Ah -- but in the adoption of your paradigm, ethics would be innately expressed from the inside out, no longer imposed from the outside. Laws might change, but I suspect they would simply fall into disuse.
On Jan 27, 7:57 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26 Jan, 15:50, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I would sorely miss you if you chose another silent interlude in this > > group Pat, especially because of what is mentioned above. The tone > > lately has been less of an honest exchange of dialogue and more of a > > combat zone. Historically, those of us that are here for the exchange > > get quiet during these times, and those here for the combat rule the > > day. > > > Why we have the need to tear each other down is a mystery and barrier > > to the real communication I know is possible in this group, which is > > unlike any other I know of on the web. I learn much from all members, > > but especially you Pat, and am always interested to see your name in a > > thread. Let them yawn while they burn my books, it may be worth it > > for one real connection here, and I often have many. > > Thanks Molly!! I suppose it was a rash reaction to being shown > 'The Moderator' card. I think Ian fails to appreciate that a Theory > of Everything will result in what he views as reductionist. Although > science views a TOE as a unification theory (as it tries to unite the > seemingly different forces into one), I feel that the premiss is > wrong, because, if the forces are different aspects of a single force, > then we aren't uniting them, rather, we are discovering that they were > never separate to begin with. The difference is that science views it > from our end and I'm viewing it from the other end, i.e., the origin. > If science discovers a TOE that is different from mine, it will still > show that the forces have a single origin and that's the whole goal. > Why it upsets an atheist is easy to see. It's because it DOES > boil everything down to one, and that one has to be all, and that > upsets an atheistic paradigm because it, naturally, points at that one > as being all-powerful, all-knowing and present throughout all space > and time, i.e., the classic definition of deity. > > > It seems our moderators are people to who occasionally lose site of > > the meaning of personal attack. > > You mean like when I was called an apostate or lumped into the same > category as extremists? Both erroneous statements but...they HAD to > be said. And I only say that because it's in the past, therefore, we > can deduce that it was always in the continuum...just waiting to > happen. I can hardly blame someone for doing what they had to do. > This is one of the things that worries me the most about my own > theory, that is, what it implies for how we handle legal > responsibility. The whole field of law changes if we are forced to > accept that which has happened as necessary. But, of course, I have > to leave something for posterity to work out. ;-) > > >I say, let those of us here for > > dialogue continue on, irregardless of the nay sayers. Let the nay > > sayers say nay to each other while we touch on the real, there is room > > for all, (within the guidelines, of course.) > > Yup, and if not in this universe (that is from Big Bang to > Apocalypse), perhaps in the subsequent one,which may only last a day > longer. > > > On Jan 26, 8:19 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 25 Jan, 16:17, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 2010/1/25 Molly <[email protected]> > > > > > > I, for one, welcome Pat's ideas and knowledge - all extensive. Like a > > > > > breath of fresh air in this group, as he extends the boundaries of > > > > > thinking with his kind treatment. > > > > > I welcome Pat's ideas and knowledge too, which I hope was clear. That > > > > wasn't > > > > my issue. > > > > > Ian > > > > It seems I've got under your collar and Lee's. As I'd mentioned in my > > > response to Neil, perhaps I'll just spend more time writing the book, > > > because, I'm really just re-hashing the same things these days and I > > > can understand that can be both boring (as Neil says) and irritating > > > (as it seems to be with you...probably because we hold differing > > > opinions). If I focus on my book, then my audience WILL become > > > larger. But one thing I'd like you to understand about me is that I > > > feel very deeply that I have a moral obligation to have my concepts > > > heard, because, if I'm correct, then it would best behove mankind to > > > listen AND learn. Which is why, to those who do not want to learn my > > > subject matter, I seem to be coming across 'increasingly didactic'. I > > > think you, like Neil, are just getting bored by hearing the same old, > > > same old. I'm not saying I'll go away completely, but, perhaps only > > > interject occasionally, for it may be better to be a bit of spice than > > > a heavy salting. ;-)- 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.
