut off "regardless of their existence" which was a
> > > > > > > > reference to
> > > > > > > > "beliefs".
> > > > > > > > Nevertheless if you must.
> > > > > > > > Summarizing suffering into a cause and effect aspect Is another
> > > > > > > > belief
> > > > > > > > Not a fact. There is not one religion, religious belief,
> > > > > > > > spiritual
> > > > > > > > movement, revered guru or any other "secret" that has alleviated
> > > > > > > > suffering. So to believe that suffering is a product of a
> > > > > > > > cause and
> > > > > > > > effect event is essentially "another belief". Maybe I believe
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > suffering is the result of humanity's failure to achieve a
> > > > > > > > collective
> > > > > > > > mentality, simply another belief. It isn't even a non sequitor
> > > > > > > > consideration as there is nothing that if following but each
> > > > > > > > belief
> > > > > > > > stands individually. Put the microscope away!
>
> > > > > > > > You don't see how I can believe that the criteria for validity
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > simply belief. Well that is not accurate because I don't
> > > > > > > > believe the
> > > > > > > > criteria for validity is simply belief and don't know why you
> > > > > > > > gathered
> > > > > > > > that from my statement, which is........"I just don't see that
> > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > belief is any more valid that any other belief, including my
> > > > > > > > own."
> > > > > > > > This is simple truth. You believe rocks have spiritual energy
> > > > > > > > and I
> > > > > > > > believe rocks contain good luck and gabby believes rocks make
> > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > paper weights, so what makes your belief more valid?
>
> > > > > > > > I say most problems have to to do with unhappiness because that
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > simple observation Justin, greedy people are unhappy with what
> > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > have and so need more, Madoff had millions but obviously he was
> > > > > > > > unhappy with it. People that are unhappy
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
