I am not sure where you want this to go. Maybe if I start an answer you can take it a bit further.
Ideally, we should be learning about ourselves by reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. We should be students of ourselves. Unfortunately, by the collective decisions we have made we have created a materialistic existence that forces us to learn how to fit in to it. We have become students of a system that severely restricts our ability to “reach out…”. It is causing massive self-destruction and we have only ourselves to blame.
LOL Deb, I have no direction I am just asking and learning here. I think everyone here has very interesting and valid thoughts and points. There can be no right or wrong when there is no direction and only a goal. If all avenues are not explored we might miss the actual door we are supposed to go through. Even Avenues that have been explored may hold something that was missed.
You see some of what you believe will never work for me and visa versa.
but, not agreeing does not mean not sharing and growing. I do not hold to any set religous belief nor political nor philisophical. I could be descriibed as an agnostic athiest independent that can’t quit thinking. even then that is not accurate. In fact I see humor lots of humor about religion, politics and philosophy, I make jokes about all of them but, here is the kicker, I resect your ways and beliefs and I will fight for you to keep them. Even as I am making heretical jokes about religions , politics, and philosophers.
So take this anywhere you wish to go, I just threw game pieces into the center I figured some would pick up the pieces and start playing with me.
A guy driving along side a lake sees a religious group having an outdoor baptism. To him it looks like they are bobbing for something and it seems like fun so he asks to join in.
The minister agrees, takes him into the deeper water and pushes the guy’s head under for a few seconds. When he brings him above water the minister asks the guy, “Did you see the lord?”
The guy says, “No” so the minister pushes the guy under the water again and holds him under for a minute. When the poor guy comes up for air the minister in a raised voice asks, “Did you see the lord this time?”
Again the guy says, “No”, so the minister pushes him under for a third time and holds him under until he begins to struggle. When he finally lets the guy up for air the minister screams, “Did you see the lord?”
In a panic the guy responds. “No I didn’t!” and quickly asks, “Are you sure this is where he fell in?”
This reminds me of last line in a story about a cavalry battle. “…and they quickly mounted and rode off in all directions.” I am not sure you can have a goal and not have a direction unless the goal is to gallop off in all directions. When I look at individuals, I definitely see us going in all diredtions. When I look at the direction this activity seems to be taking humanity I see self-destruction. Last night on the news I heard a report that suggests our polar bears could be extinct in 25 years. Yikes!!!
What I believe has to work for you for all I believe is that somewhere in our beliefs there has to be one that takes us in the same direction. I am not a slightly more articulate Iman. I have no religious agenda. When I suggest the one thing we can all believe in is that the purpose of life is to reach out to the limit of our capacities, to others and to God, I am not trying to convince you to believe in God. Hell, almost half the time I don’t. I just try to remain open. I don’t think anyone can object to the first two aspects of this purpose. I add the third to give balance so that I don’t struggle through life trying to ‘sit’ on a two legged stool. ‘Sitting’ on a three legged stool is so much easier; perhaps that means something.
Well Kriswest I would agree with you as far as children though I prefer the word “seed.” An acorn can be considered a child of the oak so it is very similar. I consider the relationship between the acorn and the oak the same as between us and Man.
The status of the acorn stands between its potential as an oak and the needs of the earth so more often than not, dies as food for worms and small organisms in the earth or higher animal life that eats them. Only a very few become oak trees.
The oak tree has reached its potential so now serves as part of a higher organism or Gaia itself and also serves the needs of the earth in PART providing shade, security, and nutrients for life on earth.
Man is like this. As we are, the child or seed, we serve the purposes of the earth. Our status is determined by the relationship to our potential of becoming Man and the needs of the earth that feed off of our life processes.
Yet when man evolves to become Man or the seed or child becomes its potential, its status is determined by its relationship to even higher conscious life and the needs of the earth as a WHOLE. This is what is know as spiritualizing the earth or connecting the higher with the lower. This is a potential status that, as we are, we are only vaguely aware of. Like the acorn, only a very few children or seeds can become Man with the rest just continuing and recirculating on what Buddhism recognizes as samsara.
I don’t think humans are any of those. I think humans are the victims of their own actions; they also tend to believe themselves to be the rulers of everything, but ultimately they are powerless; mortal. Humans are… well I don’t know what to call them.
We have a goal and no directions, it is survival and evolution, How we get there no one knows or can agree upon.
LOL Deb, I am probably one of the most spiritual people you will ever talk to. I just have not been able to convince the power above What most people refer to as Allah , God, Jehovah , etc… to illuminate to me if it is a god or just another highly evolved senient being. or perhaps different creatures. It simply refuses to expound on that particular question. So until it answers that question from me I am ready to believe and respect all, just because of ignorance. I feel it might be present around us. I do not know for certain I know not what it is.
Where you see self destruction I see painful lessons being learned. I see that this universe is large enough to accomodate all. I see the above postings all valid and possible and any below this, except maybe Gobbo’s post if it appears he might be in a destructive mood , that darlin goblin of a monkey.
As we move into this age, the world has become smaller, we are within mere seconds of communicating range not years, not months, not days ( unless you use the postal service AKA snail mail) we speak as groups and individuals more then we ever have. Yes there are conflicts, but there is more and more resolution. 15 yrs ago we could not have held this conversation.
So you see from my view and what I have watched, I see growth not regression not total destruction but, growing pains. I grew up with the cold war, Now Russia and China are treating with us. How awesome is that? Do you forget the awesome progress we make in science and technology in mere months and years not decades or centuries as in previous times?
It is easy to get caught up in the bad and not look to the lessons it teaches us. but, that is what we must do, look to the bad and learn only , not dwell there. We must share and communicate, this internet is the greatest tool handed to the average human, the poor guy that has no voice. Here , here he has a voice, here we all can talk world wide and we the average can finally grow. Share learn grow, good and bad right and wrong it is here. When you were a child did you ever dream of being able to have this massive type of communication ability right from your own home? I hear self destruction here soo much that is the only thought I have total disagreement with.
Change is enevitable.
It is really hard to explain this. I am used to it but I keep forgetting that most have never been exposed to such ideas. I hope I don’t simplify so much and lose the connection.
You are asking about the linear spread of man through the solar system and possibly colonizing our moon and other planets. I am referring to something else.
Does it seem odd to you that many who accept the idea of a creator assume it as the only connection of conscious life in the universe? There is God and Man with nothing in-between. Suppose on the other hand that there is vast inner space that separates God and man. Could there be levels that harbor conscious life in-between man on earth and the Creator if it exists? I’ve come to believe that the universe is teeming with life and it seems odd to us because of the circumstances man and organic life were compelled to arise on our planet.
We are used to considering existence on the same level. Everything to us appears as linear in time. But suppose the universe is not structured on one level but is actually a structure composed of several levels or layers of reality connected by universal laws? This adds a new dimension to understanding the universe.
At one time the earth was considered flat. This could have two meanings and whatever meaning was adopted by an individual was determined by their universal perspective. For those that always think in this linear way it is assumed that the idea of the flat earth was just ignorance of it as a sphere. However from the layered universe, it had a different meaning. Instead of the earth being defined as our planet, it meant a layer of reality.
Imagine the universe as a huge building of seven floors. Each floor has a different quality of life on it that corresponds with its nature. The earth then is not just a planet but the planet is representative of a layer of reality or the planetary level. Above that is the level our sun. From the point of view of levels, the sun is separated from our earth analogous to a vertical direction in contrast to the linear way we measure it in miles. So the flat earth was also a cosmological idea for a certain minority that felt a perspective beyond the usual linear direction.
Man is different from organic life in that it is dual natured. By this I mean that the rest of organic life arose in accordance to the unique needs of our planet and its evolution is complete. Man being dual natured has the physical body arising from the earth and also a spiritual part that devolved into man existing in us as the seed or child. The level of earth is unique in that it is the place where evolving mechanical life at its highest can be touched by the lowest level of conscious life. This part or seed if allowed to develop is the beginning of conscious evolution as distinct from the mechanical evolution or adaptation known to science and normal for organic life. The trouble here is that conscious evolution can only occur consciously which because of the quality of our being, can only be sustained for brief intervals of self awareness. Higher consciousness occurs for us only in flashes. As a result our attachments to the earth, an idea well known in Eastern religions, is too strong to allow for the psychological detachment from external influences necessary to diminish our mechanical reactions necessary for increased consciousness. So everything stays the same and only the styles change.
If man is a child on earth or a seed of his potential, man matures by leaving the confines of the earthly level as opposed to the planet. You could say he matures towards the level of the Sun rather than the sun itself. Man as a microcosmos means that he is composed of the same levels only lesser in scale than the external universe. So man’s conscious maturation is the maturation of his own being allowing him to live on a higher floor of the seven leveled building. Perhaps there is a relationship between the words sun and son that is very subtle, and those interested in religions like Christianity can see a relationship and what the possible meaning of “descent” means in sacred text.
Well Nick it is not the first time I have heard or thought along your lines
It is indeed plausable and just as possible. Have you ever read or heard any Navajo stories? You might find them intriguing. I will get back to with more thoughts if you don’t mind, I just wanted to post this quickie for you.
Kriswest, I just read your reply to my post. I have no idea how I missed it. I am not sure if I can respond, I know I can’t now. There is so much there. Not to respond after that much effort would be cruelly inconsiderate. Later.
There are lots of people who would agree with you that we are not destroying ourselves. I was reminded again last night of a commentaor on your side saying 90% of the predicted catastrophes are exagerated. On the other side are an equal number who say increasing numbers of us on a land mass diminished by global warming, fighting over decreasing food supplies is a certain recipe for self-destruction despite technological advances.
I happen to agree but defending my side is far less important to me than asking why we have two sides. Sides to me mean conflict. I happen to believe conflict is a process of devolution. To continue the discussion, let’s limit conflict to the absolute. Its opposite is unconditional cooperation. Now look with me at the landscape of humanity and tell me if you see more absolute conflict or more unconditional cooperation. If you see more unconditional cooperation then the discussion ends. If you see more absolute conflict then you shouldn’t object to me using the word self-destruction to describe the consequences of our present activity.
Unfortunately not. We can refuse to eliminate all the present lines of conflict that divide humanity and if we do I suggest we will eventually self-destruct. If we add more lines we will self-destruct sooner. If we eliminate these lines and I believe we can by reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, then we will approach self-realization, the apparent goal of evolution.
ref http://www.thelastwhy.ca/poem/
Deb,
I don’t think catastrophes are over exagerated in fact if anything they in my recent eperience are at times horribly understated and much is never revealed to the public or denied.
The katrina experience proves this to all Mississippi residents.
This is done for many political reasons. Some altruistic, others selfish political self preservation.
From cursory and indepth watching, reading and listening to various news sources I learn much about the state of the world. The biggest reason I learn much is the total lack of faith in the news media world wide, I do not trust any to tell the facts in an unbiased way. There are always two sides. In most cases there are more then two sides to stories.
There are interesting advances made in science and medicine world wide. Progress on economics in third world countries while not advancing persay in a great visible way they are advancing. Yes there are countries and regions where this is not true. Over all though it is happening. Perhaps too slowly. So why do political and media leaders wish to create an aura of fear and horror and destruction. Politics , that is easy,
Everyone likes to make their opponnent look bad. Media has political and monetary agendas. Ratings bring money. If the news released only good positive stories, how many people would continue to watch read or listen?
Most humans it seems just love to rubberneck over bad things. Bad stories, controversial versions brings the people in like it is entertaining to watch others suffer.
So while yes there are a great many negative things happening, I see advances for humanity plodding along amongst the wreckage. Everyone thinks that advances should happen much faster but, that is ridiculous.
Destruction takes no planning, no preperation, Construction does. It is easier to destroy then to build. I have noticed in my short lifetime massive changes for the positive. I have watched generational enemies put aside wars to save lives. I have seen huge advances in waste management. and pollution control. All of this world wide, not just here on this continent. We are heading for destruction, yes. But I think that time just might prove that we will not .
When rival gov’ts come together to rescue and aid the population of puny insignificant country, that is progress. Just doing the help alone is a new step. But, answer me this why is it condemned instead of being hailed as a new step towards human cooperation? why is the amount of aid and the speed of aid condemned and flashed about and made much of. Why is the act it self not seen for what it is? Why does the media sap peoples hopes and flames dissatisfaction? Why do political opponents do the same? They both hide good or dismiss it far too often in favor of expounding upon only the bad.
It appears this way because all sides are facets of cycles normal for the life of human “being” on earth. They manifest in accordance with earthly and cosmic influences. Different facets dominate at different times. This is beautifully illsustrated in the book of Ecclesiastes.
This really is not a politically correct idea since it implies that progress is illusory in a larger context. Life on earth occurs in cycles. It is natural for good people to feel that we are progressing in humanistic ways. But what we do as a species is a reflection of what we are collectively: our “being.” If this is true, life will continue in these cycles as expressed in Ecclesiastes where times can so easily change from peace into war.
This is because it is not what we know that determines the cycles but what we “are.”
As it is written in Ecclesiastes, it has all been done before and the cycles will continue as natural for our collective being.
Kriss, part of my routine for the past 6 months has been to write a weekly letter to my family either Sunday night or Monday morning. I didn’t write one this week because I had more important writing to do. Another part of my routine since setting up my site is to check my log. When I checked this morning I was reminded I had neglected to thank you for your visits. Finally, before I begin to unwrap another gift from you I must tell you I just had another visit from an angel urging me to start another thread.
Now you wrote
If you had clicked on my poem instead of looking at my bike I wouldn’t have to tell you the 3rd and 4th lines are:
“In zones of rights each one resides,
When in real life there are no sides.”
Eventually I get around to saying that being right is a form of preeminence, one of the 8 ways we try to fill the void. In trying to fill the void this way we will in the extrene literally kill each other just to prove we are right. At a much less extreme level even philosophical discussions can become a contest to see who can pile it higher and dig deeper. Ultimately we all have our side, our zone of rights we defend for a perceived sense of meaning, and we do so at our peril.
My sense is that you and I will both be winners. It is like playing tennis with my Mom. We keep the ball in play, no points, and we both come off the court feeling elated. Again for the most part I can only nod my head in agreement with what you write. I feel like a bobble head. I just need to shine my ‘light’ on a couple things you said. What you see as hopeful signs of progress in human relations I see as merely proof we haven’t completely abondoned reaching out to each other. That for me is a sign of hope there is still time to begin and continue to diminish our massive, oppressive efforts to fill the void with money so that we are able to reach out to help each other more and more.
Finally, to answer your questions I think there is a measurable number of people who actually believe that giving 7 cents out of $100 to help others is insufficient so they try to tell this to those of us able to give more. I am certain there is no agreement on how much more is enough. Even if we could agree on a number I know I will go far beyond that in suggesting it won’t be enough until everyone has the same. I happen to believe humanity can only be as strong as its weakest member. I believe that if we work toward the goal of having everyone equally ‘strong’ we will find a far greater sense of meaning than we do in a life of trying to get one more dollar than the someone else. In such a life there will be no sides.
I maybe translating inaccurately so forgive any mistakes and please correct them.
You both seem to describe humanity in the collective/ a type of hive if you will.
where an individual while needed ,is not an individual but, more of a cog
or drone. Different views and description, but, the same to me.
Where in your beliefs does the individual be individual? To what purpose to what growth? If we are, as you both describe, why bother with individuality, why bother with creating differences, physical and mental these would not be necessary, mental maybe but not physical. why go to the effort of creating difference or being different when it has no true need.
As I said you both have different views and I maybe totally off the mark here.
You must not be aware of my reputation on ILP. I’m the one that pisses off the “we are all one” crowd and the “love” crowd from my insistence that as we are, these are, in the human sense, distortions of our imagination and preached more for escapism and self importance than reality. I am a great supporter of the much maligned “black sheep.”
I once tried to use Simone Weil’s profound grasp of Plato’s cave as a description of what an individual is and our potential to become individuals but to no avail. The spiritual calling of re-birth in Christianity is one example of the creation of the true individual.
Man’s true individuality lies in the direction of returning to ones origin.
Man’s greatest calling is to be able “to do.” But in order “to do,” in the human sense beyond the normal reactions of life within Plato’s cave, it requires first “to be.” But unfortunately as we are, in the condition known as “sleep” for which the ancient teachings recommended “awakening” from and understood well by Plato, as a whole we do not appreciate what “to be” means outside of cultural and familiar norms. To be or not to be is the question but cannot really be considered without first having a glimpse of what “to be” means.
I have great respect for the true individual, the true “black sheep” which is not just the ordinary rebel that only finds satisfaction in complaining and as such, serving as just another part within Plato’s cave…
I’m the one that pisses off the “we are all one” crowd and the “love” crowd from my insistence that as we are, these are, in the human sense, distortions of our imagination and preached more for escapism and self importance than reality. I am a great supporter of the much maligned “black sheep.”