Bill!,
>I suspect that you want to, as does Edgar, to say that 'reality' includes >EVERYTHING including illusions, Not really. I'm asking you what stands separate from the All - whether it be an apple, you, Edgar or a thought. A unicorn might not exist, but the thinking of one does. The thinking doesn't stand outside reality, whether you put inverted commas around it or not. It's these kind of metaphysical arguments that make Therevada Buddhism better for me than Mahayana. Thethinking that my girlfriend is cheating with some imagined guy she met on holiday with her friends is the reality I have to deal with, not whether that guy exists or not. Mike ________________________________ From: Bill! <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, 13 October 2012, 10:21 Subject: Re: [Zen] calm down Mike, I think you may have misread me, or I have misstated my position. My position is that EVERYTHING humans do is part of nature - is natural. This is as opposed to those who say that humans 'interfere with' nature or do 'unnatural' things. Oh! I just re-read your post and see what you're really pointing out is what you think is the inconsistency in the statements about 'nature' and then 'reality'. I do not consider 'nature' as 'reality'. 'Nature' is itself a mental construct (illusion). I suspect that you want to, as does Edgar, to say that 'reality' includes EVERYTHING including illusions, but I say no. Reality is Reality, or Emptiness is Emptiness. Illusions are Illusions, or Form is Form. That's the way it looks from my side of cyberspace anyway. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > Bill!, > > > >but your statement implies that human intervention and management is NOT > >part of nature. > > Yet then you say: > > > >These mental constructs are NOT reality. > > In this big old universe of ours, what can stand apart/outside? > > Mike > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, 13 October 2012, 2:30 > Subject: Re: [Zen] calm down > > > Â > Edgar, > > You're doing it AGAIN! > > You just stated: "...letting nature take care of itself with minimal human > intervention or 'management'. Now at least you said 'minimal', but your > statement implies that human intervention and management is NOT part of > nature. > > I'll give you an extreme, concrete example so there can be no wiggle room for > either of us: Humans create nuclear power and then dispose of radioactive > nuclear waste in a manner that changes the environment. > > Is this human activity natural (part of nature) or not? > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > No, you have my views exactly backward. I'm supporting the NON human view > > of the environment, the view of letting nature take care of itself with > > minimal human intervention or 'management'. > > > > Edgar > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2012, at 3:00 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > Action is indeed not inconsistent with zen. > > > > > > What I and I believe KG are trying to point out is most everything you've > > > talked about concerning the environment is based on a human-centric point > > > of view. So when you throw around terms like 'interfering' and telling us > > > to 'grow up', my only response back to you would be 'grow out' - expand > > > your perspective...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > KG, > > > > > > > > Your notion that nothing can be done to save the planet is dangerous > > > > and mistaken. There are many who are working diligently including > > > > myself. To what extent it succeeds remains to be seen. > > > > > > > > Zen is not equivalent to hopelessness, inaction and nihilism as you > > > > imply. That's a serious Western misconception. Action can be done with > > > > Zen quite effectively... Action is NOT inconsistent with Zen. > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kristopher Grey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said a wit about OK/not OK. That's your judgement. > > > > > > > > > > I simply find the very premise, as you lay it out, to be formed of > > > > > the same destructive impulse to control. > > > > > > > > > > I might say planetary scale destruction is inevitable, as that > > > > > appears a logical albeit pointless conclusion, but I certainly don't > > > > > claim to know so. Nor do I have reason to be concerned in the way you > > > > > appear to be. Righteous indignation may feel good, but it's not a > > > > > prerequisite for action. It only acts to spins the wheel. > > > > > > > > > > KG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/10/2012 7:35 PM, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Merle, > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Yes, KG seems obsessively attached to this discussion and why > > > > >> destroying the planet is OK... > > > > >> :-) > > > > >> > > > > >> Edgar > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:56 PM, Merle Lester wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> hey hey lads...settle down..calm please!...KG your loosing the > > > > >>> pulse..merle > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Yes, yes. That you hold a great many things to be of high > > > > >>> importance is obvious to all but you. Thus you assume others are > > > > >>> are talking about such things, and assume they are ignorant of > > > > >>> same, when they are only talking about your ignorant attachments to > > > > >>> these forms of divisive thinking. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> KG > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On 10/10/2012 11:27 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> KG, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I find it appalling you support the destruction of the planet by > > > > >>>> humans and attack those who argue against it... > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> The lowest of the low... > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Edgar > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On Oct 10, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Definitive dependency - in other words you frame this in a > > > > >>>>> self-supporting way. The way a child argues when trying to sound > > > > >>>>> all grown up. You might as well just say: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> "You are a stupid baby! Stop being such a stupid baby!" *L* > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> No one is denying 'reality' but you Edgar. You are perverting > > > > >>>>> others words to fit your preconceptions. You frame things as > > > > >>>>> being out of control/needing to be controlled - which is the very > > > > >>>>> divisive attitude that causes all the shit you find so wrong in > > > > >>>>> the world. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Opposition distracts. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> KG > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> On 10/10/2012 6:47 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Bill, > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> By your perverted logic it is totally OK for man to be > > > > >>>>>> destroying the planet because that's just a natural process. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Grow up and get real. Zen is not clever sophisms, it's reality... > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Edgar > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> On Oct 10, 2012, at 6:20 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Edgar, > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> What's REALLY important is that it's been framed wrong. It's > > > > >>>>>>> been framed as humans vs. nature, or as you put it humans > > > > >>>>>>> 'interfering' in nature. As long as humans think they are not > > > > >>>>>>> part of nature and taht all their action are natural there will > > > > >>>>>>> be this problem. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> When a beaver builds a dam is that interfering with nature? > > > > >>>>>>> When a squirrel shits in the woods is that interfering with > > > > >>>>>>> nature? When a human splits an atom is that interfering with > > > > >>>>>>> nature? When a human manipulates DNA is that interfering with > > > > >>>>>>> nature? > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> What is the quality that humans have that other animals don't > > > > >>>>>>> have that renders them capable of interference - IYO? (I just > > > > >>>>>>> made that up, IYO = 'in your opinion') > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> ...Bill! > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > Come on Bill. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > In human discourse about Man's impact on nature, that's the > > > > >>>>>>> > way it's defined, and the whole issue is framed, as you well > > > > >>>>>>> > know... > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > Edgar > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > On Oct 9, 2012, at 8:45 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > Edgar, > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > This was a VERY SERIOUS response. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > Why is it that you think the things that humans do are > > > > >>>>>>> > > 'unnatural' or against nature but the things that other > > > > >>>>>>> > > life does is 'natural' and okay? A friend of mine very > > > > >>>>>>> > > wisely (IMO)once suggested that all ethics should be > > > > >>>>>>> > > applied to humans and other life forms equally. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > What is the quality that you believe separates humans from > > > > >>>>>>> > > the rest of nature so that human activities and artifacts > > > > >>>>>>> > > can be labeled as 'interference'? > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > ...Bill! > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> > > > > >>>>>>> > > wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > Joe, > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > Come on, it's a serious issue... > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > Edgar > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > On Oct 9, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Joe wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Edgar, > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > And Humans are just the tip of the iceberg, too. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > I don't know why plants and animals insist on > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > interfering with the way Nature works. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > For example, on the early earth there was a nice > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > atmosphere without oxygen. But blasted Cyanobacteria > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > evolved which like to sip the methane and other gases > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > there were back then, and started polluting the > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > atmosphere with ...Oxygen! > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Then -- wouldn't you know -- other organisms formed > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > which turned CO2 into even MORE Oxygen, with a help > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > from light from the Sun. The nerve! They got away with > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > it, though, because there were no Police. The rug was > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > pulled out from under Nature yet again! > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Later, some animals evolved, which USE the oxygen. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Much later, some of these animals of the Mammal variety > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > called "Beavers" began to INSIST that they interfere > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > with the stately FLOW of river tributaries and streams, > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > by ...damming them up! Such nerve. You may be sure that > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > this caused inundations upstream, and occasional floods > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > downstream when the dams burst. Havoc. Bye, bye, Nature! > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > The nerve of these organisms: Micro-organisms, Plants, > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > and Animals. Always interfering with the way Nature > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > works! > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > At least on the Moon there is no such interference, > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > there's just a continual, thin, rain of meteorites > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > pummeling the surface, and no atmosphere to make things > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > rust. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Oops!, some exotic Mammals left some footprints on the > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Moon, and some machinery, during the last fifty years. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > WHY must there always be such interference? The Moon > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > had been Nature's nice, quiet, haven for rock and dust > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > for so long. Why must things always go downhill? > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > --Joe > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > On 10/7/2012 9:26 PM, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > Why do humans always insist on interfering with the > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > way nature works? > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
