Death, my Beloved Betrothed

Romana wrote:

lavender orchid wrote:

Romana wrote:

This is probably the closest equivalent to childbirth there is: the willingness of the father to protect mother and child with his very life.

Romana: do you think everyone can automatically read this correctly, or should i ask you to be more specific, if only giving a clue to your individual perspective here?
what are we? middle class? average?

In the context of the last few messages from Prettybirds and myself, I would expect my meaning to be clear. If it is not, it would help to know exactly what about it seems ambiguous or confusing. My individual perspective is to consider whether this particular capacity of men over historical time scales might be what Prettybirds was looking for in seeking an analog to childbirth.

lavender orchid wrote:

This is no longer as necessary in most parts of the world, but then again, maternal mortality rates are substantially improved as well.

again: kindly name the substance(s)!

There is no literal substance. "Substantially" is equivalent to "significantly".

lavender orchid wrote:

Our history, but not necessarily our future.

???? that we may know, but what about the scope of meaning?

Your question here escapes me. What may we know, and what meaning are you questioning the scope of?

bear with me, Romana, please.

capacities and their significance seem, to me, progressing in their reduction to (pro-)creative engineering.
how much of this development is truly coming from free individuals, therefore? do you consider yourself being one such?

substance and significance are no equivalents, yet the latter may contribute to the former's recognition.

do we have a history to share? or is a commonality simply established by remote control?

my questions are from an utterly personal viewpoint, that's the only one i got.

Romana wrote:

Prettybirds wrote:

I am an evolutionist at heart. To me, it could of just as easily been the men giving birth instead of the women. It is who cares and protects the child that counts. On that front we are equal as far as I am concerned.

Well, if men gave birth, then they would be women. I am using the definition that whoever gives birth is called "woman". You are right about care and protection, though. Humanity has developed such that a child does best with the care and protection of both father and mother. Both are certainly equivalent in this respect.

Prettybirds wrote:

Naturally, instinctively, while women where nursing the baby, the man was out battling the elements, animals, other men, to protect us. Equal in value if you ask me, nothing sexist or wrong, in fact, I think quite right.

This is probably the closest equivalent to childbirth there is: the willingness of the father to protect mother and child with his very life. This is no longer as necessary in most parts of the world, but then again, maternal mortality rates are substantially improved as well. Our history, but not necessarily our future. I do not think our opinions are that far apart, We are perhaps simply viewing things from different perspectives.

Hi Romana, I don't know but I figure if it was masculine energy responsible for the birth of children, well the concept of woman would probably not apply..., it would be something not conceived yet.
I like your analogy of men's protective urge and instinct Yes, you are right about gender roll rewriting, that is what I'm interested in...I am glad for different perpectives, from this we can build.

This would of been one of those moments of heated debate in our library of life, I am so pleased to say that even though from different perspectives, perhaps we are on the same page. It can be a trying time to forge new and better concepts and ideas. Especially global ones. Thank-you, both of you for finding a way to mesh our converging standpoints with such patience.

So where do you want to fall for fun now?

Lavender Orchid wrote:

capacities and their significance seem, to me, progressing in their reduction to (pro-)creative engineering.
how much of this development is truly coming from free individuals, therefore? do you consider yourself being one such?

I must be honest and confess that I do not understand what you are getting at. What is (pro)creative engineering? Development of what?

I do not consider any individual to be completely free, in the sense that all of us are subject to some limitations, if only those of our physical bodies. The best case is to be free of artificial constraints. We are free in how we address constraints, even if we cannot remove them. I consider myself free in this sense. I acknowledge my limitations, develop my gifts, and accomplish what I can using what I have to work with.

Lavender Orchid wrote:

substance and significance are no equivalents, yet the latter may contribute to the former's recognition.

Substance and significance are different. As adjectives, substantial and significant are more similar. As adverbs, substantially and significantly are often used interchangeably in English, as the opposite of: slightly, somewhat, incrementally, or some other word indicating a lesser rather than a greater degree.

Lavender Orchid wrote:

do we have a history to share? or is a commonality simply established by remote control?

Humans have a shared history as members of homo sapiens species, and residents of planet Earth. As we look at smaller and smaller groups of people, we can find situations in which more and more history is shared in common. Individuals can develop shared history in spite of any differences or distance simply through interaction and communication. You and I specifically are thus developing some shared history, in addition to what we share with all humanity.

you and i are at odds at this point in whatever development, and the differences escape at least my ability to put them in ADEQUATE writing, let alone communication and understanding.

better leave it at that.

thanks for your input. may your assertiveness help those who need that sort of help.

\!!

Lavender Orchid wrote:
capacities and their significance seem, to me, progressing in their reduction to (pro-)creative engineering.
how much of this development is truly coming from free individuals, therefore? do you consider yourself being one such?

Are you perhaps referring to how it seems as if democracy doesn't truly exist seeing as how so few people seem to be running the show completely oblivious too the plight they leave behind? Democracy, a public pacifier of sugar sweet lies and futile effort? Are we truly free? I honestly think we all share that sentiment.

Romana wrote
I do not consider any individual to be completely free, in the sense that all of us are subject to some limitations, if only those of our physical bodies. The best case is to be free of artificial constraints. We are free in how we address constraints, even if we cannot remove them. I consider myself free in this sense. I acknowledge my limitations, develop my gifts, and accomplish what I can using what I have to work with.


Again a shared thought and feeling between us all.



Lavender Orchid wrote:
substance and significance are no equivalents, yet the latter may contribute to the former's recognition.
Romana wrote,
Substance and significance are different. As adjectives, substantial and significant are more similar. As adverbs, substantially and significantly are often used interchangeably in English, as the opposite of: slightly, somewhat, incrementally, or some other word indicating a lesser rather than a greater degree.


All very helpful with my interest in understanding the German language.


I am of the mind that it is the history we create together that is the history we will share. Does it matter that it is young and fresh as opposed to old and withered? YES

where the heck do you get your rejuvenated freshness from?

Do you really want to know?

It's a combination of being a really old soul and being a Sag., very good at skipping across the surface without getting mired in the muck, remember, my animal nature has four feet. My instinctual language has no words, and I decided a long time ago that the best way to channel negativity out of me was to simply love. It is amazing how clean and refreshed I feel after an hour outside in the muddy field. That and one hell of a lot of mental energy...


Vogel

Prettybirds wrote:

Do you really want to know?

It's a combination of being a really old soul and being a Sag., very good at skipping across the surface without getting mired in the muck, remember, my animal nature has four feet. My instinctual language has no words, and I decided a long time ago that the best way to channel negativity out of me was to simply love. It is amazing how clean and refreshed I feel after an hour outside in the muddy field. That and one hell of a lot of mental energy...


Vogel

yeah, Vogel

this old soul here can relate to you without being sucked into unnecessary "identifying" and "evaluation" processes and programs.
this old soul has been willing to (cor-)respond wherever, whenever necessary.
this old human and female soul most often is at a loss, for a moment, with an animal nature in mind that its custodians have absconded from by absorbing it. something we may or may not ever come to terms with in forum discussions. nor in the quagmire that's our day-to-day "living".

this old soul has live-times etched into its existence that have never fully exhausted their potential. just done away with... normally.


p.s. i just read an excellent critique of don delillo's new book, point omega: "men theorize about death; women die."

Lavender wrote,
this old soul here can relate to you without being sucked into unnecessary "identifying" and "evaluation" processes and programs.
this old soul has been willing to (cor-)respond wherever, whenever necessary.
this old human and female soul most often is at a loss, for a moment, with an animal nature in mind that its custodians have absconded from by absorbing it. something we may or may not ever come to terms with in forum discussions. nor in the quagmire that's our day-to-day "living".


I know the more practical side of life can be mundane, but tag along for the ride anyway girl. You, Romana and I can learn a lot from each other. We are all old sister souls...just think, 3 parts of the as opposed to 1.
It too, takes me time to learn what your words mean, the same with Romana's. I relish the experience, revel in it.

PS Gorgeous picture, I'll take a look at the book you mention...

I can read,
I can re-read,
I can contemplate and ponder.
I can sleep on it, or set it aside for awhile and come back.
I can focus on the words, or defocus on the overall sense and gist.
I can ask questions and do my best not to offend.
But I cannot pretend to understand when I do not.

Romana wrote:

I can read,
I can re-read,
I can contemplate and ponder.
I can sleep on it, or set it aside for awhile and come back.
I can focus on the words, or defocus on the overall sense and gist.
I can ask questions and do my best not to offend.
But I cannot pretend to understand when I do not.

Nice, Romana...so far I do not see a lack of understanding between any of us, perhaps just a bit of fear expressing ourselves when misunderstood at first. I admire our persistence!

Apropos of earlier comments on this thread:

Prehistoric Dads

That is a very nice article Romana...

Romana wrote:

I can read,
I can re-read,
I can contemplate and ponder.
I can sleep on it, or set it aside for awhile and come back.
I can focus on the words, or defocus on the overall sense and gist.
I can ask questions and do my best not to offend.
But I cannot pretend to understand when I do not.

i can certainly appreciate that.
there is nothing that cannot be understandable.
but much that IS offensive. (not meaning anything you said here.)

Quote :

The first stage in realizing how the mind interacts with the body is to see the brain (as we perceive it) as a three-dimensional surface of a four-dimensional object. This is why all attempts to predict and entirely control human behavior with physical means result in the mind-body problem. This is because while aspects of the physical world are apprehended by the 3d brain, the 4d mind has the capacity to override them.

Penrose unfortunately follows the conventional viewpoint and simply tries to search more deeply within the ordinary physical aspects of the soggy old 3d brain. I would say that is like trying to predict what is on TV next week by opening up the TV set. We need to get away from that approach completely. It would be better to analyze the characters in the TV series. We need to look meaningfully within ourselves. We need to embrace our emotions no matter how scary that may seem. We need to ask the difficult questions within our own beings. We have to be able to weep with all the sorrow of each and every soul within the world.

I started this book with a dream. And I have incredibly vivid dreams, the detail of which defies any notion of the content of such dreams being only local to my experiences in this lifetime. I have dreamt other people’s lives packaged into absurdly neat narrative storylines. (My narratives are not so neat). I can vividly recall characters from these dreams from decades back. I recall faces that are crystal clear to my memory; faces that are not recollections from this lifetime. I have relived past lives. I have visited other worlds with unique architectures and beings that are just far too amazing to come from my imagination. And I have a pretty vivid imagination. In those dreams, reality is just as real as this world is. I could just as easily say that this world is a dream emanating from any of those other worlds.

I dream of the dead, and they tell me things and behave in ways which show that their consciousness is continuing and growing beyond this life.

Make no mistake. I have ordinary dreams which are just a product of this life: ordinary fears, wishes, nightmares and fantasies. And some dreams which I can only describe as badly constructed scenarios which seem to have been imposed on me from outside to test me. Once I dreamt I was in a DVD shop, many centuries in the future, and I bought a DVD, plugged it into a machine which connected it to my brain, and then I woke up in this life, and it was this life of mine which was the content of that DVD.

The point I am making, is that it is a huge mistake to think that just because many dreams are products of this daily psychological life, that all of them are such. In the same way, some TV programs are real, some half-real, and some are entirely fiction. Consider the primitive who sees a TV for the first time. ‘Is it real?’ he may ask, and after some time, would probably conclude it was not. But the reality is that much of TV is real. He may even try and open up the TV to understand the programs.

There is no limit to the type of TV program that can be made, and there is no reason to suggest that just because most dreams you may have are reflections of this life, that all dreams must be such. I have gone off the topic of space and time, it seems, but not so.

You may recall that in the dream at the beginning of this book, I was so intently focused on waking into my body in order to design the Entothopter that I neglected an opportunity to explore this world from the perspective of the dream-world. I was for a moment briefly looking into this world from what I can only describe as four-dimensional space.

I have kept that dream close to my waking mind. I have followed the Sine curve all the way beyond Einstein and Relativity and found non-relative certainty. I have had exultant experiences. Three times I have spoken to John the Baptist and twice to Jesus. I was warned that in following this path, the spite of jealousy would provoke me like an evil shadow, and no doubt it has.

But I know that this life is itself a shadow. I fear not death. That shall be a great adventure. To finally break free from the confines of this narrow three-dimensional world will be like a chicken hatching from an egg. But not all such hatching is for the good. Often when the shell breaks it is too soon, and the result may not always be better. But most often it is. So death is not always for the better. This is why we cannot conclude that because immortality is real, that death is always good. Even the fourth dimension of space (unlike time) has two directions. In death, we could still move either one way or another, and the consequences of this movement may be tragic or euphoric.

The very notion of dreaming is mystical in the extreme. The best way to indulge in dreaming is to keep a dream diary. Upon awakening, write down the fragments of your dreams. This way you keep your consciousness close to the topic. Why do memories of our dreams fade so quickly each morning? Normally we remember last week’s events more easily than last night’s dreams. If time was the chief variable in why we remember events, then last night’s dreams would be easier to remember than those of last week.

Unlike a computer, the mind recalls more complex memories more easily. For a computer the simpler information is easier to recall. We remember information by association. Songs are easier to remember than prose. Logic is easier to remember than nonsense. By keeping a dream diary, the association with that realm is stronger. The fatalists may say that this is all in my imagination, but to that I answer: how is imagination even possible if all is fated? How can new ideas become manifest in world that is entirely determined? If all we know is that which we observe then how can we imagine color when our eyes are closed and we are not observing the world? How can we do so with free will?

from
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity-revised-summary.htm