were more vulnerable and he took advantage rather than sharing
equally. If you listen or read the news, most is male driven in act/
deed; the chirping of female talk shows does not rate as news or
information. (I think I am under the spell of British history at the
moment- Civil War/Cromwell, etc. and am thouroughly disgusted with the
whole business of (in)humanity so please don't take my comments
personally.)
On Mar 19, 1:56 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For who? For what? In a human resource management context it
> seems intuitively right though.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:34 PM, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The female is only half the equation and gets no extra points for
> > being a vehicle, imo. Motherhood was boosted by pagans and Christians
> > to make up for the patriarchy which designed and ruled the world- and
> > still does in spite of women's lib. Note your use of the male pronoun
> > with your examples, for instance- it's sub.cs and automatic.But I get
> > distracted by stray thoughts- I was wondering the other day if
> > abortion is a form of human sacrifice, for instance.
>
> > On Mar 18, 6:24 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Simply for simplicity reasons, it's a strong image. I might have said:
> > the
> > > author and his book, the founder and his company, the developer and his
> > > creation, the scientist and his findings, etc.
>
> > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 4:56 PM, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Why take the perspective from the mother? I don't believe in
> > > > reincarnation but do find family traits acceptable. One friend joked-
> > > > with love- that my mother's cord was really an anchor chain from a
> > > > battleship.
>
> > > > On Mar 18, 8:17 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Rigs, this interpretation looks too short sighted. Or the other
> > way
> > > > > round - you know what I mean. Anyways, I would postulate that the so
> > > > called
> > > > > afterlife (a too two-dimensional translation by the way) begins as
> > soon
> > > > as
> > > > > the navel cord of whatever you accept to be your baby has been cut.
> > In
> > > > that
> > > > > respect or from that perspective is commonly achievable to be able to
> > > > > oversee and remember even more that one afterlife.
>
> > > > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 12:06 PM, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I believe the memories remaining with the living or creations left
> > > > > > behind- even our genetic codes- are our afterlife. The lure of an
> > > > > > afterlife is to give hope to those who found real life pretty
> > > > > > miserable plus provides a rationale for various religious and moral
> > > > > > rules. What was the sale of Indulgences during the Middle Ages
> > except
> > > > > > a form of a protection racket?
>
> > > > > > On Mar 18, 3:58 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Some people believe in an after-life because some people claim to
> > > > > > > remember past births , experience is on their side , they say.
> > You
> > > > > > > might as well believe in ghosts and ghouls because some people
> > claim
> > > > > > > to have experienced them. So much for experience !
>
> > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > How do you know that, RP, when your dead ? Have you ever died
> > > > before ?
>
> > > > > > > > We all have a body and a mind. Based on its capabilities, or
> > > > > > > > incapabilities, what are we talking about ? Nature ? We hardly
> > know
> > > > > > > > what, how much, how far, in what ways... it works, in all the
> > 10 to
> > > > > > > > power 22 star worlds. What we know of it can hardly determine
> > what
> > > > we
> > > > > > > > do know about it, quite as the past can hardly define the
> > future !
>
> > > > > > > > Likewise, God. WTF are we talking about ? Now this could seem
> > rude
> > > > but
> > > > > > > > should make perfect sense in the context. As in what is this
> > God ?
> > > > > > > > What constitutes it ? How does it relate to that other fog
> > word "
> > > > > > > > Nature " ?
>
> > > > > > > > I sincerely believe such threads are started on account of
> > > > something
> > > > > > > > diseased within us !
>
> > > > > > > > Healthy people should be talking of matters they know or have
> > > > > > > > experienced. One can then opine, extrapolate, theorise... and
> > > > still be
> > > > > > > > understandable.
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 11:26 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> Good
> > > > > > > >> Allan
> > > > > > > >> On Mar 17, 2012 5:28 PM, "RP Singh" <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >> > As long as I am alive I am conscious of the world and
> > myself ,
> > > > but
> > > > > > when I
> > > > > > > >> > am dead I reach a state of permanent unconsciousness , a
> > state
> > > > of
> > > > > > supreme
> > > > > > > >> > peace where nothing disturbs me , a sort of nirvana. that
> > is the
> > > > > > ultimate
> > > > > > > >> > state from which nobody returns.
>
> > > > > > > >> > On Friday, March 9, 2012 3:32:12 AM UTC+5:30, Ash wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >> >> This does make some sense to me RP so I hope my question
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > sound
> > > > > > > >> >> critical. For me thinking in this way causes a massive
> > amount
> > > > of
> > > > > > > >> >> difficulty, as it sounds like immutable truths, so I have
> > to
> > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > >> >> away the language to get glints of my own thinking
> > through. We
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > >> >> easily call my predicament not seeing the forest for the
> > > > trees, and
> > > > > > > >> >> that would be a fitting if not limited statement. In my
> > mind I
> > > > > > prefer
> > > > > > > >> >> to start with the will representing laws of nature which
> > are
> > > > > > dynamic,
> > > > > > > >> >> and work more along an opportunistic heuristic. For me it
> > is
> > > > > > obvious
> > > > > > > >> >> that some people talk about an n-dimensional entity, but n
> > is
> > > > an
> > > > > > > >> >> aspect of scope in one's perspective. If n is potentially
> > > > infinite,
> > > > > > > >> >> then the truths may have strength but are more
> > optimizations
> > > > than
> > > > > > > >> >> static ontology. I am wondering if there is some useful
> > > > perspective
> > > > > > > >> >> that can be used in my situation, or perhaps it is a
> > hopeless
> > > > case.
> > > > > > > >> >> Perhaps you have something to help me?
>
> > > > > > > >> >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:21 AM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > Neil , there is no difference. The universe is not nature
> > > > but a
> > > > > > > >> >> > manifestation of Nature or God. It is unconscious but not
> > > > dead,
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> >> > that would have meant no life , further it has to be
> > > > unconscious
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> >> > the conscious is always bound to certain limits and is
> > dual.
>
> > > > > > > >> >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:57 AM, archytas <
> > nwte...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> >> That's a little bit different - and I'm in agreement.
> > Some
> > > > > > scientists
> > > > > > > >> >> >> have suggested we could make a universe with life
> > > > conditions in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> >> >> laboratory - still leaving us with issues about
> > beginnings.
> > > > > > Science
> > > > > > > >> >> >> fiction wise one can imagine making such universes in
> > order
> > > > to
> > > > > > travel
> > > > > > > >> >> >> in time in them to discover more on how we were made -
> > by
> > > > > > occupying
> > > > > > > >> >> >> earlier stages of them. I tend to think of the
> > unconscious
> > > > as
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > >> >> >> isn't in rational consciousness, but I know this is
> > > > inadequate
> > > > > > as much
> > > > > > > >> >> >> human consciousness in action is not known to the
> > > > participants
> > > > > > > >> >> >> rationally.
>
> > > > > > > >> >> >> On Mar 5, 2:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> Life had to come from somewhere , why not from an
> > > > unconscious
> > > > > > Nature
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> which would explain the presence of Laws behind every
> > > > action
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> inaction.
>
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:36 AM, archytas <
> > > > nwte...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> > That doesn't help RP. Why this rather than a host of
> > > > > > alternatives?
>
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> > On Mar 4, 4:28 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> God is not made of fire , air , earth , water ,
> > ether
> > > > and
> > > > > > > >> >> consciousness ,
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> rather all these emanate from Him. God is
> > unconscious
> > > > and
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> attributes.
>
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:51:49 PM UTC+5:30, RP
> > > > Singh
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > God , Nature , Truth , Reality is unconscious and
> > the
> > > > > > Creation
> > > > > > > >> >> which
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > emanates from it has no choice. You may think
> > that you
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > >> >> choice , but
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > whatever you think , feel and do is as certain as
> > the
> > > > > > trajectory
> > > > > > > >> >> of the
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > celestial bodies. The entire universe , you
> > included,
> > > > is
> > > > > > bound
> > > > > > > >> >> by laws and
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > everyone is a slave to" Laws", that is , "The
> > Will of
> > > > > > God".
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:51:49 PM UTC+5:30, RP
> > > > Singh
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > God , Nature , Truth , Reality is unconscious and
> > the
> > > > > > Creation
> > > > > > > >> >> which
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > emanates from it has no choice. You may think
> > that you
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > >> >> choice , but
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > whatever you think , feel and do is as certain as
> > the
> > > > > > trajectory
> > > > > > > >> >> of the
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > celestial bodies. The entire universe , you
> > included,
> > > > is
> > > > > > bound
> > > > > > > >> >> by laws and
> > > > > > > >> >> >>> >> > everyone is a slave to" Laws", that is , "The
> > Will of
> > > > > > God".- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment