Rigs, I may not have put it better !
On Jan 27, 6:41 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > I have no intention of giving Neil a headache- what a horrid image! In > fact, Neil's comments often dance through my thoughts and hope I drift > through his. > > Iniquity is different form inequality. The American model of rampant > consumerism is impossible given near future population figures not to > mention cultural systems which are quite apparent but another topic. > The thought has even been ventured at Davos, I believe. > > The USA has been "on a roll"- similar to the British Empire at its > "peak"- if one wants to sugar coat. Do you think we will stay there > with long-distance warfare/sanctions to get our way? > > We change our own world first- like a pebble tossed in a calm pool and > let the circles spread- if possible. > > On Jan 27, 3:55 am, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Neil... you give me the impression that Rigs' heels are hard on your > > scalp, so you can't ever disagree with her ! Seems pragmatic to me. > > > There is NO ONE here with power who is EVER EVER going to share with > > you. So, what kind of a dream are you banking upon ? > > > Iniquity refers to : gross immorality, injustice or wickedness. These > > are each acts committed of individual drives. They may aggravate with > > cartelisation and could be suppressed with policing or checks and > > balances, but power sharing is not a solution for drives residing in 7 > > billion people. Yes, even people without power can be immoral, unjust > > and wicked. > > > Very truly, I am inclined to embrace the reality that nothing > > appreciable can be done about the world, in terms of changing it for > > the better. But, equally, that no individual can ever improve one bit > > without trying to live and do all in its power to change the world ! > > > On Jan 27, 1:59 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I can't disagree with rigsy. For all my wish for power to be shared > > > to prevent iniquity I know most people don't reason at all well. I > > > see no signs of this trap being sprung. > > > > On Jan 26, 5:24 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend, nowadays ,to > > > > try to realize God , Self if you like. You yourself were talking of > > > > infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or God is the same > > > > thing to me. > > > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Seems good to me, RP... > > > > > except that this matter about God might be irrelevant. > > > > > > The moral code is the core but for ourself. > > > > > It is the ethics code that is for others, > > > > > but it needs the moral code for its foundation. > > > > > > On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. , > > > > >> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the > > > > >> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals > > > > >> and humanity as a whole. > > > > > >> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional > > > > >> > mind > > > > >> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least > > > > >> > as > > > > >> > a challenge?" > > > > > >> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is > > > > >> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his > > > > >> > view > > > > >> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant. > > > > > >> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse > > > > >> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my > > > > >> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned > > > > >> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give > > > > >> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not > > > > >> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU ! > > > > > >> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are > > > > >> > libraries > > > > >> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to > > > > >> > put > > > > >> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of > > > > >> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for > > > > >> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, > > > > >> > free > > > > >> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away > > > > >> > from > > > > >> > us. Truth is our Home. > > > > > >> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " > > > > >> > home " > > > > >> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or > > > > >> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us > > > > >> > come to > > > > >> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to > > > > >> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their > > > > >> > happiness > > > > >> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't. > > > > > >> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet, > > > > >> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where, > > > > >> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is > > > > >> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on > > > > >> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of > > > > >> > delicacies, > > > > >> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and > > > > >> > what does not. > > > > > >> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also > > > > >> > there > > > > >> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or > > > > >> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as > > > > >> > well. > > > > >> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide > > > > >> > and > > > > >> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in > > > > >> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses > > > > >> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the > > > > >> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim. > > > > > >> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a > > > > >> > build > > > > >> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I > > > > >> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is > > > > >> > all a > > > > >> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our > > > > >> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also > > > > >> > blocks > > > > >> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion - > > > > >> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity - > > > > >> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. > > > > >> > Because it > > > > >> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore > > > > >> > over > > > > >> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with > > > > >> > it > > > > >> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the > > > > >> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and > > > > >> > Silence, > > > > >> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite. > > > > > >> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and > > > > >> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or > > > > >> > whatever. > > > > >> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will > > > > >> > address > > > > >> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems > > > > >> > and > > > > >> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our > > > > >> > public and personal lives.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
