Thoughts about consistency and existence

[weareunity]

Re #40.

As we know, when presented as a moral principle/guide, the "idea" within #40 is neither novel nor restricted. We see a form embodied in "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"--variations of which appear in many guides to behaviour.

I think we now see that our expanding understanding is beginning to reveal this "idea" as being a consistent causal force/power working on the mechanism of existence.

A force which adjusts to imbalances created within existence by whatever agency, wherever and whenever.

Such adjustments may be detrimental to the welfare and continuing existence of the very agency which creates/created such imbalance.

[FallingLeaves]

it has been shown you can't really separate a person from other people; he just withers and dies. So no matter how you want to slice and dice things there does seem to be a component where we need each other... just some have a funny way of showing it lol!

the system also does seem to be self-correcting. Maybe that has something to do with the rise and fall of civilizations? But I suppose the taoists would say if you head for an extreme... any extreme... you are likely to experience the 'return'.

And one of the things people love to do is head for extremes...

[weareunity]

Hello FallingLeaves.

Thanks again for you company and thoughts.

Th first paragraph of your post 42 provides the impetus to exploring how our species tends to react/cope with isolation--enforced/chosen.

Cheers.

[weareunity]

The value of such "exploration" may be that it may enable us to understand the extent to which behavioural characteristics of our species are innate and to what extent such characteristics are learned.

One particular characteristic concerning which there is ongoing study and debate is--Are we innately altruistic?

[weareunity]

Some thought re the possibility that as humans we are members of a species--and there may be others--who have innate altruism as characteristic.

In the case of our species it is evident Imo that having innate altruism does not mean that we necessarily behave altruistically. --It means simply that we have an innate capacity to do so--if we consciously choose to do so.

--or in the case of being isolated, that we may be able think so but are unable to do so.

However, if free to do so, then understanding why we may choose not to do so will prove to be transformative Imo.

And if we are in a position of isolation which means that we are not able to put into use that capability when we wish to do so, then an understanding of the effect which that denial has upon our psyche will also prove to be transformative Imo.-- keeping in mind that displaying altruism has effect upon the "receiver" and the "donor" alike.

[weareunity]

Hello.
If we choose to, we may further imagine that another reason why an innate capability for altruism cannot be accessed by an individual has something to do with an inappropriate or insufficient "demonstration/familiarisation" of that capability by those "responsible" for that individuals early nurture. ?

[lostsoul13]

It’s the same with being a flame(thought conscious) that your hallelujah.

[weareunity]

Hello lostsoul13.

Please forgive me if I am wide of the mark and/or presumptuous in response to your post--

Coming to know and understand the lost child within us gives us an insight and ability enabling us to empathise particularly with all who feel lost.

Good wishes.

[lostsoul13]

Originally Posted by weareunity

Hello lostsoul13.

Please forgive me if I am wide of the mark and/or presumptuous in response to your post--

Coming to know and understand the lost child within us gives us an insight and ability enabling us to empathise particularly with all who feel lost.

Good wishes.

Definitely, part of my name is the sensible.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by weareunity

Hello Hitesh Shah.

Thinking that in the coupling of cause and consequence, the outcome, the effect which the cause produces,precipitates, does not seem to be random but subject to one form of "law" or another which governs the characteristic of that outcome.

Without needing to know or understand the nature of all of these couplings, those which we do understand seem to give evidence to this conclusion.

An obvious question is:- what is the origin of these "laws"? You could suppose that they are in some obvious part dependent upon the forces and properties of the constituent components, factors, influences in the interaction.

But that proposition itself seems to almost raise as many questions as it seeks to answer?

petex

Petex , Sorry for delayed response . Just noticed this couple of days back that i missed to respond .

What is the source of these laws ?

If I were to take recourse to scriptures , the writers who have written those tenets humbly say it's sources as timeless impersonal eternal wisdom of people and thereby give credit directly or indirectly to God (like Jesus attributing everything to 'Father' ) .

Taking mundane view of it , the source can be the tenets of sciences and these sciences are nothing but documented wisdom of well-meaning , intelligent , diligent , honest , loving and hopeful people .And in that sense roughly u can consider tenets propounded by thinkers / scientists / spiritualists / reformists to be source of it.

Hope this answers the question .