Re: Tere's still another point of view

Posted by Sparrow on Jan 24, 2002 at 22:31 (

Re: Tere's still another point of view (Amaranth Rose)

AR, yours is the objective view. It's fine. But for those who are thirsty, as Bobba point out in his "context" reply, there is a chance, at least, of a more subjective view, which is colored by the individual's life position, and so THAT begins to have the potential to change physiology.

If I over-manage my WORLD, my physiology runs to one end of the spectrum, if I over-manage my SELF, it runs to the other end. (They do seem to be at opposite ends of a behavioral rainbow. It is possible to find a mid-point, though most "averagers" prolly are not planted in the middle, but instead float one way or the other across the mid-point of the two behaviors).

I would think that many persons who adamantly assert that they are ALWAYS neutral are probably hiding something...the zig-zag "floaty" thingy is a fairly balanced way to live. It leaves one at the best of both worlds. Middle ground is good, it's healthy. "MEEK" was the Elizebethan term for one who lived in the middle.

Science and belief ARE related and can coexist validly and well in the same conversation, in contrast to what Richard Stover holds as truth ("Believes").

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]