This line of reasoning has me concerned though, consider this:
Individuals who are overly 'selfish' in short term gains will contribute
less or cost more to the tribe. Individuals who have a social aptitude
to sympathize or have compassion would contribute more to the survival
of direct family and tribe or larger groupings. This should either
develop by nature enforcing limitations on their population growth or
over a longer time emerge into triggers that reinforce both tribal
strength/competition for resources without devastating genetic diversity
(piling on the assumptions here). Now as the ability to communicate
advances these capacities would be carried into the symbols of
communication, until you get cultural values and norms. It is a chicken
or egg, the traits naturally evolved while culture grew around and
within it. Objective and subjective become more aspects of the same
reality than a clear and distinct perspective Either is incomplete
without the other and the potential for variants.
PS Not a complete thought here, I know it's missing something important,
maybe the perfect 'term' for this..
On 5/10/2011 2:17 PM, Chuck Bowling wrote:
By objective I generally mean anything that is a shared common
experience. For instance, gravity is a shared common experience. My
list of people who are not physically attracted to the Earth is very
short.
Your ability to breath is dependent upon your proximity to the ground
due to the fact that the Earth's atmosphere gets thinner the higher
you go.
Another shared common experience is kinetic energy. Most people who
are hit with a 100 mph fast ball react in a very similar manner - they
drop to the ground with a concussion.
Here your health is dependent upon your ability to avoid 100 mph fast
balls.
Matter is a shared common experience. Running into a brick wall at
full speed generally has the same result for anybody who tries it.
See above for dependencies. ;)
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:10 PM, ornamentalmind
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
"All objective things are dependent in some way also. Just in a
different
way. .." - CB
Would you mind giving a list of at least a few things that you
consider to be objective? At the outset I have little doubt that we
are dealing with an issue of semantics; however we can continue to
discuss it, no?
My point is that *anything* that is dependent is by definition
subjective.
On May 4, 1:06 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
> All objective things are dependent in some way also. Just in a
different
> way.
>
> I think subjective things are dependent in the way we associate
them with
> each other. Objective things are more physically dependent.
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:46 PM, ornamentalmind
> <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > To me, what Chuck said about ‘dependence’ is of utmost importance
> > here. All subjective things are dependent.
>
> > On May 3, 9:30 pm, the taoist shaman <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> > > PSK if at some point someones conciousness dident tell them
not to be
> > > selfish then how is it possible that you were ever told not
to be
> > > selfish ?
>
> > > pol.science kid wrote:
> > > > selfishness is contrary to collective consciousness
true..but isnt
> > > > that the most real thing about us..i wonder..i wasnt told that
> > > > selfishness is bad...would my conscience strike me...keep
me in
> > > > check...because...sometimes...my thoughts...they shock and
repulse
> > > > me... i loathe myself for having such thoughts..and then i
> > > > wonder...if that is not me...but it is me...it is hard
...to know that
> > > > oyu are what you might condemn in someone else...and so i ask
> > > > often...
>
> > > > On May 3, 1:04 pm, the taoist shaman <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> > > > > PSK selfishness arouses discontent because it is contrary to
> > > > > collective consciousness , try reading the meditations
of marcus
> > > > > auralius chapter 2 verse 1 from the harvard classics .
>
> > > > > gabbydott wrote:
> > > > > > From a top-down perspective this is correct. But I
understood that
> > PSK asked
> > > > > > for individual responses from each of us.
>
> > > > > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:09 AM, rigsy03
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > But you have to admit there are humans who haven't
the chance to
> > even
> > > > > > > consider this type of thinking as their lives are
miserable due
> > to
> > > > > > > poverty, war, sickness and all other ills. Plus-
what does a
> > culture
> > > > > > > celebrate? Wealth? Power? Etc.? You can hardly fault
some for
> > buying a
> > > > > > > false self and image if that is what their culture
teaches them,
> > can
> > > > > > > you? It takes a brave rebel to contradict society or
challenge
> > group
> > > > > > > thought.
>
> > > > > > > On May 2, 12:20 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > If the selfish would truly search their self,
they'd quickly
> > die out.
> > > > > > > > Problem is how they don't see themselves but see
themselves in
> > the others
> > > > > > > > with the poor others not knowing that they are not
taken for
> > themselves
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > for someone else. My explanation.
>
> > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:57 PM, pol.science kid <
> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> > > > > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > at the first glance of your reply came a thought
to my mind
> > about
> > > > > > > > > collective consciousness...rather a
question...does the
> > collective
> > > > > > > > > consciousness exist independently...what does it
mean
> > exactly...to put
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > crudely is it the realisation that you are not
the only
> > phenomena..but
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > i feel is....it is very difficult to transcend
ones own
> > person...but is
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > important....why do we really get irritated with
self
> > absorbed or self
> > > > > > > > > seeking people....why do we condemn
selfishness..in any
> > sense...are we
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > insecure as to feel deprived because of that
...or is it
> > something
> > > > > > > more.. i
> > > > > > > > > hope i make sense.. and i hope you get waht i am
trying to
> > ask...i
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > like all to answer...cos i really want to know....
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:36 PM, DarkwaterBlight <
> > > > > > > [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> This take appeals to my understanding.
Perpetually changing,
> > evolving
> > > > > > > > >> and reforming. Input has an outcome and causes
an expanded
> > "mind
> > > > > > > > >> space", if you will. Is logic all logical and
what is to be
> > said about
> > > > > > > > >> rationalizing the "irrational"? Should my
thinking be
> > correct by the
> > > > > > > > >> standards of others or to my own? What of
"raising the bar"
> > in
> > > > > > > > >> consciousness and of a paradigm shift to a more
correct
> > thinking of
> > > > > > > > >> our "collective mind" ? Of all that goes into
into thought
> > and mind is
> > > > > > > > >> this not the desired effect?
>
> > > > > > > > >> On Apr 30, 9:23 am, "pol.science kid"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > might thought be colored by the mind that
engages it
> > ....what is the
> > > > > > > > >> realm
> > > > > > > > >> > of pure thought that you mention here .... is
it logic and
> > > > > > > > >> > rationalisation...do you mean the method of
employing that
> > > > > > > > >> thought...because
> > > > > > > > >> > ....knowing...percieving something for the
first time the
> > mind will
> > > > > > > > >> > automatically fall back on the things it
thinks it does
> > know....
>
> > > > > > > > >> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Chad Moore <
> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > Knowledge unites, in being or in identity.
Thinking
> > separates, in
> > > > > > > > >> > > subject-object relationship.
> > > > > > > > >> > > Knowing has no place in the ordinary
thought process.
> > Thinking
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > >> > > something
> > > > > > > > >> > > which has to be known is wrong, since it
moves in a
> > vicious
> > > > > > > circle.
> > > > > > > > >> You
> > > > > > > > >> > > cannot think
> > > > > > > > >> > > of anything you have not known. Such
thinking can never
> > take you
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > Truth.
> > > > > > > > >> > > But when you direct your thought to
something (say
> > yourself) which
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> have
> > > > > > > > >> > > otherwise
> > > > > > > > >> > > visualized, the thought loses its own
characteristics
> > and limits,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > stands
> > > > > > > > >> > > revealed as that Self (Consciousness)
itself. Thought is
> > thus
> > > > > > > reduced
> > > > > > > > >> into
> > > > > > > > >> > > its essence.
>
> > > > > > > > >> > --
> > > > > > > > >> > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
