Re: Mind's Eye Instinct for survival

That is where I have difficulty with 'right reason', and I do know where
you guys are coming from, everyone seems to have a view on it, most
people know it when they see it I think. It's a conscience for what is
true like it or not, but it gets colored in agenda and motives that
determines the depth and scope, what narrative representation someone
can present. I think we are rife with personality cults, but that may be
a peculiar oddity of my own view, everything depends on the person. In
the wrong hands you get megalomaniacs in power, in the right hands you
get timeless vanguards of noble and hopeless causes.

On 12/10/2012 8:25 AM, archytas wrote:
> I'm more materialist than RP in that I see religion as more to do with
> what we do with and for each other - this said I prefer private prayer
> to collective knee-bending. How does tolerance fare once religionists
> become 'so pure' they can treat anyone else as infidel?
>
> On Dec 10, 1:33 am, James<ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The original post, that is, hmm sorry. :)
>>
>> On 12/9/2012 5:40 PM, James wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> RP, I have been considering your post and have taken it in the view of a
>>> biological perspective. It is one that I do think important but I am
>>> still left wondering why to attach such significance in an exclusive
>>> sense. It may be that I am overthinking the concept, it is one that I
>>> hold respect for but not to a degree of conclusiveness. Is there more I
>>> should examine?
>>
>>> Browsing the TimesOfIndia recently I found talk about the common views
>>> on China and worry over world dominance. I imagine there are vicious
>>> clashes between them and the Arab speaking regions, it seems unfortunate
>>> perhaps like being surrounded by strong interests on each side. I
>>> obviously have little political world knowledge. :)
>>
>>> On 12/9/2012 1:15 PM, RP Singh wrote:
>>>> Religion is first and foremost about prayer and worship. There is no
>>>> need for that but we must accept a morality code and adhere by it ,
>>>> there should be a feeling of love for one's fellow creatures and
>>>> tolerance towards them.
>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 8:41 PM, archytas<nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Given what they have done with some decent spiritual messages Allan, I
>>>>> sometimes think of 'them' as Xstains. I was born into the tradition,
>>>>> but thought it was twaddle by the time Sunday school was interfering
>>>>> with soccer and cricket. I have no doubt we should focus more on
>>>>> spirituality, fellowship, hospitality, goodwill and sensitivity to
>>>>> others. I just don't want to base this on a pack of lies, banning
>>>>> women from hierarchies, prejudicing gays and xenophobic stuff about
>>>>> outsiders and being part of god's chosen. It's hard to think like
>>>>> this without being prejudiced against the 'worshipers of the blue and
>>>>> white striped rabbit' and purveyors of godswank. The inner danger is
>>>>> becoming religiously anti-religious. I'm actually rather touched by
>>>>> good aspects of some of the stuff.
>>>>> I have no idea why we are clinging to this rock - but I don't want it
>>>>> to be about being amused by Aussie pranksters making hoax calls or
>>>>> murals celebrating vile killing such as one finds in the Vatican.
>>>>> Science clearly provides us no answers to our spiritual plight and
>>>>> religion as I witness it internally is largely about future memory
>>>>> with less myth in it and less reason to take religion as we might
>>>>> otherwise take opiates.
>>>>> A colleague working in India is saying his students are reading Mein
>>>>> Kampf - more or less replacing the word Jew with Muslim and agreeing
>>>>> the plot entirely. We could do with some sensible religion and
>>>>> economics to fill the void that leaves people this vulnerable.
>>>>> Knowledge of thermodynamics or the biochemistry of life isn't going to
>>>>> do that for us.
>>
>>>>> On Dec 8, 10:01 am, Allan H<allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> xtian aka christianity
>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:02 AM, rigs<rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> It depends on what religion you are referring to. Very funny line
>>>>>>> about Pilate! :-)
>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 6, 4:09 am, archytas<nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sounds like something Pontius Pilate might have used.
>>
>>>>>>>> I guess that David Deutsch and constructor theory tries to get
>>>>>>>> back to
>>>>>>>> reminding science about its root guesses Allan. I take from
>>>>>>>> 'Spartacus Ants' sacrificing themselves to destroy slaver ants that
>>>>>>>> pre-human biology 'knows' something of survival instinct.
>>
>>>>>>>> Descartes had it that until we could get to a point of re-evaluating
>>>>>>>> against his radical doubt one had to trust in a beneficent god.
>>>>>>>> Whilst we can criticize his system, I think anti-religious science
>>>>>>>> misses the beat on issues of how we can live until we know more. The
>>>>>>>> spiritual thus has its place. There is plenty to avoid in its history
>>>>>>>> of control fraud, abuse, sexism and war crimes - but plenty to learn
>>>>>>>> in terms of grace and fellowship.
>>
>>>>>>>> On 6 Dec, 08:15, Allan H<allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> it is not for cleaning hands ,, it just gets rid of smell that you
>>>>>>>>> can not get rid of no matter how much you wash.. you just wash after
>>>>>>>>> youor hands are clean,, then the smell is gone.
>>>>>>>>> Allan
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:27 PM, gabbydott<gabbyd...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hm, I have never thought of using a steel soap bar for cleaning
>>>>>>>>>> my hands. I
>>>>>>>>>> use it occasionally for my pots and pans. And for the more
>>>>>>>>>> difficult dirt on
>>>>>>>>>> my hands I use a pumice stone or lemon. And more and more often
>>>>>>>>>> I wear
>>>>>>>>>> gloves or buy frozen and precut garlic and onion. But thanks for
>>>>>>>>>> the tip.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure that one day I'll make use of it. Why not steel instead
>>>>>>>>>> of stone,
>>>>>>>>>> you're right.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54:42 PM UTC+1, Allan Heretic wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well actually Gabby I have this stainless steel soap bar used for
>>>>>>>>>>> getting rid of ordure off your hands things like onion, Garlic ,,
>>>>>>>>>>> any strong ordure ,, just tried it on the epoxy smell left over
>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> fixing my maxi egg coddler.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> now one of the greatest mysteries of the universe,, how does it
>>>>>>>>>>> work?
>>>>>>>>>>> Allan
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:38 PM, gabbydott<gabb...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The pointlessness of the points' business. Like Lee, I find
>>>>>>>>>>>> the God
>>>>>>>>>>>> concept
>>>>>>>>>>>> much more to the point. :)
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't follow Lee's sequencing model - first spirit, then
>>>>>>>>>>>> matter -
>>>>>>>>>>>> though.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds very man-made to me. ;)
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the storytelling aspect, yes, the Chronos story is much
>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>> vivid
>>>>>>>>>>>> than the "God created (x) and saw it was good" story. That's
>>>>>>>>>>>> true. But
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> children are less likely to have bad dreams at night. Which is
>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>> good.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, Allan, I got carried away. What were you talking about?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/12/4 Allan H<allan...@gmail.com>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a series of creation is at best a wild guess with no supporting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence..
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Allan
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM, RP Singh<123...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can pinpoint the beginning of this universe but not that of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Creation with its series of universes.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Allan H<allan...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not true the beginning can be pretty much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pinpointed .. as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallel universes that is just a wild guess with nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other than it sounds good. There is more evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spiritual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realm than parallel universes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Allan
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matrix ** th3 beginning light
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 4, 2012 2:26 PM, "RP Singh"<123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my view there is no beginning to creation. There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end to universes There are infinite no. of universes in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuously many universes are being born and many are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dying ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Creation which includes infinite universes in eternal time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> , just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Spirit, is without beginning and without end. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the nature of creation is dualistic and the Spirit is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-dual.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Lee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Douglas<leerev...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Andrew,
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heh I can envisage many things, but alas many of them are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguish between two things, matter and spirit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattter is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physical, which includes physical 'matter' and also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy. To
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no paradox of who created the creator. Before the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> begining there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God, God in spirit, and God created the creation out of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the spirt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is all matter comes from spirit.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 30 November 2012 18:32:43 UTC, andrew vecsey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lee, I can see where all matter has to have an energy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> component
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because matter is manifested as atoms which have motion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also envision pure motion without involving any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atoms...like a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vibration in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fabric of space,
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, November 30, 2012 5:53:26 PM UTC+1, Lee Douglas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heh except of course that when it comes right down to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.energy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and matter is energy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 30 November 2012 11:22:14 UTC, andrew vecsey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more »
>

--