Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00717)

On Sat, 28 Dec 96 16:28:53 +0000, you wrote:

>Tom Robertson writes:

>>Collective karma relates to individual karma in the same way that the
>>results of a coin flip relate to the probability of the coin flip.
>>Collective karma tends to eventually even out for all individuals.

>Even out how?  As in good experiences eventually happen the same >number of times as bad?  If there is such a thing as collective karma >(and I'm sure there is) wouldn't it be impossible for it to be balanced >out?  Particularly after all of the hatred in history?  All of the wars?  The >attempted genocides?  The famine?  How could it be evened out?

The sum of all collective karma and the sum of all individual karma must be
identical, since it is only individuals who perform collective acts.  Each
particular instance of collective karma is not fair, but, on average, since
collective karma unfairly benefits the individual as much as it unfairly
harms the individual, it is fair.  If one group of people is inferior to
another group of people in a certain way, in the absence of information
about any particular individual, it is appropriate to assume that each
individual of the inferior group is probably inferior to each individual of
the other group in the way that they are being compared.  That this
collective karma is unfair to each individual does not mean that, on
average, it is not fair to all individuals.  For example, the average man
is physically stronger than the average woman.  I estimate that, in
comparing the physical strength of any given man with that of any given
woman, the probability is 90% that the man is stronger than the woman.
That this probability estimate would lead to false conclusions in cases of
comparing certain women to certain men when the women are stronger is
irrelevant to the fact that, on average, applying generalities in this way
is fair and accurate.


>To say that karma has any particulars is to say that karma itself is a self-
>conscious entity.  Would you be willing to agree to such a notion?

Karma is not arbitrary, as must a self-conscious entity with free will be
to some extent.  But it could connect particular acts with particular
consequences without being self-conscious.  That the karma of jumping out
of an airplane is falling does not mean that gravity is self-conscious.


>>I have never understood why the "higher self" is referred to as both >>being a part of the individual and as acting on the individual.  If it knows
>>something that I do not know, then it is not me.

>Alright then, let me ask you a question.  What were you thinking about >on July 29, 1986 and 11:37 am?

Nothing.  I was asleep.   :)

Of course, this leads to the question of what an individual is, since it
has no duration.  There may be continuity between the "I" of 10 years ago
and the "I" of now, but, since it constantly changes, it is not the same
entity.