================================================ Subject: Re: NCR: Do you sense your senses? 1 From: "Creed - 7M3 - Live" To: Date: Wed 23 May 2001 20:02:01 -0400 ================================================ Thanks Ewa, Speaking of the signatures. I like the copyright of this company at the bottom of the message. I think I'll keep it on for awhile. About the animals not being able to reflect upon thier lives. Compared to non-human animals. I could't answer that one in disagreement. Since I relate the "soul" to some of the basic emotions. Not "souly" upon the reflection factor. I know animals have the same emotional responses as humans. And i heard that the emotional part of our brains resembles that of a cat. Since pets (dogs and cats) can love, despise, become jealous, etc. What is saying that the soul is an exclusive thing. A sort of "human" (but probably passed on from the cat). So maybe "catish" trait is that of shaking its head when disgusted with something that a human causes the animal to be upset. My cat shakes her head from side to side when she is upset. sort of "I can't believe you did that". Plus another time, I killed an insect that was crawling on the wall. But wasn't doing anything to me. She looked at me like "Why did you kill that bug?" In a sympathetic to the bug expression. Basically, I couldn't claim anything more than we learn a language to communicate. But animals do not communicate from written words or talk to you in different languages. Plus, for those that have been on the list awhile. Their was an Internet chat that AOL was promoting that you could "chat" with a real gorilla online. I think that this functionability of a primate kind of lessens the "Exclusiveness" of a soul being a human trait. But, since I can't talk with the animals. I can't deny the idea of the exclusiveness. > I've got a cool quote on this: "Conquer thyself. Till thou hast done > this, thou art but a slave for it is almost as well to be subjected > to another's appetite, as to thine own." (Robert Burton/ 17th > century) What do you say to this? I agree completely. > I like the quote. It is pretty meaningful. That is if the quote is "saying"- "Learn to control yourself and not be under anothers control." > And as for the word "soul" - I consider the soul to be the decisive > force residing in us, sort of a conscience (in a way - don't take me > literally here... I'm NOT being precise at all now) and that which > makes us humans in the end. And a gift from God. > I am just a little discomforted with the idea of human supremacy over animals and a God's supremacy over man. I am more likely to be able to believe in the word Pantheism Pan"the*ism, n. Pan- + theism. The doctrine that the universe, taken or conceived of as a whole, is God; the doctrine that there is no God but the combined force and laws which are manifested in the existing universe; cosmotheism. Except that I feel a God, so their seems to be more than the forces of nature at work. There seems to be an intelligence out there. But, was the intelligence first an "evolutionary" thing? Was God here because of the evolutionary process of the universe? Sort of like "stuff happens". but then a force of intelligence was created. From more primitive intelligence of organisms. (Maybe "The Omega and the Alpha") > About the senses - actually, it's a very interesting perspective > you've portrayed here (I mean mentioning people that don't have the 5 > senses by nature). First of all, I also admire people that were > deprived of one or even two of their senses. They really inspire me > and make me reflect upon my own life and the way I take everything for > granted. But coming to our discussion. This actually is a very good > way of analyzing the senses question - going backwards (sort of, I > mean like going to the point of having an even more limited number of > senses) and observing how such people perceive reality. The only > problem is the impossible of a comparison between the way people with > different numbers of senses perceive reality - unless a person loses > his/her (for example) sight due to an accident because in such a case > such person has already experienced the sensation of seeing the > world - it's an interesting idea, don't you think? > > ... to be continued > I know that the "world exists" to those without the common 5 senses. There still is light and sound. But nothing to understand it with other than skin sensations. (Heat, touch, vibration). Just like we cannot say that there isn't some greater being. We just don't have the extra sense to detect one. That is to prove it. Since there are things in my life that pronounce the existence of a God. - I hope this wasn't too long. - Jim -- We don't claim Interactive EasyFlow is good for anything -- if you think it is, great, but it's up to you to decide. If Interactive EasyFlow doesn't work: tough. If you lose a million because Interactive EasyFlow messes up, it's you that's out the million, not us. If you don't like this disclaimer: tough. We reserve the right to do the absolute minimum provided by law, up to and including nothing. This is basically the same disclaimer that comes with all software packages, but ours is in plain English and theirs is in legalese. We didn't really want to include any disclaimer at all, but our lawyers insisted. We tried to ignore them but they threatened us with the attack shark at which point we relented. -- Haven Tree Software Limited, "Interactive EasyFlow" To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp