Very true Molly I think unfortunately many of the people who should be hanging their heads in shame,, think they are the coolest. Allan
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > "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 ยป > -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
