XPost: alt.atheism, alt.philosophy   
   From: brianf88@bigpond.net.au   
      
   "ralph"  wrote in message   
   news:YUxZ15GrqrHFFwlE@eddlewood.demon.co.uk...   
   > In message , Brian   
   > Fletcher  writes   
   >>   
   >>Yet some individual "masters", well recorded, have been able to illustrate   
   >>the meaningful journey of the individual, over eons demonstrating a priori   
   >>knowledge.The multitude of attitudes to which we be become exposed,   
   >>facilitates growth of  individuality, in fact, the more out of synch we   
   >>become with external events, the more we seek (and find) our true   
   >>individual nature.   
   >   
   > Ye gods! This is worse than Joseph!   
      
   Then you have just complemented Joseph and I.   
   >   
   > In the first place humanity has only existed in one eon, and for a very   
   > short part of that.   
      
   If you say so.Your belief is Plato that was "making it up".   
      
   >And who are these well documented masters?   
      
   Socrates, Lie Tzu, Shams -i-Tabriz, Rumi, Gurdjieff....how many more will   
   convince you. Answer...non.   
      
   Every religion began with a visionary who's "followers" watered that vision   
   down to suit the group consciousness of the time. A natural process."Groups"   
   have to evolve also.   
      
   >Little has come down to us before Aristotle, and I do not think that he   
   >would have claimed what you may appear to claim for him. And where did this   
   >a priori knowledge come from? The Greeks were very smart, but they actually   
   >knew little.   
      
   Little about what? The internal combustion engine, space flight....and a few   
   other "modern day" inventions, i'll grant you, but do you not see the irony   
   that many in a world so advanced are starting to see the timeless wisdom   
   form such visionaries.   
      
   Where did the knowledge come from? A good question which acknowledges it's   
   existance.   
      
   They havnt invented a telescope or microscope powerful enough to answer that   
   question, nor will "they".   
      
   Intruiging , isnt it ? ;-)   
   >   
   > The multitude of attitudes ... might help us to develop individuality if   
   > it existed. One of the more frightening things about today's world is how   
   > much of the total information to which we are exposed comes from Mr.   
   > Murdoch and his few cronies.   
      
   Notwithstanding , the most powerful source of eclectic information..(the one   
   you are currently looking at).   
      
   Information is endless, and the brains capacity to store is almost   
   unlimited. Wisdom comes from "making sense" of information, and you dont   
   need a brain full, to realise that reality.   
      
   > But that bears no relation to "being out of synch with external events",   
   > which sounds more like mental disturbance.   
      
   Go talk to the 55% of people who's marriage have broken down, and the "top   
   professionals", who have the highest incidence of drug dependence of any   
   group.   
      
   In Australia (as close as you can get to "paradise on earth"   
   envoronmentally), we have one of the highest rates of teenage suicides in   
   the world, and the % of people on "calming" medication (almost) defies   
   description.   
      
   >OK, there are some very individual natures in the institutions for the care   
   >of such people, but it is also possible, and I would suggest many would   
   >think it desirable, to develop individuality whilst retaining contact with   
   >reality.   
      
   There is a Sanskrit term for that very state, namely Varagi.   
      
   I would rephrase your last statement as such. It is desirable to develop   
   one's own reality while retaining contact with "illusion".   
      
   Stimulating chat :-)   
      
   BOfL   
      
      
      
   >   
   > --   
   > ralph   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)