[MD] The dirty doors of perception?

[Carl Thames]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] The dirty doors of perception?


> Hi Carl,
> Some stuff snipped below, and left in the archives.
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Carl Thames <cthames at centurytel.net> 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Carl:
>> I think there is a seperation between personality and reality. It's 
>> called
>> free will. We can choose to accept the reality that's presented, or we 
>> can
>> actively work to change it. The real question is who we are serving if we
>> do make the effort to change it? Is it an ego thing? Is there a "greater
>> good" involved? Interesting questions.

Mark:
> Yes, interesting questions indeed.  I don't think the nature/nurture
> is something that can be resolved since we create the dichotomy and
> therefore we question our own creation. Maybe it is simply the wrong
> way to present things. Perhaps an answer is not necessary, and we can
> appreciate it as such.
>
> I think it can be viewed from the ground of "original Intent".  For I
> think we can say that the thing we are born with is Will, and we are
> unfolding accordingly. Perhaps this is a Karma sort of way of looking
> at things (which includes free-will).  Although such a term has many
> meanings here in the West, including the sense of "luck" which is
> another whole area of metaphysics which is based on statistics
> (chance) that I do not find very useful, and indeed somewhat
> meaningless.  Such a view is simply saying we do not want to construct
> anything meaningful.  What a waste.
>
> Intent is one way I find useful in which to construe Quality.  For it
> exists before all.

Carl:
The only problem I have with this is the idea of intent.  I think that 
implies an originating consciousness.  There may be one, I don't know, and I 
seriously doubt we'll ever prove it.  For that matter, I doubt we'll ever 
disprove it either.  My personal theology includes an over-riding 
consciousness in the god-in-all-things manner, but I don't attribute my 
personal beliefs to anyone else.

Mark:
> So, we can construe the sense of Will or Intent, which could lie
> outside of the Nature/Nurture paradigm, and work from there.  Perhaps
> we can even bring in the Zodiac symbols if we want.  For if we see the
> universe as some large interacting phenomenon through whatever forces
> we want to bring in, there may be an influence how how the sun is
> juxtaposed with the greater, it could certainly have an influence.
> But then we have the identical twins that turn out very differently..

Carl:
I'm reasonably convinced of some of the Zodiac stuff, but not all.  Our 
bodies are comprised of 80% water, and we know for a fact that the moon 
affects the tides, so it would be illogical to assume that the moon has no 
effect on us.  As for the other planets, I don't know.  I don't know enough 
about gravity, etc. to make a decision.  I do find it interesting that the 
sun has such a dramatic effect on our moods.  Do we attribute that to the 
amount of sunlight, or another force at work?

Mark:
> The "greater Good" is interesting, however it seems to be used in a
> sinister manner by politicians who are simply trying to impose their
> view of the way things Should be on others.  So, the way I see it is
> that we ARE the greater good, and it is not something that we should
> use to bend others to our own Will.

Carl:
Well, if you go with your original assumption, early on, you attributed the 
idea of morality to quality.  That's what I would call the "greater good." 
The over-arching concept that we're interested in species survival.  That 
works for me.  I think we inherently know we need others to survive.  We're 
at the top of the food chain right now, but that wasn't always the case, and 
if we're on our own, that position is pretty fluid.  Because of that, it's 
in our own interest to assure other's like us surivive.  I think that's why 
the idea of murder carried such a harsh penalty throughout our history. 
When someone does a murder, it lessens the chances for survival for the rest 
of us.  Plus, there's always the chance that whoever did it decided they 
liked doing it, and plan to do it to us.

This opens a whole bucket of worms, if you think about it.  One of the first 
dramatic episodes in the Bible is when Cain invented murder and tried it out 
on his brother.  The first one to ask him about it was God himself.  He 
knew, but he wanted to see what Cain's reaction would be, I guess.  The 
important question here, IMHO, is why would God care?  Why not just create a 
couple more just like him?  Another hole in theology, I guess.