Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Mary Jo=Interesting

Expand Messages
  • Mary Jo Malo
    bhvwd, Thanks for your response. Cogent is a great word. I like it. You said, The content pertaining to individual consciousness was especially cogent. The
    Message 1 of 2 , May 23, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      bhvwd,

      Thanks for your response. Cogent is a great word. I like it. You
      said, "The content pertaining to individual consciousness was
      especially cogent." The content and rationale of my post is derived
      from The Blue Rose Project. I can't claim this original dialectic for
      myself. My questions about many things have been answered by this
      little book.

      I think a separate thread about responsibility is a good idea. I'm
      personally comfortable with doing good and feeling good, but the
      possibility of communication and connection (cooperation)is far more
      important. The only people I truly feel responsible for are my
      children.

      We coexist because we want to communicate. "We" don't cooperate when
      ending (killing) another person's right to be here. We don't
      cooperate because we are confused. The philosophical underpinning we
      need is to understand that we are so absolutely alone, we really need
      others. It's the realization of this necessity that inevitably saves
      us from our own chaos.

      We each "pervade" our copy of this universe. Every single thing we
      can see is us. Matter, energy, etc. is from and because of
      consciousness which "pervades" everything except other
      consciousnesses. It isn't really pervading, it's simply us. I'm my
      universe, and you are yours. Everything in my universe contains my
      consciousness.

      Please explain to me what my background radiation is!

      Mary Jo


      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <valleywestdental@q...>
      wrote:
      > Your most recent post contained ideas, real ideas. The content
      > pertaining to individual consciousness was especially cogent. The
      > many mind meld concepts are not only wrong, they put people in
      the
      > position of collectivist lackies. I am glad to have another
      > individualist on board, Eduard is deeply socialistic and prone to
      > side with societal values over those of the individual. The two are
      > not always at common purpose and in this time the scale tilts
      > greatly toward the collective.
      > I am very interested in your rational for coexistance. Just
      > being good and generous could be little more than social
      > conditioning with no real philosophical underpinnings. I think we
      > have common purpose in coexistance, but coexistance and cooperation
      > are different processes. A further extrapolation to responsibility
      > for other members of the society would require even greater
      > explanation. I personally struggle with these concepts and think
      them
      > to be at the crux of the long term survival of our species.
      > You made one statement that I must differ with. One does not
      believe
      > in the Big Bang. It is a scientific theory that can be accepted or
      > rejected on basis of the preponderance of evidence. I would ask
      you
      > how you would explain the omnipresent background radiation that
      > pervades this cosmos?
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.