The diverse responses to my question about how two apparently divergent views can be accepted as both being right now include:
Nothing is right or wrong… He is not right…. And Your choice… Now, how can all three be accepted as being right? On Aug 15, 6:41 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > The creativity and the ability to change ourselves you speak of is a part of > our system and is innate in us and it is only as a consequence of that that > we strive to change ourselves and our world. You speak of madmen as being > under the influence of their personality but we are also under the same > influence but our nature is more developed and we cope better and appear to > change ourselves.We are not robots but the will to strive and change and > create is innate in us. Look at birds they make their nests according to > their species , some of the nests are very complicated and yet the birds > make them because it is in their genes. Birds are also intelligent and > have the same creativity as us but to a smaller extent. The freedom that we > have is quite real as far as we ourselves and others are concerned but in > actuality we are bound by nature; in the face of danger one man flees and > another faces it. It is this difference in individuals I am talking about , > we are all different and if that is due to our efforts their is a difference > in that ability and it is inherent in us. > The universe emerged from the big-bang and it is progressing according to > science , where did that order came from, out of nothing! There is an > intelligent design in that and if we say it is innate in the universe then > the universe sprang from an intelligent nothing and I am not asking you to > revere that nothing but the least we can do is to acknowledge it. Again I > make no claim to be accepted as right as my viewpoint is subject to my > limitations and it is just a viewpoint and should be taken only as such. As > for intelligence it is in a particular sphere relevant to an individual. > > > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 3:33 PM, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > Basically I'd agree with your perspective but with a few small > > modifications and clarifications. I'd like to say first that there > > are a number of intelligent and aware people here on Mind's Eye. > > Neither you nor I are that unique here. > > > As regards biology, psychology, sociology, I'd have to say that they > > do not necessarily have a bearing on our makeup but rather are a > > reflection and our attempts at understanding our makeup. > > > Yes, it is true our younger years are highly formative of that makeup > > and together with the traits and characteristics passed on by our > > genes in probably the majority of cases determine that individual's > > life throughout. > > > However, there are also many, albeit a minority, who manage to rise > > above much of those influences. Here I think you might likely call > > them determinants rather than mere influences, but I have touched our > > history sufficiently to believe that as humans we have the ability to > > rise above the influences of both nature and nurture. > > > This unique spark of life we have in us has enabled our species to > > claw our way up out of the thick primeval soup and build a > > civilization which, despite its many apparent ills and wrongs, is > > still the most remarkable monument to our existence and influence on > > not only the world but in the universe. > > > Human beings are deeply involved with symbols. We speak volumes in > > our symbols which we foolishly attempt to hide in our common words and > > deeds. But as one of my preferred sages, Jung, would have it -- we > > can not hide our realities from anyone but ourselves. > > > Taking this grain of knowledge of our symbols and applying it to the > > history of our gods tells me that these gods are but symbols of our > > own potential. We have created these gods and endowed them with the > > powers that we actually possess and are in the process of achieving > > and actualizing. Our gods are but a self-portrait, a reversal of > > Dorian Gray's, if you will. I do not believe it is for any small end > > that we have managed not only to survive but be in control of our > > world whether we realize it or not. > > > As far as I've been able to determine there was no choice on my part > > in the genes I inherited -- and I'm not lessening the influence of > > such physical realities -- but many times people can and do rise above > > such influences. Neither our genetic code nor our environment write > > our futures in stone, though I have to grant that in viewing many > > people's lives it does appear to be so. > > > However, regardless how much I favor individual responsibility, there > > are exceptions I have to allow. Sometimes genetics and upbringing can > > and does overwhelm the individual personality. It is why we make > > allowances in our laws and treatment of individuals for such things as > > insanity and inability to tell right from wrong. > > > But the future may hold cures for such ills. After all, look at some > > of societies ills we have cured merely in the last hundred years. > > People who would otherwise have been incapacitated by either physical > > or mental disabilities have been made whole through medicine and > > therapy. It is a remarkable notation in our dossier how well we treat > > our mentally ill compared to just a hundred years ago. > > > I simply cannot see our species, either collectively or individually, > > being permanently locked into a mode of life, character and > > spirituality as determined by our genes or family. > > > I'm not sure what you mean by a heavenly environment but at face > > value, I take such a phrase to mean a goal, a quest, which we never > > ever achieve. The journey is far more exciting. Once we achieve > > perfection -- if we ever do which I don't believe we will -- but if we > > do, I have to ask, what then? But other than that, I think we have a > > great deal of control over the world we create and inhabit. We just > > need to step up to the plate and take responsibility for it. > > > On Aug 15, 11:09 am, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear Gruff , > > > I am much impressed by your knowledge and application. You are an > > > intelligent man and I think you will be able to understand what I have to > > > say , I have said it many times and I have received no response. > > > You will agree that biology , psychology , sociology has a great bearing > > on > > > the make up of the nature of an individual. Most of our character traits > > are > > > influenced by our genetic endowments. The environment in which we are > > born > > > and live for the first few years of our life moulds our nature. We may > > say > > > that our personality or nature is a product of the hardware we got from > > our > > > genes and the programming which our environment did on this personality. > > > Even in later years we didn't have much choice as to the environment into > > > which we moved because of the possibilities we got we chose the one which > > > suited our nature or into which we were forced to move. > > > Now think of yourself as an individual and not a son or offspring of your > > > parents. Did you by any chance chose your genes or your early > > environment? > > > Yet they are responsible for your behavior. Even the ' I ' in you is a > > > product of your genes. Why don't I think like you ? I am different from > > you. > > > The heavenly environment that you have is not in your hands though humans > > > are trying to take it into their control. But why take it further , > > whatever > > > you do you are bound by your personality which was not created by you , > > it > > > was created basically by the first signs of life from which you have > > evolved > > > and those first signs were evolved from the cosmic egg and the cosmic egg > > > came out of nothing and that nothing was intelligent enough to deliver a > > > cosmic egg in which the entire universe was inherent. It is that nothing > > I > > > call God.
