>>well, i don't think the experience of fear or
>trust/compassion
>>is strictly associated with duality. as far as duality is
>>concerned
>
>Duality is good/evil, love/hate, trust/fear, etc.

trust/fear?
i don't agree here. trust/mistrust. ?/fear. i don't what i would oppose to fear, maybe bravery? the concept of fear is open to subjective logic i think.

and nature
>governs all that and everything in between. I use nature and
>universe interchangeably. It goes beyond earth. We are
>limited in our understanding of this

We are limited in it's understanding, yet you pose an argument, based on nature as the core strength and order of government. Is that logical? Even though I agree with you about nature, as natural order. I do think, that we as human beings, have the potential and power to, use nature to our advantage if we would choose to. So, perhaps it's more than just a governing order, but the buildingblocks to whatever we may create. To, whatever we can imagine, from the impossible, to the possible. I think nature is ours to use.

and that is why people
>meditate or pray.

I don't see how prayer or meditation has anything to do with nature. For some, yes. For most, I don't think so. People praying for nicer cars or, whatever they need. I don't know if that is equated with nature, or as a product of nature.

We want to feel that connection or
>communicate with what we cannot see, what is beyond the
>physical.

There is much we cannot see that we think we see, and it's right before our eyes. Sounds to me, like wanting to connect with something beyond the physical, is like wanting to escape the body, which some believe occurs during death, or, out of body experiences. I don't doubt it's possible, but, we are here, as physical beings, in a physical world.

This is where duality comes from. All living
>things are a part of that.

Duality comes from where? Can you show me how duality and the connection and communication with nature are related? I guess you need to define duality too. I hope I don't sound hostile, you always challenge and I dig that, so I apologize for any type of tone that may be offensive.

>
>> we do have a nature.
>>can you classify our nature?
>
>No and I do not care or have a need to classify it. That's
>what faith is. I have seen men (and women) mess things up as
>they attempt to label or classify nature. They look for logic
>or evidence because it's what they can understand in their
>world. Nature is so much more than that.
>

But, we have a nature! I don't understand how it is possible to ignore our own nature, and focus on a nature that you have little knowledge of. Are you saying, that you have faith in human beings, but, that there is more to us, that is in nature, that we cannot see?

>>Whether it will work or not. It's the natural course that
>>humans took. This is all a natural course, unless we are
>apart
>>from nature.
>
>We choose whether to live in harmony with nature or not.
>Regardless, we have to deal with the consequences of these
>choices. The universe will continue to flow.

If nature is the governing order. It is impossible to live without it. If it is the construction of us, nature is simply, not ours to escape. Living in harmony, does not mean, that we are to be peaceful. Living in harmony, is to do as nature directs. And, I believe that we are on a path that is natural. Even animals live and die, as a result of, killing eachother.

>
>>Well, I see a lot of logic in that. Apart from the vision,
>>which is art, and only a narrow scope into what it promised.
>>When I read these arguments, they rarely provide any insight
>>or direction to how it is attained.
>
>When I was a kid I was fortunate enough to spend a lot of time
>with nature. I used to go out and sit, butterflies would
>cover my arms, ants would sting my legs, I would step on some
>of the ants...this awareness of harmony in nature is something
>I bring with me. It's my core. There is no how.

That I agree with. It is something that you can just, be with. To be with it, takes no effort. As far as I learned from Budhist philosophy.

>
>>Human beings have evolved, and with
>>them their standard of living, technology, (faith), etc. How
>>do we return into a simplistic way of life?
>
>I have no problem with technology except for when it destroys
>living things. We use everything to destroy life, from the
>atom to pollution. Technology is just a tool and we have not
>evolved all that much. We are edging closer to destruction.
>Evolution implies progress or growth.

Yes, the principles we have learned to devise destruction technology, can be used to create positive technology. The tools are here already, we just need to use them. Peace.


~
This is the life I chose, or rather the life that chose me
If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black
If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I f