Gruff, The idea of Unity beginning with a point of common understanding has foundation in your concept of fear being a root cause in the negative ways of mankind, your understanding that we the Human are the creator God and the theory of evolution.
First we need to identify the fear, "of the unknown". With that we can begin to study the actions that it causes. The unknown IS to be avoided is the drive element of the fear. Uncertainty of ones Life situation, in many different respects, causes greed, prejudice and all sorts of atrocities of mankind. Taking it a level deeper we come to the idea of 'rule overrules right'. The rule is known and established, and a known and established rule IS that we cannot know what is "Right". Of course intelligent open minded people know that one can know 'right' with all the facts given fair consideration and an honest assessment of the situation in the light of the Golden Rule. That doesn't happen as a 'rule' at the bottom line in the decision making process. We ARE God. It is possible that we are the creator of the universe. The beginning of Life might have began as a simple 'ping' beginning the yin/yang energy that is the substance of our existence. Look what computers have come to be with the simple 0 & 1 beginning. There has been plenty of time for that original spurt of energy to grow into our creation. Maybe, originally there was something like the god in a chariot pulling the warming Life generator across the sky of a flat surface. That limited the progress of the energy, so, it made a sphere for more diversity in which to evolve. Getting bored with the circle game, we created the solar system and then the galaxy. Why is the universe expanding? Because we keep looking further. We the Human "does" have something above and beyond the other animals of Earth. We can pretty well summarize that as free will, an evolutionary advancement. We are that simple yin/yang energy. The change in the flow of that energy caused by the advent of free will would absolutely cause a balance of some sort to be accounted for. That would be our collective intelligence, which is beyond our physical world. A logical next step of evolution would be to reintegrate that balancing element back into our physical world. What do you think? peace & Love The "inanities" discussed in this response to you are of your personally expressed beliefs. Were they BS? If you don't agree with the development of the idea from 'your base of knowledge' can you not dispute it? I am not the problem here. I did explain the problem in my recently started thread. peace & Love On Aug 10, 2:23 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris, I've always found you to be a rational and level-headed person, > but in this matter it seems you have a blind spot to one of the > subjects most annoying and counter-productive tactics, which is to > butt in over and over again with inanities. In the year I've been > here with Mind's Eye, there have been a few annoying characters who > have popped in and out again and even one or two that have been banned > because they would not add to the mix but rather depleted it. > > I contend that this is the issue here. The subject drops post after > inane post that have interrupted and in a case or two brought an end > to discussion through exasperation. According to popular opinion the > subject adds nothing to discussions but interrupts them incessantly > and takes away from them. And you charge us with violation of the > rules for chastising this person and yes, at times even an ad hom > attack ... which is put forth as within the realm of acceptability for > the reasons stated above. > > So I put it to you, ignoring the subject is a worthless endeavor as > the subject continues on with obfuscation and unwarranted and inane > interruption, ad hom'ing him doesn't work, he just blithly ignores it > or comes back with more of his inanities, and you attack us for are > attacking the subject. This is getting to be a nasty little circle. > I would request that you (1) reconsider your charges against us and > (2) put the subject on notice against banishment. > > "... On Aug 8, 4:24 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > wrote: ... " > > > Ignoring posts that have little value to you is the ideal, Slip. > > > In the years this list has been around, we've watched people come and go, > > some more insightful than others. Each of us over time will find regular > > posters whose contributions hold much value. Conversely, we'll find others > > whose posts hold little for us. > > > Engage with the ones whom you are able to construct positive discourse, > > even if that discourse is argumentative. If you feel there's absolutely no > > value to it, pass over it. Your posts are often of value to me, which is > > why I've often engaged with you. However, don't presume that a post has no > > value for anyone, and put that message out there on list. > > > Despite the friction we've encountered this last week or so, I truly > > believe that this list is unique on the web in the quality of discourse, > > and its participants. You are truly the greatest group of > > conversationalists I've had the pleasure of engaging with in this fashion. > > It can be frustrating sometimes to have these communication issues, but > > only in comparison to the heights of understanding I've seen achieved here. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
