Steve wrote:
>>If the Earth can be sentient with no justifcation or little
>>justification for it then so can a rock. I believe that you and Bryan
>>are on a slippery slope to having everything being sentient which of
>>course renders the word meaningless.
It is the sign of an acolyte to make spurious inferences and attribute
statements in this way. This is a perfect sample of the kind of statements
made by an "economic fundamentalist", who conceives of nothing outside
competition as valuable. Economic fundamentalists see value only in
competing with opponents, not in cooperating with partners, whatever the
justification. The acolyte's slang reveals that justification is need for
sentience. If you were to believe even for a moment that rocks have feelings
[some of which may very well have feelings], then that would be beneficial
and adviseable within a cave where there are rare stalactites. At least they
would be left alone - if the people in the cave "cooperated" with the rocks
to maintain their sentience. Who gives a flippin' heck if a rock is sentient
or not? well ....unless a person enjoys heckling.
"Plants found to send nerve-like messages. New York Times, 11/17/92, Vol.
142 Issue 49153, pC1, by Yoon, Carol Kaesuk:
Discusses the discovery by a team of researchers that *the tomato plant uses
an electric signal to alert its defense system against grazing
caterpillars*. The new finding promises to shake up the field of plant cell
communication, where the study of electrical signaling has long been shunned."
>steve, how many times do i have to ask you to be more careful in not
>misrepresenting me? this is getting quite rediculous and i think you are
>being frivolous in your consideration towards me and i don't appriciate
>it...
>
>i said that i think the earth is sentient... i've also said that i think
>rocks are NOT sentient... someone else did and you somehow attributed that
>sentiment to both of us... other things that i think are not sentient
>include, but are not limited to, plastic, steel, anything that's dead, and
>the list goes on... now, to make a further point but to hopefully not
>confuse the issue, i DO beleive in a universal awareness (i.e. god, if you
>want to call it that) that interpenetrates everything... and i believe
>this "force" to be sentient in that nothing would be sentient without it...
>i.e. it is the "source of sentience"... now, again, these are things that
>i *believe*... it is not my problem (nor do i consider it a problem) that
>they (seemingly) cannot be proven...
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|