Post reply

Reply to the message by Balance_Maintained

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > Which worldviews  are you suggesting Tony. Surely not any old one? > -A world view based on the balanced application of all disciplines to form a unified frame work that is functional and harmonizes with the environment. While the biosphere is implicit in that, it is not the sum total of what I mean by environment, which must also include humanity as well. This is a gross oversimplification, but I truly do not have to words to explain it. - > > My perspective, though, is that [i]a unilateral world view based solely on materialism or naturalism is dysfunctional[/i], and that the evidence of that dysfunction is all around us.  > Here I would have some sympathy, a materialistic world view in the hands of the uniniated is worrisome. For example interpreting an event as speculative simply because we can&apos;t date it accurately when it happened.-When you do something that is supposed to make life better, and it creates problems that must be countered by the application of even greater forces, you are not working in harmony with the system. Consider a performer trying to maintain balance one a tight rope. The easiest method is to find a point of equilibrium that can be maintained with little effort. However, when that performer makes a movement that disrupts the equilibrium, they must make stronger and stronger corrections in the effort to maintain balance, each of which actually serves to throw them even further out of balance. These types of over corrective changes are the essence of dysfunction. They SEEM correct in the moment, but they ultimately disrupt the system further until it collapses. This is the same scenario that humanity has been playing out for thousands of years. - > I don&apos;t think Dawkins is promoting rape and pillage of the environment do you? Invoking the devil incarnate does little to promote your argument, at least very little for me. > -Devil incarnate? I don&apos;t know about all of that. I was simply referring to his propaganda that the physical is all there is and that it exist in isolation, devoid of meaning or reason. -> > Hence the reason that it has been the focus of my discussion. If the dominant philosophy was religion and it was being applied unilaterally to our destruction, I would be arguing against it just as hard. There is a very very good reason that I chose the screen name Balance_Maintained. I think that sums up my position. >  > Here you put mankind its actions very firmly separate from nature. This is of course a reflection of a dualistic mindset. That you think you have a balanced view of course is a matter opinion. Of course we all know that my opinions can be found at the origin (0,0).-Mankind&apos;s actions, and the worldview/mindset that produce those actions, are dysfunctional because we TRY to separate ourselves from nature. In general, people view nature as something here for us to exploit. So in that sense, our actions ARE separate from nature, they are not in unity with it. Let&apos;s look at a few examples. We destroy vast swatches of the natural world to produce things that we could live without, for example, the rain forest. We destroy entire populations of animals for non-essential items, luxury items(Whales, seals, rhino&apos;s, elephants, etc). We create non-essential items that we will at some point have to dispose of that are toxic to our environment. We genetically and chemically alter our foods so that we can produce more and more. This is actually one of my favorites because not only does it poison our environment, it poisons our bodies, and the feather in the cap is that we end up WASTING a very large percentage of it.