Social interaction is a necessary condition of community by being the action through which life is replicated and in which life is experienced, within varying degrees of social integration. To avoid the argument of chicken or egg as regards individual or society in order
to focus on the conditions and conditioning we know exist, seems the direct tact in developing a more cohesive understanding of the physical relationship of individual and society.
The physical parameters of social life can easily be delineated as non-human Geography, Demography of more than one, and Pathways of communication. Admittedly this limits our scope to that which is quantifiable by the five senses and generally verifiable through test and sample.
The reason for characterizing Geography here as non human is to avoid the confusion which might follow from the etymologically studied application of the word which reveals its true characteristic as an ‘overriding through sifter’, an umbrella word which also has more specific meanings and exclusionary applications. So to use the more exclusionary application and specifically meaning those attributes in the physical condition of life which, although they may include aspects modified by man, do not here include the writings and other recorded musings of men other than as they have been manifested directly and substantially on the canvass we often refer to as Mother Nature. In other words the section of the list concerning the needs in life as individuals become social includes human earth writings larger than Rushmore or Stone Mountain, and perhaps larger than Aswan Dam and the Dust Bowl and smog. An inclusive but not comprehensive rendering of the list: Astronomy, Topography, Meteorology and Geology seems fairly complete and at least example enough to indicate the area of community influence which is underlying all, though in many respects, especially as ‘the world grows smaller’ diminishing in its obvious direct influence but without which there is void.
More on Demographics of more than one, and Pathways of communication
later
RobeFRe
3/10/2005
3/08/2005
theo
RobeFRe said in response to a comment 'God of Person before God of group?'at Theo
most always by record as read
Adam
Enoch
Abraham
Moses
Samuel
Daniel
Mary
Matthew
The Samaritan Woman
All these had personal relationships with God who then sometimes used them to minister to the group.
Since the veil was wrent in two the relationship seems meant to be even more intensely personal again. I would say God of Person then God of Group. The role of group being fluid as to the individual need for relationship with God.
The organized group being unwieldy by size and need for tradition would generally be able to maintain the record of truth over time in better stead than the individual. But I am sure that this is not my blogspot, so I relinquish the floor for the purpose of a heightened personal, individual as well as group, relationship with God.
most always by record as read
Adam
Enoch
Abraham
Moses
Samuel
Daniel
Mary
Matthew
The Samaritan Woman
All these had personal relationships with God who then sometimes used them to minister to the group.
Since the veil was wrent in two the relationship seems meant to be even more intensely personal again. I would say God of Person then God of Group. The role of group being fluid as to the individual need for relationship with God.
The organized group being unwieldy by size and need for tradition would generally be able to maintain the record of truth over time in better stead than the individual. But I am sure that this is not my blogspot, so I relinquish the floor for the purpose of a heightened personal, individual as well as group, relationship with God.
Spirit above, spirits within and spirits without
As we move from the physical through the intellect into the Spiritual, a universal question becomes evident–Why?. Why do we exist? Why do we continue? Why do we change? Why do we seemingly quit? Why do we not continue? Why do we suffer?
Inspiration is the key to beginnings. Begin, begoing?, begone. Why start? Why not stay? Why did we not stay? Because we were moved to move! Motivation, so many words to describe this precept, encourages us to change. To change position. To change placement. To change perspective. Inspiration as a key opens the door to understanding the source of ongoingness. Remembering that a rabbit sometimes goes on by being very still and quiet. Inspiration is a progenitor of instinct and concept. Many things we consider concepts were actually given to us, inspired in us from outside of us. Inspiration grabs us by the nape of the neck and points us in the direction we need, like blinders on the head of a draft animal it focuses us, it gives us our escape. Why are we not more inspired? Perhaps our vision of ourselves has disjointed that ability to see outside our box, to hear from beyond our self.
Concept, our vision of our self, is more an ongoing assimilation of outward conditions with and into the inward processes that make us distinctly our self. It is an important operand in the formula of life. This Concept is something which, though affected by outside forces, is a mentality wholly our own as individuals. It is our own as a part and parcel of inalienable rights, responsibilities and consequences. We make our bed, we read our life, scribble the borders, and crib our speech. But we do not live in a vacuum. Concept is derived from our experience. Concept, from the early years of dependance upon parentage, where it is very similar to its inspirational source, and through the sliding scale toward maturity--trial, rebellion, serendipity, and adaption--becomes personal. It is that thing which most ably describes who we think we are and thus who we are. It determines what we think is important and what we expect. What we expect is determined by whether we are continually looking inward or striving to see beyond our horizon. If our concept is valid then our interaction flourishes.
Vision describes that ability to discern and focus upon the significant influence. Although our vision helps determine our direction, timing and interaction. A part of our vision must appreciate our inner talents, limitations, and potentials. With experience, training, and a concept that is developed with vision in mind, vision improves, experiences become more in accordance with expectation, and inspiration can be more readily assimilated into the process of conception.
These three, inspiration, concept and vision, while similar and often interchangeable in usage, must, as the precepts described here, be independent, yet unavoidably synergistic to one another. This enables the self to be centered yet outgoing while resilient concerning the elliptic influence of living within earthly constraints.
RobeFRe
Inspiration is the key to beginnings. Begin, begoing?, begone. Why start? Why not stay? Why did we not stay? Because we were moved to move! Motivation, so many words to describe this precept, encourages us to change. To change position. To change placement. To change perspective. Inspiration as a key opens the door to understanding the source of ongoingness. Remembering that a rabbit sometimes goes on by being very still and quiet. Inspiration is a progenitor of instinct and concept. Many things we consider concepts were actually given to us, inspired in us from outside of us. Inspiration grabs us by the nape of the neck and points us in the direction we need, like blinders on the head of a draft animal it focuses us, it gives us our escape. Why are we not more inspired? Perhaps our vision of ourselves has disjointed that ability to see outside our box, to hear from beyond our self.
Concept, our vision of our self, is more an ongoing assimilation of outward conditions with and into the inward processes that make us distinctly our self. It is an important operand in the formula of life. This Concept is something which, though affected by outside forces, is a mentality wholly our own as individuals. It is our own as a part and parcel of inalienable rights, responsibilities and consequences. We make our bed, we read our life, scribble the borders, and crib our speech. But we do not live in a vacuum. Concept is derived from our experience. Concept, from the early years of dependance upon parentage, where it is very similar to its inspirational source, and through the sliding scale toward maturity--trial, rebellion, serendipity, and adaption--becomes personal. It is that thing which most ably describes who we think we are and thus who we are. It determines what we think is important and what we expect. What we expect is determined by whether we are continually looking inward or striving to see beyond our horizon. If our concept is valid then our interaction flourishes.
Vision describes that ability to discern and focus upon the significant influence. Although our vision helps determine our direction, timing and interaction. A part of our vision must appreciate our inner talents, limitations, and potentials. With experience, training, and a concept that is developed with vision in mind, vision improves, experiences become more in accordance with expectation, and inspiration can be more readily assimilated into the process of conception.
These three, inspiration, concept and vision, while similar and often interchangeable in usage, must, as the precepts described here, be independent, yet unavoidably synergistic to one another. This enables the self to be centered yet outgoing while resilient concerning the elliptic influence of living within earthly constraints.
RobeFRe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
