[at-l] 15 billion light yrs.

[sandpiperhiker@yahoo.com (Amy Friends Stone)]

> I have read a good amount of Rand's stuff, and while
> it is not "complete" or flawless in a philosophical 
> sense, one of the things that I took from it was 
> that many of the "limitations" of man are self-
> placed.  

That I can understand.  It applies to most people
everywhere.  Believe you can do it and you can.  

> It is not difficult to abstract from her writing 
> that "feeling small", or rather any sense of fear or

> awe relative to a non-intelligent thing, is useless 
> and stupid and does more harm than good.

Perhaps.  But I don't agree.  What's wrong with
feeling small?  I'm 5'7"... if I see a guy in a bar
who's 6'5" I'm not going to go up to him and start a
fight just to prove that a person of my stature could
overcome him.  The other point I disagree with is
"nonintelligent"... I believe that man simply doesn't
have the "Rosetta stone" to understand everything yet.
 The earth is a living being - all the parts are
intertwined, and the living parts or so closely
mingled with the inanimate that it seems foolish to
ignore the animate while "conquering" the inanimate.
 
> You said it yourself; it is man's spirit that
> tackles nature.  Often this *does* lead to 
> destruction, but that's because many people don't 
> think about their actions.

Precisely my point.  They don't think about their
actions, and even those who do, (speaking
environmentally) may not have enough information to
make the best choice.  And yet, the bulldozing
continues.

> This isn't to say that 
> they should feel small in comparison to it.

Why not?  Isn't it a requirement of a monumental task
that the accomplisher be small in comparison?  If
they're equals, how then is accomplishment so large?

> If you feel that you are nothing, then
> congratulations, you just made it
> true.  (Not an attack against you, just a statement
> in general)

Understood.  But my point is that feeling small isn't
the same as feeling like nothing.  "Awe" is an
inspiring thing - what drives the speaker in the Rand
quote (other person's original post) to think of
airplanes and tunnels?  The sky and the mountains that
are there in front of him - without those monumental
objects, his tunnels and planes are useless - if
there's no mountain to get over or around, then the
tunnel through sure doesn't seem like a shortcut, does
it.

No offense meant; I apologize that I'm not as eloquent
as I'd like.

Sandpiper


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/