that there really are no new ideas that some one else has not thought of before people just rewrite it trying to express it clearer. this solipsistsis interesting including the zombie part lol earlier discussion.
maybe it is not as foolish as it might seem, to me and y weird preception of things in a way is just that.. As I see the world as just that the object is to rejoin the creator (in death or in rebirth or how ever you see it,)
On our departing of this world their is and accounting of how we lived, responding to our abilities.. when separating from this life there is an accounting where we recall our actions of our entire lives.. and also once again understand what it takes to be one with the Creator The problem will probably come from shame and we will separate ourselves each creating our own heaven or hell,
I really have no idea how it happens or just what happens just that something happens.. .
Many beliefs have to much similarity.. even my thought are as if they are all ready known. To each belongs their own existence. I think the greedy will really give themselves a surprise some how I do not think it will be pleasant..
I know weird
Allan
On Wednesday, November 9, 2011, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
> They intercourse the paradigmatic synergy up paradox junction Allan.
> K Dick once wrote of a 'group of solipsists' who treated any not in
> the group as objects of their own mind's creation. I've always
> thought the aim of materialism is that point where it hardly matters,
> so we can get on with being spiritual in leisure space created by
> sharing what work needs doing. Look at the way we could ban Chazwin
> and so on and you can see 'manners' at work in a corrosive way - they
> never quite ban poverty do they?
>
> On Nov 9, 8:02 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Maybe the worst prisons around like the ones use for gangs
>> but a good idea..
>>
>> oddly though I think if I am right they will have a real surprise coming
>> at their death especially when they find there is no wealth and the world
>> they know disappears,, I know it sounds funny they will create their own
>> hell far beyond what you and I can imagine,,
>>
>> If one is supposed to live a spiritual life.. how does a person justify a
>> life of material gain at the expense of others?
>> Allan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 12:01 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Many of my scientific colleagues believe the kind of bureaucrats we
>> > have to suffer deserve long prison sentences - then we'll hang them!
>>
>> > On Nov 8, 8:55 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > to limits moneys access to politics is what is going to have to happen,,
>> > > not allowing corporations involvement at all.. but like the problem will
>> > > be greed and the need for secrecy. the politicians will not like having
>> > > ever word recorded and every word said to them,, and extreme penalties
>> > to
>> > > violating the rules including prison time for all involved.. and loss of
>> > > all money for family members and relatives especially if the source of
>> > the
>> > > money is the person violating the laws
>>
>> > > it will not be popular with the 1%
>> > > Allan
>>
>> > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 2:11 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > Point 11 has traditionally been the Marxist line. The modern ones
>> > > > like David Harvey talk of 'surplus capital' chasing ever diminishing
>> > > > rates of return. I see the problem as us not being able to get what
>> > > > we sensibly want, like warm homes without vast energy bills and the
>> > > > environmental knock on and meaningful engagement as the social animals
>> > > > we are. One of the interesting things at the moment is that there are
>> > > > similarities between the usual right wing hatred of taxation and the
>> > > > extent to which we are all 'taxed' by the rich and their Monopoly
>> > > > games with money - how much of our work is funneled away by financial
>> > > > services that increasingly look like organised crime or so Bill Gates
>> > > > can 'redistribute on our behalf'?
>>
>> > > > One question has to be the extent to which we may be understanding
>> > > > what's been going on 'unconsciously' and may be able to respond at
>> > > > that level. Every test we can do shows that people are not appraised
>> > > > of the facts, but the danger with this is that we then treat everyone
>> > > > as morons for not knowing. I have classes I can teach to pass maths
>> > > > tests at the end of a day's teaching with some in them who can't
>> > > > remember the basics the following day when I try to push on to what
>> > > > matters. These same people are often pretty competent at actual tasks
>> > > > involving the maths if I routinise the stuff into software choice.
>> > > > One can do this with quite complex social reasoning - but 'who writes
>> > > > the software' remains an issue. And at bottom Gabby isn't the problem
>> > > > about trusting anyone to do the planning because we fear they will rip
>> > > > us off or turn 'totalist'? And behind this another fear that we can't
>> > > > do the planning ourselves without creating such monsters?
>>
>> > > > On Nov 7, 7:35 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > Yep, that's where I see IT having accepted their position too.
>> > > > > the following day
>>
>> > > > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > > > In point 11 *It *seems the corporations and the people who lead
>> > them
>> > > > are
>> > > > > > already social paths
>> > > > > > Allan
>>
>> > > > > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 7:11 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > >> What strikes me on public dialogue is that we get a lot of
>> > opposing
>> > > > > >> views put forward that are all based in ideology that can be
>> > stripped
>> > > > > ...
>>
>> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário