Hi Y'all and Paul
If as Paul writes,"a mind is the ultimate cause of all existence," our observations about the
minds of other persons might deserve revisiting
and rigor rather than quick judgment and rancor.

Sensuality is a central topic to test that assertion. Does the prime directive of "spiritual guidance" actually censure sensuality or does it caution that, regardless of rhetoric, other minds are still rattling and careening out of control and hence we need all our wits about us to avoid collisions?

If the latter, then all TRUE moralists should assess sensuality in terms of traffic etiquette, not as a blanket dichotomy about whether to "travel" in that region at all. Similarly , my diatribe here should not be construed as a blanket rejection of any of the cautions, constraints or counsel of our ministers and sages.

Is one's own mind, or the ultimate mind, the ultimate cause of existence? This should not have a simple answer but an elaborate one, in my view. It cannot be simpler than a three dimensional geometry plus time, I think. It could be more complex.

If the minds of others are seen in their true integrated complexity, there is no truth in the rush to categorize sensuality as being "unspiritual," "less holy," or even
"not one of the true purposes of our existence."

Science helps on topics like this by modeling
rigor, caution and exactness. Reference to neuroscience, proportionality and sequence can help. I don't know if all the sciences really have much to say about it though. Why would I consult algae about this topic?
Chlorophyll,
Mike

Science, Sensuality, Morality and Holiness

• Each of those four subjects is hard to understand. - pmartin - May 20, 2004 - 16:40 UTC
  • If we never do, we will at least have conversed - quiet - May 23, 2004 - 17:03 UTC
    • This conversing is like wading through frozen molasses - pmartin - June 22, 2004 - 16:09 UTC