Inter-Relationship of Subjects (8 posts)
1. Inter-Relationship of Subjects
Wed, Jan 13, 1999 - 11:06 AM/EST
JimP
I hadn't intended to do any posting today, and to think about many of the topics we have been in dialogue about over the past few days. As I did so, it occurred to me how inter-related they are.
The quality of public discourse, education, personal responsibility, media, deliberative forums, -- all seem related to me. Even the impeachment hearings, our original reason for dialogue, seems to have a root in some of these other topics. I am funding it increasingly difficult to separate them, or at least how they affect one another.
I could go on for some time, but I think I'll not do so. If there's sufficient interest in exploring this, there will be ample opportunity for me to add to these comments.
2. Never Mind
Wed, Jan 13, 1999 - 9:31 PM/EST
JimP
As I read the posts today, I realized that we have each recognized the inter-relationship of the subjects. I try to keep track of the number of posts under each thread, and as the number rises, go read what has been said. In doing so, I can see that there are a lot of inter-related posts under various threads.
Media Responsibility, Education. State of Discourse, Gun Control, Economics, Personal Responsibility, International, and ATC each have some interesting posts that show the intricate weaving of our world.
3. Interrelationships?
Thu, Jan 14, 1999 - 5:20 PM/EST
McRostie
Yes! The older and I hope wiser we become, the more we see that all things in life are related in some way, some closer and some more removed, but related. Some philosopher once said something to the effect that a butterfly waving its wings at some place on earth might creat a wind storm in another. A bit of overstatement perhaps, but it makes the point.
Ultimately, I suspect it comes down to one's view of existence. The creationist may believe that man was created in God's image as the highest order of being with dominion over all other creatures. Another may believe that man and all other creatures are parts of an existing, non-created system, all parts of which are mutually responsbile for and to all other parts. Another may believe that mankind is the supreme creation in God's universe but that mankind is responsible for and to all other creature as a matter of ethics and morality..
Personally, I have trouble with the first hypothesis. Its appeal to supremacy seems to me to belie the idea of interdependence which I find necessary to the ultimate survival of all creatures. The second or third I can live with although I come down on the side of the second. as the most acceptable. Ultimately, the driving force of existence is the drive for survival of existence as we know it. That survival requires that we recognize the relationsip of all creatures to all others in many and often unknown or unknowable ways. Only if we do so will all survive which I believe is our untimate goal.. As I said in another area, sound a little like "Do unto others etc......"?
What it comes down to finally is that the underlying subject which we all study in one way or another is philosophy. How do we view existence? How do we relate? Why do we relate? Do we relate through a creator, or do we relate directly to all other creatures? They are rather interesting questions aren't they
Sorry for the "heavy" posting. I hope the points were worth making.
Regards, McRostie?
4. Don't be sorry.
Thu, Jan 14, 1999 - 9:32 PM/EST
JimP
On the contrary, be glad that you have the capacity to be able to ask the questions.
How do we view existence? How do we relate, and why? Do we relate through a creator - or directly to all other creatures? Interesting? You bet, at least to me.
I think the title of this thread may not gather enough interest from members to be able to keep the thread active. Do you think it would be acceptable to begin a thread called Philosophy, or does that sound too heavy? That q. isn't just for McRostie, but for all the group.
5. I like it
Fri, Jan 15, 1999 - 11:40 AM/EST
Gayle
I'm for keeping the thread going right here.
I'll help keep it going by asking: Are we our brothers keepers? If yes, why? If no, why?
6. Keepers?
Fri, Jan 15, 1999 - 11:51 AM/EST
McRostie
Are we our brother's keeers you ask? Depends. If we define keepers as controllers, the answer to me is a resounding NO. If, on the other hand, we define keepers as protectors, it is a qualified YES.
Why qualified? Because in protecting, we have to be more than a little careful not to protect to the point of destroying freedom, initiative, self-oreliance and a host of other attributes of a total, mature human being.
I suppose there might be another definition of Keepers. Lets call it Helpers. I like that one better, again provided we don't overdo it as I fear with protectors. Sadly, the rusults of too much help would be the same.
So, as usual, you do not pose a simple question.
Regards, McRostie
7. McRostie...
Fri, Jan 15, 1999 - 10:45 PM/EST
Gayle
Simple the question wasn't meant to be. ?:)
8. Keepers?
Fri, Jan 15, 1999 - 11:01 PM/EST
JimP
As I read about spiritual tradions other than the Judeo-Christian; as I read books like Bach's "One", and "The Seat of the Soul (see thread Are We Evolving); and as I try to understand myself and the world around me both physically and spiritually, I am more and more convinced that I am not my brother's keeper. I am one with my brother. We are one, one with each other, and one with that which supports us.
