The female is only half the equation and gets no extra points for being a vehicle, imo. Motherhood was boosted by pagans and Christians to make up for the patriarchy which designed and ruled the world- and still does in spite of women's lib. Note your use of the male pronoun with your examples, for instance- it's sub.cs and automatic.But I get distracted by stray thoughts- I was wondering the other day if abortion is a form of human sacrifice, for instance.
On Mar 18, 6:24 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Simply for simplicity reasons, it's a strong image. I might have said: the > author and his book, the founder and his company, the developer and his > creation, the scientist and his findings, etc. > > > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 4:56 PM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why take the perspective from the mother? I don't believe in > > reincarnation but do find family traits acceptable. One friend joked- > > with love- that my mother's cord was really an anchor chain from a > > battleship. > > > On Mar 18, 8:17 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Rigs, this interpretation looks too short sighted. Or the other way > > > round - you know what I mean. Anyways, I would postulate that the so > > called > > > afterlife (a too two-dimensional translation by the way) begins as soon > > as > > > the navel cord of whatever you accept to be your baby has been cut. In > > that > > > respect or from that perspective is commonly achievable to be able to > > > oversee and remember even more that one afterlife. > > > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 12:06 PM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I believe the memories remaining with the living or creations left > > > > behind- even our genetic codes- are our afterlife. The lure of an > > > > afterlife is to give hope to those who found real life pretty > > > > miserable plus provides a rationale for various religious and moral > > > > rules. What was the sale of Indulgences during the Middle Ages except > > > > a form of a protection racket? > > > > > On Mar 18, 3:58 am, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Some people believe in an after-life because some people claim to > > > > > remember past births , experience is on their side , they say. You > > > > > might as well believe in ghosts and ghouls because some people claim > > > > > to have experienced them. So much for experience ! > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > How do you know that, RP, when your dead ? Have you ever died > > before ? > > > > > > > We all have a body and a mind. Based on its capabilities, or > > > > > > incapabilities, what are we talking about ? Nature ? We hardly know > > > > > > what, how much, how far, in what ways... it works, in all the 10 to > > > > > > power 22 star worlds. What we know of it can hardly determine what > > we > > > > > > do know about it, quite as the past can hardly define the future ! > > > > > > > Likewise, God. WTF are we talking about ? Now this could seem rude > > but > > > > > > should make perfect sense in the context. As in what is this God ? > > > > > > What constitutes it ? How does it relate to that other fog word " > > > > > > Nature " ? > > > > > > > I sincerely believe such threads are started on account of > > something > > > > > > diseased within us ! > > > > > > > Healthy people should be talking of matters they know or have > > > > > > experienced. One can then opine, extrapolate, theorise... and > > still be > > > > > > understandable. > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 11:26 pm, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> Good > > > > > >> Allan > > > > > >> On Mar 17, 2012 5:28 PM, "RP Singh" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> > As long as I am alive I am conscious of the world and myself , > > but > > > > when I > > > > > >> > am dead I reach a state of permanent unconsciousness , a state > > of > > > > supreme > > > > > >> > peace where nothing disturbs me , a sort of nirvana. that is the > > > > ultimate > > > > > >> > state from which nobody returns. > > > > > > >> > On Friday, March 9, 2012 3:32:12 AM UTC+5:30, Ash wrote: > > > > > > >> >> This does make some sense to me RP so I hope my question > > doesn't > > > > sound > > > > > >> >> critical. For me thinking in this way causes a massive amount > > of > > > > > >> >> difficulty, as it sounds like immutable truths, so I have to > > > > translate > > > > > >> >> away the language to get glints of my own thinking through. We > > > > could > > > > > >> >> easily call my predicament not seeing the forest for the > > trees, and > > > > > >> >> that would be a fitting if not limited statement. In my mind I > > > > prefer > > > > > >> >> to start with the will representing laws of nature which are > > > > dynamic, > > > > > >> >> and work more along an opportunistic heuristic. For me it is > > > > obvious > > > > > >> >> that some people talk about an n-dimensional entity, but n is > > an > > > > > >> >> aspect of scope in one's perspective. If n is potentially > > infinite, > > > > > >> >> then the truths may have strength but are more optimizations > > than > > > > > >> >> static ontology. I am wondering if there is some useful > > perspective > > > > > >> >> that can be used in my situation, or perhaps it is a hopeless > > case. > > > > > >> >> Perhaps you have something to help me? > > > > > > >> >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:21 AM, RP Singh <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> >> > Neil , there is no difference. The universe is not nature > > but a > > > > > >> >> > manifestation of Nature or God. It is unconscious but not > > dead, > > > > as > > > > > >> >> > that would have meant no life , further it has to be > > unconscious > > > > as > > > > > >> >> > the conscious is always bound to certain limits and is dual. > > > > > > >> >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:57 AM, archytas <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> >> >> That's a little bit different - and I'm in agreement. Some > > > > scientists > > > > > >> >> >> have suggested we could make a universe with life > > conditions in > > > > the > > > > > >> >> >> laboratory - still leaving us with issues about beginnings. > > > > Science > > > > > >> >> >> fiction wise one can imagine making such universes in order > > to > > > > travel > > > > > >> >> >> in time in them to discover more on how we were made - by > > > > occupying > > > > > >> >> >> earlier stages of them. I tend to think of the unconscious > > as > > > > what > > > > > >> >> >> isn't in rational consciousness, but I know this is > > inadequate > > > > as much > > > > > >> >> >> human consciousness in action is not known to the > > participants > > > > > >> >> >> rationally. > > > > > > >> >> >> On Mar 5, 2:59 am, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> >> >>> Life had to come from somewhere , why not from an > > unconscious > > > > Nature > > > > > >> >> >>> which would explain the presence of Laws behind every > > action > > > > and > > > > > >> >> >>> inaction. > > > > > > >> >> >>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:36 AM, archytas < > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> >> >>> > That doesn't help RP. Why this rather than a host of > > > > alternatives? > > > > > > >> >> >>> > On Mar 4, 4:28 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> >> >>> >> God is not made of fire , air , earth , water , ether > > and > > > > > >> >> consciousness , > > > > > >> >> >>> >> rather all these emanate from Him. God is unconscious > > and > > > > without > > > > > >> >> >>> >> attributes. > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:51:49 PM UTC+5:30, RP > > Singh > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > God , Nature , Truth , Reality is unconscious and the > > > > Creation > > > > > >> >> which > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > emanates from it has no choice. You may think that you > > > > have > > > > > >> >> choice , but > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > whatever you think , feel and do is as certain as the > > > > trajectory > > > > > >> >> of the > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > celestial bodies. The entire universe , you included, > > is > > > > bound > > > > > >> >> by laws and > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > everyone is a slave to" Laws", that is , "The Will of > > > > God". > > > > > >> >> >>> >> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:51:49 PM UTC+5:30, RP > > Singh > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > God , Nature , Truth , Reality is unconscious and the > > > > Creation > > > > > >> >> which > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > emanates from it has no choice. You may think that you > > > > have > > > > > >> >> choice , but > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > whatever you think , feel and do is as certain as the > > > > trajectory > > > > > >> >> of the > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > celestial bodies. The entire universe , you included, > > is > > > > bound > > > > > >> >> by laws and > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > everyone is a slave to" Laws", that is , "The Will of > > > > God".- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
