I agree Bill!. I have always been confused by people who say that humans are destroying the environment or are acting in a way that harms nature. Unless we came from another planet we are a part of nature and nature is and has always been in a stae of flux. Human beings are not the beginning or the end of the process of natural evolution. If we create a world that is toxic to us we will become unfit (to use Darwin's meaning of the word). As a part of nature it is in our own best interest to create and nurture an environment that is conducive to our survival as a species. However, from a geologic perspective homo sapien isn't very significant not even worthy of a footnote. Joe, when is it postulated that our sun will become a Red Giant? How long before that will life on Earth become unsustainable, something like 5 thousand million years?
B Find what makes your heart sing…and do it! ________________________________ From: Bill! <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, October 13, 2012 4:21:07 AM 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? > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
