Hi Carl, Some stuff snipped below, and left in the archives. On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Carl Thames <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Carl: > I look at the nurture/nature thing and can't help but to think of my > brother. We were raised in similar situations, obviously, yet he has > consistently made bad choices on most things. He sees no point whatever in > going to school and learning new things, etc. His entire life has been > spent totally on the surface. When I first read this, I did a search on > Oprah Winfrey. Looking at her background, she should have ended up as a > crack whore somewhere, but she didn't. Maybe it's a combination? She has > the inherent ability, the intelligence and curiosity, plus the hutzpah to do > what she does. Also, from all reports, she's a workaholic. Most of the bad > things that can happen to a child happened to her, yet she overcame them. > The flip side to that is that I've met a lot of people who had tons of > native intelligence and talent who've never accomplished a single thing > other than converting perfectly good oxygen into carbon dioxide. Who can > say which buttons get pushed, and what the effect will be? I don't think > there's a good answer there. Too many variables to adequately test any > hypothesis there. It would have been interesting to see how Jethro and > Ellie Mae's kids turned out, though. > > I think there is a seperation between personality and reality. It's called > free will. We can choose to accept the reality that's presented, or we can > actively work to change it. The real question is who we are serving if we > do make the effort to change it? Is it an ego thing? Is there a "greater > good" involved? Interesting questions. Yes, interesting questions indeed. I don't think the nature/nurture is something that can be resolved since we create the dichotomy and therefore we question our own creation. Maybe it is simply the wrong way to present things. Perhaps an answer is not necessary, and we can appreciate it as such. I think it can be viewed from the ground of "original Intent". For I think we can say that the thing we are born with is Will, and we are unfolding accordingly. Perhaps this is a Karma sort of way of looking at things (which includes free-will). Although such a term has many meanings here in the West, including the sense of "luck" which is another whole area of metaphysics which is based on statistics (chance) that I do not find very useful, and indeed somewhat meaningless. Such a view is simply saying we do not want to construct anything meaningful. What a waste. Intent is one way I find useful in which to construe Quality. For it exists before all. So, we can construe the sense of Will or Intent, which could lie outside of the Nature/Nurture paradigm, and work from there. Perhaps we can even bring in the Zodiac symbols if we want. For if we see the universe as some large interacting phenomenon through whatever forces we want to bring in, there may be an influence how how the sun is juxtaposed with the greater, it could certainly have an influence. But then we have the identical twins that turn out very differently... The "greater Good" is interesting, however it seems to be used in a sinister manner by politicians who are simply trying to impose their view of the way things Should be on others. So, the way I see it is that we ARE the greater good, and it is not something that we should use to bend others to our own Will. > > Carl > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
