For those who don't know what a "Schmoo" is, it was
an imaginary creature dreamed up by the immortal Al Capp, creator of "Lil' Abner" (perhaps the greatest comic strip of all time.) A Schmoo was a small, bowling-pin-shaped biped with a Hitler mustache which reproduced prolifically, was ecstatically happy at all times, and had a very loving disposition. So loving, in fact, that it would die of happiness if you wanted to eat it. That's right, there was no joy greater to a Schmoo than the thought of a human being eating him.
Now society, as we all know, is based on greed, ambition, and competition. These things cause a lot of problems, to be sure. But without them - we'd have no cars. No airplanes. No antibiotics... Need I continue here?
I find it quite interesting that war has been the kicker for most of the technology we've come up with (the Internet started as a Department of Defense Project which "escaped" into society at large, so to speak) and we have Hitler to thank for not only the V-2 rockets which terrorized London, but also Werner von Braun and Apollo 11 (the Apollo project being the direct result of German rocket experiments in the 1930s.)
Without the "sins" I mentioned, at best we'd have a static, ingrown, primitive culture... sort of like China in the 1600's (after it more or less gave up on trade and exploration and adopted an isolationist foreign policy.)
Certainly a society of Schmoos wouldn't be a functional one - if they survived joyfully feeding themselves to the tigers, they'd have a "civilization" at an animal level at best. So would we, if we didn't have selfish ambition.
So why would "God" (or the All, the Force, or what have you) want people be like Schmoos? Why would he want us to have values which would give us a society on a technical par with animals, or cavemen at best? In this life, or a hypothetical hereafter?
Surely, "selfishness" exists because it has OBJECTIVE VALUE for concious entities...
What kind of world could Schmoos make, anyway? Certainly nothing an entity of infinite intelligence would find interesting... right?
Thus, the idea of the "purpose of life" being simply to "grow in love" is a fluffy-bunny error.
Consider crows. Crows are the most interesting birds in the world, because they are SMART. Watch your candy dish or the peanuts stored in your backpack when you leave it back at camp when you go hiking though, because crows are thieves. Crows are also MEAN. Ever seen a couple of crows (or even worse, their close cousins, magpies) tormenting a cat or squirrel?
Now consider Down's syndrome cases. They are the sweetest, most loving people in the world. They are also the dumbest people in the world (and consequently the least interesting to talk to.)
Selfish=SMART.
Selfless+Loving=DUMB.
Are we to believe that "God" wants humanity to behave in such a way that we can't maintain an operational society? To be like Schmoos, useless to ourselves and to others (except perhaps for aliens who might want to harvest us for food or slave labor, if such aliens existed.)
This I cannot accept. Should I?

J-man

     

               Thus, the idea of the "purpose of life" being simply to "grow in love" is a fluffy-bunny error.

      J-man   ,     My perception of the purpose of life, is to experience , to create, to have, to not have, to grow, to not grow, to hate, to love,  experience the entire tour, in hopes of evolving.


              "  Now society, as we all know, is based on greed, ambition, and competition. These things cause a lot of problems, to be sure. But without them - we'd have no cars. No airplanes. No antibiotics... Need I continue here? "

         J-man,  exactly, without knowing all of this how would we humans know the difference between good and bad.

          Are we to believe that "God" wants humanity to behave in such a way that we can't maintain an operational society? To be like Schmoos, useless to ourselves and to others (except perhaps for aliens who might want to harvest us for food or slave labor, if such aliens existed.)
This I cannot accept. Should I?

        J-man,   Think of yourself as an actor in a play, you play a character who in the beginning is a novice, experiences bad and good, sees it all, feels it all, sometimes a cad, sometimes a saint, but in the end figures it all out , learned what was important and what was not and in the end he lived life to the fullest.      linn

J-man

I have to think more on your question, but want to thank your for explaining Schmoos! It's a meaningful coincindence for me. You see, this past year, when I finally decided explore the idea of guides, I asked to know my Guides names. I got "Shmo" for one of them. Shmo? I thought that sounded silly. Looked it up in the dictionary, it is another word for shmuck, or jerk. I thought RIGHT, I have a jerk for a guide? Forget about it! and gave up on guides. Then yesterday I was buying a couple greeting cards and and picked up a postcard of Schmoos and thought Aha! That's it, Schmoo, not Shmo, I had misunderstood. So I bought the card, but I still did not know what a Schmoo was until reading your post. He he! Now maybe I'm ready to consider the existence of my guides again.

Now I don't know that we need to be a society of Schmoos, but we can learn some spiritual lessons from them perhaps. Putting service to others high on our list, not for personal gain. Doesn't have to be self-destructive to do that, though.

Love and Peace,
Carolyn

Dear J-man,

I think what you are saying here equates to mankind’s need for dualism and I would totally agree that dualism is absolutely necessary for each of us to become unique in our individualism.  The process of moving into individuation can be very confusing, however, it is only as we progress through individuation that we can come to know the Divine within.  In essence what we have chosen to experience is separation from the Divine and all of the pain (fear) that causes each of us in order to discover and learn what it means to be Divine and all of the pleasure (love) associated with our Divine nature.  

As each of us experiences this pain (fear) / pleasure (love) duality we come to know ourselves consciously as individuated beings with free will choice and we gradually choose to move away from the experience of fear which results in pain and move more and more into the experience of love which results in pleasure.  

So yes!  For many people who are alive within the duality of this physical world, it is their purpose in life to grow in love.  This is the next step in our humanistic existence for all of mankind.  The shift in consciousness will allow mankind to more readily see and understand our Divine nature, which has always been within each of us.  

Human beings who complete these steps on this dualistic planet have come full circle.  They then transcend to higher worlds and become beings of great spiritual power that are also individuated.  This is a process of creation that apparently goes on infinitely.

Love and Peace,
Kathy :-)

ANOTHER of my old posts popping up?
Is somebody trying to mess with me
here..?
If so, it's a pretty lame stunt.

B-man

wrote on Jan 6^th, 2006 at 12:35am:

ANOTHER of my old posts popping up? Is somebody trying to mess with me here..? If so, it's a pretty lame stunt. B-man

It's odd that (non-registered) guests are allowed to post. Regardless, it'll be interesting if you, B-man, were asked to respond to your past self, J-man, on the topic posted.

Has your perspective evolved over time? If so, in what way? How would you advise your past self on the topic?

May be if we looked thru our eyes rather than with them we may have another view of  what is REAL.  Make sense ?

Love
Richard  :)

YES ;-)

::) Hmmm, this feels like What goes around, comes around. This post popping up, was started 1 year ago. But it works as a kind of reminder of where I've been.  8)

You know I didn't really "forget about it" in terms of guidance and learning about my guides. I have talked with them more, written with them,  and find they are pretty good and helpful.  ;)

Happy New Year!

Love, Carolyn

I was actually really enjoying the post until he went on to say:


Quote:

Now consider Down's syndrome cases. They are the sweetest, most loving people in the world. They are also the dumbest people in the world (and consequently the least interesting to talk to.)

I probably wouldn't have phrased it that way.  After all, who's to call a person 'dumb' anyway?  Dumbness is only a perception of someone who is deemed more knowledgable than others in a specific area.  I may be a genius when it comes to computer programming, but dumb when it comes to botony.

Saying that people with down syndrome are 'the dumbest people in the world' is a pretty ignorant statement, in my honest opinion.

I agree Jeff, I missed that comment. My son works with folks with downs syndrome and has a much different understanding and appreciation.

Love, Carolyn

wrote on Jan 7^th, 2006 at 2:33pm:

Saying that people with down syndrome are 'the dumbest people in the world' is a pretty ignorant statement, in my honest opinion.

I think he was referring to IQ, not other forms of intelligence which unfortunately go un-measured because we simply don't have accepted standards of how to measure them (heart intelligence, emotional instincts, etc).  I'm not sure where on the IQ scale most Down's cases end up, and there is quite a range I think, but clearly we don't have a lot of normal (say 1 sigma) to impressive IQs in the group as a whole.  I have to disagree with Down's syndrome people being the most loving people in the world.  Some are quite affectionate, to the point I want a little more space thank you, some are kinda cranky.  But I take it all in context to understand the greater point he was trying to make.  just my 2 cents.