I created the thread and I don't mind Mondor writing in it. — Jack Cummins

I don't mind him writing in it either. I'm genuinely curious about "holographic reality" and wanted to learn more about it. But apparently it can't be expressed in words, so I was curious as to why all the writing.

All I asked for was a book; one point in a journey. "No book", and "no point in the journey" would have answered my question and sent me off on a journey without books, in search of clues, or not. Like I said, I guess I'll wait until there is a point in the journey.

Do explain and illustrate with an example. — baker

I think of the health care industry, where people have devoted their entire lives to saving others, and in pursuit thereof, they have enhanced their own physical fitness, knowledge, and well-being. I could name many names, but that would not be appropriate on a public forum and without their consent. One of these people was headed down what most would consider a dead-end path of self-destruction. They were told to get their head out of their ass and do something for someone else for a change, instead of gazing at their own navel and thinking how F'd up life is.

I've seen it with horses, and other animals, and mothers, particularly.

It is true that one must take care of themselves in order to care for others. But taking care of others can take care of you for that very reason. They found their worth *after* and as part of their service; not before or in spite of it.

I agree. Now, how best to get the state to stop? Trying to make it work, where, when successful, it gets to say "see, it works!" Or proving it failed, by it's own standards, and has killed the innocent?

I can understand the desire to get after a case of an innocent guy on death row, especially if you are the guy, or his loved ones, or you have great empathy. But, from an objective view of 10k feet, I think people should dump a metric shit ton of time, money and resources into showing the state to be a killer of innocent people.

I'm having the impression the OP is implying that the corrupt system is being kept alive by wellmeaning, naive "good citizens" who are honest, humble, and obedient. — baker

Okay. I was agreeing that "doing the right thing" was being honest and humble, but I got hung up on the "obedient" part. Obedience in a corrupt system would definitely help the corrupt system. I just don't think obedience is the right thing in a corrupt system. A person just has to decide what constitutes "corrupt" and "right thing."

With the covid example, I agree our health care system is corrupt. I think it is the insurance companies and their ownership of our politicians, and our tolerance of it, that make it so. But I don't think the corruption weighs too much in the decision as to whether compliance with directions is a good thing or not. It could be good to mask up, distance, get the shot; not for the system, but for you.

For instance, corrupt systems can do good things. If one goes along with the corrupt system because of the good it does, doing so might indeed benefit the corrupt system. So one is then forced to consider what is more right and what is less right. The only other alternative is war or insurgency, the successful prosecution of which might involve going along with the corrupt system like the French Underground.

According to the official policy, the damage would be for them to pay for and they would have to ensure safety at work. Now they can blame you and wash their hands. — baker

Okay. I guess I'm just having a hard time seeing how doing the right thing in a corrupt system benefits that corrupt system. They had to pay damages and ensure safety at work. I guess that could be a benefit to them, like punishing a criminal *might* benefit him. But it would be less so if they laid blame elsewhere. Doing the right thing is not something to be blamed for. Rather, it should be lauded. Regardless, I digress in considering the person doing the right thing. My question was about the system benefiting. Doing the right thing only benefits the corrupt system by making it less corrupt. That would benefit the system, but not the corrupt system.

As to those who need help, often that need can only be met by a corporate level of effort. — tim wood

Indeed. Some things just can't get done without cooperation. It cannot only be futile to try and do something on your own; it can actually be counter-productive. That doesn't necessarily mean one should do nothing, but one can try to organize people to cooperate.

If the company is corrupt, you following the official policy will be bad for you as you will be held responsible and will have to pay for the damage and the accidents. — baker

I get that (bad for me), but how does that benefit the corrupt system?

Thank you.

One doesn't become a captain of a ship by reading books or chatting. — MondoR

So what are you doing here?

I understand what it's like to not know a subject well enough to explain it to others. Sometimes books are a good way to share knowledge, or so I've heard.

Not at all. — MondoR

So understanding takes more than time and patience?

I am going to take a wild stab and guess that the male demographic of contributors on this forum are like me: youngish, humanities-educated, and nerdy. (If I am wrong please let me know!) — BigThoughtDropper

I did not address this before. You might be right as a general principle. I don't know. But as for me, I'm older, humanities-educated, and kind of nerdy. But I've been around the horn and over seas, I've had over 34 different jobs last count, and virtually all of those were outside and in work that is generally viewed as "masculine", tough, and physically demanding. Whether or not any of that is the true me, I don't know, but I don't think so. I think there's a little boy in there somewhere that was lead astray early on. I'm circling back around, but I do think it's important to put some bark on.

Those who go through life blaming others for making them feel are victims of their own mental illness. Whether or not the rest of us should be sensitive to the suffering of the mentally ill is a matter of 1. Knowledge, and 2. Reasonableness. Do we know, or should we know of this person’s mental illness? What knowledge are we reasonably charged with? And are the steps required to avoid upsetting the ill person reasonable steps? Or can we just allow the mentally ill to suffer? It's an individual and a community question. But there is a difference between a bull in china shop and a bull in the field. It might be advisable to wrangle one, but it might be advisable to leave the other one alone.

If reincarnation is not bound by time . . . could insights be memories? — TheMadFool

I think so. But I also think there are alternative explanations. If reincarnation exists, then maybe the insight comes from another, and not from one's previous or future self. Some artists will tell you, as will some writers, that some other power is moving their brush or their pen. For some reason they just can't credit themselves for an inspired work. If this work has no possible link to one's current life experience, then, while it could be the memory of a future or past self, it doesn't have to be. I could be another person, or animal, or plant, or rock, or god, or one's previous, or even current contact with, and participation in All. Personally, I think after you die you meld will All. We are actually currently melded with All but don't perceive it because All is perceiving itself through our perception of separateness. But every once in a while, I think All steps through the boundary and moves our brush, or our pen.

I've been exploring for decades. Understanding takes time and patience. — MondoR

Like a yogi on a mountain top.

I don't get your drift. But I do like the word entropy. Once I thought I "got it" and then some wag made a case about all the examples in the universe of all the things that are moving toward order and complexity. That made me go "hmmm?"

I know this is easily distinguishable (proven wrong), but I liken the decrease in animal size to an entropy of sorts. From dinosaurs to Pleistocene mega fauna, down to the current situation. Hunting ain't what it used to be, or could be. Damn entropy!

Thanks. I'll have wait until I get to town because my internet is too limited to watch stuff right now.

dumb down explanations, say nothing and answer no questions. — MondoR

Wow, the holographic model must be pretty deep. I've read some pop physics books by Hawking, et al, and saw Cosmos with Carl Sagan, and I found all that pretty enlightening, all without having to get a PhD in physics/astronomy, etc. Maybe I'll pump the brakes and wait for the field to get a better handle on itself. Thanks, though.

What's the best lay-explanation (dumbed-down) book I could get to address the holographic model? Preferably with pictures and charts. Thanks.

His idea that quantum was waves without any collapse (de Broglie saw particles as instaneous eruptions in waves), ended the need for dualism and any need to refer to the idea of particles/matter. — MondoR

How would string theory play in to that, or would it, or could it?

:100: Not that I live up to that (far from it), but :100:

Well, you are not only fundamentally wrong on the law, but you are wrong on the facts. The law will not find a crime, or even civil liability, under a scenario where X "feels" the source of his upset and his "victimization" is Y when Y has no duty to X. Further, Y is not "making" X feel.

I'll take one last stab at getting you to understand by using another case of "feeling". I don't know if you've ever been in love, but if so, the person you fell in love with did not "make you" feel love for them. That was all on you. Or lets try lust: We see a very hot chick in her Daisy Dukes. Guess what? She didn't make you hot for her. That was all on you. All of it. If you rape her, guess what? She didn't make you rape her. That was ALL on you. You not only victimized her, but you victimized yourself.

I'm done.

Ain't nuthin worse than 30 pounds of testosterone in a 20 pound sack.

Yes and the employee has taken the drug test which I think does count as X doing something to cause Y to believe that X will not smoke weed. — TheHedoMinimalist

Y has made not smoking weed a condition of employment, the verification of which is the test. They have a preexisting agreement. Do you not see the difference between "doing to" and "not doing to"? It's the same distinction I drew for you between spitting on you, versus smoking weed over there without any agreement not to.

Yes and I think that happens quite frequently. Hence why I don’t think it makes sense to call the act of smoking weed a victimless activity in a near universal sense like it is frequently argued to be by certain kinds of libertarians. — TheHedoMinimalist

The fact that people commit crimes or breach agreements (written or implied) quite frequently is irrelevant. Smoking weed does not transmogrify a mere observer into a victim simply because they saw it and are upset by it. There has to be a nexus showing the harm was imposed upon them by another, and was not merely the result of their own observation or agency.

Compare: You may know that I get upset seeing kids walking around with their pants down and their underwear showing. Guess what? Tough shit to me! You walking around with your pants down and your underwear showing, even if you know it upsets me, is not you upsetting me. It is me upsetting myself. How much more so if you don't know it upsets me? Because you don't know me, and you have no duty to go around asking everyone how they feel about something before you do it. The point here is, people have a duty to go feel somewhere else before their impose their unreasonable, subjective feelings on the rest of the world. Indeed, what if am upset by people with thin skin who get all upset about me smoking weed? Maybe we should outlaw their feelings and make them stay inside and not look out? Whose feels trumps whose feels? How about we keep our feels to ourselves unless and until their are actual, demonstrable, provable, palpable, damages?

If we are to use actors who played cowboys, or cowboy characters, as examples of masculinity, I'd choose Richard Boone as Paladin in the old TV show Have Gun. Will Travel. A hired gun or mercenary, and therefore dangerous when necessary, but urbane, well-read, sophisticated, and with a sense of justice. — Ciceronianus the White

I remember watching him (probably in re-runs) but I suspect you are a hair older than me. I grew up on the 50s, 60s and 70s TV Westerns, but I found my home and came of age with the man with no name, Sergio Leone and spaghetti westerns. I'll still squint with Clint on occasion. I've got Ennio Morricone all over my play lists. LOL!

I liked Paladin's business card. Wire San Francisco. The only better one was the most interesting man in the world, which simply said: "I'll call you."

Toxic Masculinity is derivative of Fragile Masculinity.

I used to monitor an internet Conservative safe space; a place where “men” could go to whine, and cry, and bitch with impunity. These men fancy themselves strong, and wise. The moderators and administrators ban anyone who is liberal, and who dares to stand on his hind legs; giving as good as he gets.

Back when there was a national discussion about “toxic masculinity”, I found their bitching to be unseemly, un-manly. Initially, it made me feel embarrassed for them. But I got over that. Anyway, I penned the following back then:

Strong cannot complain about weak, and wise cannot complain about stupid. It’s impossible.

An indicator of Toxic Masculinity is a self-identified strong man complaining about what he perceives to be weakness.

An indicator of Toxic Masculinity is a self-identified wise man complaining about what he perceives to be stupidity.

An indicator of Toxic Masculinity is a self-described “man” complaining.

A real man won’t complain, not even in the privacy of a safe space, among his peers; peers he likes, but who might also be complaining.

One might ask: Does my assessment run afoul of the notion that a man should not suppress his feelings, or turn his feelings inward, where they might manifest themselves in stress, health problems, addiction; or release as anger or cruelty toward others?

No. Because a real man doesn’t *try* to not complain. He doesn’t have to try. A real man doesn’t complain because he is truly strong, he is truly wise, he has broad shoulders, he has deep empathy for others, *especially* the weak and stupid, and, most important of all, he is humble. He is all this, because life has taught him how weak and stupid, he truly is; and he learned that lesson.

So, the next time you and the boys are sitting around bitching and laughing about women, or the skinny-jeaned, bearded, latte-drinking, limp-wristed liberal stranger with the Che tee shirt; that is when you look for the man who’s not joining in your cliquish bullying. Look for the man who is not judging you and the boys for being the way you are; not judging you for exhibiting your weakness and stupidity; not judging you for your humanity. Look for the man who might not even be there with you.

But look for him. Find his burden, shoulder some of it, STFU, embrace the suck, and lean in to it; not because you are trying to be a real man, but because you truly love to help. You especially love to help those who are not as strong or as smart as you and the “real men” who complain about them.

As a strong, wise man, you have nothing to fear from the truly weak and stupid. If they are your burden, then you don’t complain about them; you carry them, like a man. To do otherwise is to be a bully. That is Toxic Masculinity.

This may be an ideal that few can achieve, but it’s not really an achievement. It’s a way of heart. It’s doing your best, and better. It’s knowing what to look for in examples you want to follow. And examples to set for sons and daughters. It’s knowing no one is perfect, especially yourself.

It’s not merely physical bullying. There are countless professors across this nation who have an understanding of the Socratic Method, and yet they fail to live up to it. The two most important and overlooked aspects of the Method are these: 1. You must understand how little you know; and, 2. Your curiosity must be genuine; because logic weaponized ceases to be logic. Without these two crucial ingredients, the world is left with many self-identified “wise men” hating on self-identified “strong men” as weak and stupid. This is in addition to many self-identified “strong men” hating on “self-identified “wise men” as weak and stupid. Both sides are correct in their assessments of the other, but they are wrong for the hating.

This brings me to the truths which I often find counter-intuitive. I rarely look for “strong and wise” in locations where people tell me they can be found (especially people who self-identify as strong and/or wise). I look instead for those people who carry the load in silence, and love it. And often times I find those people don’t have dicks.

Those on top of the pyramid who continue to look up, or out, are worthy of my shoulders to stand upon, and I will allow them to stand there, and I will try to boost them even further. They have a grace and gratitude worthy of my support.

Those who look down, however, can support me with their rotting carcass, for all I care. I have no problem stepping on and over them. I just struggle to refrain from complaining about them because, really, there is no difference between bitching and being a bitch.

This is where I struggle with learning how to love my enemy. That's another step on the journey.

However, to go back to what I was saying about the very murky and subjective concepts of law such as "guilt" and "innocence", due to current legal epistemological standards I am not sure proving the state killed an "innocent" person would be the smoking gun you make it out to be. — BigThoughtDropper

Having practiced law for over a decade, I have an idea. Those subjective concepts you address apply to any case, not just the one I propose. I've already stipped to the difficulty. It's difficult in any case. But difficulty aside, where are limited resources better spent?

I think that there are plenty of implied agreements that X not smoke weed. — TheHedoMinimalist

There are none. X has to do something to cause Y to believe that X will not smoke weed. If X has not done anything to cause Y to believe that X will not smoke weed, then if Y is upset, Y made himself upset.

Employer drug tests are not implied. They are express. As to the roommate, he would first have to make it known he did not want to live with a pot smoker (in which case it would be express). If you then smoke weed without ever having said you would not, that's on the roommate. If you said you would not smoke and then lied and did it, that is like the agreement with the SO.

If you accept this, t — TheHedoMinimalist

I don't.

You know, it's like going to a resort: It is not the resort's job to make you happy. You have to make yourself happy. The resort need only do what it said it would do for the money you paid, and anything reasonably implied (i.e. not piss in your canteen). If you are still "upset" or angry or whatever, that's on you. If you have unreasonable expectations of life, that's on you, not on life. There are people who live in absolutely horrendous conditions who are happier than some of the richest people on earth. If you think people are entitled to be upset by other people who didn't go jack diddly squat to them, then too bad. It was you that hurt yourself, not them.

or whether to use them to vindicate the dead. — BigThoughtDropper

The thing is, I'm not looking to vindicate the dead. The dead are dead, and the state will be very happy to make that argument when asked to aid in proving the state screwed up in killing him. Rather, I'm looking to convince a sovereign of it's fallibility. Exoneration of a living innocent can be used by the state to prove it's case (i.e. the system works). Proving the state killed an innocent person would go further, in my opinion, to force the state to second-guess it's infallibility. And, where it is better that 100 serial killers go free than to kill an innocent man, the state would be forced to revise it's stated position on that point. Maybe "Well, we can afford to kill an innocent guy if it means we can kill all these dirt bags." That is a whole 'nother game.

An exoneration would be DNA proof and confession it was X that killed Y, not innocent Z. But the state might not even entertain that because, well, Z is dead. "Too late now!"

Even worse, the attorney's for W are more concerned about W, because he's still alive; not thinking that had they worked on Z there might not be any more Ws. So we end up looking at Ws for the rest of our lives.

If you wouldn’t say that, then what would be a meaningful difference between making your SO upset by cheating on them and making someone upset by smoking weed? — TheHedoMinimalist

By using the word "cheating" you imply an agreement. There is no agreement, implied or otherwise, that X not smoke weed.

However, I would not say that anything deep that I have experienced is an indication of anything else other than the power of the mind. — Manuel

I agree on the cult thing. I was just using the personal experiences of the mind to show not what it is capable of, but what it may be perceived as being incapable of. There is a thread here on knowing what it's like to be something else (or the impossibility of that). They were talking about bats. I'm going two steps further, to plants and rocks. Our limitations are not the limits. I like to guess about what is not, resting in the comfort of knowing that, from the perspective of All, it is. We are the is not part.

I was just re-reading Plato/Socrates and they were discussing before birth and after death. He made a fun case for it.

Think of it as a Universal Mind (an ocean) with Individual Minds (waves in the ocean). Of course, A Hologram with everything existing everywhere is another equivalent way of imaging it. — MondoR

I have heard the ocean example before, but I keep getting bogged down in molecules and whatnot. So I found attraction in the hologram example, thinking that maybe it was more like an indivisible wave, like that which the QM scientist perceives before it gets nailed down. I love the idea of particles, because I think they help us, like maps, but I get the feeling they are just that, and not the terrain. I suspect they are both, but when I think of a hologram I like to think it is the non-particle manifestation of reality.

I simply mean that if rocks and rivers were conscious in some way, then the way we treat things we consider to be non-mental, would be way too horrible. — Manuel

I can see how that would be the case, especially if we anthropomorphize. But I'm willing to think that these "others" would not perceive our treatment of them as horrible as we might think. Kind of like the rock getting busted up. I also think of fear and it's evolutionary benefits, and how the benefits may not make much difference to a deer who experiences it, and yet, while still horrible, may not be as horrible as it would be for, say, a predator that is not as wired for fear as is the deer. That is one reason I don't hunt predators. While there are exceptions, I don't think they are meant to be hunted, at least not as a matter of course. I also think of personal experiences that I have had with cold. It's very difficult for me to articulate, but I know there are "states" that one can be in, as a result of acclimation, where cold is not perceived like it is when in other states. Diving into a cold mountain lake is one thing for a person who does not live cold, and it's a lesser thing for one who lives cold. We used to be tougher. Nature is tough. I can't think of much that is tougher than a rock.

None of this is utilized by me as an excuse for my treatment of others, assuaging a guilt. But I get the feeling that nature would rather us engage her on a primal basis than to ignore her in our sprint away. Especially since we really aren't going anywhere and we seem to be missing out on life.

I'd only ask you, does this "All" include "non-mental" stuff, or would you be of the view that there is no "non mental" stuff: all is part of one mind? — Manuel

I'd say, that by my definition of All, it would have to be both/and, and neither/not. I'm not sure how All would answer your question, but I'm stuck here perceiving my assignment, and trying to figure a way to perceive that which was not assigned to me (I'd love to hunt Bison Latifrons). Because, again, my definition of All would suggest there is a way. I'm fairly certain that when I die, that will happen, but it would be cool if I could do it now. And be choosy about it. Then again, I hear nature calling me back to life to enjoy her now. I'm torn.

ut I can't say with much certainty. I tend to favor the view that we construct the world according to our cognitive, intellectual and genetic capacities. How this things "in here" (in the head) relates to whatever is out there, is very obscure, not to say a mystery which is what I think, but avoid saying too much. — Manuel

:100:

If what you say about rocks is true, that is, if they could experience - which they may - then existence is a mistake. — Manuel

I don't know how that follows?

I tend to favor the view, like it seems you do too, that all is one. But maybe at a certain step of complexity, things become individual "to themselves", so to speak. — Manuel

Upon my first reading, I was going to object to your first sentence, but your second sentence brought me home. My mother and I argued about a thesis a friend wrote, where he was using terms like Universal Pantheist (hereinafter UPN) and Universal Panentheist (hereinafter UPNN). My mom rides with UPNN, which is in accord with your first sentence. And when I explained my limited understanding of QM, and how that made me UPN, I explained it thus: If I were to say there is a bunch of gods but they are all really just different interpretations or manifestations of one god, then I would be denying the reality of the individual gods separately as gods (like your second sentence). And, since I believe God (which I'd rather call All) is capable of being both at the same time, I'd have to ride wit UPN since it accounts for UPNN and UPN and the absence of both. After all, it would be a weak sauce indeed if infinity could not account for the absence of itself. If could not, then it would be finite. Which, of course, it is. That's the whole before/after, part/whole thing. I'm no QM guy, but I see them heading in that direction.

I see the whole as greater than the sum of the parts, while seeing the whole as granting wholeness to the parts in it's perception of itself, all while being less than each part. Thus, a rock "perceives" from it's point of view, even if we can't fathom it. I can't remember the name of the theory but it has something to do will all possible manifestations of all possibility being true (like infinite universes and infinite alternatives of manifestations of reality). If that were the case, which I believe it is, then each perspective must be had (and not). Therefor, the rock has one.

I only threw out the rock's time line as a possible reason why we can't fathom how it functions. Hell, I don't think even the geologist understands what he's saying when he talks about a million years, much less billions and more. We can throw the terms around to help us grasp ideas, but as it was opined above, these are but maps and not the terrain of time.

Question re the range: a branded - thereby a fast-fish - cow drops an unbranded calf. Is it a loose-fish on the instant it hits the ground? (Moby Dick, chap. 89, "Fast fish and loose fish.") — tim wood

On the range, an un-branded calf is called slick. The mother could be slick too. Kind of like humans: We don't belong to a rancher. But to answer your question, it would be it's own self before it hits the ground, while it is airborne, on the way down, once it is out. Of course most cows I've seen and calves I've pulled have been on the ground. So, the distinction is in or out.

Yours the notion that personhood starts at separation, — tim wood

That's not my notion. My only concern is the integrity of the woman's body. If the state wants to attach personhood before, during, at or after conception, in the womb out on the ground, or as some biologists might argue, once the entity is capable of reproduction (puberty) is the state's business. But the woman's body trump's whatever concern or notion the state might have.

The state can have it's fictions, but my notion is anything but amoral.

the problem is not solved within Procrustean parameters — tim wood

I don't get your stew/salt argument, but I will say the problem is indeed solved, and without "Procrustean parameters." I had to look that up, but if it means "(especially of a framework or system) enforcing uniformity or conformity without regard to natural variation or individuality" then my position is gold. For my position is distinctly reliant upon natural variation and individuality.

Time is not linear, it is the experience of change. — MondoR

Sounds good to me. My point was simply that, where people might perceive All's perception of itself as having come about as a result of the the parts being in place first, that chronology doesn't necessarily apply to All.

I have a vague understanding of the holograph, but it's a lay-understanding for sure. I've no doubt, though, that All would be fine with it's perception, and the perception of it's parts, being the observation of, or participation in a holograph. And not. (And whenever I say this or that, I don't mean to imply a two-valued orientation; I also assume all possible stops along the way in between and outside of.)

But this seems to assign a value to the passage from mother's body to world that is only arbitrary. — tim wood

I don't think it is arbitrary at all. The "before" involves the integrity of the mother's body and decisions related thereto. The "after" has removed her body from the equation and kicked us into considerations of the state's desires and the integrity of the child's body.

Before = her. After = whatever.

Nor would technological advances, C-sections, paternal rights, blah blah blah, have any impact on this demarcation.

Thanks you for your thoughts, all. I was trying to set up a dilemma with parameters which would have folks address a single point:

Notwithstanding the difficulty of proving it (including the resistance of the state), would not evidence that the state had killed X number of innocent people be more persuasive in the debate than evidence of a living person's innocence?

When I was young, people would always talk about what secrets might be lost if we were to destroy the rain forest. I thought how much more persuasive it would be if we could prove what had actually been lost. We can't, of course, and that's the point. For instance, there was a plant on this acre of this section of the rainforest that would cure all cancer with no side affects. But alas, we lost it because we violated Aldo Leopold's admonition that the first sign of intelligent tinkering is to keep all the parts.

The death penalty issue is similar, but with the actual possibility of providing proofs after the fact that would stop future mistakes. Granted, the state wants finality and, after having gone through countless appeals and lots of money and time and effort, it does not want to aid in the undermining of itself. But I would argue that any sovereign worthy of being American would not stand in the way of demonstrating it's fallibility if doing so would render it less fallible.

Perhaps you have some other kind of argument in mind? I'm all ears. — Manuel

I don't, really, but I do like to think out loud.

Most of this thread is over my head. However, when I read it, I get hints of "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts." And then I wonder about the parts themselves. What is the difference between a rock and a single cell that makes up our brain? Nothing, really. Unless we impute to the cell it's own consciousness, either independently (no different than the rock), or as as part of the whole (in which case, what of the rock?).

I understand the distinction between what we can learn from a rock, and the rock itself teaching. I get that. But I'm not so sure the rock isn't teaching. I'm reminded of the old saying "What does a rock say?" . . . . "It's your move." The time scales involved here might be inconceivable to us.

Where religious folks might talk about a "Devine spark" or a physicist might talk about electricity or what have you, both are talking about something more than just the parts. When matter comes together in a certain way, through whatever forces, maybe a spark is generated simply by the combination alone, and life begins for the biologist, or electricity is generated by the widget for the physicist. Now, if this state of affairs lasts long enough, the universe (All) may have developed an awareness of itself. All parts came together in such a way as to create the spark of All. All then wanted to perceive itself and assigned a conscious perception to each part, including rocks.

Here's the part I sense, intuitively, but have no way of proving: All became so "Godly" (for lack of a better term) that it could both precede the parts coming together, and be a following result of their combination at the same time. Based upon my previous chronology, it is hard to make that leap, for surely All could only do that after the events that created All brought All into being. But time and chronology don't work in a linear fashion for All.

Anyway, when I look at a rock, it may be "looking" back at me. I try to imagine all it has seen and will see and what it has shown to All.

Side bar digression: When breaking rocks for a construction project one time, I got to thinking about all this and wondered if I was somehow disrespecting the rocks. That night I had a dream. The rocks were telling me, laughing, that they enjoyed the activity. They were all on their way from the Rocky Mountains to the Gulf of Mexico and they were glad to watch me work.

We still have non-mental being. — Manuel

I'm not convinced.

I’m not sure what the meaningful difference is between making someone upset by spitting on them and making someone upset by smoking weed. — TheHedoMinimalist

The meaningful difference is this: He who spits at you is doing something to you. He who smokes weed is not. In the former case, he is doing it to you. In the latter case, you are doing it to yourself.

With the weed, he's not making you upset. You are making yourself upset.

It seems to me that offending someone still counts as victimization. — TheHedoMinimalist

Some folks victimize themselves if they are offended by the mere existence of another. It's not the other that is victimizing them.