On 2/29/12, Carl Thames <[email protected]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "118" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 11:39 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] The dirty doors of perception? > > >> 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 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. > > Mark: >> 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. > > Carl: > The only problem I have with this is the idea of intent. I think that > implies an originating consciousness. There may be one, I don't know, and I > seriously doubt we'll ever prove it. For that matter, I doubt we'll ever > disprove it either. My personal theology includes an over-riding > consciousness in the god-in-all-things manner, but I don't attribute my > personal beliefs to anyone else.
Mark: Yeah, I can see what you are saying. I guess it all depends on how one defines consciousness. This is of course another can of worms. I do not think our consciousness is somehow special, but a reflection of consciousness as a whole. Ours just happens to be ours. > > Mark: >> 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.. > > Carl: > I'm reasonably convinced of some of the Zodiac stuff, but not all. Our > bodies are comprised of 80% water, and we know for a fact that the moon > affects the tides, so it would be illogical to assume that the moon has no > effect on us. As for the other planets, I don't know. I don't know enough > about gravity, etc. to make a decision. I do find it interesting that the > sun has such a dramatic effect on our moods. Do we attribute that to the > amount of sunlight, or another force at work? The effect of light can be traced to certain hormones, and so forth, but this is an oversimplication. Certainly animals can sense gravity changes, and the polar north, and so forth. So I do not see why we cannot. It is difficult to measure, so until we can measure it, it doesn't exist :-). If we use Einstein's notion of the dimensional bending of space as a paradigm for gravity, then there is no reason to think that we could not sense such bending. Indeed, the earth rolls around the sun in a funnel made by gravity. When one is going around a bend, it can certainly be felt. We are just so used to the effect of gravity, that we think it does not exist. If we were just a little bit farther from the sun, we could be totally different. Not just because of the heat of course. > > Mark: >> 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: > Well, if you go with your original assumption, early on, you attributed the > idea of morality to quality. That's what I would call the "greater good." > The over-arching concept that we're interested in species survival. That > works for me. I think we inherently know we need others to survive. We're > at the top of the food chain right now, but that wasn't always the case, and > if we're on our own, that position is pretty fluid. Because of that, it's > in our own interest to assure other's like us surivive. I think that's why > the idea of murder carried such a harsh penalty throughout our history. > When someone does a murder, it lessens the chances for survival for the rest > of us. Plus, there's always the chance that whoever did it decided they > liked doing it, and plan to do it to us. > > This opens a whole bucket of worms, if you think about it. One of the first > dramatic episodes in the Bible is when Cain invented murder and tried it out > on his brother. The first one to ask him about it was God himself. He > knew, but he wanted to see what Cain's reaction would be, I guess. The > important question here, IMHO, is why would God care? Why not just create a > couple more just like him? Another hole in theology, I guess. In my opinion, the will to survive and the moral greater good, are projections which are used to justify one's behavior. These are logical constructs which are only as good as they are used. There is no need to "follow" a moral concept, because we are morality. It would be like following ourselves. Yes, there are laws against murder because we do not want to be murdered. We then bring in all sorts of nonsense as to a "greater morality" or Darwin's overapplied theory of evolution. Modern psychology is stuck in the evolution paradigm, so it is easy to see where it will end up. In a dead niche somewhere due to overspecialization... I prefer to not disguize things using the theory of evolution. It was created by the human imagination, therefore we are not subordinate to it. When somebody creates a piece of music does that mean he HAS to play it? Often this happens to one hit bands, and they self destruct. We know the theory of evolution and where it leads, if we have to fit everything within it, we are stuck. This theory is used from everything from the nature of the universe to why we like cheese. Since the theory is so simple it is easy to apply, but it often has disasterous consequences. I have no idea what the Caine and Able thing is supposed to mean. I am sure I read about it at some time, but I have forgotten. My little brain is too full. I am not sure if God was all knowing and nice, back then. He was more realistic. Cheers, Mark > > 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
