"For one moment, our lives met, our souls touched." - Oscar Wilde
On Aug 5, 9:48 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Doug, > > That's a good point and one I did not think of. I can't help but > think though if such a state can be said to be evolution. > > If it contiunes this way, people wil form groups of which they will > communicate with and groups of which they will keep away from(and yes > this is the very way I approach life myself) then I can see the > inevitable result would be commuinties divided by mindset and > ideology, rather than geography. > > I'm not sure if you have ever heard me wax lyrical about what I think > will be the way humanity goes, my ideas on tribalizastion and anarchy? > > This ties in nicely with it though. Still dived commuinites > eascpecialy divison along idelogical grounds is bound to bring with it > much trouble unless we can agree on certian priniples, free travel > between comminties so that people who have idealogical changes are > free and unencombered to leave and join other communities is the very > first, and the idea of 'leave them to it' is the second. > > I wouldn't call it evolution without these two principles being agreed > and acted upon though, I would call it same old same old. > > On 5 Aug, 14:28, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I would imagine that anyone might 'evolve' to any degree on the > > spectrum either way. I do agree with Molly's post to the extent that > > as knowledge and awareness increase so does understanding and empathy. > > Yes it is true that people are more aprehensive and tend to keep to > > thier own but that's understandable. This aprehensiveness comes from > > the awareness of negative aspects in society. This is not to say that > > people are not forming better relationship but rather, are more > > selective about the relationships that are persued. Becoming close to > > those who live nearby can be dangerous these days. I spoke with an old > > friend last week who used to live across the street fom me. A mutual > > aquaintance lives next door to her and had been coming to her house > > and talking to her boyfriend. She was a little nervous about his > > presence at times but brushed it aside. Apparently the guy was coming > > over at night when her BF was at work borrowing DVD's and she would > > not let him in but he would come in during the day when her BF was > > home. One night, she said, she woke up and the guy was in her bedroom > > going through her dresser drawer. Her BF happened to be off this > > evening and the left real quick saying he just returning the DVD he > > had borrowed. The BF went after him and was going to kick his ass but > > she stopped him from doing so. > > > On Aug 5, 8:22 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 5 Aug, 11:26, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > I think I disagree. > > > > > In my little part of the world it seems that people are haveing less > > > > to do with each other, I barely know my neigbours, we are still > > > > fighting in Afganistan and Iraq, religious fundematlisim may be on the > > > > rise. > > > > > No I see little evidance of any evolution of relationships, and see > > > > some for the opposite. > > > > Could not the concept of 'evolution' be movement in either a positive > > > or negative direction? And your experience is simply evolution in a > > > negative direction. Remember: it's a spectrum!! > > > > > On 3 Aug, 13:46, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > All aspects of human civilization—language, art, aesthetics, > > > > > technology, architecture, organizations, governments—depend upon > > > > > essential human relationships for their evolution and expression. > > > > > > * Question: What is actually evolving? > > > > > > * Answer: The quality and quantity of relationships between people, > > > > > assuming the form of shared meanings, agreements, relationships and > > > > > groups of relationships. The cultural domain is inter-subjective, > > > > > because it exists between subjects, yet is often not objectively > > > > > identifiable. But the fact that these shared spaces of meaning are not > > > > > objectively identifiable does not hinder us from experiencing them as > > > > > being real. As such, the subjective world includes not only individual > > > > > consciousness but the inter-subjective domain of relationships as > > > > > well, making the interior universe much more substantial. These > > > > > relationships are real, yet they exist in the internal universe. The > > > > > evolution of this internal universe accounts for the fact that women, > > > > > children, and minorities now experience and possess more freedoms than > > > > > in any time in written history. > > > > > > What do YOU think? > > > > > > For more: > > > > > http://www.i-awake.net/2010/08/spiral-dynamics-introduction.html-Hide...text > > > > > - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
