Ash – And, is not the very notion of ‘fitness’ all too oft subjective and non-universal?
If on the other hand your sense of what is “fit…” is somehow universal, besides not being able to share it in an analytical sense, would/could you please do what you can to so communicate? Thanks p.s. You did quite well sharing how Truth is in everything. On Aug 18, 3:38 pm, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > Excellent question OM, and I just realized that Allan's thoughts on this > are nearly identical to mine. Here it is anyway, > > I think whether something is fit for a purpose or functional efficacy > about sums it up. The meat and potatoes is apportioned to all those > diverse purposes and effects. > > Each time I've pursued great truths, refinements carry so far and the > symbols representing these things dissipate, converge into a vortex > where creative potential and conservative force meet. Beyond that 'din' > (thank you molly) I see truth inherent in everything, one pure, > inescapable, awesome truth and I feel the desire to help others in any > way possible along this path. Spirit is a great thing that can tread > where there lies only anguish for the mind. > > One of Einstein's statements hit me profoundly a few years ago > incidentally a few years after I'd read it. Something along the lines > that the importance of truth lies in the journey of seeking not so much > the attainment. Which includes what we become in the process. > > On 8/15/2010 11:05 PM, ornamentalmind wrote: > > > > > 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.
