On Sep 9, 5:37 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote
"some people may see things like that Molly, lets take that for
granted, but to extend this to all humans, no I belive that is
wrong."
I don't believe I did extend that to all humans, Lee (hence, the "or
not")
"I'm with the kid, we DO hurt those we love the most,"
Our most intimate relationships allow our best shadow work - we
project our shadows onto those closest to us. If we don't understand
this, pain may be involved. This is true. Some of us, may become so
addicted to anger and pain, we weave it into our relationships so that
we can get a regular dose of it. This requires others in our
relationship to also require regular doses of it, and this often
develops in family dynamics. However, people with this kind of
dynamic in the family likely also extends that relationship dynamic
into the larger community as well, and their ability to function in
the larger society is vastly limited.
"we CAN treat family worse than we treat strangers." we can if our
family unit has fallen into deep dysfunction, however if this is the
case, relationships outside the family will also be dysfunctional.
Someone who beats her husband and children, may not physically beat
people outside the family, but will have extremely limited
relationships because of a range of other types of abusive behavior
that are not hard to spot. I did not dispute any of this. However,
if we can truly feel our connection to everyone, we are not in a frame
of mind to be abusive.
"We do not all think alike"
I don't remember stating or implying this. I to believe in human
potential, however. I surely do.
"and this relalisation of 'family' I think will make not a lot of
differance to the majority."
Might be more than you think. I think, it is more and more all the
time.
"There are many ills in the world and I figure that the fix is really
not going to be this simple."
You are right, not simple, because it is up to each of us,
individually, the change comes from inside out.
> On 7 Sep, 16:45, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The difference that it makes, kid, is that if we truly understand that
> > we are all related in a way that means what happens to you happens to
> > me, we see the world differently, we act differently toward each
> > other, we live differently. Most of us learn this first in our
> > families, but if we have the misfortune of being born into a family
> > that does not provide a loving foundation or give us this lesson, it
> > is up to us to learn it from the greater community (or not.)
>
> > On Sep 7, 10:03 am, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > my point is.. how does it matter whether one is a relative or not... where
> > > does this obligation of being good to our relatives come from.. it was the
> > > accident of birth that made them our relatives... why should that make
> > > them
> > > special... wat if they were not our relatives.. would we behave
> > > differently
> > > towards them?
>
> > > On 9/7/09, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > that might be how it feels kid, but someone capable of being rude and
> > > > indifferent to family is also prone to this behavior in public,
> > > > although they might be more selective and use the behavior to promote
> > > > personal agenda...
>
> > > > On Sep 7, 9:35 am, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > i dont thinkit would.... we can be rude and indifferent to our
> > > > > relatives like we can be to neone else.
>
> > > > > On Sep 6, 2:50 pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Have you ever thought about those to whom you are related? Of
> > > > > > course you have, but maybe not in this way.
> > > > > > We all have four grandparents, eight great grandparents, etc.
> > > > > > This geometric progression continues as we go back from generation
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > generation until, in about 1400 AD it equals the entire population
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > the human species at that time. In other words, each of us is
> > > > > > related
> > > > > > to everyone else if we look back far enough.
> > > > > > Similarly, if we go forward, from children to grandchildren
> > > > > > etc.,
> > > > > > making some reasonable assumptions and using the current projections
> > > > > > for the future human population, our direct progeny will equal
> > > > > > everyone living in about 2900 AD. If we include in this calculation
> > > > > > brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins, we will be related to
> > > > > > everyone living in about 2700 AD.
> > > > > > So at present we seem least related to friends, neighbors, and
> > > > > > those in our community and country. But in fact we are all related.
> > > > > > It
> > > > > > is just that it seems now that we’re not. Would it change anything
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > we but acknowledged our relationship to everyone, ancestors and
> > > > > > descendants? Jim- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
