Mother Nature is not a nice lady
by Albert 1

9738004
# 1. 8/24/03 7:51 AM by rudy
i can see your example of the catholic ban on birth control but i can't think of other examples of the point you were making.

can you give more examples?

Editor's Note: In the Christian Scientist religion all forms of artificial healing is proscribed as unnatural (against nature) The Amish feel that much of modern scientific progress is against nature. Seventh Day Adventists are vegetarians. These are all examples of some human deciding that certain progress is wrong if it counters natural law effect where other evolutionary advances are ok.

Interesting thing is each religion has a different concept as to which natural laws can be broken.



7824748
# 2. 8/25/03 7:10 AM by Rooster
I would go a step further and say that everything is "natural" because we as humans are a part of nature (see my "Organic..." posting). That is not to say that everything is "good" (e.g. murder).

Editor's Note: My own research into the human intellect puts us and probably a few animal species in a separate group. Lower animals have integrated consciousnesses whereas we have split this off into ego and intellect.

This is probably the split that Genesis calls "The Fall" where we were able to discern the difference between good and evil.



7532574
# 3. 8/25/03 3:37 PM by Rooster
So are you saying that we are not a part of nature?

Editor's Note: no, just a quite distinct part due to the seperate intellect which allows a higher type thinking whereas animals have an intgrated consciousness and do not self-identify or have a sense of time and space. It is true there are some species(dolphins,chimps) where this may be in evidence.



7824748
# 4. 8/26/03 5:06 AM by Rooster
So, if you agree that we are a part of nature, then everything that we as humans do is "natural".

Editor's Note: Our physical bodies with their egos are definitely a part of nature, as to the intellect and its use to rise above the physical laws of nature I think that goes into the area of consciousness which may be considered as something apart from physical nature.

Physical nature is only a manifestation of a superconsciousness. There is a distinct possibility that all physical nature could be eliminated and this superconsciousness would still exist. so the part of us is of a physical nature and another part is not.

In my opinion we are evolving back to that non-physical, purely spiritual state.

As this gets into a very speculative area its the best I can do for now with a definition of my attempt at a definition of something I have only a limited perspective on.

If you include all manifestation including what may be beyond the physical as nature then of course your definition would be appropriate.



7532574
# 5. 8/26/03 12:29 PM by Rooster
Some things seem too complicated to me. My self-centered view is that "I am" and anything beyond that is speculation. I live in an ever-changing potentiality. That is, what happened yesterday may not happen again today, but not only that, the rules may change. That being said, I have not experienced anything that would support what you are saying.

Editor's Note: The recognition of the "I AM" says more than you might think. That term is used in Bibles and to me is the only absolute truth. When one is aware of SELF.

In Vedanta, Self has two meanings, one being God and the other a reflection of same.(human being or "image of God)

If you experience self you may very well be experiencing SELF.

Again to me this is speculative but logical and is something I am building my paradigm on.

Your concept of self centeredness fits into this.

As far as yesterday, today, and tomorrow goes that is the area of time which a lot of thought has gone into. I have written extensively on it and seem to have a working hypothesis which links oneself with time, space and infinity which I have diagrammed into a chart.

By now I feel your interest deserves a clue that I have not broadcast on WOTL. I have in addition to what I published in my bio, been and remain a member of the Rosicrucian Order AMORC since 1958 so much of what I write about comes from their lessons. I served as Master for a group in Rochester in the 1970's However my writings on Ego and Emotion are all personal conclusions arrived at years after the main part of my Rosicrucian studies had been completed. They were formed after a study of the Course in Miracles which presents the Ego as a distinct entity. By seeing it this way a lot of answers became clear. The Course is seen by many as another religious movement but reading it for meaning showed me the writer was really inspired with a unique perspective on the effects of Ego, Fear and Guilt on the human psyche..



19684282
# 6. 3/12/15 1:49 PM by Jay - OR
But, do not rules strongly imply a "should?" (Or, are there degrees of shouldness?)

Editor's Note: Not at all. Not a should but rather an implied 'must' or else the consequential reaction will be regrettable.




include comments