Maturity not Age?



[ My own observations of life and people seem to tell me that maturity
is more important than age. But that seems to defy reason and cannot be
defined. ]



Many things defy the type of reasoning which invents answers to the
nature of things instead of learning them. We are not devoid of the
faculty of learning, or experiencing; so best to use them. Good
observation on your part. It is so. And life is for the living and
learning; not for defining. The problems are not the fault of the
faculty of reason. The problems are in not using it; and in the lief-ing
that it is all that matters. The problem is in people; not Reason and
Emotion or Life. Evolution will take care of it.



rwr





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Here's the real battle that women fight every day.

http://www.thenation.com/article/172408/rape-minute-thousand-corpses-year

Mary

Bill,

Voting in your best interests does not make you a centrist, and you're not one
of the elite. You are not centrist because you're independent. You're centrist
because you support economic growth regardless of the consequences and think
moderation is always the wise course. Obama supports some centrist policies and
is not as left as you think; he only seems so when compared with neocons.
Centrism is a leftist criticism, a position not without sympathy for Obama's
accomplishments, however historically tardy they appear.

Mary


--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary"  wrote:
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > I don't think the terms Left or Right mean much to a centrist, but creating
and influencing policies which protect their expanding wealth do. Centrism is a
shifting, flexible approach to power which plays both sides against an imaginary
middle and it's simply the policies of the few who have no problem maintaining a
welfare state, because it's a manageable threat. The poor we will always have,
etc. as long as there aren't too many, so massive strikes and insurgence don't
occur. Gridlock is probably okay too, because that gives them time to shuffle
their assets into more protected havens and to find enough pockets to line. In
short centrism is any policy which appears sensible but doesn't really change
anything for the better in the long term, except for those who control most of
the wealth. I would say our President has the burden of choosing counselors who
represent the many.
> >
> > Mary
> >Mary, using your definition I could be called a centrist. I think it proper
to promote  policies the benefit  my economics. To do anything else is
suicidial. Let me give an example, this state has a surplus. Tax reductions  are
being considered. The republicans want  property tax reductions on commercial
property. Now democrats want reductions on residential property taxes. Since I
just sold my business and so I favor residential  property tax reductions. Am a
centrist for  favoring my own best interests? Favoring positions well within the
normal course of politics seems to me to be the exercise of rights within the
democracy.
> Now this scorched earth brand of conservatism that we have faced for the last
12 years is a different matter. Complete obstructionism  does not work,it 
destroys  progress and trust.
> Rich democrats would seem to be in your sights. Since I am not rich I would
think you would not consider me a centrist. I might point to the rich dems in
Davos. Are they the people with which you wish to contend ? Forcing them out
would seem to push them toward the tea bagger camp and I do not want more of
those radical  nincumpoops.
> I think if the poor want to become middle class they need organise and use
their  numbers to force democratic change. Are you saying Obama is not heedful
of their positions? Bill
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From a minority point of view, some of us are both loyal to and opposed
to some of Obama's policies. I continue to congratulate and disagree with him
through petitions. Centrism is a problem, and Bill's mention of how killing the
enemy is made more palatable for the public is a tactic of centrism. As if they
know what's best for everyone else without having to come in direct contact with
the realities of the policies they espouse. Show them a royal who does, and the
Left is shown what for. Here's an article which before the election would have
made no difference to me. I did not want Romney to win. However, I don't want
centrists to continue shaping American policy. No, they're not as obviously
noxious as the Koch Bros. and their fellow conservative aristocrats, but their
centrist elitism is just as dangerous. I can applaud Ms. Clinton on her
accomplishments on the one hand but disagree with how she's promoted a centrist
doctrine of war on the other. Is mine a sustained incoherence or is it merely an
ambivalence constantly needing to choose between the lesser of all evils? Apathy
is a luxury.
> > > >
> > > >
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leighton-woodhouse/political-centrism-hoax_b_16578\
27.html
> > > >
> > > > Mary
> > > >
> > > Mary, constant reevaluation  is a worthwhile point of existentialism.
Doctrine just sits there  and demands. Science reevaluates and so does
existentialism.I am not sure what is meant by centrism. It is not a political
party but it seems exposed to political methods. Molding public opinion is a
central job of politicians. Human killing,the most odious thing about war, can
be sanitised. Proving an absolute threat to the country makes killing a
necessity. Fighting a group like the Taliban does not rise to that level of
threat.
> > > Therefore  other methods of persuasion are used. Using a royal as an
example can be most impressive  to the young,   the ones who will do the 
killing. Firing a multi barreled machine cannon from an Apache is a very
exciting activity to many agressive young people.If you get medals and rank for
doing such things makes it even more desirable. Cutting humans to hamburger is
handily forgotten. I fear the visions of flying chunks of flesh and bone will
come back to haunt these combatants. Even the drone  pilots are beginning to
show symptoms of post traumatic stress. Some of the protestors here  who opposed
the drone base fear retaliation  here in the states. To my knowledge the F16`s
never  drew terrorist  attention  and they were much more conspicuous that a few
non discript buildings on an air base.
> > > I would like you to explain centrism in more detail. I have been told
Obama is a leftist. If he is a centrist  how do they differ. As yet the term is
not clear to me. Who are the centrists,  what do they do? What are they
thinking? Bill
> > >
> >
>

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary"  wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> Voting in your best interests does not make you a centrist, and you're not one
of the elite. You are not centrist because you're independent. You're centrist
because you support economic growth regardless of the consequences and think
moderation is always the wise course. Obama supports some centrist policies and
is not as left as you think; he only seems so when compared with neocons.
Centrism is a leftist criticism, a position not without sympathy for Obama's
accomplishments, however historically tardy they appear.
>
> Mary
> Mary, remember when liberal was a dirty word? It sounds like the neocons want
centrist to replace  liberal. I just listened to Jendahl and Ryan. There is
nothing new there just old time dixicrat  jargon. Jendahl called his own party
stupid. Ryan is ignoring the signs of economic reinvigoration. He is still
spouting the duty to our children mantra. I rewatched "Casino Jack" ,the story
of Jack Abranhoff. That was the time of the neocon and the texas size
corruption. They were all there The hammer  and George and of course Jack. Saxby
Chambless ,on his way out, says  the liberals are trying to irradicate his kind.
I hope so!My Senator announced his retirement . Tom Harkin  fought so long and
hard ,Vietnam War, Americans with Disabilities Act and combat with the necon 
right.Now he is called a prarie populist.The right could not make the big city
liberal  name stick. He did too much for agriculture . I like Congressman Braley
for Harkins  replacement. He is a solid legislator  and is well liked in his
district. Former govenors Vilsac and Culver are also mentioned. Harkin leaves a
ton of seniority behind, he left to enjoy and live his remaining days. That
would seem to be the mark of a well balanced man. I am  glad to hear his
decision and thank him for his service,so long and so well done. He was a coal
miners son and I went to his High School. He has long been my hero and I wish
him a happy retirement with his wife Ruth. Good move and good luck Sen Tom. Bill
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill,
> > >
> > > I don't think the terms Left or Right mean much to a centrist, but
creating and influencing policies which protect their expanding wealth do.
Centrism is a shifting, flexible approach to power which plays both sides
against an imaginary middle and it's simply the policies of the few who have no
problem maintaining a welfare state, because it's a manageable threat. The poor
we will always have, etc. as long as there aren't too many, so massive strikes
and insurgence don't occur. Gridlock is probably okay too, because that gives
them time to shuffle their assets into more protected havens and to find enough
pockets to line. In short centrism is any policy which appears sensible but
doesn't really change anything for the better in the long term, except for those
who control most of the wealth. I would say our President has the burden of
choosing counselors who represent the many.
> > >
> > > Mary
> > >Mary, using your definition I could be called a centrist. I think it proper
to promote  policies the benefit  my economics. To do anything else is
suicidial. Let me give an example, this state has a surplus. Tax reductions  are
being considered. The republicans want  property tax reductions on commercial
property. Now democrats want reductions on residential property taxes. Since I
just sold my business and so I favor residential  property tax reductions. Am a
centrist for  favoring my own best interests? Favoring positions well within the
normal course of politics seems to me to be the exercise of rights within the
democracy.
> > Now this scorched earth brand of conservatism that we have faced for the
last 12 years is a different matter. Complete obstructionism  does not work,it 
destroys  progress and trust.
> > Rich democrats would seem to be in your sights. Since I am not rich I would
think you would not consider me a centrist. I might point to the rich dems in
Davos. Are they the people with which you wish to contend ? Forcing them out
would seem to push them toward the tea bagger camp and I do not want more of
those radical  nincumpoops.
> > I think if the poor want to become middle class they need organise and use
their  numbers to force democratic change. Are you saying Obama is not heedful
of their positions? Bill
> > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From a minority point of view, some of us are both loyal to and
opposed to some of Obama's policies. I continue to congratulate and disagree
with him through petitions. Centrism is a problem, and Bill's mention of how
killing the enemy is made more palatable for the public is a tactic of centrism.
As if they know what's best for everyone else without having to come in direct
contact with the realities of the policies they espouse. Show them a royal who
does, and the Left is shown what for. Here's an article which before the
election would have made no difference to me. I did not want Romney to win.
However, I don't want centrists to continue shaping American policy. No, they're
not as obviously noxious as the Koch Bros. and their fellow conservative
aristocrats, but their centrist elitism is just as dangerous. I can applaud Ms.
Clinton on her accomplishments on the one hand but disagree with how she's
promoted a centrist doctrine of war on the other. Is mine a sustained
incoherence or is it merely an ambivalence constantly needing to choose between
the lesser of all evils? Apathy is a luxury.
> > > > >
> > > > >
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leighton-woodhouse/political-centrism-hoax_b_16578\
27.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Mary
> > > > >
> > > > Mary, constant reevaluation  is a worthwhile point of existentialism.
Doctrine just sits there  and demands. Science reevaluates and so does
existentialism.I am not sure what is meant by centrism. It is not a political
party but it seems exposed to political methods. Molding public opinion is a
central job of politicians. Human killing,the most odious thing about war, can
be sanitised. Proving an absolute threat to the country makes killing a
necessity. Fighting a group like the Taliban does not rise to that level of
threat.
> > > > Therefore  other methods of persuasion are used. Using a royal as an
example can be most impressive  to the young,   the ones who will do the 
killing. Firing a multi barreled machine cannon from an Apache is a very
exciting activity to many agressive young people.If you get medals and rank for
doing such things makes it even more desirable. Cutting humans to hamburger is
handily forgotten. I fear the visions of flying chunks of flesh and bone will
come back to haunt these combatants. Even the drone  pilots are beginning to
show symptoms of post traumatic stress. Some of the protestors here  who opposed
the drone base fear retaliation  here in the states. To my knowledge the F16`s
never  drew terrorist  attention  and they were much more conspicuous that a few
non discript buildings on an air base.
> > > > I would like you to explain centrism in more detail. I have been told
Obama is a leftist. If he is a centrist  how do they differ. As yet the term is
not clear to me. Who are the centrists,  what do they do? What are they
thinking? Bill
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[The Universe is pure and simple consciousness! From the elemental
attraction of the smallest elements to the greatest of a galaxy; all is
nothing but consciousness. Answer this puzzlement; why is it that the side
of sun that faces away from the earth is always more active with ejecta than
the side facing the earth? Do not believe me? Then simply follow the data
provided by all the various solar observing satellites. It is a phenomena
that science doesn't even try to explain as there is no scientific reason
why such conditions should exist.]  Dick

Considering that I am dense and Dick doesn't seem to want to carry on the
discussion, I thought I would provide a more substantive response to this
insinuation that somehow the consciousness in the sun causes it to limit its
activity to the "far side" facing away from the earth ... presumably to
protect us poor humans.

First of all, the sun rotates ... it isn't like the moon whose rotation is
equal to the rotation of the earth so that we see only one side.  The earth
revolves around a spinning sun.  In fact, the rotation of the sun can be
determined by observing the movement of sun spots.

So the sun rotates.  What does this imply??  Well, in order to keep solar
activity to one side away from the earth [which it really doesn't ... but
let's go with the thought] the sun would have to contain some kind of
infrastructure to turn on and off the activity according to the direction
towards the earth.  That seems astounding and one might well ask where did
it come from and when.  The sun is much older than humanity, so how does
this infrastructure develop when it is unknown if the earth has any living
organisms, especial humans.

Humans might be said to first arise on earth in their earliest form at 10
million years.  So the sun would have to anticipate this event [which is not
guaranteed] a good 4.6 billion years ago.

But why should the sun only protect humans??  Surely the same right to
existence applies to life-organisms in general.  In fact, the sun would have
to protect all life forms, since that is the origin of humanity.  And if we
find life forms on Mars, it really gets interesting.  The sun would need to
have infrastructure which turns off activity for Mars as well.  And then
what does it do when Mars is on the opposite side of the sun from the
earth??  If it doesn't blast the earth, it will blast Mars.  Gets
complicated.

In the end what we are doing is to attribute human characteristics to rocks.
It's nice to think that everything in this universe has some kind of
consciousness, but it doesn't hold up to close examination.

In order to have consciousness, the thing needs a brain.  Rocks don't have
brains.  Simple.

eduard





-----Original Message-----
From: Dick.
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 8:12 AM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Maturity not Age?


Maturity not Age?



[ My own observations of life and people seem to tell me that maturity
is more important than age. But that seems to defy reason and cannot be
defined. ]



Many things defy the type of reasoning which invents answers to the
nature of things instead of learning them. We are not devoid of the
faculty of learning, or experiencing; so best to use them. Good
observation on your part. It is so. And life is for the living and
learning; not for defining. The problems are not the fault of the
faculty of reason. The problems are in not using it; and in the lief-ing
that it is all that matters. The problem is in people; not Reason and
Emotion or Life. Evolution will take care of it.



rwr





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links

Eduard, As you have found out Dick has little formal training in science. He is 
what you might call home schooled. He also equates knowing scientists with
knowing science. You will not change his mind because he believes he knows
science. In short knowing and believeing are definitional problems for Merlin. I
do not think it makes him a bad guy , it just means he has  a problem with 
perception. Had he had formal scientific training the statements he made about
the sun  would not have been posted.
Knowing  scientists does not mean you know science. Studying science under
accredted scientists is a different matter as you well know. Bill

Well ... it does get to be a bit much when he calls me "dense" and
"ignorant".  I see this often.  Some grand scheme like rocks having
consciousness.  It just doesn't work out when you look at it closely.  Sure
we are connected to everything else, simply because we are part of the
universe.  But that doesn't mean that the universe is somehow looking out
for humanity or can think.  Wheeler and others were at one time saying that
the universe is only out there because we are here to see it.  That idea
also went down the drain.  Which isn't to say that the concept of a cosmic
consciousness isn't a neat, warm and fuzzy feeling idea.  Humans have [or
rather their brains have] invented all sorts of fantasies that are comfy,
but not real.  It's time we entered the 21st century.

eduard

-----Original Message-----
From: William
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:01 PM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Science and scientists

Eduard, As you have found out Dick has little formal training in science. He
is  what you might call home schooled. He also equates knowing scientists
with knowing science. You will not change his mind because he believes he
knows science. In short knowing and believeing are definitional problems for
Merlin. I do not think it makes him a bad guy , it just means he has  a
problem with  perception. Had he had formal scientific training the
statements he made about the sun  would not have been posted.
Knowing  scientists does not mean you know science. Studying science under
accredted scientists is a different matter as you well know. Bill



------------------------------------

Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links

One of the wonderful areas of science is information theory. Using just a bit of
the theory one can hypothesize, as did physicist David Bohm, that the brain and
every other cosmic phenomenal structure receives and shares information. One
could call this information 'consciousness' to the degree that it has stored
properties. Awareness isn't limited to the human; that hubris would be an
example of anthropomorphism. Awareness in an informational scheme which doesn't
require a brain; it requires an interaction.

May

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> Well ... it does get to be a bit much when he calls me "dense" and
> "ignorant".  I see this often.  Some grand scheme like rocks having
> consciousness.  It just doesn't work out when you look at it closely.  Sure
> we are connected to everything else, simply because we are part of the
> universe.  But that doesn't mean that the universe is somehow looking out
> for humanity or can think.  Wheeler and others were at one time saying that
> the universe is only out there because we are here to see it.  That idea
> also went down the drain.  Which isn't to say that the concept of a cosmic
> consciousness isn't a neat, warm and fuzzy feeling idea.  Humans have [or
> rather their brains have] invented all sorts of fantasies that are comfy,
> but not real.  It's time we entered the 21st century.
>
> eduard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:01 PM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Science and scientists
>
> Eduard, As you have found out Dick has little formal training in science. He
> is  what you might call home schooled. He also equates knowing scientists
> with knowing science. You will not change his mind because he believes he
> knows science. In short knowing and believeing are definitional problems for
> Merlin. I do not think it makes him a bad guy , it just means he has  a
> problem with  perception. Had he had formal scientific training the
> statements he made about the sun  would not have been posted.
> Knowing  scientists does not mean you know science. Studying science under
> accredted scientists is a different matter as you well know. Bill
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
>
> Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
>

If you had a grain of intelligence you would see that I did not write
that email, I simply posted it on from another group. If you noticed it
was in brackets and the writer put his name on the bottom of it in the
original email.  Anyway, do I write like that?  Did it sound like me?
Man you are so DIM. But I do share his view of you. You could join that
group and talk to him.  His name is Bill Taylor. Lives in California. I
am English and live in West Somerset UK.

Dick Richardson


--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> [The Universe is pure and simple consciousness! From the elemental
> attraction of the smallest elements to the greatest of a galaxy; all
is
> nothing but consciousness. Answer this puzzlement; why is it that the
side
> of sun that faces away from the earth is always more active with
ejecta than
> the side facing the earth? Do not believe me? Then simply follow the
data
> provided by all the various solar observing satellites. It is a
phenomena
> that science doesn't even try to explain as there is no scientific
reason
> why such conditions should exist.]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well Eduard;



I would say you are rather dense indeed but then you might think that I
was being unkind to one so ignorant so I will say that you are dense.



Your conclusion that one is only conscious when you are consciously
aware of things is full of hot air, isn't it?   What of your own
consciousness being aware of you needing to breathe, your heart to beat,
your food to be digested?   These things are merely the essence of pure
consciousness when it relates to you and to you alone.



What then of the tree to spread its roots to find the nutrition it
needs, the water it needs for survival, the ability to take the
nutrients and sunlight and convert it into useable food?   What of stars
to be able to use the attraction of its basic elements to hold itself
together, to create the reactions that make it be what we call a star?
Are not these all but the reflections of consciousness?



So you would have it that HU-mans are the only thing within all of the
cosmos that has consciousness and that only when one is awake and
cognitive of its own surroundings.   So as you would define it you have
no consciousness when you are asleep!   What pure rubbish!   Smacks of
the arrogance of religionists to me!



The Universe is pure and simple consciousness!   From the elemental
attraction of the smallest elements to the greatest of a galaxy; all is
nothing but consciousness.   Answer this puzzlement; why is it that the
side of sun that faces away from the earth is always more active with
ejecta than the side facing the earth?   Do not believe me?  Then simply
follow the data provided by all the various solar observing satellites.
It is a phenomena that science doesn't even try to explain as there
is no scientific reason why such conditions should exist.



So your conclusion that there is no consciousness to the Universe shows
a dire lack of knowledge and even basic thought.   For if you spoke only
from the knowledge you had experienced by empirical observation alone
you would truly see your own inability to be open to the greatness of
the Universe in which you find yourself.   Speaking of which only
through consciousness can you find yourself to be what you truly are.
I would venture to say that you have no idea what or who you truly are
for if you had that knowledge you would never have made the statements
you made.



Eduard go out, seek, find, and embrace all the knowledge you can but as
you do so speak only from the basis of that knowledge which you have
founded upon your own experiential being.



Asa



From: Living_Mystics@yahoogroups.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You too are rather dim. I did no write that email I posted it on from
the group which is mentioned at the bottom of it.  Can any of you even
READ?  I have done science all my life sweatpea. It is you lot that
don't seem to know the difference bwtenn KNOWING and Be-liefing-
be-wishing.

Dick Richardson

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
>
> Eduard, As you have found out Dick has little formal training in
science. He is  what you might call home schooled. He also equates
knowing scientists with knowing science. You will not change his mind
because he believes he knows science. In short knowing and believeing
are definitional problems for Merlin. I do not think it makes him a bad
guy , it just means he has  a problem with  perception. Had he had
formal scientific training the statements he made about the sun  would
not have been posted.
> Knowing  scientists does not mean you know science. Studying science
under accredted scientists is a different matter as you well know. Bill
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What is Life asks a Physicist?



http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01qh3bb/Wonders_of_Life_What_Is_Li\
fe/
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01qh3bb/Wonders_of_Life_What_Is_L\
ife/>



What is life asks the current popular physicist on BBC TV and where does
it start? So he asks people what they BELIEVE :- )



During your lifetime young man you can find many life forms but you can
only KNOW one life � the one you are living; and the experiences
which you have during that lifetime. Energy is eternal he says, and it
cannot be created or destroyed.  What do you KNOW of conscious existence
young man?  Can you do it by numbers?  Have you ever studied the thing
nearest to you � yourself? The universal spark of life he says is
Proton Gradients.  He concludes that life is a collection of chemicals
and that there is no original `mystical' spark of life ( his
words; or at least his script writers). But he does go on to say that
ONLY by way of a living cosmos can we come to be. TO BE,  You are alive.
If you study yourself and consciousness you will get a far better
understanding of what life is and from whence it comes young fellow.
Including that first mystical spark of  conscious existence which knows
itself, and if it could speak it would say I AM. Know Thy SELF. And that
means more than just the physical body, which does not last very long
and changes every day. When claiming what is so then speak from your own
living experience of life. What was it and is it like? What do you know
from your life experience so far?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyCRKJyGIFs
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyCRKJyGIFs>



Dick Richardson







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bhanu, I am making this a trilogue.
 
BHANU PADMO : Survival is achieved indirectly through weapon (self-defense)
and directly through wealth (implements for action). Goal is the maker of a
community as it applies traction upon it and drags it toward higher evolutionary
levels.

DEVINDER:  Yes preventing demise and aiding continuance of life for which
weapon can be implement of action. The goal however does not apply uniform
traction on all. So the implement can become destructive.
BHANU PADMO : The conjugal goal would determine the conjugal morality when the
theory of wedlock would produce the conjugal goal.

DEVINDER: Interesting. This is open to many interpretations.
Plato theorized one. The current morality is moving toward another. The Tantra
has its theory too.
Agree on incomplete theory of evolution and vertical and horizontal
evolution though not on intermediate waypoints or that predator species is
necessarily higher on the scale of evolution than the prey species. That  the
predator's propensity to kill is lesser than that of the prey does not seem to
be borne out by observation. The most important point, 'what was moral then' is
not necessarily moral now is however borne out.
If morality is the product of considerations over the fateful traverse to goal,
notions of morality will necessarily change over time. Yet there must
necessarily be a converge of 'envisioned' morality and 'attained' morality. And
there lies the difficulty of building a community on moral codes.
BHANU PADMO : These genuine moral conflicts would find respective solutions in
an appropriate polity that would advocate and implement true sovereignty of
state through a radical methodology that would develop a plenary (state-wide)
hierarchy of evenly distributed and omnipresent civil gurus (grassroots creative
personages) to lead what we may call *civil religion*, a generic *political
religion*. 
For that we have to understand the simple *net-knot analogy* that depicts the
fact that net-like state*s/ society*s sovereignty is the integral dream and
intelligence of the plenary (state-wide) hierarchy of knot-like and evenly
distributed grassroots gurus (secular and creative grassroots extraordinary
citizens).
This sovereign body could do miracles with respect to convergent metamorphosis
of socio-cultural genes of all constituent populace segments. It could turn
earth into heaven. .

DEVINDER: I have the greatest difficulty here. I go with Nolini Kanta Gupta.
"The New Man will be Master-and not slave. He will be master, first, of himself
and then of the world. Man as he actually is, is but a slave. He has no personal
voice or choice; the determining soul, the Ishwara, in him is sleep-bound and
hushed. He is a mere plaything in the hands of nature and circumstances.
Therefore it is that Science has become his supreme Dharmashastra; for science
seeks to teach us the moods of Nature and the methods of propitiating her. Our
actual ideal of man is that of the cleverest slave. But the New Man will have
found himself and by and according to his inner will, mould and create his
world. He will not be in awe of Nature and in an attitude of perpetual
apprehension. and hesitation, but will ground himself on a secret harmony and
union that will declare him as the lord. Not that this sovereign power will
have anything to do. with aggression
  or over-bearingness. It will not be a power that feels itself only by creating
an eternal opponent-Erbfeind -  by coming in constant clash with a rival that
seeks to gain victory by subjugating. It will not be Nietzschean "will to
power," which is, at best, a supreme Asuric power. It will rather be a Divine
Power, for the strength it will exert and the victory it will achieve will not
come from the ego-it is the ego which requires an object outside and against to
feel and affirm itself but it will come from a higher personal self which is one
with the cosmic soul and therefore with other personal souls. The Asura, in
spite of, or rather, because of his aggressive vehemence betrays a lack of the
sovereign power that is calm and at ease and self-sufficient. The Devic power
does not assert hut simply accomplishes; the forces of the world act not as its
opponent but as its instrument. Thus the New Man shall affirm his individual
sovereignty and do so
  to perfection by expressing through it his unity with the cosmic powers, with
the infinite godhead. And by being Swarat, Self-Master, he will
become Samrat, world-master."

 Your device is bound to fail as every device has so far, that has ever been
attempted. It is in the direction of building the "new man" you must look.
[http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobin\
doAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-1/-01_The\
%20New%20Humanity.html]
Gulati


________________________________
  From: Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...>
To: seerseeker@yahoogroups.com; greenlogic@yahoogroups.com;
TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com; Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com;
TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 27 January 2013 9:27 PM
Subject: [TheBecoming] Re: [seerseeker] Are we naturally good or bad?


 
Mike !

I almost fully agree with your
attitude and sincerely like to fine-tune our relative approach to make it zero.
So I would like to enter a deeper discussion with you. 

Moral and Cultural
Absolutism
(Bhanu Padmo – Mike Lewinski  Dialog)
MIKE LEWINSKI: I've got my utilitarian and
pseudo-evolutionary take--that morality serves the simple purpose of creating
community and that social beings typically have survival advantages over
solitary beings. 

BHANU PADMO: Morality (code) is only the contrivance. Goal
is indeed the maker of a community insofar as the former applies an incessant
traction upon the latter and drags the latter toward higher evolutionary levels.
Intellect (philosophy) backed by dream (intuition) produces the goal and a
commensurable morality. Thus morality may be deemed to be a product of
philosophy vide goal (apex of inductive thinking).

 Morality turns a solitary being into a social
being, true, but the survival prospect of this social being may be deemed to
depend on the efficacy (evolutionary height) of goal or on the efficiency of
the philosophy underlying the goal.
 We may have to give closer attention to the
phenomenon of survival to understand it. Survival is achieved indirectly
through weapon (self-defense) and directly through wealth (implements for
action). Both the inventions may be deemed to be products of a conducive social
environ that is developed by morality and culture as the community traverses
towards its goal born of its philosophy.
MIKE LEWINSKI: A man or woman living alone doesn't need much
morality, really. You can argue there's still a relationship to the community
of nature, but is it a fundamentally moral relationship or moral
community? 

 BHANU
PADMO: The
conjugal goal would determine the conjugal morality when the theory of wedlock
would produce the conjugal goal.
 MIKE
LEWINSKI:We
need to eat other beings to survive, be they animal or vegetable. And other
beings "need" to eat us, be they microbes or lions. The community of
okra probably doesn't like our morality any more than the community of cows.
Nor do we like the morality of cholera or lion communities. At best any
argument about our relationship to the rest of nature as a moral one has to
cede these points. Without common language we cannot agree on common values.
BHANU
PADMO: The
fallacy underlying the incomplete theory of evolution originating from Charles
Darwin need to be undone to reorient/ rectify the connotation underlying your
above statements. The notion of *survival of the fittest* need to be replaced
by that of *survival of the wisest* and the blurred notion of *natural
selection* need to be replaced by that of *transcendental selection* or
*natural pre-selection* (pre-selection of nature by striving species through
its faculty of intuitive dream).

 Incompleteness
of the Darwinian Theory pertains to the fact that it is only a reflection/
narration over physical adaptation of species and doesn*t account for the
ultimate cause of evolution that adaptation encompasses.
The
Transcendental Theory of Evolution puts forward the argument that the
motivation behind post-habitat (after arrival at the habitat) adaptation is the
continuation/ transformation of the pre-habitat dream that enabled the species
to envision the characteristic habitat-utility and that brought the species
here. Thus the wise (intuitive dreamer) survives by way of being further
empowered in the new habitat. Adaptation is a by-product.

 On
the other hand, dreamless straying of the reluctant/ goalless species and its
fortuitous
arrival at a precarious habitat could only bring about *fraying of body* that
would wrongly be construed to presage evolution when it wasn*t really so.
These
considerations give rise to such notions as vertical evolution and horizontal
evolution when the former means *dream-driven adaptation and true evolution* and
the latter means *dream-less fraying of body mistaken for the former*.

 Also,
the intensity of dream and length of its spell may be deemed to engender
commensurate and proportionate intellect (brain, nervous system) which would in
turn engender commensurate and proportionate morality and adaptability and
creativity.
Thus
the dream axis starts with intuitive emotion and ends up at physical evolution
when the intermediate waypoints are intellect, invention, weapon, wealth,
morality, spirituality, culture etc. These components of survival or victory
are always commensurable and bear a definite proportionality.

Thus
any species doesn*t or rather, can*t think of eating any other species to
survive. A established predator species is always higher on the scale of
evolution than the prey species.

 Being
more intelligent and moral than the prey, the predator*s propensity to kill is
lesser than that of the prey. And yet the predator wins because of the
proportionality between its wit and power, because its power is overwhelmingly
high with respect to that of the prey.
 When
you are talking about notoriety of a virus or a bacteria, the adjudication
ought to be conducted at cell-level of organism*s body.
Trans-species
morality check doesn*t fall in the domain of predator-prey relationship.
Morality of a species is to be judged in the absence of a predator-prey
predicament.

 You
are right when you say that such pungent truths need to be ceded in order to
create a convergence among currently variegated opinions and that a common
language need to be developed to arrive at common values.
 MIKE
LEWINSKI:So
if the fundamental purpose of morality is primarily to build community amongst
members of the same species, and as social beings we need community, then my
own moral relativism is cultural relativism, with some caveats. 
BHANU
PADMO: It
may be reiterated that fundamentality about genesis and continuance of
community doesn*t lie with morality. Instead, it lies with goal and the
converged philosophy. Morality is the product of considerations over the fateful
traverse to goal.

 Philosophy,
goal, morality and community*s prospect of survival are to be seen on absolute
scale of evolution. Relativity between absolute values is permissible, but not
the moral and cultural relativism you seem to be nurturing. Moral and cultural
absolutism is the rule.
 If
5 is bigger than 3 in certain way by any opinion, then 3 could be bigger than 5
in the same way by another opinion! No. Not acceptable. This would represent
moral and cultural anarchy.
MIKE
LEWINSKI:It
isn't that every individual gets to set their own morals, but that every
community must agree on common morals and rules that best fit all members.
Obviously it doesn't always work so smoothly as people on every side of the
abortion or gun control debates can clearly see, to pick just two obvious
examples that are highly charged in US politics right now. 
 BHANU
PADMO: Since
morality is not the starting point and philosophy/ goal is, the prospect and
process
of socio-cultural change becomes brighter and smoother respectively if people
are led down the
*philosophy-goal-objectives-morality-culture-sociality-community-survival
sequence* instead of the truncated *morality-sociality-community-survival
sequence*.
MIKE
LEWINSKI:So
it's a more culturally relativistic perspective, even though today all matters
of "culture" are tough to pick out. My culture isn't your culture
(any "you" reading this) even as their are Venn diagrams of overlap
with the proverbial six degree of separation between us.

 BHANU
PADMO: I
am afraid it could be a more *culturally absolutist perspective*. In this case
Venn Diagram isn*t applicable to describe cultural position of individuals. The
absolute scale is now applicable where the proverbial *six degree of
separation* would be replaced by a *linear separation of six points*!
 MIKE
LEWINSKI:So
a thing is moral when it tends to improve the community and strengthen the
social bonds and immoral when it tends to degrade community and weaken bonds.
Murder, rape and other forms of violence all create collateral damage that
ripple out in empathic waves from the person most harmed. These things are
uniformly immoral across all cultures (even as some exceptions get carved out
in laws designed to satisfy a need for vengeance).
 BHANU
PADMO:  I endorse this view fully. Let*s take
the crime statistics as the cardinal index of culture, polity, religiosity and
civilization.
 MIKE
LEWINSKI: The generic
"avoidance of harm" value gets taken up by all sides in the hottest
cultural debates. Here the far right want to preserve liberty through bearing
firearms and resisting government tyranny when it comes. The far left want to
avoid harm by disarming everyone, confident that government tyranny either
can't come or can't be successfully resisted when government has bombers,
tanks, subs, nukes, etc. Both sides are fervently wanting to avoid the greatest
harm and willing to risk the other lesser harms (or lower risk if not lesser in
harm) as necessary. This is a genuine moral conflict that has no easy
resolution and I fear civil war before tyranny right now.
 BHANU
PADMO: These
genuine moral conflicts would find respective solutions in an appropriate
polity that would advocate and implement true sovereignty of state through a
radical methodology that would develop a plenary (state-wide) hierarchy of
evenly
distributed and omnipresent civil gurus (grassroots creative personages) to
lead what we may call *civil religion*, a generic *political religion*.
 MIKE
LEWINSKI: So
the only categorical moral imperative I can fathom is "behave pro-socially
in your environment" where you are free to establish your own personal
boundaries of behavior and impose stricter requirements on friends (don't lie
to me) than government or other larger communities you're equally a part of
might impose. There again are the Venn diagram overlaps of friends, family,
religious affiliation, political affiliation, civic affiliation, sports and
other enthusiast communities each with their own set of morals that don't get
applied more globally. We may not think of sport communities as moral
communities, but they have their peculiar set of morals that you must embrace
if the community is to welcome you.
BHANU
PADMO: The
maiden moral imperative would be in the direction of inculcating
pro-sovereignty public awareness and behavior as a prelude to installation of
state*s/ society*s non-existent head upon its truncated shoulder.

For
that we have to understand the simple *net-knot analogy* that depicts the fact
that net-like state*s/ society*s sovereignty is the integral dream and
intelligence of the plenary (state-wide) hierarchy of knot-like and evenly
distributed grassroots gurus (secular and creative grassroots extraordinary
citizens).

 This
sovereign body could do miracles with respect to convergent metamorphosis of
socio-cultural genes of all constituent populace segments. It could turn earth
into heaven.
MIKE
LEWINSKI: Since
I'm on about communities, I have this last fragment of text that is mostly
unrelated to the main discussion as I see it. I've been developing this line of
thought for a little while and am kicking it out for feedback. I do think we
are a part of the natural community of the earth, but I don't believe it's a
moral community.

 BHANU
PADMO: We
aren*t neither a natural or moral community if we are stripped of philosophical
convergence and convergence of objectives (goal).
 MIKE
LEWINSKI: With
this caveat, this is what I'm working on:
 We can be in
communion with the world, or we can commodify it. 
Commodification
precludes communion as it reduces the Other to its economic value, stripping it
of its intrinsic value and right to exist outside of human economic frameworks.
The commodification
of the world is so complete as to encompass nearly all of space and time. What
part of the earth is not "owned"? What part of our day is not sold?
I have come to
understand that a foundational lie of my culture is that "time is
money". This commodification of time itself is so deeply embedded in
language as to be nearly invisible.
I cannot spend my
time, but I can live it. 
I cannot pay attention,
but I can give it.
http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/woodcock/sp001734.html
BHANU PADMO:  As you must have already noted, there isn*t any
reason behind why I should not concur with your such views and objectives. My
agreement and commitment in this regard is positive, profuse and prolific.

.........................

(Bhanu Padmo)
http://www.bhanupadmo.com
You
may reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/ 
as well
or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.
 
--- On Sat, 1/26/13, Mike Lewinski <oroboros@...> wrote:


>From: Mike Lewinski <oroboros@...>
>Subject: Re: [seerseeker] Are we naturally good or bad?
>To: seerseeker@yahoogroups.com
>Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 11:59 PM
>
>
> 
>I've got my utilitarian and pseudo-evolutionary take--that morality serves the
simple purpose of creating community and that social beings typically have
survival advantages over solitary beings.
>
>A man or woman living alone doesn't need much morality, really. You can argue
there's still a relationship to the community of nature, but is it a
fundamentally moral relationship or moral community? 
>
>
>We need to eat other beings to survive, be they animal or vegetable. And other
beings "need" to eat us, be they microbes or lions. The community of okra
probably doesn't like our morality any more than the community of cows. Nor do
we like the morality of cholera or lion communities. At best any argument about
our relationship to the rest of nature as a moral one has to cede these points.
Without common language we cannot agree on common values.
>
>
>So if the fundamental purpose of morality is primarily to build community
amongst members of the same species, and as social beings we need community,
then my own moral relativism is cultural relativism, with some caveats.
>
>It isn't that every individual gets to set their own morals, but that every
community must agree on common morals and rules that best fit all members.
Obviously it doesn't always work so smoothly as people on every side of the
abortion or gun control debates can clearly see, to pick just two obvious
examples that are highly charged in US politics right now. 
>
>
>So it's a more culturally relativistic perspective, even though today all
matters of "culture" are tough to pick out. My culture isn't your culture (any
"you" reading this) even as their are Venn diagrams of overlap with the
proverbial six degree of separation between us.
>
>
>So a thing is moral when it tends to improve the community and strengthen the
social bonds and immoral when it tends to degrade community and weaken bonds.
Murder, rape and other forms of violence all create collateral damage that
ripple out in empathic waves from the person most harmed. These things are
uniformly immoral across all cultures (even as some exceptions get carved out in
laws designed to satisfy a need for vengeance).
>
>
>The generic "avoidance of harm" value gets taken up by all sides in the hottest
cultural debates. Here the far right want to preserve liberty through bearing
firearms and resisting government tyranny when it comes. The far left want to
avoid harm by disarming everyone, confident that government tyranny either can't
come or can't be successfully resisted when government has bombers, tanks, subs,
nukes, etc. Both sides are fervently wanting to avoid the greatest harm and
willing to risk the other lesser harms (or lower risk if not lesser in harm) as
necessary. This is a genuine moral conflict that has no easy resolution and I
fear civil war before tyranny right now.
>
>
>So the only categorical moral imperative I can fathom is "behave pro-socially
in your environment" where you are free to establish your own personal
boundaries of behavior and impose stricter requirements on friends (don't lie to
me) than government or other larger communities you're equally a part of might
impose. There again are the Venn diagram overlaps of friends, family, religious
affiliation, political affiliation, civic affiliation, sports and other
enthusiast communities each with their own set of morals that don't get applied
more globally. We may not think of sport communities as moral communities, but
they have their peculiar set of morals that you must embrace if the community is
to welcome you.
>
>
>Since I'm on about communities, I have this last fragment of text that is
mostly unrelated to the main discussion as I see it. I've been developing this
line of thought for a little while and am kicking it out for feedback. I do
think we are a part of the natural community of the earth, but I don't believe
it's a moral community. With this caveat, this is what I'm working on:
>
>>
>>We can be in communion with the world, or we can commodify it. 
>>Commodification precludes communion as it reduces the Other to its economic
value, stripping it of its intrinsic value and right to exist outside of human
economic frameworks.
>>The commodification of the world is so complete as to encompass nearly all of
space and time. What part of the earth is not "owned"? What part of our day is
not sold?
>>I have come to understand that a foundational lie of my culture is that "time
is money". This commodification of time itself is so deeply embedded in language
as to be nearly invisible.
>>I cannot spend my time, but I can live it. 
>>I cannot pay attention, but I can give it.
>>http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/woodcock/sp001734.html
>
>
>On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Kyva Holman <kyholm7@...> wrote:
>
>
>> 
>>the whole question is an example of the way language fails ~ hopefully we'll
continue to develop extra and/or trans-linguistic ways of communicating 
>>i know that's very postmodern, but the only way we'll get beyond the
postmodern state to a more evolved one is to interrogate where we are currently
>>
>>fitting the question with one or another potential spoken cadence will
illustrate my point
>> 
>>cause if you say: "are we naturally good or bad"?  (all running together)
>> 
>>the answer must be indubitably yes.  Most meaningful human (i.e.
animal/natural) actions will ultimately fall on some part of a moral continuum
with absolute "good" at one end, and absolute "bad" at the other.
>> 
>>but if you say: "are we naturally good... or bad...?"  (pause after good)
>> 
>>the cadence here implies duality and polarity.  There are two extremes and
"we" (whatever THAT means) are either collectively one OR the other.
>> 
>>And this lack of clarity in what the question is seeking to reveal isn't even
the major problem.  That dubious distinction goes to the issue of - who exactly
is supposed to be the ultimate authority, the indisputed arbiter of moral
judgment?  You?  Me?  The Senate? The Catholic Church?
>> 
>>because if there isn't one, and my subjective opinion has the same weight as
yours or anyone else's, then there's no way to come to agreement on the
question, no matter how it's phrased
>>
>>thus no point in asking it (not trying to be snarky)
>>  
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...>
>>To: seerseeker <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>; greenlogic
<greenlogic@yahoogroups.com>; TheRampaPath <TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com>;
Wisdom-l <Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>; TheBecoming <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>
>>Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 4:37 am
>>Subject: Re: [seerseeker] Are we naturally good or bad?
>>
>>
>> 
>>Natural Goodness and Evolution.  We may not wait for such a long time to
witness such an experiment (as quoted by Tom Stafford in his article *Are We
Naturally Good or Bad*) that could possibly suggest natural goodness of human
being when a little reasoning clarifies the fact that all living beings,
including humans, must be naturally good.
>> 
>>First of all, we have to define goodness. Goodness is the index of evolution
as evolution is the final good in this universe. Since any newborn body is a
piece of cumulative evolution (having a finite evolutionary magnitude on the
scale of evolution), it may be deemed as a lump of goodness.
>> 
>>The inherent evolutionary propensity of a being is simply its natural
goodness, therefore.
>>
>>
>>
>>(Bhanu Padmo)
>>http://www.bhanupadmo.com
>>You may reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/ 
as well
>>or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended
discussions.
>>
>>--- On Thu, 1/24/13, Laurie <libramoon42@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>From: Laurie <libramoon42@...>
>>>Subject: [seerseeker] Are we naturally good or bad?
>>>To: "seers and seekers" <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>
>>>Date: Thursday, January 24, 2013, 10:54 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130114-are-we-naturally-good-or-bad
>>>Are we naturally good or bad?
>>> 
>>>Tom Stafford
>>>
>>>
>>>Fundamentally speaking, are humans good or bad? It's a question that has
repeatedly been asked throughout humanity. For thousands of years, philosophers
have debated whether we have a basically good nature that is corrupted by
society, or a basically bad nature that is kept in check by society. Psychology
has uncovered some evidence which might give the old debate a twist.
>>>One way of asking about our most fundamental characteristics is to look at
babies. Babies' minds are a wonderful showcase for human nature. Babies are
humans with the absolute minimum of cultural influence – they don't have many
friends, have never been to school and haven't read any books. They can't even
control their own bowels, let alone speak the language, so their minds are as
close to innocent as a human mind can get.
>>>The only problem is that the lack of language makes it tricky to gauge their
opinions. Normally we ask people to take part in experiments, giving them
instructions or asking them to answer questions, both of which require language.
Babies may be cuter to work with, but they are not known for their obedience.
What's a curious psychologist to do?
>>>Fortunately, you don't necessarily have to speak to reveal your opinions.
Babies will reach for things they want or like, and they will tend to look
longer at things that surprise them. Ingenious experiments carried out at Yale
University in the US used these measures to look at babies' minds. Their
results suggest that even the youngest humans have a sense of right and wrong,
and, furthermore, an instinct to prefer good over evil.
>>>How could the experiments tell this? Imagine you are a baby. Since you have a
short attention span, the experiment will be shorter and loads more fun than
most psychology experiments. It was basically a kind of puppet show; the stage a
scene featuring a bright green hill, and the puppets were cut-out shapes with
stick on wobbly eyes; a triangle, a square and a circle, each in their own
bright colours. What happened next was a short play, as one of the shapes tried
to climb the hill, struggling up and falling back down again. Next, the other
two shapes got involved, with either one helping the climber up the hill, by
pushing up from behind, or the other hindering the climber, by pushing back from
above.
>>>Already something amazing, psychologically, is going on here. All humans are
able to interpret the events in the play in terms of the story I’ve described.
The puppets are just shapes. They don't make human sounds or display human
emotions. They just move about, and yet everyone reads these movements as
purposeful, and revealing of their characters. You can argue that this “mind
reading”, even in infants, shows that it is part of our human nature to
believe in other minds.
>>>Great expectations
>>>What happened next tells us even more about human nature. After the show,
infants were given the choice of reaching for either the helping or the
hindering shape, and it turned out they were much more likely to reach for the
helper. This can be explained if they are reading the events of the show in
terms of motivations – the shapes aren't just moving at random, but they
showed to the infant that the shape pushing uphill "wants" to help out (and so
is nice) and the shape pushing downhill "wants" to cause problems (and so is
nasty).
>>>The researchers used an encore to confirm these results. Infants saw a second
scene in which the climber shape made a choice to move towards either the helper
shape or the hinderer shape. The time infants spent looking in each of the two
cases revealed what they thought of the outcome. If the climber moved towards
the hinderer the infants looked significantly longer than if the climber moved
towards the helper. This makes sense if the infants were surprised when the
climber approached the hinderer. Moving towards the helper shape would be the
happy ending, and obviously it was what the infant expected. If the climber
moved towards the hinderer it was a surprise, as much as you or I would be
surprised if we saw someone give a hug to a man who had just knocked him over.
>>>The way to make sense of this result is if infants, with their pre-cultural
brains had expectations about how people should act. Not only do they interpret
the movement of the shapes as resulting from motivations, but they prefer
helping motivations over hindering ones.
>>>This doesn't settle the debate over human nature. A cynic would say that it
just shows that infants are self-interested and expect others to be the same
way. At a minimum though, it shows that tightly bound into the nature of our
developing minds is the ability to make sense of the world in terms of
motivations, and a basic instinct to prefer friendly intentions over malicious
ones. It is on this foundation that adult morality is built.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>BBC © 2013
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

No Wonder to me?



[ I know that many people hope and believe that they might come to exist
in some transcendent mode of timeless existence devoid of the problems
of life in a physical body after existing here. And I know that many
people put forward theories which might support that. But you speak of
it as a fact that can be known now. It is no wonder to me that such a
claim is not taken seriously. ]



I don't know how many years you have got behind you, but I do know
how many I have got behind me now, and what filled them. So, I have a
lot to look back on and remember.  Not in a position to do much else now
:- )  I was asked to write about that life, and I did. I was also asked
to write about the mystical experiences and the mystical life, which I
did. I was also asked to write about the various decades; and which I
also did.  You can do the same about your own life and what you have
encountered by living through it. It was not lived in a book but some of
it went into books. That is called passing on information isn't it.
That will outlast me here. And what I told of is true.  I know, because
I lived it.



As for my existing in a transcendent mode of timeless existence when my
time here is over then I don't know, and neither do I care. Neither
can I see into the future. But I can still talk about the now and the
past; and what it revealed. I would imagine that the same would apply to
you, but I do not know that to be the case. Only you can know that.



As for me then existing in a transcendent mode of timeless existence
devoid of any experience or knowledge of a world and a body is no wonder
to me. The great wonder to me is as to how I can come to exist here in a
body and a physical world and that by way of all the forces and gadgets
which shape this body, and I can even talk by way of a noise from the
crevice in the face, and write with a pen. And that is not a theory
either. Neither do I believe it. I lived it. My allegiance is to LIFE,
and all its modes; and this world is a good place to live a lifetime. If
others tell me that they don't like it then so be it. I did. Were I
ever to do another one then that would be fine by me. But I cannot make
that happen. Neither can I make it not happen. It has been said that
what is within must come out. Maybe it comes out many times. Maybe not.



As to what various people take to be TRUE, or not, just is not my
problem. I found life to be a wonderful experience. And what was done
can never be undone. Anyway, why are you coming to me with this; I am
retired from communication? If you assumed that what I have written
about is all tosh then you must have read some of it. Why? A touch of
curiosity maybe?   But I have told all I am going to tell. There is
nothing at all preventing you from studying yourself and life is there.
I would suggest that you do that and forget what I have said. Find out
for yourself. I did not need anybody else for that and neither do you.
And ALL the tools I needed to it do were supplied at birth here within
the system of the package.  Have an enjoyable and illuminating life. You
might even leave something behind you.



Dick Richardson (Retired)







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Build a plan to decide where you are going.The map is in two dimensions,reality
is not.If ,however the map is made of thoughts it is broadcast  through the
brain as reality. If the thoughts are empiracally based  the map is real.Sense
knowledge must be trusted,it is the basis of survival. All organisms rely on the
stimulus response mechanism to remain in existance
Modifications ,  wilfully introduced  are the basis of the individual. A
different response that produces results which enhance the existance of the
individual  is the basis of progress .The trick is to make different but
beneficial responses.
As with random genetic mutation, random response has negative individual
repurcussions.
Risk taking and individualism are linked genitically. Intelligence used to
arbitrate randomness can tip the scales in favor of a positive response.
The non risk takers are beneficial. They are not bored wih themselvesas they
feel no impitus to change. They fear risk takers,especially random risk takers.
Individualism is the name we give to one of the positive  rewards of risk
taking. Individuals climb mountains not because the mountain is there but
because the individual is there. Individuals look on the non risk takers  much
like bulls might look on steers, they are meat.
The intelligent risk taker needs a map, a rule book, to avoid random action and
destruction. The environment is always changing always dangerous. That is why I
am writing this. The odd thing about progress is it opens up new nitches for
drones. In their natural collectivity  the steers repel the bulls usurping the
newly acquired terratory , making it safe for their repetative behavior. Like
the old mountain men the american individual is forced to move on. This time
,however, age and infirmity require a new but quiet valley. A cloaking device is
necessary  to hide the starship from the Klingon drones. The map must include an
explanation of why an individual would chose such a path and a clear warning of
the many risks inherant in such a journey.
This map is actually a personal philosophy. I have written it before in story
form but steers do not understand a story as anything but a story. Since it is a
personal philosophy I think I must show how my life experience  compelled me to
think this way.I will therefore include incidents that pushed me away from more
conventional religous or philosophical approaches. I know this approach to
viewing life is relatively new. Most of the concepts integral to the system were
realised in the twentieth century. Terms such as secular humanist degenerate
into self styled ,free thinker in the hands of politically motovated theists. I
am modern, thus the M in the map .I am also an American, not a fellow traveler,
anti capitalist or anarcist. A in the map  stands for American. The P stands for
philosophy.

The ancient questions,Who am I,WHere did I come from,Where am I going have
always called me. So I write this. Being called an egoist is better than being
labeled  a communist or athiest or drunk or drugged out crazy. This is life as I
see it from my experience and genetic make up.
The earliest thinkers distinguished themselves from other entities,rocks, plants
,animals ect. It might not seem much progress to us  but under modern scrutany 
a five million year metamorphosis from australopithicus  to the writings of
Socrates.It would seem that after all significant bounds forward a period of
disinformation must ensue.The thumps in the night around  millions of campfires
served up  untold spirits,demons ,witches,plenary ghosts and gods. No doubt
seeing ones companions  ripped apart and devoured in a milieu not understood
could lead the imagination  to terrors of supernatural proportions. The concept
of genetic memory seems more plasuable  as we view the special effects monsters
from todays Hollywood. Our ancestors knew fear  and were clewless about their
position in time ,space or the phylogenetic order. Even a modern man, thrown
into a primative survival situation , feels the terror of the woods , the
ancient demons howl again. I marvel at the early thinkers ,how they were able to
separate terror from substantive purpose as they watched their teachers drink
himlock. To me  Aristotle was a towering figure compaired to St.Peter. Both felt
the death of their mentors  but the former advanced the progression of thought
,the latter died a zealots death  worshipping his teacher.
Five million years on the savannah of east Africa built the sympathetic nervous
system  to a two response edge, fight or flight. Five thousand years of
civilisation  have added surrender and worship to our response package. Have we
seen enough phenomena to allow for more novel options? Thought evolves. Not
slowly like an organ system but in the modern world it is more like the solution
of a salt in a liquid. New thought spreads rapidly  and forever changes the
media.
One of the philsophical questions of modern time is if the evolution of thought
in the information ageis so rapid it dedecouples from the physical evoloution of
man? Does it matter?  The printing press stratified society  into the readers
and those with only spoken language. Will the explosion of knowledge  leave the
big picture only in the memories  of a few super computers? I think not. An
educated person can now comprehend his place in the phylogenetic order and in
the space time continuum. He can anchor himself in reality and banish those
demons, gods,witches,angels,saints and banshees to subconscious genetic memory.
Living life in the fear  of devels and gods dreamed up by fat priests and
political ministers is a waste of  brains and lives.

Yes, you can redefine "consciousness" so that it no longer means
"consciousness".

Consciousness ... as used to be the word ... has the meaning of being aware.
If you send a rock to Pluto, you have an interaction.  But that does not
mean that Pluto is aware of anything.

eduard

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:09 PM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Re: Science and scientists

One of the wonderful areas of science is information theory. Using just a
bit of the theory one can hypothesize, as did physicist David Bohm, that the
brain and every other cosmic phenomenal structure receives and shares
information. One could call this information 'consciousness' to the degree
that it has stored properties. Awareness isn't limited to the human; that
hubris would be an example of anthropomorphism. Awareness in an
informational scheme which doesn't require a brain; it requires an
interaction.

May

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> Well ... it does get to be a bit much when he calls me "dense" and
> "ignorant".  I see this often.  Some grand scheme like rocks having
> consciousness.  It just doesn't work out when you look at it closely.
> Sure
> we are connected to everything else, simply because we are part of the
> universe.  But that doesn't mean that the universe is somehow looking out
> for humanity or can think.  Wheeler and others were at one time saying
> that
> the universe is only out there because we are here to see it.  That idea
> also went down the drain.  Which isn't to say that the concept of a cosmic
> consciousness isn't a neat, warm and fuzzy feeling idea.  Humans have [or
> rather their brains have] invented all sorts of fantasies that are comfy,
> but not real.  It's time we entered the 21st century.
>
> eduard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:01 PM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Science and scientists
>
> Eduard, As you have found out Dick has little formal training in science.
> He
> is  what you might call home schooled. He also equates knowing scientists
> with knowing science. You will not change his mind because he believes he
> knows science. In short knowing and believeing are definitional problems
> for
> Merlin. I do not think it makes him a bad guy , it just means he has  a
> problem with  perception. Had he had formal scientific training the
> statements he made about the sun  would not have been posted.
> Knowing  scientists does not mean you know science. Studying science under
> accredted scientists is a different matter as you well know. Bill
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
>
> Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
>




------------------------------------

Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links

[If you had a grain of intelligence you would see that I did not write
that email, I simply posted it on from another group. If you noticed it
was in brackets and the writer put his name on the bottom of it in the
original email. ]

Bull.

You are just trying to get out of it.

I [as in moi] put the paragraph in brackets so that I could show what I was
replying to.  The full email from you [as in toi]  is below.

And, yes, it does sound like you ... every word of it, including the
insults.

eduard

================
-----Original Message-----
From: Dick.
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 1:04 AM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Well Eduard;


Well Eduard;

I would say you are rather dense indeed but then you might think that I
was being unkind to one so ignorant so I will say that you are dense.

Your conclusion that one is only conscious when you are consciously
aware of things is full of hot air, isn't it? What of your own
consciousness being aware of you needing to breathe, your heart to beat,
your food to be digested? These things are merely the essence of pure
consciousness when it relates to you and to you alone.

What then of the tree to spread its roots to find the nutrition it
needs, the water it needs for survival, the ability to take the
nutrients and sunlight and convert it into useable food? What of stars
to be able to use the attraction of its basic elements to hold itself
together, to create the reactions that make it be what we call a star?
Are not these all but the reflections of consciousness?

So you would have it that HU-mans are the only thing within all of the
cosmos that has consciousness and that only when one is awake and
cognitive of its own surroundings. So as you would define it you have
no consciousness when you are asleep! What pure rubbish! Smacks of
the arrogance of religionists to me!

The Universe is pure and simple consciousness! From the elemental
attraction of the smallest elements to the greatest of a galaxy; all is
nothing but consciousness. Answer this puzzlement; why is it that the
side of sun that faces away from the earth is always more active with
ejecta than the side facing the earth? Do not believe me? Then simply
follow the data provided by all the various solar observing satellites.
It is a phenomena that science doesn't even try to explain as there
is no scientific reason why such conditions should exist.

So your conclusion that there is no consciousness to the Universe shows
a dire lack of knowledge and even basic thought. For if you spoke only
from the knowledge you had experienced by empirical observation alone
you would truly see your own inability to be open to the greatness of
the Universe in which you find yourself. Speaking of which only
through consciousness can you find yourself to be what you truly are.
I would venture to say that you have no idea what or who you truly are
for if you had that knowledge you would never have made the statements
you made.

Eduard go out, seek, find, and embrace all the knowledge you can but as
you do so speak only from the basis of that knowledge which you have
founded upon your own experiential being.

Asa

-----Original Message-----
From: Dick.
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 2:24 AM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Re: Maturity not Age?


If you had a grain of intelligence you would see that I did not write
that email, I simply posted it on from another group. If you noticed it
was in brackets and the writer put his name on the bottom of it in the
original email.  Anyway, do I write like that?  Did it sound like me?
Man you are so DIM. But I do share his view of you. You could join that
group and talk to him.  His name is Bill Taylor. Lives in California. I
am English and live in West Somerset UK.

Dick Richardson


--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> [The Universe is pure and simple consciousness! From the elemental
> attraction of the smallest elements to the greatest of a galaxy; all
is
> nothing but consciousness. Answer this puzzlement; why is it that the
side
> of sun that faces away from the earth is always more active with
ejecta than
> the side facing the earth? Do not believe me? Then simply follow the
data
> provided by all the various solar observing satellites. It is a
phenomena
> that science doesn't even try to explain as there is no scientific
reason
> why such conditions should exist.]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links

Consciousness means being AWARE in my life and book too, and being aware
is your life. So, one has to ask being aware of WHAT?  And one also has
to ask what is that thing that is being AWARE?  Hence WHAT AM I. I am
that thing which is aware.

However, the questioning does not end there. For consciousness and the
content of consciousness are not the same thing so many claim. So what
is consciousness if and when devoid of content?  Has anybody ever known
such a thing?  I have not and I have never met anybody who has.  So,
conscious experience is what WE GET and live with. We do not live with
consciousness devoid of content. And if there were such a thing then it
would not know that it exists. William for example  has certainly not
been aware of the things I have been aware of. And no two people have
ever lived the same life. But because he has not been aware of what I
have been aware of then he says that my life is a lie, a shame, and a
make believe :- ) What if I said the same about his? :- )  But I
don't say the same about his. I have been told many people's
life stories; first hand while they lived here. Scientists by the way
are NOT in a positions to tell me about consciousness, and neither are
Bishops or Philosophers. But they are welcome to tell me about their own
life experiences.

As for saying that it is bull when telling you  that I did not write
that other email then go and ask him if you have the guts. He owns the
Living Mystics group. I told you his name and where he lives. He also
owns the website you will find if you pump in Home Ensophicus
Development.  You are so silly and rank childish. What an EGO as they
say.

rwr





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[As for saying that it is bull when telling you  that I did not write
that other email then go and ask him if you have the guts. He owns the
Living Mystics group. I told you his name and where he lives. He also
owns the website you will find if you pump in Home Ensophicus
Development.  You are so silly and rank childish. What an EGO as they
say.]

It is most difficult to understand how the email is not yours when it is
indicated at the top as being sent by you.  Unless perhaps there is another
Dick who has been posting lately on Existlist.

eduard

-----Original Message-----
From: Dick.
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 3:05 PM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Consciousness is


Consciousness means being AWARE in my life and book too, and being aware
is your life. So, one has to ask being aware of WHAT?  And one also has
to ask what is that thing that is being AWARE?  Hence WHAT AM I. I am
that thing which is aware.

However, the questioning does not end there. For consciousness and the
content of consciousness are not the same thing so many claim. So what
is consciousness if and when devoid of content?  Has anybody ever known
such a thing?  I have not and I have never met anybody who has.  So,
conscious experience is what WE GET and live with. We do not live with
consciousness devoid of content. And if there were such a thing then it
would not know that it exists. William for example  has certainly not
been aware of the things I have been aware of. And no two people have
ever lived the same life. But because he has not been aware of what I
have been aware of then he says that my life is a lie, a shame, and a
make believe :- ) What if I said the same about his? :- )  But I
don't say the same about his. I have been told many people's
life stories; first hand while they lived here. Scientists by the way
are NOT in a positions to tell me about consciousness, and neither are
Bishops or Philosophers. But they are welcome to tell me about their own
life experiences.

As for saying that it is bull when telling you  that I did not write
that other email then go and ask him if you have the guts. He owns the
Living Mystics group. I told you his name and where he lives. He also
owns the website you will find if you pump in Home Ensophicus
Development.  You are so silly and rank childish. What an EGO as they
say.

rwr





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links

There are risk takers and then there are risk takers.  The former are old
school [to use a term] and do the necessary planning to limit the
possibility of injury.  The latter just dash out there and take the risk
without thinking too much about it before hand.  It's the latter who have to
rescued from their folly.  Granted, some of them are lucky and manage to
survive for a while.

Like mountain climbers.  This past year there was a longer line of wannabe
climbers on the side of Everest than at some popular hip-hop concert;
passing the bodies of others who died on the way.  In today's world there
seems a cult of extreme venture.  As if we were somehow immortal.  I have
absolutely no empathy for the fools.

eduard


-----Original Message-----
From: William
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 12:19 PM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Map

Build a plan to decide where you are going.The map is in two
dimensions,reality is not.If ,however the map is made of thoughts it is
broadcast  through the brain as reality. If the thoughts are empiracally
based  the map is real.Sense knowledge must be trusted,it is the basis of
survival. All organisms rely on the stimulus response mechanism to remain in
existance
Modifications ,  wilfully introduced  are the basis of the individual. A
different response that produces results which enhance the existance of the
individual  is the basis of progress .The trick is to make different but
beneficial responses.
As with random genetic mutation, random response has negative individual
repurcussions.
Risk taking and individualism are linked genitically. Intelligence used to
arbitrate randomness can tip the scales in favor of a positive response.
The non risk takers are beneficial. They are not bored wih themselvesas they
feel no impitus to change. They fear risk takers,especially random risk
takers.
Individualism is the name we give to one of the positive  rewards of risk
taking. Individuals climb mountains not because the mountain is there but
because the individual is there. Individuals look on the non risk takers
much like bulls might look on steers, they are meat.
The intelligent risk taker needs a map, a rule book, to avoid random action
and destruction. The environment is always changing always dangerous. That
is why I am writing this. The odd thing about progress is it opens up new
nitches for drones. In their natural collectivity  the steers repel the
bulls usurping the newly acquired terratory , making it safe for their
repetative behavior. Like the old mountain men the american individual is
forced to move on. This time ,however, age and infirmity require a new but
quiet valley. A cloaking device is necessary  to hide the starship from the
Klingon drones. The map must include an explanation of why an individual
would chose such a path and a clear warning of the many risks inherant in
such a journey.
This map is actually a personal philosophy. I have written it before in
story form but steers do not understand a story as anything but a story.
Since it is a personal philosophy I think I must show how my life experience
compelled me to think this way.I will therefore include incidents that
pushed me away from more conventional religous or philosophical approaches.
I know this approach to viewing life is relatively new. Most of the concepts
integral to the system were realised in the twentieth century. Terms such as
secular humanist degenerate into self styled ,free thinker in the hands of
politically motovated theists. I am modern, thus the M in the map .I am also
an American, not a fellow traveler, anti capitalist or anarcist. A in the
map  stands for American. The P stands for philosophy.



------------------------------------

Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links

So,who am I ? The question itself implies personality if not humanity.We may
extrapolate  personality to our pet animals but in general who denotes humanity.
I can point to comparitive anatomy and  the record in the fossils to prove the
ascent of man. I am secure in the fact that I am a human being.I will deal with 
the history of the human species when I consider where I came from.
In liberal arts college I encountered real science for the first time.I was
building a knowledge baseAt that time Darwin and evolutionary theory were too
big for me but comparative anatomy hit me hard. The sketches,the dissections the
comparisons of body systems  between species forced me to view the phyliogenetic
order. There I was at the top of  a primate species. Since I had been the keeper
of a Capuchin monkey I could grasp the breath of primate behavour and threw
aside the religous idea that humans were built in gods image. We were much
closer to the great apes.
Now every piece of good scientific knowledge I acquire adds another piece to the
expanding picture puzzle of the cosmos ,its structure and working principles. It
tells me more of who I am. In my liberal arts college science students  were
considered geeks but since I was always on the deans list I forced myself into a
graduate level existentialism course. The course was designed to rapidly
overview the major empiricists,phenominologists and existentialists. ,
concentrating on Chardin as the catholic churches answer to the heretical
modernists. I understood Chardins ideas as a whole but did not recognise him as
a theologian with an improvised existential vocabulary. Years later after
revisiting the existential writers I saw science fits well with phenominology.
The early writers Husseryl,Heidigger and Neitche  are awsome in their use of
observation and logic to climb toward their radically different modernly
relevant Ideas. Their used pure brain power to deduce the place of modern man
was a monumental feat.How did these men foresee the modern world with so few
clues. They persevered  in postulating a nihilistic existance  with its crushing
personal repurcussions.I left  undergrad intent on avoiding the draft and
following a materialistic life. During the viet nam war grade points were at an
all time high. Getting in was hard and staying in required competition with the
best. Failing dental school put you first in line to be a chopper medic. I was a
pig in shit I loved science and I loved competition.

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
>
> There are risk takers and then there are risk takers.  The former are old
> school [to use a term] and do the necessary planning to limit the
> possibility of injury.  The latter just dash out there and take the risk
> without thinking too much about it before hand.  It's the latter who have to
> rescued from their folly.  Granted, some of them are lucky and manage to
> survive for a while.
>
> Like mountain climbers.  This past year there was a longer line of wannabe
> climbers on the side of Everest than at some popular hip-hop concert;
> passing the bodies of others who died on the way.  In today's world there
> seems a cult of extreme venture.  As if we were somehow immortal.  I have
> absolutely no empathy for the fools.
>
> eduard
>Eduard, I got busted up in hockey and nearly dround in white water canoing. I
could always see the objective risks and obviously never died. The nimrods that
sally forth  without proper  training and equiptment deserve what they get. I
would never ski off piste and always climbed using protection. Some climbs took
months of preparation. There are old skiers and there are bold skiers  but there
are no old,  bold skiers. A knowledge of physical forces and  human muscular
capibility served me in my risk sport persuits. Mary gave me permission to print
MAP. It is long and probably boring but it is how I came to existentialism and
so is my story. Bill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 12:19 PM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Map
>
> Build a plan to decide where you are going.The map is in two
> dimensions,reality is not.If ,however the map is made of thoughts it is
> broadcast  through the brain as reality. If the thoughts are empiracally
> based  the map is real.Sense knowledge must be trusted,it is the basis of
> survival. All organisms rely on the stimulus response mechanism to remain in
> existance
> Modifications ,  wilfully introduced  are the basis of the individual. A
> different response that produces results which enhance the existance of the
> individual  is the basis of progress .The trick is to make different but
> beneficial responses.
> As with random genetic mutation, random response has negative individual
> repurcussions.
> Risk taking and individualism are linked genitically. Intelligence used to
> arbitrate randomness can tip the scales in favor of a positive response.
> The non risk takers are beneficial. They are not bored wih themselvesas they
> feel no impitus to change. They fear risk takers,especially random risk
> takers.
> Individualism is the name we give to one of the positive  rewards of risk
> taking. Individuals climb mountains not because the mountain is there but
> because the individual is there. Individuals look on the non risk takers
> much like bulls might look on steers, they are meat.
> The intelligent risk taker needs a map, a rule book, to avoid random action
> and destruction. The environment is always changing always dangerous. That
> is why I am writing this. The odd thing about progress is it opens up new
> nitches for drones. In their natural collectivity  the steers repel the
> bulls usurping the newly acquired terratory , making it safe for their
> repetative behavior. Like the old mountain men the american individual is
> forced to move on. This time ,however, age and infirmity require a new but
> quiet valley. A cloaking device is necessary  to hide the starship from the
> Klingon drones. The map must include an explanation of why an individual
> would chose such a path and a clear warning of the many risks inherant in
> such a journey.
> This map is actually a personal philosophy. I have written it before in
> story form but steers do not understand a story as anything but a story.
> Since it is a personal philosophy I think I must show how my life experience
> compelled me to think this way.I will therefore include incidents that
> pushed me away from more conventional religous or philosophical approaches.
> I know this approach to viewing life is relatively new. Most of the concepts
> integral to the system were realised in the twentieth century. Terms such as
> secular humanist degenerate into self styled ,free thinker in the hands of
> politically motovated theists. I am modern, thus the M in the map .I am also
> an American, not a fellow traveler, anti capitalist or anarcist. A in the
> map  stands for American. The P stands for philosophy.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
>
> Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
>

[So,who am I ? ]

At this time and stage of our awareness, that we are evolved from some
monkey type species is all too obvious.  Whether it is the great ape or some
other is mere detail.

eduard

-----Original Message-----
From: William
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 4:01 PM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Map

So,who am I ? The question itself implies personality if not humanity.We may
extrapolate  personality to our pet animals but in general who denotes
humanity. I can point to comparitive anatomy and  the record in the fossils
to prove the ascent of man. I am secure in the fact that I am a human
being.I will deal with  the history of the human species when I consider
where I came from.
In liberal arts college I encountered real science for the first time.I was
building a knowledge baseAt that time Darwin and evolutionary theory were
too big for me but comparative anatomy hit me hard. The sketches,the
dissections the comparisons of body systems  between species forced me to
view the phyliogenetic order. There I was at the top of  a primate species.
Since I had been the keeper of a Capuchin monkey I could grasp the breath of
primate behavour and threw aside the religous idea that humans were built in
gods image. We were much closer to the great apes.
Now every piece of good scientific knowledge I acquire adds another piece to
the expanding picture puzzle of the cosmos ,its structure and working
principles. It tells me more of who I am. In my liberal arts college science
students  were considered geeks but since I was always on the deans list I
forced myself into a graduate level existentialism course. The course was
designed to rapidly overview the major empiricists,phenominologists and
existentialists. , concentrating on Chardin as the catholic churches answer
to the heretical modernists. I understood Chardins ideas as a whole but did
not recognise him as a theologian with an improvised existential vocabulary.
Years later after revisiting the existential writers I saw science fits well
with phenominology. The early writers Husseryl,Heidigger and Neitche  are
awsome in their use of observation and logic to climb toward their radically
different modernly relevant Ideas. Their used pure brain power to deduce the
place of modern man
was a monumental feat.How did these men foresee the modern world with so few
clues. They persevered  in postulating a nihilistic existance  with its
crushing personal repurcussions.I left  undergrad intent on avoiding the
draft and following a materialistic life. During the viet nam war grade
points were at an all time high. Getting in was hard and staying in required
competition with the best. Failing dental school put you first in line to be
a chopper medic. I was a pig in shit I loved science and I loved
competition.



------------------------------------

Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links

Are you mentally challenged by any chance?  I said that it was ME who
posted the message on. That does not mean that I wrote it. I can speak
for myself by the way. However I do agree with him on the issue of your
mental incompetence. The email WAS sent by me. It was taken form another
group. Can you not understand that?  What the hell is the matter with
you?

Dick Richardson


--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:

> It is most difficult to understand how the email is not yours when it
is
> indicated at the top as being sent by you.  Unless perhaps there is
another
> Dick who has been posting lately on Existlist.
>
> eduard




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

If you don't like religions then why the hell do you keep writing about
them? And you sure don't put a good argument against them. And nor do
you make a good argument for the scientific methodology. I don't like
them either. As for humanity and humanitarian then are you a shining
example?
Merlin

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William"  wrote:
>
> So,who am I ? The question itself implies personality if not
humanity.We may extrapolate  personality to our pet animals but in
general who denotes humanity. I can point to comparitive anatomy and
the record in the fossils to prove the ascent of man. I am secure in the
fact that I am a human being.I will deal with  the history of the human
species when I consider where I came from.
> In liberal arts college I encountered real science for the first
time.I was building a knowledge baseAt that time Darwin and evolutionary
theory were too big for me but comparative anatomy hit me hard. The
sketches,the dissections the comparisons of body systems  between
species forced me to view the phyliogenetic order. There I was at the
top of  a primate species. Since I had been the keeper of a Capuchin
monkey I could grasp the breath of primate behavour and threw aside the
religous idea that humans were built in gods image. We were much closer
to the great apes.
> Now every piece of good scientific knowledge I acquire adds another
piece to the expanding picture puzzle of the cosmos ,its structure and
working principles. It tells me more of who I am. In my liberal arts
college science students  were considered geeks but since I was always
on the deans list I forced myself into a graduate level existentialism
course. The course was designed to rapidly overview the major
empiricists,phenominologists and existentialists. , concentrating on
Chardin as the catholic churches answer to the heretical modernists. I
understood Chardins ideas as a whole but did not recognise him as a
theologian with an improvised existential vocabulary. Years later after
revisiting the existential writers I saw science fits well with
phenominology. The early writers Husseryl,Heidigger and Neitche  are
awsome in their use of observation and logic to climb toward their
radically different modernly relevant Ideas. Their used pure brain power
to deduce the place of modern man was a monumental feat.How did these
men foresee the modern world with so few clues. They persevered  in
postulating a nihilistic existance  with its crushing personal
repurcussions.I left  undergrad intent on avoiding the draft and
following a materialistic life. During the viet nam war grade points
were at an all time high. Getting in was hard and staying in required
competition with the best. Failing dental school put you first in line
to be a chopper medic. I was a pig in shit I loved science and I loved
competition.
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It isn't  a who am I.  It is a WHAT am I.  Consciousness and life is not
a personality. There are no people in the Ground of Being.
rwr






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well, Dick, you see ... if you send someone else's email with the "from"
indicating that it is from you, then even if you did not write it ... its
yours.  Normal people usually state up front that the email is from someone
else.  Besides, since you did not state otherwise, I can only conclude that
the stupid points made in the email are yours.  Or at least you are fully in
agreement with them.  I am astounded that for someone who says he has some
kind of science background would not be aware that the sun rotates.  Why is
it you think that, Dick??

eduard


-----Original Message-----
From: Dick.
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 4:42 PM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] Re: Consciousness is


Are you mentally challenged by any chance?  I said that it was ME who
posted the message on. That does not mean that I wrote it. I can speak
for myself by the way. However I do agree with him on the issue of your
mental incompetence. The email WAS sent by me. It was taken form another
group. Can you not understand that?  What the hell is the matter with
you?

Dick Richardson


--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:

> It is most difficult to understand how the email is not yours when it
is
> indicated at the top as being sent by you.  Unless perhaps there is
another
> Dick who has been posting lately on Existlist.
>
> eduard




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links

I guess physicists have to ask the question ... that being perhaps their
vocation.

But when you really get down to it, the question is perhaps the least
important in an individual life.  You are alive and soon will be dead.  The
important questions do not relate to what you are and where you came from,
but where you are going and how best to deal with the living years in
happiness or at least not with so much pain.

eduard

-----Original Message-----
From: Dick.
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 4:59 AM
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [existlist] What is Life asks a Physicist?


What is Life asks a Physicist?



http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01qh3bb/Wonders_of_Life_What_Is_Li\
fe/
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01qh3bb/Wonders_of_Life_What_Is_L\
ife/>



What is life asks the current popular physicist on BBC TV and where does
it start? So he asks people what they BELIEVE :- )



During your lifetime young man you can find many life forms but you can
only KNOW one life – the one you are living; and the experiences
which you have during that lifetime. Energy is eternal he says, and it
cannot be created or destroyed.  What do you KNOW of conscious existence
young man?  Can you do it by numbers?  Have you ever studied the thing
nearest to you – yourself? The universal spark of life he says is
Proton Gradients.  He concludes that life is a collection of chemicals
and that there is no original `mystical' spark of life ( his
words; or at least his script writers). But he does go on to say that
ONLY by way of a living cosmos can we come to be. TO BE,  You are alive.
If you study yourself and consciousness you will get a far better
understanding of what life is and from whence it comes young fellow.
Including that first mystical spark of  conscious existence which knows
itself, and if it could speak it would say I AM. Know Thy SELF. And that
means more than just the physical body, which does not last very long
and changes every day. When claiming what is so then speak from your own
living experience of life. What was it and is it like? What do you know
from your life experience so far?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyCRKJyGIFs
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyCRKJyGIFs>



Dick Richardson







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links

Thank you for your Map series. I feel inspired to compile something similar, if
I may. Hopefully mine will be as different from and as interesting as yours.

Mary