| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
And you used a KEY word, relative too, yet missing from so many posts- "personal" belief. It's when either side takes an objective absolute approach backed with cutting the other down to look larger that things begin degrading.
How often is someone discussing a personal thought around here and never uses key words to convey they realize the subjectivity of the experience/belief/opinion, and so another mis interprets them to be speaking in objective absolutes for all and a senseless debate breaks out. The first person starts defending themselves as if they were speaking in absolutes and it takes until the 5th page for it to dawn on them, they are defending something that was never even valid to even them in that manor OR get exhausted and leave the thread or start flaming and get banned from it. I think thats how many "mystics" and religious people get misunderstood and I already explained how those who bash on mystics/religious types get easily misunderstood. If someone comes here and says their God is real and is going to damn us ALL to hell for not believing in it then, have at em of course for being an absolutists one size fits all thinker. I think that stuff is the danger as something vital is always left out of an absolutists idea or philosphy if it is implied to fit everything and everyone. If someone comes here and says they personally believe in a god who will do that to them, then that's different. Yet, it often gets treated like the former statement and a senseless debate ensues. There is always common ground to relate to and build understandings and useful information upon and from. What's really the difference between that and someone who believes in the authority of rational philosophy and if they break its rules, they will create a hellish reality for themselves right here and now? Why don't people look for the common ground to relate to and build mutual understandings to grow with and upon first? The separatists ego is the problem the way I see it, not an irrational one. Or maybe its the separatists ego that is the irrational aspect of the sense/idea of self that causes problems for us. I have to go by more flowers to plant now. I can't seem to ever have enough flowers to look at in my yard. THAT is an irrational belief. Yet, they bring me, my family and neighbors so much Joy.Maybe having beliefs in the separatist aspect of the ego brings a warped form of joy too. ![]()
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
Again most all mystics I know have developed the other sort and I don't know any going on BLIND faith in their beliefs alone.
There is no rational basis or sensory evidence to suggest any belief which falls into the philosophical genus of the primacy of consciousness, that consciousness is antecedent to reality. It's a shame that many do not realize the long-term debilitating effects such a blind belief has. Yet because of the brain's [which is very, very old] ability to harnest information towards a specific aim or goal, be it explicit or implicit, people who hold such faulty and contradictory premises will seem to find much empirical evidence that supports their notions. In reality, this is really a case of mysinterpretation of the evidence of our senses, in accordance their warped epistemology, which gives rise to a warped view of metaphysics. So while they are in actuality, operating on blind faith, it is easy for them to think they are operating on knowledge that is congruent with metaphysical reality. Personally, I can think of many, many cases whereby I did something that was spectactular or astonishing, that at first glance, seemed rather unnatural or inhuman. But upon analyzing the situation from objectivism [as opposed to skepticism or intrinsicism], I realized it would be prudent to acknowledge the immense capability that my brain in combination with my [very, very, old] system of sense perception, and orientation really has. I think when mystics see a red flag raised is when they here about self centered ego, they are concerned about the separatists ego being implied that can EASILY cause harm to another. If they are against the irrational, malevolent egotist, then I certainly don't disagree with them at all. So long as they acknowledge that the rational Egoist is fine as long as he/she remains grounded in reality [which has the capacity to be immensely benevolent], there is no argument between them and I. However, when someone comes along and starts raving things along the lines of: "Egos are the downfall of humanity!", oh, then it's ON. As Proud, Card-carrying Egoist, I certainly respect their individual right to free speech. But I won't pretend to like the presence of irrational absolutism, and I will speak out in any way I possibly can against it, especially since so few dare say any of these things aloud. Here's what I am referring too. Remember that post you put up about consistent philosophy being the best? Remember how many pages we spent dickering just to all end up on the same page agreeing with Sinbad about the interdependency of consistency and inconsistency. It was that the authors article said consistency is always the key to success (absolute) when I stated it is not in such cases like competitive strategy or adaptability to changing environments. It then becomes the key to your ruin. It took us to get to page 5 before you understood thats all I was adding in consideration to the article I otherwise fully support, regarding other goals. Yes, that was an argument of context; of definition. In the pertinent context/definition [which was implicit, but not explicit], the absolute point remains. Until we find that common ground, ever thing we build here as a group will crumble in on us or will be at war over simple misunderstandings. I've mentioned once or twice before, that Reason [as the faculty which identifies and integrates our percepts into concepts] is the only grounds upon which all men can meet. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love. Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (04/30/06 04:15 PM)
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
I have to go by more flowers to plant now. I can't seem to ever have enough flowers to look at in my yard. THAT is an irrational belief. Yet, they bring me, my family and neighbors so much Joy.
You mean, you take endless amounts of selfish, personal joy in viewing beauties of nature? Nothing irrational about that. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
Stranger ![]() Registered: 02/15/05 Posts: 1,296 |
| ||||||
|
this thread is a good example.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
Quote: he He He, I came home with more then I went for. Like I said Skorp, myself with the mystic bent actually agrees with all you say when the lines are just readjusted a tad. The part I deemed irrational was my belief that there could never be enough of them. I don't see myself ever being able to say, "There. I have enough flowers in my yard." That is a tad irrational to me but I don't care. This is a form of selfishness that encompasses more people deriving pleasure from it then just myself and at no expense or harm to others. Now, if I wanted them so badly that I stole them from others people yards at night then, I would be in the selfish aspect of separatist ego that wouldn't care about taking from others to get more for myself. I think thats what some fear selfish thinking can lead too. I realize that your use of the term rational is the breaks that keep ego from going that far just from getting to know you better. That deeper element of you doesn't get expressed much and so it's easy for others to think you may be using rationality to justify self serving at the expense of others instead of using it as a tool to keep from going there. A post on that use of rationality from out of you would be really cool.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
Quote: This may be an assumption on your part. I would have to hear an actual example of what you are referring to and see if it matches anything I am aware of myself or other "mystics" engaging in. Quote: Speaking for myself and many I know, we see it the same regarding the end result that human potential is being further realized by me. That's the bottom line for both you and I and most mystics I know. Quote: I agree that person absolutized the ego and probably didn't mean too. He can clarify if he wants and I would simply ask him, if the ego leads to the downfall of humanity, how could a human exist as a part of the whole without a sense of self? Wouldn;t an uprising of humanity be the result of the sense of self that contributed to it just the same. Some believe the ego self needs to get out of the way for a higher intelligence to cause an uplifting of humanity and yet, it means nothing without the ego-self to give it meaning. Whatever it is may be a higher self they say is beyond ego and yet, for it to be realized here with any impact of meaning, it comes through the physical body and the ego is involved for a turn around of mankind to be desired let alone mean anything. I may have assumed he meant that even though, its not what he said. I notice here and I do it too, how when one extreme gets thrown up or misperceived, another opposite extreme gets thrown up or misperceived ad a power struggle ensues between the two when really, I think we all understand where the balance is and just want for everyone to be in it. It takes mutual giving to get there and when one gets stubborn the other stays stubborn to keep a balance in the form of extremes at least though we all know that doesn't serve us. It just keeps us all destructively divided instead of constructively united towards common goals of achieving good will for the self and all. Quote: It would seem our further defining our personal use of words when we all post would help and yet, that makes for loooooooooong posts. Personally, I want to start a habit of asking more questions before I make assumptions or quick judgments in any direction. Quote: I don't recall that coming up. It would make for an interesting topic. Maybe I'll copy it and start a new post. I'm curious why see reason as being the necessary common ground versus personal goals all being achieved through group efforts the common ground. If the reason always comes down to good will for the self and others then, I have nothing more to ask or say on that. I don;t see where reasons have to be in common to make great things for all happen. Like if neighborhood wants to put a park in an empty lot. Does it matter if one reason it a great place for bird watching, one reasons it to be a great place for Frisbee play with his dog and another for his kid to have swings to play on, if they all at least agree, a park would be nice to have and worth installing? What do you mean by common reasoning being a must?
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Dog Lover Registered: 04/24/04 Posts: 6,762 |
| ||||||
|
The only problem I can see with the human ego, is the other humans upset by the egos of other humans. IF people would learn to stay with in the reasonable bounds of self. Then the human ego " problem " would be insignificant to the greater whole.
Ego is what drives us all........even the great thinkers here who always insist in the powerful opinions they perceive as the realness of the great explanation of what or what not is ego or how to deal with ego. They themselves suffer the greatest lack of understanding....... from this " Ego " Do not be upset with your ego or the egos around you. Learn to live and to experience the egos around you as you would enjoy the many flowers one might see on a beautiful spring day. So says my Ego
-------------------- What it is, is what it is my Brother. It is as it is, so suffer thru it.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/15/05 Posts: 11,089 |
| ||||||
|
I believe Skorpivo is referring to Reason in the sense of "the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : proper exercise of the mind," not in the sense of "the reason I ate the rest of the chocolate pudding is that I was very, very hungry."
We do not need to have common reasons in order to meet on common ground. It is, however, quite difficult to find common ground when individuals lack reason, rationality, and a basic ability to use their minds properly.
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
This may be an assumption on your part. I would have to hear an actual example of what you are referring to and see if it matches anything I am aware of myself or other "mystics" engaging in.
For instance, any belief that one can change reality [existence, nature] without acting in accordance with it. Prayers, are an example. This doesn't mean that I disregard any other fringe-benefits such an irrational belief may have [i.e., meditativeness during prayer] - but I certainly don't condone the childish belief which tries to corrupt the reality that Nature is absolute, and I fully recognize that there are better, more mature ways to achieve serenity which need not conflict with nature nor poison the minds of others with faulty premises. Speaking for myself and many I know, we see it the same regarding the end result that human potential is being further realized by me. That's the bottom line for both you and I and most mystics I know. Similarly, the purpose of philosophy has always been happiness. That is one common ground between all living, interacting human beings. Analogously, everyone at a health club wishes to seek better nutrition so that their bodies may be healthier. No one would deny that there are not objective standards, rules and bases for proper nutrition - although there may be a variety. No one would argue, that because our body has to process the food we eat, that any and all nutritional standards set for man qua man are subjective [i.e., dependent on one's consciousness], or must be defined by some ineffable, supreme being. No one would argue that man eats bread rather then pebbles merely as a social convention. Yet, in the field of man's mind, in the field of humanities, all is tore asunder in corruption by irrationalism, skepticism or intrinsicism. Why do we not give our mind the same cognitive respect [i.e., the same objectivity] that we do with our bodies? Because of the false mind/body dichotomy, read: because of irrational epistemology, read: because of irrational philosophy. I'm curious why see reason as being the necessary common ground versus personal goals all being achieved through group efforts the common ground. If the reason always comes down to good will for the self and others then, I have nothing more to ask or say on that. I don;t see where reasons have to be in common to make great things for all happen. Note how I specifically defined Reason: The faculty which identifies and integrates the percepts provided by our five senses into concepts. Don't confuse this with reasons, which denotes conceptual units rather than the faculty itself. Reason has objective existence, all living, interacting human beings have it. Dogmatic faith, on the other hand, is entirely [epistemologically speaking] subjective, and esoteric. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
Quote: -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
I understand that and thats exactly why I gave the example I did.
All was well until what came into play "wrong here"? The mom doesn't want dogs allowed in the park. One may bite or scare the children. The older man doesn't want children's play equipment for they will invite children and scare away the birds. Another wants to impose a leash rule for dogs so others don;t attack her little toy poodle while the guy with the German Shepard who wants to play Frisbee in the park with his dog says No to the leash law. Ten minutes ago I had a lovely park proposal for all to enjoy set up and now look at the bickering mess its turned into. What went wrong I ask? I also ask, "who is being unreasonable and who is not? How do you get all four of the loudest voices (separatist egos) to common ground in rational reasoning to agree on a park proposal plan for all to use and enjoy? That scenario I proposed is the all to common one we see everywhere groups come together all cozy and warm about something at first. What is the mental flaw that blows it and leads to -il will towards others, -selfishness willing at the expense of others joys and will, -discord, -division and war even if its one of words? It's the separatist ego from my view. At first it was the neighborhoods park. Soon it became "MY park", "No its MY park," "No its MY park too" yada yada. No one in the above is being irrational or unreasonable based on their perspective wants and needs of and for the park. They all are and that common ground is there. They are are in a very separatists state from the whole and are making selfish demands at the expense of others joy. How does that dynamic get unified Skorp? That's what I see and I think others see as the cause of what's holding beneficial for all progress back on this planet. If I see unreasonableness or irrationality anywhere in that cluster fuck of egos, it's in their inability to understand others wants and needs and find ways to respect, appreciate, accommodate and compromise room for all to find their own joy and personal use in the park. To much take and not enough give in this world if you ask me. That is the sort of selfishness I think most people want to see human kind over come. Welcome back Veritas. P.S. Fucknuckle, sure its easy to enjoy others egos from a distance. What is your solution for dealing with them when they have to come together to accomplish something as a unified group and they don't all agree?
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Servent ofWisdom Registered: 02/10/06 Posts: 7,059 Loc: Crown and Heart Last seen: 12 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Ok - What are the fundamental differences between "rational egoism" and "irrational egotism"? And what kind of philosophical models inherently lack 'rational egoism' (surely there are some?) Quote: It takes two to tango, bud. I replied to you because you assaulted mystic philosophies. So again I ask, what constitutes a healthy philosophy and what constitutes an unhealthy one? Quote: Perhaps you read me too quickly, because I never compared you to the German S.S. or Kenneth Lay, or even suggested you were the moral equivalent to them (the two themselves have little in common). I brought the German S.S. and Kenneth Lay up as examples ego-centric thinking models on the raw end of persuit. Quote: I don't see any "subordination from reason" in the spiritual method. Quote: Arbitrariness, faith, anti-egoism, humility, self-sacrifice and "blind hypocrisy" - regardless how you define these, they are still merely the beliefs and philosophies of someone. You seem unable to recognize the actions that flow from a particular philosophy in your unwavering opposition to the philosophy itself. And you dare utter 'blind hypocrisy'? -------------------- "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
Jiggy, I would consider myself to be a "seperatist" Egoist [i.e., I'm anti-collectivist, and pro-individualist], yet I'm quite aware of what I've produced and what I'm rightfully entitled to. I respect the rights of other individuals, and do not advocate the use of force against anyone's consent.
What would I do, if I were [for instance] the Mayor and had to create rules for this public park? First of all, the "older man who doesn't want kid's toys on the park because it'll scare away the birds" is dismissed. The birds are not HIS; he did not pay for them or collect them from anyone else as pets. Under the standard that safety for all should be a priority, I would employ the rule that all dogs should be leashed. Dogs are ultimately unpredictable and pose a potential threat to any nearby vehicle, child or pet. If the man with a massive German Shephard wants to play frisbee, he can take the dog to an unincorporated field. If this is in a city-setting, whereby no fields are nearby, then that's the fault of the owners, who should've been more mindful of such variables when selecting a suitable dog. That doesn't mean that their won't be other parks designed specifically for free-roaming dogs, or that they can't let their dogs enjoy nature by a brisk walk or run with a leash. Concern for the safety for all and distinction of private property and public property is all that was at issue here. IF these two key issues are indeed the priority, then that is the best solution - as of yet. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
That one is easy to tackle as mayor and you have the final say and law enforcement behind you.
I was putting you into an even place with your fellow neighbors collaborating amongst themselves what to do with an empty lot donated to the neighborhood. They all get to plan it and make it happen amongst themselves. How to you get co-operation going amongst all of the different needs and wants if you support separatists egos? How would you help to get all of them on to common reasonable, rational ground? Say you proposed getting everyone to agree that safety makes the most reasonable rational sense to build the planning upon. Well, the old man who wants a peaceful retreat to enjoy nature in has an argument against the playground equipment which kids sometimes get hurt on. What you would've overruled as mayor on your basis you just contradicted. Now, you are just his neighbor in on the planning. If everyone remains in separatists ego, the planning will be in dispute and gridlock for forever or, someone more forceful will get their way leaving others possibly feeling, rejected/bypassed which may lead to resentment which may lead to retaliation. Now you have the micro version of global problems. I'm pro individualism, yet if ones individualism comes at the expense of another's, that is no longer true individualism being supported by dictatorship being supported. Now I can see why people brought up people like Hitler and Hussein and why they have concerns with such philosophies being supported. You may not ever think yourself to harm another at your own hand, yet supporting individuals rights to assert their will and personal power over others if they can, sets off chain reactions that can indirectly lead to the harm of others being caused. It wouldn't be my first choice for basing the creation of shared realities upon-separation ego philosophies that is, especially if my base was everyones safe well being. I'm curious about this. Do you associate collectivism going hand in hand with the loss of individualism? I'm thinking you might. I don't see it that way. I think both can be accommodated when people are being reasonable and rational and self motivated. Lets swing this back around to your concern with mystics causing a repression of global advancement. Where is it the globe as a whole is being repressed from advancing too I want understand your view on first. If religious fundies think they are right and have no care for others opinions, they are in separatists ego. If science/government thinks they are in the right with ideas of making atomic bombs and dropping them when it suits their goals, they have no care for others and are in separatists egos. If corporate America thinks its right to use projecting earnings same as cash today, like Enron legally did, which lead to robbing from Peter to pay Paul when projected earnings, that never came in, were spent. They have no concern for others and are in separatists egos. I would like to understand how you do not equate global corruption, war and scientific or humanitarian set backs with separatists egos? You have me honestly and utterly confused Skorp. ![]()
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
I'm pro individualism, yet if ones individualism comes at the expense of another's, that is no longer true individualism being supported, [but] dictatorship being supported.
Agreed! Collectivism is at the heart of dictatorship; it is the notion that everyone should be this or that way. Thus, it is anti-individualism. This is why I've stated explicitly that I respect other's individual rights to express their own beliefs - from skepticism to mysticism to objectivism. I, in turn, am able to freely express my views however opposing or contrary they are to someone else's. Rational individualism supports the freedom of individual rights, and irrational selfishness is a contradiction in terms. People who are brutes and run over other lives with no regard for other's rights, are NOT acting in their selfish interest; they are destructive. They may think they are pursuing their values and interests, and they are; they are fundamentally acting from their motive of survival; but it's what they choose to value; what they consider to be in their selfish interest that is inconsistent with reality. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
I have to share with you how difficult it is to take your posts seriously with those two guys humping in the corner. I am anyway. Quote: Now I see where you see the il with collectivism and mystics supporting it. I'm glad I asked. I'll speak for myself and what I mean when and or if I ever use the term. When I use it, it means nothing more or less then just this- Looking out for the care and individual rights of others within the scope of my vision, regarding how my actions may effect others. When I use the word, it just means I realize people as being a part of a bigger picture and that our individual actions much more then words, have an impact on others besides ourselves. Some choices made in separatists ego, when they negatively effect or take from others can come back to bite us in the ass. The fact of reality is that we share our neighborhoods, workplaces, schools and the planet with other people. To me collectivism just realizes that and gives rise to being considerate of how our actions effect and impact other individuals when we act in self interest. A win win can always be accommodated by parties who care for themselves and others equally. I don't think its too high an ideal to ask for and work towards. We are interdependent on each other in so many ways for our peace, safety and survival. We have to trust in the good will of others to some extent lest we live in hidden underground bunkers. I'd like to see more people raised in cognition of that awareness. That is all. That leaves the gate wide open for individualism to remain. I would never want to see that vanish. People being forced to be the same in belief and view by a dictator is very different then people sharing the same values coming together and co-operating of their free will to realize higher ideals. I think when mystics talk about Utopian societies, they see that, nothing forced, not me anyway. That is a dictatorship and something I think most all mystics I know want to see vanish. The ones I know have moved into self authoritarian , self guidance and self rule and want for all to come into their own so no one will ever feel the need for or support dictators, that use force/ fear intimidation including that biblical Godman people are afraid of ever again. Mystics use compassion (fellow feeling) as a base ideal to live upon and if everyone did all of the time, there would be nothing to fear of in this world or beyond it. That doesn't mean we are not all individually pursuing and achieving personal interests and goals at the same time, be them worldly or other or both. Thanks for the discussion Skorp! ![]()
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Servent ofWisdom Registered: 02/10/06 Posts: 7,059 Loc: Crown and Heart Last seen: 12 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Are you going to answer me at all?
-------------------- "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
I just took the time to google the word collectivists.
![]() Though some bits I came across said that some collectivists argue for individual rights, the majority of what I read on it was not resonant with me. I understand your objection with the word now. I won't be using that word again now that I know other meanings floating around out there for it. I wish I knew of a word to express an understanding I have for group co-operative dynamics that support the individuals self interests and rights at the same time. With a little thought, people can pursue self interests not at the expense of others. I sit here thinking on this and see so much senselessness. Everyone could be living so large and thats not the case. Some who live large also have to live in fear of those who don't of stripping them of that life. Why do some believe that others have to not have for others to have. There is plenty of pie for everyone if everyone would learn how to freaking make Pie. We are such highly creative, powerful and resourceful beings and yet so much potential goes untapped, unrealized and wasted. I think the word I would personally use to express an ideal I would like to see manifest globally is co-operative living based on an understanding of interdependency and the benefits of co-operation. If ten people settle in an area, is it easiest for each to build their own home ALL BY THEMSELVES with no help, OR easier for all ten to build them one by one together until each has his own? It's a bigger bonus when the ten realizes that one guy is great at carpentry, another has a knack for architectural design related to strength and function, one is great at masonry work, another has resources for the best materials easy to get, another two are strong like an OX's and maybe a handful of the others are just really enjoyable and easy going to have around while working. When many come together in a co-operative effort, greater things can happen for all involved then if each were on his own. Like with neighborhood park. How difficult is it really to assess how the neighbors would like to personally use it and then, outline a plan to accommodate that. Free dog play on Tuesdays and Sundays 2:00 P.M -8:00 P.M. Seniors Only Hours Monday and Friday 9:00 A.M.- 12:00 All other times open to general use. Leashes required. Yet, like with the home building co-op, I can hear the whining already. "He works slower then me and takes more breaks, Not fair" "I think he should have a back door and he doesn't want one, what a moron! I think my design is best and if he doesn't agree to it, I'm not going to help with it" .Guy with his home already finished says, "I've already helped build 8 houses and I am tired. I quit." ![]() What is "all that" set back, other then selfish, inconsiderate, separatists egos at play? Anyway, to clear things up, I don't resonate with collectivism now that I know the common meaning. I do resonate with individuals coming together to work at co-operatives and collaborations as equals. Why does potential go so wasted in individuals and groups? I agree Skorp that advancement is being blocked. Where we could be as a race of beings and where we are is quite a stretch. I think we just disagree on the causes of the road blocks. I think on how mystics are the ones notorious for creating secret societies. It was always secret for ONE reason. To keep out those who would hold them back from making progress in their area of collective interest and those who would want to kill them for what they were up to. In that sense, considering the times, I do support their separating themselves from the larger population into a smaller collective of like minded people. They kept to themselves, nothing was forced and they were of no harm to others. Read a book called The Way of the Essences for an example. It's awesome. Nostradamus had to hide his mystic life away up in his attic or Yes the Catholic Church would've killed him for what he was up to. Dogma, Fear of the unknown and Ignorance hold us back. Literalistic Bible thumpers may be in much of that. You have self authorized mystics freely exploring the yet to know without dogma pegged all wrong. I'll wrap this up on one final positive note of global advancement. Mystics and scientists (in most of the world at least) are no longer burned at the stake, stoned and beheaded for being heretics of the church. Mystics were the enemy of and a threat to the dogmatic church institution that has helped to hold progress back. Think about that.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Anihilating mighty ego | 1,526 | 12 | 02/21/04 04:08 AM by fireworks_god | ||
![]() |
I love my ego. ( |
4,180 | 24 | 12/27/02 03:56 AM by highwayman | ||
![]() |
What is Ego? ( |
4,267 | 39 | 02/01/07 01:51 PM by ck10n3 | ||
![]() |
Ego Trancendance All Alone? | 1,930 | 17 | 01/26/05 03:17 PM by sleepy | ||
![]() |
Whats wrong with ego? ( |
5,498 | 62 | 09/20/04 01:56 PM by gettinjiggywithit | ||
![]() |
Ego-Death ? | 1,078 | 5 | 06/18/03 05:46 PM by MrTwisted | ||
![]() |
JUST Experienced Psychadelically Induced Ego Loss ( |
2,531 | 25 | 04/28/04 10:08 AM by ScubySnak420 | ||
![]() |
Programming/filters/ego | 909 | 12 | 04/26/08 05:56 PM by coulterIV |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 3,744 topic views. 1 members, 5 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||

Yet, they bring me, my family and neighbors so much Joy.

Like I said Skorp, myself with the mystic bent actually agrees with all you say when the lines are just readjusted a tad.





