One can respect diversity without trampling freedom of association/ choice as we are making choices constantly. Yes, humans should struggle to know themselves honestly but that process can be long and difficult and perhaps a never finished process- maybe it should never be finished. Facts and truths are altered to fit agendas more often than not- one must listen or read carefully to note the bias when it is not blatant/obvious.
Happy Birthday to Billy Collins and Louis Lamour! On Mar 20, 3:58 pm, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > James, ignorance is never the issue; it will correct itself, now or in > some decades. > > But stupidity is the issue and its first manifestation is disrespect > for diversity, in general. In particular, stupid people are closed to > diversity of knowledge and experiences that others have. > > For instance, miracles can always happen... quite as a near improbable > event can. What it means is another matter. I feel hearing out that > out, from one who has experienced, is more interesting than the > pontificating babble on the same matter from someone who has not had > the wondrous experience. > > So too, knowledge of any kind... if someone can build it up from the > empiricals, physical or mental, to realisations that have wider-space > longer-time scale validity. It is the absolutist general statement, > having no relationship with the empiricals and their truths, that seem > so stupid. > > Human beings have a responsibility to knowing themselves first, before > speculating about dimensions and what-not. Just now, a cause and > effect relationship was stated between brain and mind. And, I do not > see why or how. I do see the physical qualifying what is in the mind, > as emotion or thought. But they are in the mind, and are not the mind > itself. The brain is there while we are asleep, and alive too, so why > do not "have" a mind then ? In fact, why are we ourselves "absent" > then ? > > All in all, there is a need on our part to be less glib about facts > and truths. Untill then, it would be a good idea to go on some > adventure, or at least long walks, or make a man or woman happy, or > treat another person to happiness, or taste our way to pleasure, or > write down one's thoughts and see for oneself what it actually is... > > On Mar 18, 9:39 am, James Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM, 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 ! > > > I read "not" the first time and had to do a double take on your > > correction. Your concerns are the reason I use the term 'nature', when > > I use it romantically I try to make it clear that I am taking > > liberties. In general I agree with the last part, which gives me a > > large pause on words like 'absolute' and 'infinite', as I prefer to > > see that which is outside the boundary of my vision as a mystery full > > of potential or perhaps containing probabilities given the degree of > > my experiences. This reconciles easily with me between pursuits of > > science, philosophy and human nature. > > > > 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 " ? > > > Nature, to me, is all there is, whatever that may be. Notions such as > > God I include within 'romantic liberties' but that is a preference > > within my personal philosophy. Others use it differently in diverse > > ways, some of which I find appealing. > > > > I sincerely believe such threads are started on account of something > > > diseased within us ! > > > What point would there be to a pursuit of knowledge or truth without > > ignorance? Denying the latter sounds robotic. IMO approximation is > > implicit. > > > > Healthy people should be talking of matters they know or have > > > experienced. One can then opine, extrapolate, theorise... and still be > > > understandable. > > > A good general policy, not sure if all this was for both RP and I but > > I for one admit failure on every term above at some time or other. > > "What if?" > > > Call me a masochist but I enjoy the diversity of thought, meanderings, > > responding to your message, pestering RP's wisdom, etc.. :) > > > > 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 -
