Infanticide

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1172
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by -1- » Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:15 pm

seeds wrote:
Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:16 pm
uwot wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:28 am
Unlike christianity which has declared that all babies are born in original sin, and that any who die prior to baptism will burn in hell for eternity.
seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:07 am
That’s an excellent point, uwot, and one that I have given a lot of thought to in the past.
-1- wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:16 pm
I've addressed that point some time ago, and suggested immediately afterward, that human embrioes be baptized before birth and before abortion.

Many Christian theists jumped on me and said that is impossible.
Why did they say it is impossible?

I mean, what aspect of your suggestion would be impossible according to these alleged Christians?
_______
In good Christian tradition, they did not name the reason. Reason is a Christian's worst enemy.

Nick_A
Posts: 2737
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A » Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:21 pm

Seeds
I didn’t forget about anything, Nick, for there has been no “devolution” of Man.

...and then wrongfully attributed the problem to some kind of “fall” from a more elevated status.

For the umpteenth time, Nick, there has been no “fall” of man in the way you have been suggesting.

..and not, according to you, an “animal-like” creature imbued with a precursory “seed-like” quality consisting of some kind of latent “potentiality” that through an intense and arduous personal effort on the part of “animal man” (doing God knows what), might someday “kick-in” and allow him to become an actual soul...
This is our essential disagreement. You seem to assume that Man has inner unity and is a seed which will evolve in accordance with universal evolution.

If you believe in the evolution of being, why is the potential for the devolution of being, unity into diversity, seem so odd? What is so odd about us living as a plurality as opposed to an expression of inner unity?.

Is there any reason why the physical body arising from the earth and serving the needs of the earth should evolve? The physical body has reached the limits of its evolution and now just adapts. As you know I assert that man is dual natured having our lower parts arising from the earth and our higher parts descending from above. Naturally they live in conflict as we all can experience. Is there any reason why the part in us that unifies our two natures, our emotions, must evolve? Maybe it is far more rare than you have any idea of
The Buddha said that it is more difficult for a being to obtain human birth that it would be for a turtle coming up from the depth of the ocean to put its head by chance through the opening of a wooden yoke tossed around by huge waves on the surface.

Imagine the whole cosmos of a billion universes as a vast ocean. Floating upon it is yoke, a piece of wood with a hole in it that can be fixed around the horns of draught oxen. This yoke, tossed here and there by the waves, sometime eastward, sometime westward, never stays in the same place even for an instant. Deep down in the depths of the ocean lives a blind turtle who rises up to the surface only once every hundred years. That the yoke and the turtle might meet is extremely unlikely. The yoke itself is inanimate; the turtle is not intentionally seeking it out. The turtle, being blind, has no eyes with which to spot the yoke. If the yoke were to stay in one place, there might be a chance of their meeting; but it is continually on the move. If the turtle were to spend its entire time swimming round the surface, it might, perhaps, cross paths with the yoke; but it surfaces only once every hundred years. The chances of the yoke and the turtle coming together are therefore extremely small. Nerveless, by sheer chance the turtle might still just slip its neck into the yoke. But it is even more difficult than that, the sutras say, to obtain a human existence with the eight freedom and ten advantages.
Why are you right and Buddhism wrong? If Buddhist are right to stress how rare it is for a human being to appear doesn’t that raise a logical objection to your theory?

uwot
Posts: 3543
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by uwot » Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:04 am

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:17 pm
Uwot
Nick_A wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:10 pm
Secularism is not an intentional reaction though it is often intentionally defended by blind belief.

Blind belief in what?
Blind belief that the source of objective human meaning and purpose initiates in the World
I think there are three basic possibilities here:
1. Objective human meaning and purpose exists and initiates beyond the world.
2. Objective human meaning and purpose exists and initiates in the world.
3. Objective human meaning and purpose does not exist.

Anyone can believe which of those they choose, but they are on a hiding to nothing trying to prove it, because there is no objective evidence to support any of them. You appear to believe that secularists are committed to believing either 2 or 3, whereas simply not believing any of them is sufficient.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:17 pm
If objective human meaning and purpose does not initiate from the World, it must have a universal origin.
Well, you are assuming that there is such a thing as objective human meaning and purpose. You may be right, and if you can demonstrate that, then the search for its origin becomes viable.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:17 pm
What IYO is the source responsible for the actualization of eternal values including justice?
I don't know what you mean. What is an example of 'the actualization of eternal value'?
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:17 pm
It isn’t a matter of agreeing with me but of revealing an open minded attitude. All you would have to do is agree that the secular perspective and its limitations to subjective values is insufficient to answer the ancient questions of the heart which have inspired both the search and the love of wisdom emanating from the domain of objective universal truth as opposed to arising from the World as subjective secular opinions.
Hang on a minute, agreeing that there is domain of objective universal truth, as you demand, goes way beyond revealing an open mind. Do you have any evidence that such a domain exists, or am I simply to open my mind to the sort of blind belief that you find so objectionable in secularists?

Nick_A
Posts: 2737
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:14 am

Uwot
Hang on a minute, agreeing that there is domain of objective universal truth, as you demand, goes way beyond revealing an open mind. Do you have any evidence that such a domain exists, or am I simply to open my mind to the sort of blind belief that you find so objectionable in secularists?
This seems to be the essence of our differences. You continually refer to this concept of belief and I am referring to the mind opening to deductive reason that can reconcile absurdity. I agree with Albert Camus’ observation that the world seems absurd and we cannot find meaning in it. If that is the foundation for discovering evidence, it won’t be easy. Is the answer more facts and when we have enough facts everything will make sense? Here I agree with those like Simone, Einstein, Jacob Needleman, Basarab Nicolescu, and others. We don’t need more facts but need to acquire the ability to reconcile them from a higher conscious perspective. This requires the use of our increasingly atrophied ability for conscious attention so as to open intuition. Consider how Einstein describes this: First he explains that at the age of 12 he already knew that the experts lacked understanding. Sounds like Simone who discovered this at 14. So now, what to do?

https://upliftconnect.com/spiritual-wis ... -einstein/
From the age of twelve I began to suspect authority and distrust teachers. I learned mostly at home, first from my uncle and then from a student who came to eat with us once a week. He would give me books on physics and astronomy.
The more I read, the more puzzled I was by the order of the universe and the disorder of the human mind, by the scientists who didn’t agree on the how, the when, or the why of creation.
Such an elegant way to describe a profound truth. The universe is ordered but we are not. We lack even the elementary value of the life cycle. That being the case, how can we expect to experience human meaning and purpose?
Secularism rejects intuition in favor of associative thought for pondering the great questions of existence. It is a dead end. Einstein explains why:

It is Intuition which Advances Humanity


Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following a trodden path of thought.
Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts.
Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself.
Indeed, it is not intellect, but intuition which advances humanity. Intuition tells man his purpose in this life.
I do not need any promise of eternity to be happy. My eternity is now. I have only one interest: to fulfill my purpose here where I am.
This purpose is not given me by my parents or my surroundings. It is induced by some unknown factors. These factors make me a part of eternity.”
~ Albert Einstein
Text Source: Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983). From a series of meetings William Hermanns had with Einstein in 1930, 1943, 1948, and 1954
We live in an absurd situation because of the fallen human condition which puts us into opposition with ourselves. Where intuition can reveal the inner psychological vertical direction within which the way out is possible, modern secularism will reject it and demand more facts at the cost of the loss of the human perspective necessary to reconcile absurdism.

You ask for evidence but how many have the need and the will to sacrifice imagination to reconcile opposing facts from a higher perspective sacrificing belief for impartial witnessing? Not many, so everything remains the same on a large scale. Fortunately there is a minority with the need to feel objective meaning and purpose rather than argue beliefs and they will keep consciousness alive in the world.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Greta » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:22 am

Nick_A wrote:
Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:14 am
I agree with Albert Camus’ observation that the world seems absurd and we cannot find meaning in it.
What is absurd about a reality where there is obvious evolutionary progression with extraordinary or terrifying possibilities for the future in which we can each play a small role? I see absurdity in human interactions but that's just fluff.
Nick_A wrote:
... the more puzzled I was by the order of the universe and the disorder of the human mind, by the scientists who didn’t agree on the how, the when, or the why of creation.
This is not only wrong, but opposite. Nature is extraordinarily chaotic and humans are creators of uncanny levels of local order.
Nick_A wrote:Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following a trodden path of thought.
It's all of the above. Only the oblivious and masochistic decline to use all helpful tools at their disposal. Thus, scientists are famous for their intuitive leaps of discovery. They then rigorously check the veracity of their intuitions, and therein lies the difference between them and you.

uwot
Posts: 3543
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by uwot » Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:41 am

Nick_A wrote:
Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:14 am
This seems to be the essence of our differences. You continually refer to this concept of belief and I am referring to the mind opening to deductive reason that can reconcile absurdity.
Personally I think where we differ is that you equate secular with close minded. As for the "concept of belief", what is this, if not a belief?
Nick_A wrote:
Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:14 am
We don’t need more facts but need to acquire the ability to reconcile them from a higher conscious perspective.
Why do you think now is the moment we have accumulated enough facts?
Nick_A wrote:
Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:14 am
Fortunately there is a minority with the need to feel objective meaning and purpose rather than argue beliefs and they will keep consciousness alive in the world.
And the best of luck to them. If they can demonstrate some facts to show that their efforts are beneficial, I'm sure the world will eventually be grateful.

Nick_A
Posts: 2737
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A » Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:17 am

Greta
What is absurd about a reality where there is obvious evolutionary progression with extraordinary or terrifying possibilities for the future in which we can each play a small role? I see absurdity in human interactions but that's just fluff.
You are referring to adaptation. What about Man has evolved as opposed to having adapted in the last thousand years?
This is not only wrong, but opposite. Nature is extraordinarily chaotic and humans are creators of uncanny levels of local order.
Look at this painting of a Wave. Is it chaos or just the sea reacting in lawful obedience to to the interactions of universal laws we have yet to understand?

https://www.wikiart.org/en/ivan-aivazovsky/wave-1889
Only the oblivious and masochistic decline to use all helpful tools at their disposal.
Raising the obvious question of why so many secular progressivess are oblivious and masochistic to the degree that they limit their struggle to understand to the workings of associative thought?

Nick_A
Posts: 2737
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A » Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:56 am

Uwot
Personally I think where we differ is that you equate secular with close minded. As for the "concept of belief", what is this, if not a belief?
We all have beliefs. When are we willing to surrender them? For one reason or another we become disappointed in them and adopt an attitude which allows us to experience the relativity of a human perspective rather than pursuing more facts. Our beliefs determine our perspective. When we become disappointed and open to a greater perspective we begin to understand.

Secularism is like defining everything that happens in the context of the city a person lives in. A person can become disappointed and open to the perspective that their city is just a small part of the world. A universalist knows that the world is just as small part of a vertical universal structure reflecting objective values humanity corrupts into subjective values.

The dharma suggests that our subjective values should reflect objective values. But it is obvious that we are incapable of it for many reasons. Consider female infanticide for example. It is considered OK to kill babies on the basis of gender. It is a subjective value. Who can explain how it reflects the dharma? Is the dharma a belief or just a theory. What does it take to move from theory to understanding?
Nick_A wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:14 am
We don’t need more facts but need to acquire the ability to reconcile them from a higher conscious perspective.

Why do you think now is the moment we have accumulated enough facts?
I think that because the problems with the advance of technology have become so obvious that the question arises within some people how the factual knowledge of technology can be put into a conscious human perspective where technology serves Man rather than Man serving machines.
And the best of luck to them. If they can demonstrate some facts to show that their efforts are beneficial, I'm sure the world will eventually be grateful.
No. Awakening to the question of objective human meaning and purpose not initiating with the Great Beast is not tolerated. It is disruptive and corrupts the youth of Athens. It must be rejected and realistically pursuing such questions must be scorned.

seeds
Posts: 479
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Infanticide

Post by seeds » Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:44 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:21 pm
This is our essential disagreement. You seem to assume that Man has inner unity and is a seed which will evolve in accordance with universal evolution.
No, Nick, we will not evolve in accordance with universal evolution.

We - as beings whom I believe have been given the gift of eternal life (which is an extremely important factor when evaluating the plausibility of my theory) - will evolve in a context of reality that exists “above and outside” (independent) of the universe.

Keeping in mind that I am speaking from a Berkeleyanish/Panentheistic perspective...

(wherein the universe is the mind of God)

...I believe that the human soul (i.e., the self-aware “I Am-ness” that sits at the core of its own sovereign dimension of mind) is the literal seed of the universe itself.

You do understand what the word “literal” means, don’t you?

Now I realize that what I am proclaiming sounds absolutely ridiculous...

...however, to put this into extreme metaphorical terms, the relationship that we presently have with God and that of the closed material dimension of this universe (again, God’s mind) is pretty much the exact same relationship that the seeds – suspended within the pulp of this watermelon...

Image

...have to the fully-fruitioned melon.

And just as the inner-potential of a watermelon seed must be “born out,” so to speak, of the closed and confining darkness of its progenitor in order to evolve into the fully-fruitioned version of that which it is the seed of,...

...likewise, the same applies to us.

Just for funsies, picture Jesus existing as a seed on the inside of the above melon, proclaiming to his fellow seeds that in order to enter into the kingdom of God (meaning into the light of the “Garden” that exists just on the other side of the rind wall)...
the Bible wrote: “...Ye must be born again...”
And what Jesus is saying is that we must experience a second and final birth through the process of physical death (the breaching of the shell), thus allowing for the delivering of our spirits (minds/souls) into the higher context of “true reality”...

...a context wherein God...
the Bible wrote: “...shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself...”
Now of course I am not suggesting that I cannot be utterly wrong and delusional about this, but seriously now Nick, how many times do I have to post this image...

Image

...before it dawns on you that when I say that we are the “seeds” (embryos) of God and of his universe, that I mean it literally?
_______

Nick_A
Posts: 2737
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A » Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:12 am

Seeds

I’m a chess player. I enjoy the logic of the position and like Kierkegaard, I value the paradox
“One must not think slightingly of the paradoxical…for the paradox is the source of the thinker’s passion, and the thinker without a paradox is like a lover without feeling: a paltry mediocrity.” ~ Kierkegaard
I’m not the type to defend blind faith or the limitations of liner thinking. My questions are reasonable and must invite the means to verify the universal speculations that must arise.

I ask what the purpose of the universe is and Man’s purpose within it including my purpose. It is senseless to deny it or escape into fantasy. The essential question boils down to what God is, the universe is, and what Man is. Naturally I search for those who have had the same questions and offer sensible speculations as opposed to defensive emotional rants based upon either blind belief or blind denial.

Your theory doesn’t answer my questions. You’ve written that the universe is the mind of God. I begin with the hypothesis that the universe is the body of God. Why is your theory a more realistic foundation? How do you build on it and explain world creation. How does it help you to explain or deny eternal values and answer the current question of infanticide? Let me ask you how you have verified you are this seed of God destined for immortality through rebirth?

Nick_A
Posts: 2737
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A » Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:01 am

Is killing a woman with her fetus a double murder? Suppose a mother is just holding her baby, is that a double murder?

If you say yes it means the fetus is a baby and has rights established by society. If you say no, it is just a zef; a meaningless parasite. It is hard for civilized people to tell the difference between a baby and a zef? Atoms of the Great Beast need a government to determine the difference between a baby and a zef.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=124535&page=1
Federal lawmakers are considering a controversial bill that would make it a crime to injure or kill a fetus during the commission of a federal violent crime against a pregnant woman.

The bill, which sponsors are calling "Laci and Connor's law" is backed by Sharon Rocha, the mother of Laci Peterson, who was eight months pregnant when she was slain in California in 2002. Scott Peterson, her widower, is being charged both with Laci's slaying, and the slaying of their unborn son, Connor, because California is one of 29 states with so-called fetal homicide laws...........................

uwot
Posts: 3543
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by uwot » Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:42 am

Nick_A wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:56 am
We all have beliefs. When are we willing to surrender them?
That depends on what you believe belief should be based on. Personally, I believe belief should be based on evidence. As a result I believe that I might have to change my beliefs at any moment, since I cannot know what the future evidence will be. There are others who prefer to believe that there are beliefs that can be believed without any reference to evidence.
Nick_A wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:56 am
For one reason or another we become disappointed in them and adopt an attitude which allows us to experience the relativity of a human perspective rather than pursuing more facts.
The number of facts you have at your disposal is irrelevant; anyone who is reasonably bright can accommodate practically any fact within their chosen belief. Facts are meaningless; it is a fact that if you drop something, it will fall to the ground. That might be because angels push them down, or the devil sucks them in. You can apply any "human perspective" you like, it doesn't change the fact.
Nick_A wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:56 am
Our beliefs determine our perspective.
Of course, but they don't determine the truth.
Nick_A wrote:
Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:56 am
When we become disappointed and open to a greater perspective we begin to understand.
So what beliefs did you become disappointed with?
What is the relationship between understanding and knowledge?

Nick_A
Posts: 2737
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A » Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:52 pm

Uwot
So what beliefs did you become disappointed with?
What is the relationship between understanding and knowledge?
The essential question; what it means to understand.

In my case I became more disappointed with my humor. I had always appreciated being able to find flaws in philosophical arguments and feel the humor in witnessing our contradictions including my own. But Plato proved right. Plato defined Man as a being in search of meaning. I had always believed that meaning for Man was found in the world. I developed a deeper need for meaning and the inner frustration of witnessing my inability to experience it. Even my humor was insufficient. It could react to what was idiocy in the world but could not affect the need for meaning. The depth of my need invited what Plato called turning the direction of the soul towards the light and Christianity calls metanoia. This change of direction allowed me to experience the third direction of thought or that of relative meaning. While it was true that the world is void of meaning and just a domain of reaction to universal laws it just meant that meaning for Man is experienced outside the domain of the world or outside of Plato’s cave. This opened a completely new inner direction leading to the experience of meaning for me.

I knew facts but didn’t understand what it means to understand. Our understanding is defined by what we do. A person can have all the knowledge in the world of piano. They can know what a piano is, have a list of great pianists, how to read music, knowledge of the notes and so on. Yet they still cannot play the piano. They don’t know what it means to play a piano. They have facts but not the means for putting them into a human perspective, the whole of themselves, that leads to understanding piano.

It is the same with Man’s need for meaning. We can have all the knowledge in the world but if we lack the means to put it into a human perspective, we can never truly experience human meaning. I have two questions: what are the means necessary to acquire a human perspective and what is it that prevents it. That is the elephant in the living room always ignored since it is natural to believe we do understand without any awareness of how far we are from understanding. Our acquired knowledge feeding our imagination gets in our way

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5142
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Infanticide

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:21 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:52 pm
SoB
Don't tell me that you're actually stupid enough to see the heart as anything more than a blood pumper. Really?? And so then where does this "heart thing" actually exist that you refer to? The mind you, "would be fool," you, the mind! Yes, the intellect has a great deal to do with it. I feel sorry for all you people that don't understand your own minds, you require some serious education.
Granted modern secular education only accepts the brain as determining reactions. It prefers to remain ignorant of both the spinal column and the heart. Fortunately more seem to be becoming more aware of the role of the heart. There are more stupid ones becoming aware of reality. For example now you can curse out Dr. Mercola along with me

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/arti ... otion.aspx

Story at-a-glance
• Sayings like “I love you with all my heart,” and “my heart swelled with joy,” or the reference to someone being “broken-hearted” or “cold-hearted” —how much of this poetic language is based on something real?
• Your brain and heart work together in producing emotions. Your heart actually contains neurons, similar to those in your brain, and your heart and brain are closely connected, creating a symbiotic whole
• Your amygdala processes fear in combination with the signaling from your heart. This brain-heart connection is also at work when you experience feelings of compassion and empathy

Look, whether there are or are not neurons elsewhere in the body, makes no difference. As 'primarily' they are those things of the brain, their location would matter not, their function the same, the same as that of the brain. Actually according to a biologist I've read, the membranes of cells are similar in function to that of the brain and CNS, and together allow two way communication between the trillions of cells that comprise each of our bodies. But still the composition of the brain is the master of all bodily functions.
But I see, that you cannot see, that it's "natural" for the animal to change, to grow in understanding, to push it's mental boundaries like the universe proves, is it's nature, with every observation. It's parts constantly move, constantly change, human ageing is proof of the universes constant change. So why do people like you want to remain stagnant? To live today, yet think like a very long dead and gone philosopher. Was Plato important? SURE!!! Every part of the past human equation, correct or incorrect, is just as important to the total human equation, as that of the now, otherwise we would never advance, never evolve. It is the nature of knowledge. We must always be revisionist in nature, as we add to the long lived human legacy. Like I've said in the past, there is no such thing as a-priori knowledge, only ever a-posteriori knowledge. Though I will admit that at least I believe that knowledge does pass from one generation to the next, biologically. At least it surely seems to be the case, to me.
I agree. Animal Man like other animals can be conditioned to react in different ways.
It's not so much a calculated conditioning by any specific entity, as it is an environmental conditioning. But then should it really be called conditioning in that case? No! As along with environment there is the thinking of the animal as it encounters it's particular environmental inputs, as it finds it's own particular path through the environmental maze. Dependant on particular inputs, their intensity, their sequence, the presence, or not, of informing prerequisites, there are those that are relatively ignorant, oft running in fear, a more erratic course; those that are more understanding, thus commanding their fear, thus a more directed course.

It was proven with classical conditioning.
Pavlov!

You as natural man prefer to remain a conditioned animal reacting in accordance with natural universal laws following the cycles of nature defining this as progress.
Incorrect! At least I as a natural human look at the truth of the universe, the truth of the animal man, thus steeped in realism, I create idealism, informed by the truths of the universe I see a more productive way for all life to know equality, equilibrium. I see the spheres of influence as they should balance, I see the spheresofbalance, devoid of selfishness, devoid of me, me, me only ever us, us, us; we, we, we. I see the truth of the symbiotic biosphere, the spheres that balance the micro and the macro, both molecular and cosmological, with the hemispheres smack dab in between. I'm conditioned by the universe, by no mere mortal! Have I used the teachings of mere mortals, sure, their discoveries, their observations, of course all tested by my observations, so as to understand which are simply human fancies, and which are in fact the absolute truth of the universe, as that's all that matters, "the absolute truth of things." The largest puzzle of them all, the complete picture, which can only be seen with the inclusion of all human academic studies, against the backdrop of what it is to actually be a human of this universe. As the human fears lay bare for me to see. Without psychology there is no philosophy! And without 'all' philosophies children, there is no correct philosophy!

Some are drawn to spiritual man capable of consciousness and not be just restricted to mechanical reaction but become capable of conscious action.
In this statement, "you're out of your fucking tree!" You're saying that because you can imagine it, it's necessarily true. Enter the topic of this thread. You're merely an archaic monkey, that attempts to sell this threads topic as something real and meaningful, instead of the warpedness that it so obviously is, as with it, you cannot necessarily speak, ever. Which might have been a good thing. What do the rest of you onlookers think? Thumbs up or thumbs down for Nicks Infanticide. Let's enter our time machine and give him what he craves, ending the misguided, would be, wolf's misery, at his insistence. Your insistence along these lines shows you for the inane creature that you so obviously are. The pure fantasy of a sick mind. Fearful, wanting something more than he can rightfully have, a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur, that actually defeat his very existence, though he's too stupid to see, or should I give you the benefit of doubt and use the word "ignorant" instead? Either way, it's just as idiotic!

What is 'normal,' (natural), is constantly evolving. Check out your history, generally speaking, it's obvious! One shouldn't fear new territory. Our nature is to grow and understand ever more. With any luck we'll outlive our current destructive nature to one day understand the entire universe complete, such that we might even be capable of creating one. Wouln't that be an argument for a relative god, that we might currently be subject to? Only time shall answer the biggest of questions. Sure it's unfortunate that you and I probably won't be around to see such things, but then in truth we can never really know for certain what the future holds, can we?
Again, Normal for natural man is constantly adapting rather than evolving.
Nope both apply!

Our emotional lives keep turning in circles.
Speak for yourself, as you're certainly spinning in circles.

Nothing will change for Man until his collective being EVOLVES, rather than reacts.
To believe they're mutually exclusive, speaks volumes of your intellect. No dichotomy present!

I don’t see it happening.
You should have stopped with, "I don’t see..."

Conscious evolution will only take place for individuals drawn to the potential.
OK...

It will be rejected by conditioned animal man attached to the shadows on the wall.
I believe you're forgetting that it's no longer shadows on the wall, instead, seemingly shadows on stars, light-years away. There's a very big difference, my boy!

Nick_A
Posts: 2737
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A » Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:05 am

SoB
But still the composition of the brain is the master of all bodily functions.
This is simply not true. The spinal column handles its own unique bodily functions like reflex reactions.
I agree. Animal Man like other animals can be conditioned to react in different ways.

It's not so much a calculated conditioning by any specific entity, as it is an environmental conditioning. But then should it really be called conditioning in that case? No! As along with environment there is the thinking of the animal as it encounters it's particular environmental inputs, as it finds it's own particular path through the environmental maze. Dependant on particular inputs, their intensity, their sequence, the presence, or not, of informing prerequisites, there are those that are relatively ignorant, oft running in fear, a more erratic course; those that are more understanding, thus commanding their fear, thus a more directed course.
This is like the old joke: why did the chicken cross the road? Answer, to get to the other side.

You can mention all sorts of inputs and outputs but the bottom line is that the chicken crossed the road as a natural reaction to environmental conditions created by universal laws. It is the same with animal Man
You as natural man prefer to remain a conditioned animal reacting in accordance with natural universal laws following the cycles of nature defining this as progress.

Incorrect! At least I as a natural human look at the truth of the universe, the truth of the animal man, thus steeped in realism, I create idealism, informed by the truths of the universe I see a more productive way for all life to know equality, equilibrium. I see the spheres of influence as they should balance, I see the spheresofbalance, devoid of selfishness, devoid of me, me, me only ever us, us, us; we, we, we. I see the truth of the symbiotic biosphere, the spheres that balance the micro and the macro, both molecular and cosmological, with the hemispheres smack dab in between. I'm conditioned by the universe, by no mere mortal! Have I used the teachings of mere mortals, sure, their discoveries, their observations, of course all tested by my observations, so as to understand which are simply human fancies, and which are in fact the absolute truth of the universe, as that's all that matters, "the absolute truth of things." The largest puzzle of them all, the complete picture, which can only be seen with the inclusion of all human academic studies, against the backdrop of what it is to actually be a human of this universe. As the human fears lay bare for me to see. Without psychology there is no philosophy! And without 'all' philosophies children, there is no correct philosophy!
This reads like an Oprahism. You have no idea how far you are from the “absolute truth of the universe.” With just a little humility you may appreciate why everything is as it is. Without this foundation everything you wish for humanity is impossible and only good for perpetual arguments.
Some are drawn to spiritual man capable of consciousness and not be just restricted to mechanical reaction but become capable of conscious action.

In this statement, "you're out of your fucking tree!" You're saying that because you can imagine it, it's necessarily true. Enter the topic of this thread. You're merely an archaic monkey, that attempts to sell this threads topic as something real and meaningful, instead of the warpedness that it so obviously is, as with it, you cannot necessarily speak, ever. Which might have been a good thing.
What happened to all the balance and wonderfulness? Oh well, there will always be a svoloch who will ruin universal peace and love resulting from the absolute truth of the universe..

OK, so you do not distinguish between conscious action and mechanical reaction for Man. You believe it is perfectly normal and a universal truth that Man must rely on the government to determine the difference between a zef, a fetus, and a baby as expressions of the objective value of the cycle of human life.

Of course the question of the value of infanticide should be avoided. It invites thinking out of the box which is poison for secular progressive indoctrination only requiring you to believe, obey, and pay the bills of the government of the Great Beast. Anything else just corrupts the youth of Athens.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests