Aquinas on Natural Law | Poal: Say what you want.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (38).

[–] • 0 pt

they mimicked from the father/son relationship, yet as I pointed out earlier...motion teaches us from inception over infancy to childhood to adulthood, that dependency becomes independent.

do you suppose this is intentional slieght of hand/Talmudic reasoning? (((they))) seem to hide the fallacy of god in plain view; a 'god' who is a 'father' of what should otherwise be an independent 'son'... as such those who accept get what is coming; an unnecessary over-controlling authority 'governing' your life; they rationalize & offload the karma of inflicting 'father gods' subsequent control by clearly exposing this fallacy in the terms for those who cared to assess the original offer.

The "highest authority" is not a creator; not a conscious being; not judging anything; not restricting ONEs actions in any way, shape or form. What it is; is information (energy) sustaining itself by inspiring each ONE within through motion.

If the 'highest authority' is simply energy self-sustaining (through us) does this not imply energy is self-architecting too? ie- our reality

For example, the world for which we find ourselves in - ALL a result of energy self sustaining itself. Energy's inception then must have architected itself to where we understand it to be today. Energy's movement from inception to this point could perhaps be also understood as its movement and thus its architecting of current state - eventually to a final state (death).

The next question I guess is the architeture up to us to build; ie- energy is simply a moving force and so the concious ONEs within thus are the designers & architects of what the experience looks like as the thing moves? ie- the birds, the bees, the trees and everything you sea not a concious design of this highest authority but rather the collective result of the actions of those who adhere to it?

Or, since energy may represent infinite information, would you rather explain our 'current world state' simply a result of our limited comprehension; that it is the comprehension of the ONEs which is responsible for the 'architecting' of the ALL for which the ONEs understand themselves to be inside; our ecosystem as we understand it to be is but a result of the extent of comprehension we collectively have applied thus far? And it is our comprehension, not energy itself, which drives the forthcoming 'architecting'; which is more of an unveiling process but again a process based on the free will choices & actions of the many; and thus again the manifestation of reality representing a seemingly random yet balanced pattern of motion (since our choices & actions are a result of adapting & adhering to the constant movement of energy) ?

> they mimicked from the father/son relationship, yet as I pointed out earlier...motion teaches us from inception over infancy to childhood to adulthood, that dependency becomes independent. do you suppose this is intentional slieght of hand/Talmudic reasoning? (((they))) seem to hide the fallacy of god in plain view; a 'god' who is a 'father' of what should otherwise be an independent 'son'... as such those who accept get what is coming; an unnecessary over-controlling authority 'governing' your life; they rationalize & offload the karma of inflicting 'father gods' subsequent control by clearly exposing this fallacy in the terms for those who cared to assess the original offer. > The "highest authority" is not a creator; not a conscious being; not judging anything; not restricting ONEs actions in any way, shape or form. What it is; is information (energy) sustaining itself by inspiring each ONE within through motion. If the 'highest authority' is simply energy self-sustaining (through us) does this not imply energy is self-architecting too? ie- our reality For example, the world for which we find ourselves in - ALL a result of energy self sustaining itself. Energy's inception then must have architected itself to where we understand it to be today. Energy's movement from inception to this point could perhaps be also understood as its movement and thus its architecting of current state - eventually to a final state (death). The next question I guess is the architeture up to us to build; ie- energy is simply a moving force and so the concious ONEs within thus are the designers & architects of what the experience looks like as the thing moves? ie- the birds, the bees, the trees and everything you sea not a concious design of this highest authority but rather the collective result of the actions of those who adhere to it? Or, since energy may represent infinite information, would you rather explain our 'current world state' simply a result of our limited comprehension; that it is the comprehension of the ONEs which is responsible for the 'architecting' of the ALL for which the ONEs understand themselves to be inside; our ecosystem as we understand it to be is but a result of the extent of comprehension we collectively have applied thus far? And it is our comprehension, not energy itself, which drives the forthcoming 'architecting'; which is more of an unveiling process but again a process based on the free will choices & actions of the many; and thus again the manifestation of reality representing a seemingly random yet balanced pattern of motion (since our choices & actions are a result of adapting & adhering to the constant movement of energy) ?

parent
link

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt

[–] • 0 pt

thanks for sharing again the extended insights.

on this tangent I can't help but ponder about the extent for which nature 'allows' us to 'create' - and perhaps what we 'should' (destined to?) create if we are to create things not only are lasting but that which grow ie- which resonate with nature's motion.

you already gave nice example of the seeded garden that becomes an ecosystem of insects and animals who together with the planter can all live in harmony; a 'floating of all boats' and attraction of life based on self sustance.

yet back to this ever moving path of nature, which as you describe represents ALL information and energy; infinite potential accessible via comprehension...

taking the garden example & this energy/information concept to an actionable conclusion - should we not focus our 'building' efforts on such things as yes gardens, but perhaps for those with grander visions: 'towers of gardens' for lack of better words...

maybe I can try with just another example to attempt to impart what I envision here (and what I suspect is an actionable conclusion or at least a direction one could resolve to go into based on these lessons of comprehension) ... instead of building a new residential tower downtown. Plant a giant tree. Instead of using machinery to 'construct' it - grow it, pehraps with the help of an ecosystem around it to encourage its optimal growth into the tower you wish it to be ('to build'). And instead of guttting it out for dwellings - build on it, in a sustainable way. As a bees nest forms - or birds nest - or a rodents home in one of the holes that forms.

do you see what I am trying to propose here; and perhaps conclude based on these lessons ? Seems obvious, but maybe not because we are either trained to not build like this or think like this - and/or maybe it just doesn't work or is not practical as I envision here - but it seems that we should simply 'build' in harmony with nature in adherence to its ever changing movement and based on not only our own self-sustenance but in the interest of the core of nature itself (ie- the tree) and all of the many denizens who may come together to help foster that core growth. I'm trying not to get too fantastical with this but maybe we should be building 'forest cities' not 'concrete cities' ....

thanks for sharing again the extended insights. on this tangent I can't help but ponder about the extent for which nature 'allows' us to 'create' - and perhaps what we 'should' (destined to?) create if we are to create things not only are lasting but that which grow ie- which resonate with nature's motion. you already gave nice example of the seeded garden that becomes an ecosystem of insects and animals who together with the planter can all live in harmony; a 'floating of all boats' and attraction of life based on self sustance. yet back to this ever moving path of nature, which as you describe represents ALL information and energy; infinite potential accessible via comprehension... taking the garden example & this energy/information concept to an actionable conclusion - should we not focus our 'building' efforts on such things as yes gardens, but perhaps for those with grander visions: 'towers of gardens' for lack of better words... maybe I can try with just another example to attempt to impart what I envision here (and what I suspect is an actionable conclusion or at least a direction one could resolve to go into based on these lessons of comprehension) ... instead of building a new residential tower downtown. Plant a giant tree. Instead of using machinery to 'construct' it - grow it, pehraps with the help of an ecosystem around it to encourage its optimal growth into the tower you wish it to be ('to build'). And instead of guttting it out for dwellings - build on it, in a sustainable way. As a bees nest forms - or birds nest - or a rodents home in one of the holes that forms. do you see what I am trying to propose here; and perhaps conclude based on these lessons ? Seems obvious, but maybe not because we are either trained to not build like this or think like this - and/or maybe it just doesn't work or is not practical as I envision here - but it seems that we should simply 'build' in harmony with nature in adherence to its ever changing movement and based on not only our own self-sustenance but in the interest of the core of nature itself (ie- the tree) and all of the many denizens who may come together to help foster that core growth. I'm trying not to get too fantastical with this but maybe we should be building 'forest cities' not 'concrete cities' ....

parent
link

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt