"The problem will probably come from shame and we will separate ourselves each creating our own heaven or hell, "
It is a problem in life, not just death. On Nov 9, 4:06 pm, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > You amaze me Neil with your knowledge, showing me just how little I know, > it also reminds me > that there really are no new ideas that some one else has not thought of > before people just rewrite it trying to express it clearer. this > solipsistsis interesting including the zombie part lol earlier discussion. > > maybe it is not as foolish as it might seem, to me and y weird preception > of things in a way is just that.. As I see the world as just that the > object is to rejoin the creator (in death or in rebirth or how ever you see > it,) > > On our departing of this world their is and accounting of how we lived, > responding to our abilities.. when separating from this life there is an > accounting where we recall our actions of our entire lives.. and also > once again understand what it takes to be one with the Creator The problem > will probably come from shame and we will separate ourselves each creating > our own heaven or hell, > > I really have no idea how it happens or just what happens just that > something happens.. . > > Many beliefs have to much similarity.. even my thought are as if they are > all ready known. To each belongs their own existence. I think the greedy > will really give themselves a surprise some how I do not think it will be > pleasant.. > I know weird > Allan > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 9, 2011, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > They intercourse the paradigmatic synergy up paradox junction Allan. > > K Dick once wrote of a 'group of solipsists' who treated any not in > > the group as objects of their own mind's creation. I've always > > thought the aim of materialism is that point where it hardly matters, > > so we can get on with being spiritual in leisure space created by > > sharing what work needs doing. Look at the way we could ban Chazwin > > and so on and you can see 'manners' at work in a corrosive way - they > > never quite ban poverty do they? > > > On Nov 9, 8:02 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Maybe the worst prisons around like the ones use for gangs > >> but a good idea.. > > >> oddly though I think if I am right they will have a real surprise coming > >> at their death especially when they find there is no wealth and the world > >> they know disappears,, I know it sounds funny they will create their own > >> hell far beyond what you and I can imagine,, > > >> If one is supposed to live a spiritual life.. how does a person justify > a > >> life of material gain at the expense of others? > >> Allan > > >> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 12:01 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Many of my scientific colleagues believe the kind of bureaucrats we > >> > have to suffer deserve long prison sentences - then we'll hang them! > > >> > On Nov 8, 8:55 pm, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > to limits moneys access to politics is what is going to have to > happen,, > >> > > not allowing corporations involvement at all.. but like the problem > will > >> > > be greed and the need for secrecy. the politicians will not like > having > >> > > ever word recorded and every word said to them,, and extreme > penalties > >> > to > >> > > violating the rules including prison time for all involved.. and > loss of > >> > > all money for family members and relatives especially if the source > of > >> > the > >> > > money is the person violating the laws > > >> > > it will not be popular with the 1% > >> > > Allan > > >> > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 2:11 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > Point 11 has traditionally been the Marxist line. The modern ones > >> > > > like David Harvey talk of 'surplus capital' chasing ever > diminishing > >> > > > rates of return. I see the problem as us not being able to get > what > >> > > > we sensibly want, like warm homes without vast energy bills and the > >> > > > environmental knock on and meaningful engagement as the social > animals > >> > > > we are. One of the interesting things at the moment is that there > are > >> > > > similarities between the usual right wing hatred of taxation and > the > >> > > > extent to which we are all 'taxed' by the rich and their Monopoly > >> > > > games with money - how much of our work is funneled away by > financial > >> > > > services that increasingly look like organised crime or so Bill > Gates > >> > > > can 'redistribute on our behalf'? > > >> > > > One question has to be the extent to which we may be understanding > >> > > > what's been going on 'unconsciously' and may be able to respond at > >> > > > that level. Every test we can do shows that people are not > appraised > >> > > > of the facts, but the danger with this is that we then treat > everyone > >> > > > as morons for not knowing. I have classes I can teach to pass > maths > >> > > > tests at the end of a day's teaching with some in them who can't > >> > > > remember the basics the following day when I try to push on to what > >> > > > matters. These same people are often pretty competent at actual > tasks > >> > > > involving the maths if I routinise the stuff into software choice. > >> > > > One can do this with quite complex social reasoning - but 'who > writes > >> > > > the software' remains an issue. And at bottom Gabby isn't the > problem > >> > > > about trusting anyone to do the planning because we fear they will > rip > >> > > > us off or turn 'totalist'? And behind this another fear that we > can't > >> > > > do the planning ourselves without creating such monsters? > > >> > > > On Nov 7, 7:35 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > > Yep, that's where I see IT having accepted their position too. > >> > > > > the following day > > >> > > > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Allan H <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > > In point 11 *It *seems the corporations and the people who > lead > >> > them > >> > > > are > >> > > > > > already social paths > >> > > > > > Allan > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 7:11 AM, archytas <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> What strikes me on public dialogue is that we get a lot of > >> > opposing > >> > > > > >> views put forward that are all based in ideology that can be > >> > stripped > >> > > > > ... > > >> read more »
