Is Life a Dialogue or a Monologue?

[Write4U]

Interesting subject. After our last posts I watched a few videos on American Indians prior to colonization. Their experience of nature was more symbiotic, though there are examples where even they caused some harm to their local environment. Yet for most nature was very giving.

They respected the gods of nature, and actively participated in nature conservation.

For the plains Indians, their nomadic lifestyle prevented the accumulation of great wealth (stuff), and there were many unwritten laws which taught conservation and ritual respect was shown to the gods of the hunt. Moreover, nothing was wasted. Bones, sinews, guts, stomachs, all were used for various purposes. In return the Indians often protected herds from predation. Efficient and non-invasive symbiosis.

I used to work for the Nisqually and as their main food source came from fishing, historically it was customary during salmon run season to return the very first catch back to the river as a sign of respect to the river gods. Practical conservation.

p.s. a little known fact is that the US Constitution is partly based on the 5 Nation Iroquoi
Confederacy law. The copycat was Washington who was a secretary at that time and recorded various treaties and Indian Laws and later introduced some of these ideas in the articles of the Constitution.

The "one man, one vote" was a fundamental Indian voting law. And the elected chief and officials had to forfeit personal wealth, lest the combination of power and wealth would corrupt the individual. Pretty sage governing laws, IMO.

 

[Bowser]

it was customary during salmon run season to return the very first catch back to the river as a sign of respect to the river gods.

That was mentioned in one of the videos, practiced by the coastal Indians of the Northwest.

p.s. a little known fact is that the US Constitution is partly based on the 5 Nation Iroquoi
Confederacy law. The copycat was Washington who was a secretary at that time and recorded various treaties and Indian Laws.
The "one man, one vote" was a fundamental Indian voting law. And the elected chief and officials had to forfeit personal wealth, lest the combination of power and wealth would corrupt the individual. Pretty sage governing laws, IMO.

Perhaps we watched the same video.

 

[Write4U]

That was mentioned in one of the videos, practiced by the coastal Indians of the Northwest.

Perhaps we watched the same video.

Unfortunately we rewarded the wisdom of these people with scorn and slavery or extinction and proceeded with our destruction of a natural Paradise.
The expulsion from Eden may well lie in our future as predicted in the past account of wanton "eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge" will get you dead.

 

[sweetpea]

Your making no headway Bowser.
Your reply to ''What is a god?'':

Everything...including you.

Your reply to ''According to you we are all the same god thing.'' was ''Because we are.''

Because we are. If SweetPea wants to be a person, she is free to be one.

So, what your saying there is ''if god wants to become a person, she is free to be one.'' And, so the person is god. So, we have Bowser, who is god, thanking god via oatmeal.????

Your reply to: ''Why does a god thank itself'' was:

Why not?

Do you thank parts of youself Bowser?

How does God see himself is the better question.

But, according to you god is everything. Are you now saying there is something else besides god.

 

[Bowser]

Your making no headway Bowser.
Your reply to ''What is a god?'':

Your reply to ''According to you we are all the same god thing.'' was ''Because we are.''

So, what your saying there is ''if god wants to become a person, she is free to be one.'' And, so the person is god. So, we have Bowser, who is god, thanking god via oatmeal.????

Your reply to: ''Why does a god thank itself'' was:
Do you thank parts of youself Bowser?

But, according to you god is everything. Are you now saying there is something else besides god.

I understand why you're having a hard time grasping the notion. Yes, the mind delineates in concepts what only the heart can see. Tell me, sweetpea, can you accurately describe love? We have a word for it, we have words, but can those words really grasp what it is?

 

[Bowser]

Unfortunately we rewarded the wisdom of these people with scorn and slavery or extinction and proceeded with our destruction of a natural Paradise.
The expulsion from Eden may well lie in our future as predicted in the past account of wanton "eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge" will get you dead.

If you have time, this video is pretty interesting. I understand that not everyone is willing to invest in a video.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Being that we are all conscious beings from the same source, being that Earth, Cosmos or Life, would it be reasonable to view our interactions as a monologue rather than a dialogue? Sure, we disagree, but are we not consciousness conversing with consciousness?

it is possible to have more than one monologue running at the same time.
parts of the monologue can be percieved as interactive divergant instance to mediate the monologue ... like strings all crossing each other.
insular they are all self contained, yet seperately or combined they influence the others.

2 or more strings can wind around each other, influencing each other and any other interacting string.
yet all are still perceptualy insular and singular.

 

[Write4U]

it is possible to have more than one monologue running at the same time.
parts of the monologue can be percieved as interactive divergent instances to mediate the monologue ... like strings all crossing each other.
insular they are all self contained, yet seperately or combined they influence the others.

2 or more strings can wind around each other, influencing each other and any other interacting string.
yet all are still perceptualy insular and singular.

The wave function and its harmonics, including wave interference.

Unless one wants to consider self-assembly as internal communication, which begs the question of sentience and motivation.

 

[sweetpea]

I understand why you're having a hard time grasping the notion. Yes, the mind delineates in concepts what only the heart can see. Tell me, sweetpea, can you accurately describe love? We have a word for it, we have words, but can those words really grasp what it is?

Now I know where your coming from... Your saying it's all just feelings. I'm not going to hang around here talking about your feelings Browser.

 

[Bowser]

Now I know where your coming from... Your saying it's all just feelings. I'm not going to hang around here talking about your feelings Browser.

Is it just a feeling though? What do we have in common, SweetPea?

 

[Bowser]

it is possible to have more than one monologue running at the same time.
parts of the monologue can be percieved as interactive divergant instance to mediate the monologue ... like strings all crossing each other.
insular they are all self contained, yet seperately or combined they influence the others.

2 or more strings can wind around each other, influencing each other and any other interacting string.
yet all are still perceptualy insular and singular.

We're all consciousness, derived from the same source. If I said I am a son of God, would it be unreasonable to assert that you are too? We pass words and ideas between each other. How do they serve us?

 

[Write4U]

We're all consciousness, derived from the same source. If I said I am a son of God, would it be unreasonable to assert that you are too? We pass words and ideas between each other. How do they serve us?

Yes it would be. Your subjective assumptions about other people, based on your own subjective assumptions of reality are useless......

Suppose I said that because God does not exist, I cannot be a son of God and therefore you also cannot be a son of God........

Just as Jesus (son of God) cannot be the son of God from a virgin female, Mary.

By God's own law, any offspring without male sperm results in all offspring being female and clones of the mother. If Mary was a virgin, Jesus would have been female and a clone of Mary. It's not complicated, unless the story is false... what really happened?

 

[Bowser]

Suppose I said that because God does not exist, I cannot be a son of God and therefore you also cannot be a son of God.......

I would say that's your view of it. And that's fine. I know otherwise.

Yes it would be. Your subjective assumptions about other people, based on your own subjective assumptions of reality are useless...

What is he then?

what really happened?

Good question. Was Christ any more Godly than you and I, or was he made into a freak and set too high to reach? Again, middlemen try to stand between you and God, where they have no place to be.

 

[Bowser]

Your subjective assumptions about other people, based on your own subjective assumptions of reality are useless...

Okay. No one need believe me. I'm not twisting arms here. But if you can, glimmer a hint from the Bible, at least...

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

 

[Write4U]

I would say that's your view of it. And that's fine. I know otherwise.

What is he then?

That's the point. You are supposed to tell me. You assume he exists.
I already told you what my perspective is, the compiled scriptures is an old myth which has pervaded mankind in various forms for centuries and to such a great extend that it is rooted in the very fabric of societies and mass thinking (mirroring). Witness Theocratic countries.

Good question. Was Christ any more Godly than you and I, or was he made into a freak and set too high to reach? Again, middlemen try to stand between you and God, where they have no place to be.

Do you mean to protect me from priests and pastors? Last I heard they are the doorway to heaven, with extraordinary powers of enforcing "moral" behavior, but also continue to misuse that power.
I find that unforgivable.

I can understand hypocrisy in many areas of human intercourse, but I believe that, even in the believer's language, the sin of moral hypocrisy is a mortal sin, and is morally unacceptable in both (material and abstract) worlds.

hy·poc·ri·sy,
noun

1. the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

Synonyms;

dissimulation, false virtue, cant, posturing, affectation, speciousness, empty talk, insincerity, falseness, deceit, dishonesty, mendacity, pretense, duplicity;

That's a portrait of the Devil, the other side of abstract sentient intelligence. The mirror counterpart.
All scriptures contain a counter character, representing an evil and intentional God opposing the goodness of the supreme God.

Atheists do not believe in either God, so that's not even a consideration for "motive".

 

[RainbowSingularity]

These questions do feel somewhat rhetorical, however i will answer them as f they are moots.

If I said I am a son of God, would it be unreasonable to assert that you are too?

if belief was consistant with a singular entity of membership to formation... yes to a means.
though the assertion be it gender specific requires a de-coding of meaning to de-register its gender language into something more homogonous.
once the gender is removed to render the nature to a species, this then asks a scientific question by its nature of position of ability to create.
on an assumption that there is only 1 creation mechanism(god).
is genetic liniage a form of creative absolute by way of conscious accountability ?

We pass words and ideas between each other. How do they serve us?

that which is deemed as service is leveraged to form a purpose to self in the 3rd person.
is that what you mean ? possibly not ?

e.g "how do we best own your trust?"
the question asserts a sense of process adherant to a sense of rite.

can this sense of rite be removed to address the individual from a personal perspective of self ?(singular consciousness)(i realise this is actually quite a complex and large question and is more soo a conversation piece than a direct question)*[?].

is "how" an actual question ?
does the anser to "how" deliver the content that is requested by the question ?
possibly not.

as i can emphatically answer "it serves the Ego in all its glory"
however that detracts from the implied meaing to serve by combined relationship by most peoples aspect of self.
most peoples aspect of self is unable to define a difference as singular Ego being equally interconnected as individuals(this is where many peoples sexual self is distorted from a young age[gender stereo typing of childrens self identity is extremely strong and pervasive into the psyche of a majority of people]).

 

[Write4U]

Bible, at least...

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

And why should this be in any way supernatural?
We are the "most high" (supreme) species on earth, and we do have Godlike powers over life on earth. That's pretty obvious isn't it?
We even wrote those sacred words! Those words were a product of the human brain.

We just don't have the godlike power to deal with the consequences of our wanton use of power over the biosphere.

None of it proves that there necessarily has to be a higher authority. The beauty of "motivated intelligence" is that it can be found only in biological organisms. There is no evidence that "motivated intelligence" exists or can exist unless as a product of natural biological origins. That's a good assumption, IMO.

 

[Bowser]

None of it proves that there necessarily has to be a higher authority. The beauty of "motivated intelligence" is that it can be found only in biological organisms. There is no evidence that "motivated intelligence" exists or can exist unless as a product of natural biological origins. That's a good assumption, IMO.

I didn't claim authority any higher than your own, because doing so might introduce ego. okay, you attribute intelligence to the foundation of natural biological origins. From what did those origins arise?

 

[sweetpea]

Is it just a feeling though? What do we have in common, SweetPea?

I think we have been here before, when you say god is everything, we are all of the same conscious god thing.
Well, I'm curious as to why you want to believe or ''feel'' the need for an intelligent designer or creator, and then just stop there without asking where this designer/creator came from?

you attribute intelligence to the foundation of natural biological origins. From what did those origins arise?

Nature. That's what Nature does.

 

[Bowser]

I think we have been here before, when you say god is everything, we are all of the same conscious god thing.
Well, I'm curious as to why you want to believe or ''feel'' the need for an intelligent designer or creator, and then just stop there without asking where this designer/creator came from?

If we are that which is, wouldn't we know the answer, if there is an answer?

Nature. That's what Nature does.

So raise your bowl of oatmeal to Nature.