Greetings A Smoking Fox,


Were getting off -topic, so I'll make it brief.

Read Einsteins "Theory of Relativity". I don't know a single astronomer or physicist who would argue that time is a universal constant. Time-space is one thing; time in terms of years is the human perception of our planets revolution (motion) around the sun. The notion of a day, a year, a month, an hour, a minute (human concepts of time) does not exist outside of human perception, it is only relative to our planet.

Time = the perception of motion in space ( it is a relative concept of measure)

This post has been edited by Faustopheles: Dec 21 2006, 04:13 PM

Ok down to just the answer to the question. We and all of life including the earth are connected. The earth responds to our stupidity and yes the earth is in pain from us being so stupid. You can feel the negative energies any time you are grounded well.

I will end this debate once and (BY THE GRACE OF ENKI *Praying*) for all!!!

YES--THE EARTH IS SAD! We have made it sad!

Sorry to be blunt and to the point but I have seen some obscenly long posts on this subject and it is insane! Anyone w/ any sort of intuitive sense knows that, but moves on w/ their lives....

BTW--at this point this topic is very loosly connected to the Necronomicon--so unless ur post is on a Necro. related matter as it pertains to this topic--please tell the MODs to move this thread to the appropriate location......

Laterz.....

Greetings everyone,

I must be nuts. I think the Earth does not give a $hit. I am positive that the Earth will be here alot longer than our race of hairless apes. Perhaps the Earth views us in the same light as we might view a pimple on our behind. It might be painful and an eye sore but eventually it will go away. Or perhaps the Earth will decide to pop us with Global Warming and the next ice age. Whatever our fate is in a million years no one is going to give a flying fudge. So sit back with a six pack and do some fancy channel surfing because the Earth does not give a flying fudge so why should we? I think Eabatu is right this belongs in fight club and not Necronomicon as it is not even loosely Necronomicon related. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sport_boxing.gif)

This post has been edited by Edunpanna: Dec 21 2006, 08:04 PM

Greetings Edunpanna,

I agree with you 100%. I believe my words were that Earth doesn't give a "flying f@ck" , and you've seen the debate that it has set off. But as I've posted there are two ways to look at this issue, you and I take a distanced approach outside the realm of human experience. This is not because we don't like the earth it is because we realize the insignificance of the the "hairless ape"(as you so eloquently put it).

Move it to fight club! Nonetheless, I think all points have been made and no opinions have been swayed. It has been a fun debate nonetheless.

The Necronomicon, and it's Gods, left this topic many posts ago. I have moved it to Esoteric Discussions for obvious reasons. If the debate goes sour, I will move it to the Fight Club.

Ashnook

I dont agree at all... But what i agree is to move the post to the Esoteric Discussion or later on to the fight club... ;-)

regards
mystick

faust, time being relative does not equal time being none existant.
Time as relative and fluid as it may be is still real. It may not be a definite constant like we define it in our human minds, but it does exist.
and because it exists it has to be dealt with. You clearly said time does not exist, wich is not the same as saying time is relative.
Many relative concept do truly exist. Something that does not exist is not relative.

Also, i agree on the insignificance of the human ape. We are not important. But that is not relevant in this discussion.
I think life on earth in general has importance, equal or more so than the importance of the human ape.
Wich is precisely why i advocate being respectfull for the earth.

That however is subjective. Wich is what we already agreed upon, that there is no logical reasoning against or for the importance of life.
Wich is why we inevetably both are right.

You claim life is not important to the planet earth.
I claim it is important.

You claim the time that life exists on this planet does not matter as it will all end eventually anyway.
I claim the time does matter, and that love and experiences shared in the function of that time between life forms is important.

there is no real evidence for both statements.

Fantastic Discussion! I can't believe I waited so long to read it, but I love to kill and a few hours after it gets heated.

I take a stance that stands between the apathy of the one side and the Compassion of the other. While I do not believe that the earth is sad, because emotion is in point of fact a purely human conception, our reaction to a particular energetic vibration which we say is 'negative' only because we percieve it so, and not even universally for humans. Lots of people relish sadness and other typically negative emotions. I have found in my own experience that embracing and accepting those 'negative' energies as a natural and integral part of my human experience, even lessens the impact that such stressers normally have on the body. It isn't the energy that is negative, it is our reaction to it that we dislike.

While I do not believe we should be careless in how we treat the earth and that which lives on it, I also do not believe that we can act outside of the will of the Earth itself. No tree-hugging hippie may appreciate the advancements that our industrialized societies have wrought, the very same engine of our destruction, they have none the less allowed for us to expand and evolve in ways that we would not have been able to without them. I personally see the earth as a singular consciousness which is aware of us to the same extent that we are aware of our individual cells. What we are doing may be the course of what is to the earth what one 'incarnation' of physical body is to us. Perhaps the earth is in some unfathomably more complex way, itself in a cycle of karma.

Also, someone at one point suggested that the planets were passive, and contrasted them to earth in that way, being that we are a planet lush with life, but it's worth pointing out that we've only been watching those planets for a very brief period of time, and have you really thought about just how insanely vast a span of relative human time it took for earth to develop this thriving greenery of life? It is speculated that even if bacteria did not survive (probably deep in the earth's crust, if not on the surface) there is still the possibility that it could rain from the sky during a meteor shower, or even the rock that blew us up. Life has a strange way of adapting and blossoming wherever it lands. If you think about it, you very own body will one day be literally reconstituted, the atoms that make your physicality up will be moved around to some other structure and life will once again flow through it in some observable manner that humanity would consider life. Life may be in the atoms themselves. Never to be truly damaged, never truly destroyed. Destruction seems to be a matter of human ego as well, the way i look at it.

Beyond just the human scope, look at it from outside the earthly scope. The earth isn't so special itself. There are countless planets in the universe, an inconceivable number of configurations, all of which have the potential to manifest life in some way. We don't mean that much.

Of course it's all good and well to live one's life in selfless service to others, certainly you'll do no harm to the planet that way. Well, unless you consider that it's possible that all life eventually effects the planet in a negative way. I mean, humans aren't the first ones to pollute the earth, at least by our standards. Really, it's just dangerous to us and a particular range of other life. Not all life. And, our thinning atmosphere actually could trigger any number of evolutionary curiosities. Radiation triggers mutation, and it seems to be bad for us, but what if it is simply a natural and inevitable occurrence that we had no choice but to initiate, for the good of evolution?

For that matter, it's possible that burning up fossil fuels and throwing chemicals into the atmosphere that couldn't have gotten there without some sort of technological, i.e., human, intervention, may be a part of our purpose. We may be destroying ourselves, but literally fulfilling the requirements for the next evolutionary phase. Some bacteria produce waste that will quickly over toxify their environment and render it impossible for them to live in - but that same polluted waste is the essential material for some other form of life.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I didn't see anyone advocating destruction, and I don't think that apathy is the same thing as 'being a part of the problem'. If that were the case, then anyone who supports that belief is guilty of indirectly causing anything that they don't actively seek to prevent - hunger, war, pollution, poverty, etc.

peace

Addition: I think someone mentioned that anyone with a modicum of intuitive connection to the earth could sense it's sadness. I have to take exception to that - I commune with the earth on a regular basis as part of my daily meditation routine. I sense some sadness, but not from the earth, rather from the beings that live on it. From the earth, all I ever sense is an all encompassing serenity and wisdom that renders that sadness pointless and even silly. As though it knows that we may suffer, but reassures us that the part of us that is aware will easily endure the inevitability of our physical demise. We cannot destroy the earth, and I would go so far as to say we cannot damage it either. Even in the sense that one might compare humanity to a virus - ultimately that virus that destroys the human body, creates a fertile ground for other life to thrive in.

This post has been edited by Vagrant Dreamer: Dec 27 2006, 11:24 PM

Good post. I don't think the earth is sad either, but i value the life on this rock. And that is why i welcome alternative fuels and other developments that are good for the eco system.
To a normal person, aphaty towards the environment may not seem like much of an issue, but if every scientist researching alternative fuels and things like that, did not care about the eco system, there would be few scientists left to do the studies. The same with people funding them. Lately there has been an increase the study in alternative fuels, but that research can also move into fuels that are even more harmfull for the environment. Alternative fuel does not mean green fuel by defenition. its just other than fossil fuel based.

I don't believe for one bit it is the human ego that defines the importance of earth and the life on it.
I realise how small our planet is, but compassion does not stem from the ego.
Its just the opposite of the ego, to care about other things in life.
And even if it is small and microscopic, that does not matter, its the human ego itself that reasons that small things mean nothing.
Its not because it is a tiny microbe on your skin that its live does not matter.
But thats how the human ego thinks, it thinks the small is of no importance.
In fact many small organisms keep the balance in our eco system, they are of great importance at least to that extent.

Thats what this logic is wrong about:
The univers is large -> the earth is small -> we are infinitly small -> so we must not be important and neither must our life be.
That reason is based on the idea that small things are not important and big things are. Wich simply has no basis in logic or reason.
Its just a mind trick you play on yourself. Position yourself as a spectator in the universe, viewing our tiny planet, and according to the human perception the planet loses its importance. But that is just an illusion, the small is no less important than the big, you just think that for some reason. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/baby.gif)

In the end, we both are wrong, because there is no logic that defines the importance of life in this universe.
And there is no logic that defines the lack of importance in this universe.
Both views are based on "ego" and both views lead to nothing of logical importance.
However at least i have morality at my side (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) , saving life and all that, and the other point has no reason for its existance, its based on illusion alone.

MY STICK! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)