¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 Insight  4/5/2007  and continuation.

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 That we 21st century humans are but one of many stages in the evolution of our species doesn’t mean we are incomplete or somehow inferior to a later stage – or a completed state.

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 This was motivated by my recently viewing a tweet by a dear friend, Michael Gentry, where he described himself thus:

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 “I follow the dharma,
but I don’t call myself a Buddhist.
I’m concerned about the future of the planet,
but I’m not an environmentalist.”

¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 I, Larry, am a whole being,
at each stage in my life
from conception to death.

¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 Yet, my being gains meaning
from stages before and those to follow.

¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 The same applies to Michael’s concept of dharma.
He is both “whole” now, and “forever”,
whatever “forms” may manifest.

¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 I have long been conflicted with ideas of eternal, endless, blissful longevity and a “soul”. “If this exists”, it can have nothing to do with the specifics of this life; almost all which are contingent upon the settings for this life. There is very few, if any, traits or characteristics that are not contingent. All of my DNA is contingent on the circumstances of my mother and father, and their genealogies.

¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 Recently, I discovered that the concept of “a true self” to which many a person hopes to make manifest or achieve, may be another myth. Not that we don’t have inherited determinants (even beyond DNA). Yet:

¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 who we become is very highly determined by our ever present and changing environment. Nature/Nurture is an inseparable mix, each being dominant about some features. Yet, many’s belief in their “true nature” is linked to their belief in an afterlife or a soul.

¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 Must “the part” always be as significant as “the whole”?

¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 Many alternative variations in my life
wouldn’t change the basics of our Cosmos.

¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 Each leaf isn’t as “significant” as the tree.

¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 What do we mean by “SIGNIFICANT”?
Without specifics or reference,
such implied ranking is inappropriate.

¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 There are many human
thoughts and statements
that are meaningless;
yet, we often experience
“significance”
in association with them.

¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 Association
doesn’t imply
Attribution.

¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 Any yet,
we have no justification of applying the concepts of
importance or significance – in ranking
entities or stages.

¶ 18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 RANKING
is not a process
that can be applied
to everything.

¶ 19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 My Personal Peeve:
Human tend to rank multi-dimensional entities,
even when ranking is “objective”
only ONE dimension at a time.

¶ 20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 Multi-dimensional ranking must involve
arbitrary “weighing” of relative
importance or significance
of each dimension.

¶ 21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 Example:
Plot Weight and Height of persons on a graph.
The points form a distribution,
they don’t fall on a curve.
Many curves drawn among the points
could be defined as
BIGGER.

¶ 22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0 This propensity is almost universal,
having its origins to ensure survival
when quick decisions on insufficient information
must be made.

¶ 23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0 This intuitive action
should NEVER be applied,
EXCEPT in EMERGENCIES.

¶ 24 Leave a comment on paragraph 24 0 ***************

¶ 25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0 I don’t feel I achieved above what I intended.

¶ 26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 0 We often tend to give greater significance
to pair of “things” or “ideas”
for which such ranking
is inappropriate.
It only exists in the confusion of language,
where all statements don’t have meaning.

¶ 27 Leave a comment on paragraph 27 0