Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 11:06:30 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2013 11:06:30 GMT -5
I simply call God the Highest within me. I understand God as Everything and Every Expression in the Universe, Intellagence. You must be very large. Do you have a special keyboard?
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 11:27:33 GMT -5
Post by freejoy on Aug 31, 2013 11:27:33 GMT -5
I simply call God the Highest within me. I understand God as Everything and Every Expression in the Universe, Intellagence. You must be very large. Do you have a special keyboard? Apparently I'm quite large.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 11:29:19 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2013 11:29:19 GMT -5
That is exactly the overlay I was referring to. Underlying evolution is the concept of selection. Evolution is the process by which selection, over time, results in form which is ever more likely to be selected for. The overlay is a function of the point that you happen to find yourself part of what has been selected for. For example, look at popular culture today. By what measure are the ideas and expressions a move "upward"? Any measure of "better" is arbitrary and that which is gonna survive the next round of selection doesn't necessarily match those systems of value currently subject to consensus. Evolution implies only: that which is good at reproducing itself is here because it is good at reproducing itself, and there's no other measure or value that applies. Is that why there are so many bunny holes? Yup! A bunny's just gotta have a way to get away!
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 11:33:20 GMT -5
Post by freejoy on Aug 31, 2013 11:33:20 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you mean by benefit and improvement upward, but evolution seems to be more about diversity of expression. Naturally, there needs to be survivability and functionality in that expression, but if it were about evolving into the fittest and brightest there would be no slugs. If it were about longevity, there would be no mayflies. The human has evolved from a simple creature that apparently lived in harmony with nature as all other creatures do, to a sophisticated species that fouls it's own nest and creates suffering for itself and other creatures. So if it's about improvement, I'm not sure what the criteria are.More indestructible, improvements in survivability. What is apparent is that life takes on every form imaginable, and thrives even in the most inhospitable environments and seems driven to express it's inherent beauty and wonder. The most neutral idea I've encountered along these lines is that the environment encodes itself over time using DNA, so what humanity is, is a reflection of the changes that have happened over the history of the Earth. This is a way to arrive at the observation that two movements, the general one toward disorder (nature) and within that, one toward order (life) were bound to come into opposition (ego). Better yet, just ATA on encountering the word "evolution"!
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 11:41:51 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2013 11:41:51 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you mean by benefit and improvement upward, but evolution seems to be more about diversity of expression. Naturally, there needs to be survivability and functionality in that expression, but if it were about evolving into the fittest and brightest there would be no slugs. If it were about longevity, there would be no mayflies. The human has evolved from a simple creature that apparently lived in harmony with nature as all other creatures do, to a sophisticated species that fouls it's own nest and creates suffering for itself and other creatures. So if it's about improvement, I'm not sure what the criteria are.What is apparent is that life takes on every form imaginable, and thrives even in the most inhospitable environments and seems driven to express it's inherent beauty and wonder. The most neutral idea I've encountered along these lines is that the environment encodes itself over time using DNA, so what humanity is, is a reflection of the changes that have happened over the history of the Earth. This is a way to arrive at the observation that two movements, the general one toward disorder (nature) and within that, one toward order (life) were bound to come into opposition (ego). Better yet, just ATA on encountering the word "evolution"! I see nature and life as essentially synonymous, so I'm having trouble following. The movements toward order and disorder (entropy) are parts of the same movement. They only appear to be in opposition from the perspective that nature is trying to move in a straight line toward some goal instead of self supporting circles (or spirals). Nature isn't trying to survive because nothing opposes nature, or to put it another way, life is not afraid of death any more than the ocean is afraid of going thirsty. Death is part of the expression of life and it feeds life and creates movement in various ways. Ego is the natural outcome of self identification in a species that has developed the ability of self awareness as part of it's uniqueness of expression. I do see an opposing force here in that nature encourages all potential expressions, and yet some of those expressions oppose nature. The question is, can a species that ventures outside of the supporting circular function of nature and sets a straight line vector toward it's own improvement, survive without it's mother? In the long run, it seems unlikely.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 11:47:42 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2013 11:47:42 GMT -5
Is that why there are so many bunny holes? Yup! A bunny's just gotta have a way to get away! Ah, I see. Lots of deep confusing tunnels and escape routes.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 11:51:16 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2013 11:51:16 GMT -5
Then butterflies are evolutionary failures?
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 13:02:34 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2013 13:02:34 GMT -5
The most neutral idea I've encountered along these lines is that the environment encodes itself over time using DNA, so what humanity is, is a reflection of the changes that have happened over the history of the Earth. This is a way to arrive at the observation that two movements, the general one toward disorder (nature) and within that, one toward order (life) were bound to come into opposition (ego). Better yet, just ATA on encountering the word "evolution"! I see nature and life as essentially synonymous, so I'm having trouble following. The movements toward order and disorder (entropy) are parts of the same movement. They only appear to be in opposition from the perspective that nature is trying to move in a straight line toward some goal instead of self supporting circles (or spirals). The two movements appear as a function of an assumed objective view. What I called nature, the movement toward disorder, was a reference to what physicists observe as the one-way ticket of entropy: from the big bang onward, the observable Universe becomes less and less ordered with every passing moment. What I called life, the movement toward order, was a reference (in an attempt to meet FJ on the discussion about evolution) to the ever-complex forms of expression DNA has taken on over time -- the scientific consensus is that natural selection is the driver of that increasing complexity, which is taken for increasing order. What ties the two movements together is the appearance of survival. What a given individual or group does in order to counter the natural movement of their body or their group toward disintegration is seen as these two vectors pointing in opposite directions. Nature isn't trying to survive because nothing opposes nature, or to put it another way, life is not afraid of death any more than the ocean is afraid of going thirsty. Death is part of the expression of life and it feeds life and creates movement in various ways. Yes! Sh!tcan the objective view and things become much clearer! Ego is the natural outcome of self identification in a species that has developed the ability of self awareness as part of it's uniqueness of expression. I do see an opposing force here in that nature encourages all potential expressions, and yet some of those expressions oppose nature. Yup. The question is, can a species that ventures outside of the supporting circular function of nature and sets a straight line vector toward it's own improvement, survive without it's mother? In the long run, it seems unlikely. Humanity's war with the Earth started when the Earth was, relative to humanity, a much larger place. There's no way for that war to end in victory for humanity.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 13:09:43 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2013 13:09:43 GMT -5
Yup! A bunny's just gotta have a way to get away! Ah, I see. Lots of deep confusing tunnels and escape routes.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 13:17:26 GMT -5
Post by freejoy on Aug 31, 2013 13:17:26 GMT -5
The most neutral idea I've encountered along these lines is that the environment encodes itself over time using DNA, so what humanity is, is a reflection of the changes that have happened over the history of the Earth. This is a way to arrive at the observation that two movements, the general one toward disorder (nature) and within that, one toward order (life) were bound to come into opposition (ego). Better yet, just ATA on encountering the word "evolution"! I see nature and life as essentially synonymous, so I'm having trouble following. The movements toward order and disorder (entropy) are parts of the same movement. They only appear to be in opposition from the perspective that nature is trying to move in a straight line toward some goal instead of self supporting circles (or spirals). Nature isn't trying to survive because nothing opposes nature, or to put it another way, life is not afraid of death any more than the ocean is afraid of going thirsty. Death is part of the expression of life and it feeds life and creates movement in various ways. Ego is the natural outcome of self identification in a species that has developed the ability of self awareness as part of it's uniqueness of expression. I do see an opposing force here in that nature encourages all potential expressions, and yet some of those expressions oppose nature. The question is, can a species that ventures outside of the supporting circular function of nature and sets a straight line vector toward it's own improvement, survive without it's mother? In the long run, it seems unlikely. I see evolution as part of Gods innate qualities, i.e. Infinite. Infinite outcomes, probabilities, everything is there. Also, Infinite Life.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 13:21:04 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2013 13:21:04 GMT -5
I see nature and life as essentially synonymous, so I'm having trouble following. The movements toward order and disorder (entropy) are parts of the same movement. They only appear to be in opposition from the perspective that nature is trying to move in a straight line toward some goal instead of self supporting circles (or spirals). Nature isn't trying to survive because nothing opposes nature, or to put it another way, life is not afraid of death any more than the ocean is afraid of going thirsty. Death is part of the expression of life and it feeds life and creates movement in various ways. Ego is the natural outcome of self identification in a species that has developed the ability of self awareness as part of it's uniqueness of expression. I do see an opposing force here in that nature encourages all potential expressions, and yet some of those expressions oppose nature. The question is, can a species that ventures outside of the supporting circular function of nature and sets a straight line vector toward it's own improvement, survive without it's mother? In the long run, it seems unlikely. I see evolution as part of Gods innate qualities, i.e. Infinite. Infinite outcomes, probabilities, everything is there. Also, Infinite Life.
Evolution doesn't work without extinction.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 13:23:31 GMT -5
Post by freejoy on Aug 31, 2013 13:23:31 GMT -5
I see evolution as part of Gods innate qualities, i.e. Infinite. Infinite outcomes, probabilities, everything is there. Also, Infinite Life.
Evolution doesn't work without extinction. How do you know that?
I'm sure "extinction" is in there, probabily not the best path?
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 13:26:31 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2013 13:26:31 GMT -5
Evolution doesn't work without extinction. How do you know that? I'm sure "extinction is in there, probabily not the best path? Are you trying to divorce evolution from natural selection? Without death there can't be any life. Everything alive today is alive because of a large measure of death. Life and death are a polarity that serves as the backdrop to a set of cycles.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 13:34:21 GMT -5
Post by freejoy on Aug 31, 2013 13:34:21 GMT -5
How do you know that? I'm sure "extinction is in there, probabily not the best path? Are you trying to divorce evolution from natural selection? No they are the same. Without death there can't be any life. Everything alive today is alive because of a large measure of death. Life and death are a polarity that serves as the backdrop to a set of cycles. Just say the "cycles" can get very long.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 13:56:10 GMT -5
Post by freejoy on Aug 31, 2013 13:56:10 GMT -5
Then butterflies are evolutionary failures? Don't know much about butterflies but I suppose so. If you say so.
|
|