Hi Flow – sorry it's taken so long to reply.
Yes, I was perhaps pushing things a bit, but I would like to express that point – supposing the Primordial Couple were not as dense in their material physicality as we have become ... I didn't want to lose the 'speculative' aspect of that ...
I remember watching a video of an art student tasked with a project to communicate the wonders of modern technology. The student lived in the Middle East. His film was composed entirely of the shadows of armed men running through the rubble of what looked like a multi-story carpark ... and the wonders of technology ... cruise missiles flying passed his apartment window, whilst the hospitals hadn't even got bandages ...
... I suppose today's equivalent would be remotely-detonated chemical weapons ...
I'm not in 100% agreement with that, and I do not think necessarily that those who work in 'the system' are necessarily bad. We're all fallible, however.
Indeed. That's why nothing short of the Cross would suffice.
+++
On politics – I think the answer to that is looking elsewhere ... history shows that nothing changes until the broad mass of the populace get off their a••es and demand change, as long as they don't the system will continued to feed them pap. And the broad mass of the population will let another person burn/starve/suffer/die as long as their own comfort is not impinged. Double the deathtoll in the third world, and the first will continue pretty much as before... double the price of petrol, and see what happens...
Pessimistic, maybe ... but yes, it does seem an insurmountable problem ... I mean, love, is so difficult, isn't it? To love people, especially to love those who benefit me in no way whatsoever ...
The simplest things are always the hardest.
Dang, Flow! This is a real bummer of a discussion! I wanted to get all 'Star Trek' in the Quantum Field, permeables bodies ... I want people to be like comets, as I recall somebody saying, 'comparing mass to size, a comet is the least amount of material something can be, short of not actually being there at all', or something like that ...
Thomas
Thanks for your response, but you have turned your question around on its head. You were speaking of hidden things that have their basis in the physical nature of the universe, and I replied in that context.
Yes, I was perhaps pushing things a bit, but I would like to express that point – supposing the Primordial Couple were not as dense in their material physicality as we have become ... I didn't want to lose the 'speculative' aspect of that ...
I would say person-to-person, one-to-one, or one-to-another, is the paradigm for all relationships.I submit that you are making valid statements in your last post when person to person interactions are taken into account...the absence of good allows evil to assume precedence.
Agreed absolutely. The telling thing, I think, is technology allows us to distance ourselves from the other ... right down to the classic fact that inter-office emails allow people to avoid confrontation in the workplace ... this is the negative aspect of technology.However, in the realities of today's world and at the insistence of the powers that be that the vast majority of interpersonal relationships take place filtered through electromagnetic devices and systems, the ability of fewer and fewer individuals to amplify evil intent is automatically allowed to become more prevalent... since the entire transmission medium is hierarchically driven by monetary considerations. Because of this system and the power of the people "in charge" to conveniently demonize chosen victims, the scapegoating of innocents to cover the crimes of the powerful is allowed to continue virtually without limit or control by the citizens.
I remember watching a video of an art student tasked with a project to communicate the wonders of modern technology. The student lived in the Middle East. His film was composed entirely of the shadows of armed men running through the rubble of what looked like a multi-story carpark ... and the wonders of technology ... cruise missiles flying passed his apartment window, whilst the hospitals hadn't even got bandages ...
... I suppose today's equivalent would be remotely-detonated chemical weapons ...
Sooo...I again pose the question, who are the sinners in such a scenario ?
Assuming that those who wish to interact on a purely person to person basis are the ones who seek to expand the "good" in society...
I'm not in 100% agreement with that, and I do not think necessarily that those who work in 'the system' are necessarily bad. We're all fallible, however.
how might that be effectively done given the media-driven realities of today's societies and the vast amounts of money that actions for change for the good automatically require. Person to person influence is about the only reality, aside from pain and suffering, in poorer sections of society, but all change in today's world seem to be required to be top down in nature. A conundrum that seems to be insurmountable to me.
Indeed. That's why nothing short of the Cross would suffice.
+++
On politics – I think the answer to that is looking elsewhere ... history shows that nothing changes until the broad mass of the populace get off their a••es and demand change, as long as they don't the system will continued to feed them pap. And the broad mass of the population will let another person burn/starve/suffer/die as long as their own comfort is not impinged. Double the deathtoll in the third world, and the first will continue pretty much as before... double the price of petrol, and see what happens...
Pessimistic, maybe ... but yes, it does seem an insurmountable problem ... I mean, love, is so difficult, isn't it? To love people, especially to love those who benefit me in no way whatsoever ...
The simplest things are always the hardest.
Dang, Flow! This is a real bummer of a discussion! I wanted to get all 'Star Trek' in the Quantum Field, permeables bodies ... I want people to be like comets, as I recall somebody saying, 'comparing mass to size, a comet is the least amount of material something can be, short of not actually being there at all', or something like that ...
Thomas