Specific to that, if the Planet mind wants us to address this serious issue, it would not be because it is concerned with its own wellbeing [since it has gone through similar extinction events and survived those] but because it wants humans to understand their collective importance and potential to not become a statistic of The Great Filter. Not bu directly compelling but by gentle nudging in certain directions which might prove helpful...
Don't those same extinction events (and the normal course of extinction of most species even without a possibly externally influenced extinction event) demonstrate that the planet mind isn't concerned with individual species' wellbeing? We may feel appreciation for the yeast we mix into the bread dough, but when the yeast has completed its work and it's time for the loaf to go in the oven, in it goes. Contemplating an entity so vastly larger (the ratio in mass between Earth and yourself is a million times greater than the ratio in mass between yourself and a yeast cell) and existing on such a vastly longer time scale should perhaps inspire some humility, rather than presuming "that's my buddy who looks out for me."
I agree that, while this is short-sighted, such groups are not the over representation of the concept. They have taken pieces of the meat and wrapped those in the pastry of their stories, so that they have the whole piece of their particular pie - believing it to be the actual whole Pie...I call it "Dressing The Ghost"
In that sense, the dressing of the Ghost [mind/sentience] in the pastry-skin of the planet earth to 'make a pie' does not mean that the pie is the whole Pie of the whole story - but it doesn't mean that the story of the earth is any less real for the telling...but if the earth has a sentient mind, and we can find a way to connect with that mind - shouldn't we then shut up and listen to what said mind might tell us of itself - so that we stop being the one's making up stories about it?
The finding a way to communicate has to come first and be shown to be real by hard evidence.
Billions of people every day claim to receive communications including reassurance, reprisals, inspiration, and guidance, from other greater minds—Gods, the stars, spirits of every description—through prayers, astrology, Tarot cards, I Ching hexagrams, geomantic tetragrams, dreams, prophetic visions, and a thousand other methods.
If they're right, then many other nonhuman disembodied or telekinetic minds exist besides the planet mind. Where does the planet mind rank among them? How do we tune in that one in particular?
If they're wrong, then that demonstrates that being mistaken about receiving such communications via such means is very easy and very common.
(If you're thinking, "they're right about receiving communications but wrong about what/whom they're communicating with," then how poor must those communications be for them to be so thoroughly and consistently wrong in that way?)
The problem is, "this arrangement of words/hexagrams/stars/cards/symbols/runes/numbers/images means something to me, therefore it is a communication I'm receiving" is, in and of itself, an unfounded conclusion without a lot of additional evidence. And "This is a communication I'm receiving, therefore [some specific entity] sent it" is also unfounded without a lot of additional evidence.
Yes. Those stories we make up about it. End result is conflict.
But make them up we must, whether these be based upon scientific researching, or philosophy of the mind. Both are categories under the heading "Human Sciences" but the study of the mind is a tricky but necessary undertaking because it is the mind itself which is driving and driven by the need to know itself.
If there's actual communication going on, we shouldn't need to make anything up. No one made up the story that greenhouse gases are causing climate change on Earth. That story comes from actual science that predicted it would happen and now observes it happening. "The planet mind wanted this to happen" and "the planet mind objects to this happening" are stories we made up, but since that's all they are, and there's no reason to believe either of them is true, they don't appear to be useful for anything.
Why complicate ones mind with yet another Mind? So what that the earth may be sentient? What has that got to do with us?
I think those questions are so good, they deserve answers to...so that is what I do with my time.
Good. No objection here.
Here's a related question to consider, as a habit of thought. Choose anything. Any object, any concept, anything. Then ask the question, "What is the full extent of [that thing]?"
A tree. What's the full extent of a tree? Well, there's a trunk and branches and leaves, and you won't forget the roots, just because they're out of sight. Likewise the internal structure of the growth rings, which you might experience as grain patterns after the wood is cut and worked, or as tactile patterns in how the wood feels if you're the one cutting or working it, but regardless it's something that you can only possibly experience a tiny portion of. Don't forget the water that transpires through the tree, and all the water that has transpired through the tree in the past or will in the future, which is an amount that dwarfs the size of the tree itself. (That's how come the question is "the full extent of" rather than merely for instance "all the parts of" which is a less interesting question about how we categorize things). Then of course there's the tree's protein machinery of photosynthesis, and a billion years of evolutionary history that gave rise to the protein machinery of photosynthesis, and the genome that evolved over those billions of years to carry that history into the seed; and of course the extent of the tree has to include the seed it grew from, and why not the tree that bore that seed, and the rodent that buried it where it now grows...?
Yes, this leads to "to see the world in a grain of sand..." and why not? (Blake was quite the mystic visionary of course.)
Now... what is the full extent of your mind? (Might the notion of "yet another mind" be a bit redundant?)
Ah I see what you are saying. You are going off of an opinion you have about what I share on this site - that it is a 'religion'. That is a straw-man argument.
In reality, I am acknowledging that religion has fudged the results, in a similar manner as one might critique something said in the name of science as being pseudoscience.
I don't mean to convey any disrespect against religion, but rather simply to point out that the act of 'Dressing up The Mind" creates its own problems as well as problems for others...such as The Problem of Evil [Which is really "The Problem of GOD"] and this because, religion has been strict in its enforcement of sticking to the word and disallowing or fiercely resisting any change to that dogma even as more evidence arises.
Undressing "GOD" will eventually reveal a naked and unseen thing - such as what "minds" really are without the said dressings.
Fair enough. I indeed misspoke calling what you're suggesting here a religion. What I meant was, it's a religious narrative. (To be a religion would require the addition of the other main aspects of a religion, religious experiences and religious practices. I'm usually the one here trying to get across that there's more to religion than wild stories about gods, so mea culpa.)
But that said, your narrative is of a conscious entity vastly larger and longer-lived than humans, that is concerned with human affairs and destiny, that caused or influenced the creation of the human species, and that communicates mentally/telepathically with humans to inspire and instruct them. That kind of thing is called a god, whether you prefer to use that term yourself or not.
And you've added a few more religious narratives, one about other religions getting it wrong and thereby causing problems in the world; and the one where eventually those others will come around to perceive the truth.
It doesn't matter that the idea is not new. What matters is that the idea finds support in order that it can become the dominant one, and maybe even in the process, help humans help themselves as per the thread subject.
And another religious narrative, the imperative to gain converts!
The importance of the idea not being new is that that means other people have already thought about and worked with that idea. In the case of some native Earth-centric religions, they've been doing it for millennia.
Suppose you showed up saying, "Hey, it just occurred to me that since combustion turns larger molecules into greater numbers of smaller gaseous molecules, if you burned something inside a rigid enclosed container it should be possible to make things move!" If you were a child whom I was willing to patronize a bit for instructional purposes, I might suggest we do an experiment together to confirm it. But if you were a busy adult I'd be more likely to say, "Go check out how an internal combustion engine works."
Why not check out some existing Earth-centric systems of belief and practice, by people who already believe they've been communicating with a planet mind for generations, instead of starting from scratch by what appears to be guesswork?
