Good luck with the job. But if you loose it... hey.... more free time! Here is a link to Jane Goodall's site
http://www.rootsandshoots.org/ As a primate behavior scientist she came up with exactly what you express. On Sep 15, 7:58 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > The Age of Empathy: Nature's lessons for a kinder society. Frans de > Waal: Harmony Books. > > I think analogies between science and religion are too few. Many have > argued that humans are naturally cooperative. Darwin, Lincoln, (even) > Teddy Roosevelt, the Dalai Lama, Kropotkin, neurobiologists, > psychologists and many others have all made the case that our animal > nature is characterised as much by kindness and collaboration as it is > by competition and carnage. Animal nature is characterised as much by > cooperation as it is by carnage - empathy is the social glue that > holds communities together, and if humans are empathetic animals it is > because we have "the backing of a long evolutionary history". There > is a broad spectrum of species in which empathy has been observed - > the evolution of human social behaviour can be seen as coming from the > social carnivores whose behaviour and social organisation closely > resemble that of early hominids and who show high levels of > cooperation and empathy. Monkeys, cetaceans, elephants and rodents > (rats and mice, at the very least) all exhibit empathy and what we > might call moral intelligence. > > We live amongst "macho origin myths", which insist that "our species > has been waging war for as long as it has been around". But humans > have shown empathy for as long as we've been around too. Even if our > animal brethren were as violent as some think they are, that wouldn't > mean that we are as well, or that we ought to be. Such thinking > suffers from the naturalistic fallacy that just because things are a > certain way, that's the way they should be. Discussions of the rare > instances of animals being cruel to other members of their species are > attention-getters but they are over-inflated and misleadingly > presented as confirmation that nature is "red in tooth and claw". The > available data have been scant due to small sample sizes and great > variability among different communities of animals, but things are > changing now that more and better results are pouring in. The vast > majority of social interactions in a wide variety of monkeys are > affiliative rather than agonistic or divisive. As we study more > species in situations where they can show us who they really are we'll > likely see that caring for those in need is more prevalent than many > think. There's ample evidence that the "age of empathy" has been with > us for a long time but has been overshadowed by the prevalence of the > competitive paradigm. Maybe it's a paradigm we cling to as a sort of > biological excuse. I don't need to read Pat as 'right' to feel science > has very much been in the wrong hands, perhaps precisely because it > challenges ignorance and that its products are so useful in > competition - a competition that requires the maintenance of > competitive advantage rather than a spread of enlightnement (something > it shares with many forms of organised religion operating as means of > control). I am not a believer in Sooty's Magic Wand, but science does > seem to lack some long-term sense of its purpose - and frankly I sense > this is the current human dilemma - a notion of well-informed moral > and spiritual purpose that would encourage us in knowing rather than > 'chanting and ritualising away' the bad times until Spring comes. I > have to wait until Friday to know if I get this darned job, so I'll be > ritualising the next couple of days away! > > On 15 Sep, 15:32, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > We could, of course, merely be very confused and actually in > > Purgatory. Newton may well have just been trying to find the right > > routines to improve naval gunnery. Would, indeed, that we could have > > the more reflective world and move beyond the factual shocks of > > vastness and constraint to the speed of light to sensitivity to > > spiritual existence without relying on magic that doesn't work other > > than on our gullibility. My sense of this is that science could now > > offer us a way of coping with the world other than ritual - perhaps > > through new 'habituals' of plenty helping us to be less the pawns of > > evolution. > > > On 15 Sep, 12:32, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > When I got home last night, it dawned on me that Sir Isaac > > > Newton’s main goal and deepest interest was to discover how spirit and > > > the universe interact; which is why a huge percentage of his writings > > > were alchemical—the scientific findings were, more or less, a by- > > > product of his overall search for a Theory of Everything, which would, > > > necessarily, include spiritual phenomena. I then had the thought > > > that, perhaps he had intended his ‘Laws of Motion’ not just to include > > > physical bodies, but spiritual bodies, as well. Now, his laws have > > > been expressed in many ways, but, at home (which is where I am at the > > > moment of writing this), the only book that I found (I’m sure there > > > are a couple more, but I couldn’t find them and went with what I found > > > first) that has them listed is ‘The Hutchison Encyclopaedia—1997’, not > > > the best source, but, I think, it’s good enough. > > > The first law states that “unless acted upon by a net force, a > > > body at rest stays at rest, and a moving body continues moving at the > > > same speed in the same straight line (direction)”. Now to me, that > > > just screamed out “That is the Western scientific version of the gunas > > > of Hinduism”. Vam, I expect, may want to set me straight here with > > > respect to a few details I gloss over, as his knowledge of Hinduism > > > far exceeds mine, but, I’ll describe this as I see it. The three > > > gunas are: Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. They are spiritual qualities/ > > > forces that, together, express the ‘net spiritual forces’ that affect > > > us. Sattva is usually depicted as simple (!), clarity of mind, Rajas > > > as a disruptive, disturbing influence and Tamas as dullness and > > > lethargy. In this analogy, I see Sattva as representing an > > > individual’s truest sense of self, their own unsullied consciousness, > > > and Rajas (the general disruptive, interactive force) and Tamas > > > (spiritual inertia), is how one individual experiences another > > > individual’s Sattva. Whilst it is true that one can be affected by > > > another’s Sattva, it is harmonic enough as to not distress the soul as > > > do the other forces of Rajas and Tamas. Tamas is what keeps a > > > depressed person depressed and why it’s harder to motivate a depressed > > > individual than one who is not depressed. So, too, a mind/soul filled > > > with Tamas will tend to remain at rest (and depressed and slothful > > > and, in extreme cases with the right combination of Rajas, self- > > > harming) until acted upon by sufficient Rajas (and/or Sattva [but it > > > takes more Rajas at first!]) such that it can, once again, achieve its > > > own Sattva. Too much Rajas can make an individual aggressive, like a > > > bull in a china shop and is what keeps the manic, manic. Sattva is > > > the quiet forward motion with no external forces impinging on it. (Too > > > much Sattva usually leads to moksha and is not considered > > > problematic!) > > > So, to paraphrase Newton’s first Law: A (more) Tamasic soul will > > > tend to remain Tamasic until acted upon by Rajas (and/or Sattva) and a > > > (more) Sattvic soul will continue to be Sattvic until acted upon by > > > Rajas (and/or Tamas). (I inserted the word ‘more’ in there to denote > > > that each soul is, in most but the rarest of cases, comprised, to some > > > extent, of all three gunas.) And, we have a sound spiritual concept > > > (that’s been recognised by Hindus for millennia) that is an almost > > > perfect corollary to Newton’s first Law. > > > Looked at another way—probably Newton’s alchemical way—Sattva > > > becomes Salt, that perfect combination of opposing (with respect to > > > charge) elements that forms a complete bond with itself (its Self). > > > Rajas is Sulphur, the fast burning element that scorches its way > > > disrupting and disturbing. Tamas is, then, Mercury, the heavy, liquid > > > and poisonous metal. I think Newton understood the gunas in this way > > > and may well have hinted at it in this first law. > > > The second law states that “a net force applied to a body gives > > > it an acceleration proportional to the force and in the direction of > > > the force.” This is vastly important. Given the first paraphrased > > > law, this second law implies that the interactions between spiritual > > > bodies impart an eternal effect, that is, when one set of gunas (one > > > spiritual body) communicates with another, it imparts a force that is > > > irremovable and it receives a force that is irresistible. From that > > > moment forward (in a spatio-temporal cone), all the actions of B have > > > become affected by B’s communication with A and vice versa. > > > Spiritually, we can interact in an intellectual and/or emotional way > > > with one another, if not a combination of both (not to mention that > > > intimate, physical communication, certainly, can have emotional > > > effects). This is the ‘emotional communication’ that Gregg Bradon > > > intended in his book ‘The Divine Matrix’; especially his ‘Key 4’: > > > “Once something is joined, it is always connected, whether it remains > > > physically linked or not”. THIS concept is my answer to the other, > > > recent topic of “one flesh”. I believe the reference is metaphorical > > > and represents that, once two people have had ‘spiritual > > > intercourse’ (a topic for discussion all on its own, but I mean it in > > > its simplest level of even including a casual ‘Hello’ passing by > > > someone on the street), they have a permanent spiritual bond, as the > > > effects of their interaction continue onwards throughout space-time. > > > Also, the implication > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
