Re: "Reality"

Philip Michelson (
Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:12:04 +1000 (EST)

You are correct in your apprehension of what I suggested. However, you are
also correct in picking up that I had taken a very broad stance. A series of
postulates should clear up my position:

1. If we are made of the same creative "stuff" that everything else is made
of then we must share (at least some) common attributes (and therfore
understanding of the nature of these).

2. If we are created out of the material of creation (that is by/from the
great creative vortex of the universe, the font of all potential), then we
must by definition contain the same creative abilities as that which created us.

3. If we possess greater powers than we currently realise, then why do we
not recognise them and more importantly utilise them ?

My own position is that we grow individually into an understanding of what
we truly are (and can be), and that at certain times the "Hundredth monkey"
syndrome precipitates a quantum leap by large groups simultaneously (who
appear to cotton on to some greater wisdom independent of any apparent
behavioural learning intervention).

best wishes,


At 23:52 14/12/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Thanks for the response, Philip... a clarification follows...
>I follow your notion of interdependence, and agree such interdependence
>sets the outer boundaries of our constructs of reality. Let me ask, though,
>if this interdependence must necessarily be an aspect of our "control".
>When we receive sunlight from long dead stars, we are influenced, but can
>hardly productively consider the influence of our suntan on the birth of
>the universe. There may be connections in principle, but as far as our
>"control" or influence are concerned, we don't seem to be the sorts of
>organisms that can take such influences into our constructs for action.
>However, I may be misunderstanding the significance of interdependence in
>your scheme of "reality".