|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 14:04:42 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2013 14:04:42 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). 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.Right. I say there's a fundamental misunderstanding in general as to the nature of life itself. Self identified individuals want to live long and prosper, while Life is only interested in exploding into diversified expression. Mankind wants to function autonomously/personally while Life functions wholistically/impersonally. Mankind fears death while Life embraces death. Life supports expression, and so it will keep you alive and help you change so that you can do that, but it's not your ongoing existence that Life values, and so you may serve Life better by dying than you would by continuing on. To man, who has different priorities, this seems like an example of the cruelty of Life, and it seems unloving. Life and Love are the same. On the entropy issue, I see organization and disorganization as opposite ends of nature's circular movement. As such there are no opposing forces beyond the polarities that give rise to this movement, nor is there a continuous process of entropy. A tree decays, but in it's shadow is another seedling sprouting. The body develops, peaks out, and then begins dying, but at it's peak it gives birth to new life. Not all cycles are the same size, and so we might look at our place in the cycle of birth and death of the planet, or of galaxies, and conclude that there is only entropy, but there is also birth for planets and galaxies, and even the universe. It's just that humanity is only a dot somewhere on that enormous circle.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 14:12:55 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2013 14:12:55 GMT -5
Then butterflies are evolutionary failures? Don't know much about butterflies but I suppose so. If you say so. Have you ever been in a bar fight with a butterfly? If you have, you know they're far from indestructible. They seem to be evolutionary failures.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 14:20:52 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2013 14:20:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 14:29:04 GMT -5
Post by freejoy on Aug 31, 2013 14:29:04 GMT -5
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. Yes! Sh!tcan the objective view and things become much clearer! Yup. 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.Right. I say there's a fundamental misunderstanding in general as to the nature of life itself. Self identified individuals want to live long and prosper, while Life is only interested in exploding into diversified expression. Mankind wants to function autonomously/personally while Life functions wholistically/impersonally. Mankind fears death while Life embraces death. Life supports expression, and so it will keep you alive and help you change so that you can do that, but it's not your ongoing existence that Life values, and so you may serve Life better by dying than you would by continuing on. To man, who has different priorities, this seems like an example of the cruelty of Life, and it seems unloving. Life and Love are the same. On the entropy issue, I see organization and disorganization as opposite ends of nature's circular movement. As such there are no opposing forces beyond the polarities that give rise to this movement, nor is there a continuous process of entropy. A tree decays, but in it's shadow is another seedling sprouting. The body develops, peaks out, and then begins dying, but at it's peak it gives birth to new life. Not all cycles are the same size, and so we might look at our place in the cycle of birth and death of the planet, or of galaxies, and conclude that there is only entropy, but there is also birth for planets and galaxies, and even the universe. It's just that humanity is only a dot somewhere on that enormous circle. Nature seems to cycle, we have a lifespan for sure. You appear to be limiting how far evolution can go. Also you seem to be saying the world has unavoidable insurmountable problems. I see none. Not for the human race, maybe for our particular form expressions. Our DNA may populate many potentially unlimited worlds.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 14:33:33 GMT -5
Post by silver on Aug 31, 2013 14:33:33 GMT -5
It's not all of humankind who's 'at war' - reckless, selfish, greedy, all that - with the rest of nature.
Indications are some here have just as unhealthy an attitude and outlook about human life.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 15:01:15 GMT -5
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Aug 31, 2013 15:01:15 GMT -5
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. Humanity is not at war with the earth. There is this stupid view that nature is somehow female, a whole, always harmonious, and we male hoodlums show up and break everything. Actually, as I've said before, there is no "nature", it is not a whole, it is not organized, it is always in turmoil, only rarely are there periods of stability. It feeds on itself, species come and go, the history of nature is full of unimaginable destructions far greater than anything man is capable of. It would be more accurate to say that nature is at war with us. We have responsibility toward nature only insofar as we have responsibility toward our own species, ourselves and our children - and in this view nature is merely a tool, an environment we currently live in. We have to stop with these silly mother-nature wisdoms and accept our role. One central goal should be total understanding and control of our environment (nature), so that we can manipulate everything about it and for as long as possible maintain an equilibrium that is best for our species. That's the plain truth of the matter, obvious once you remove all the sentimentalism.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 15:15:55 GMT -5
Post by silver on Aug 31, 2013 15:15:55 GMT -5
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. Humanity is not at war with the earth. There is this stupid view that nature is somehow female, a whole, always harmonious, and we male hoodlums show up and break everything. Actually, as I've said before, there is no "nature", it is not a whole, it is not organized, it is always in turmoil, only rarely are there periods of stability. It feeds on itself, species come and go, the history of nature is full of unimaginable destructions far greater than anything man is capable of. It would be more accurate to say that nature is at war with us. We have responsibility toward nature only insofar as we have responsibility toward our own species, ourselves and our children - and in this view nature is merely a tool, an environment we currently live in. We have to stop with these silly mother-nature wisdoms and accept our role. One central goal should be total understanding and control of our environment (nature), so that we can manipulate everything about it and for as long as possible maintain an equilibrium that is best for our species. That's the plain truth of the matter, obvious once you remove all the sentimentalism. I definitely side with your view more than the rest here who've expressed themselves - to a point...what comes to mind as a very simple explanation is the thing about man and how he's collectively more or less, killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 15:28:22 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2013 15:28:22 GMT -5
Right. I say there's a fundamental misunderstanding in general as to the nature of life itself. Self identified individuals want to live long and prosper, while Life is only interested in exploding into diversified expression. Mankind wants to function autonomously/personally while Life functions wholistically/impersonally. Mankind fears death while Life embraces death. Life supports expression, and so it will keep you alive and help you change so that you can do that, but it's not your ongoing existence that Life values, and so you may serve Life better by dying than you would by continuing on. To man, who has different priorities, this seems like an example of the cruelty of Life, and it seems unloving. Life and Love are the same. On the entropy issue, I see organization and disorganization as opposite ends of nature's circular movement. As such there are no opposing forces beyond the polarities that give rise to this movement, nor is there a continuous process of entropy. A tree decays, but in it's shadow is another seedling sprouting. The body develops, peaks out, and then begins dying, but at it's peak it gives birth to new life. Not all cycles are the same size, and so we might look at our place in the cycle of birth and death of the planet, or of galaxies, and conclude that there is only entropy, but there is also birth for planets and galaxies, and even the universe. It's just that humanity is only a dot somewhere on that enormous circle. Nature seems to cycle, we have a lifespan for sure. You appear to be limiting how far evolution can go. Also you seem to be saying the world has unavoidable insurmountable problems. I see none. Not for the human race, maybe for our particular form expressions. Our DNA may populate many potentially unlimited worlds. I'm not saying anything about how far evolution can go, or that the world has unavoidable insurmountable problems. What I'm saying is what I said.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 15:32:27 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2013 15:32:27 GMT -5
It's not all of humankind who's 'at war' - reckless, selfish, greedy, all that - with the rest of nature. Indications are some here have just as unhealthy an attitude and outlook about human life. Nobody has said all of humankind is 'at war' - reckless, selfish, greedy, all that - with the rest of nature. What I've said is that mankind has different goals and is not operating within the self supporting structure of nature, which doesn't support those goals.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 15:36:37 GMT -5
Post by silver on Aug 31, 2013 15:36:37 GMT -5
It's not all of humankind who's 'at war' - reckless, selfish, greedy, all that - with the rest of nature. Indications are some here have just as unhealthy an attitude and outlook about human life. Nobody has said all of humankind is 'at war' - reckless, selfish, greedy, all that - with the rest of nature. What I've said is that mankind has different goals and is not operating within the self supporting structure of nature, which doesn't support those goals. I was responding to Epi who said that. You do know what is being gotten at by saying that, I assume. So far, it has supported even the most egregious things done in the name of furthering mankind. Obviously, totally unnecessary, but that's what greed and recklessness bring about. Some argue the earth has its cycles, but there's a theory or two about the planets that are unfit for humans or pretty much other life, and that is they (et's, humans' hybrids, whatever) trashed those planets and we're the last one, about to get trashed, too. It's interesting.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 15:49:17 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Aug 31, 2013 15:49:17 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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. Yes! Sh!tcan the objective view and things become much clearer! Yup. 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. Right. I say there's a fundamental misunderstanding in general as to the nature of life itself. Self identified individuals want to live long and prosper, while Life is only interested in exploding into diversified expression. Mankind wants to function autonomously/personally while Life functions wholistically/impersonally. Mankind fears death while Life embraces death. Life supports expression, and so it will keep you alive and help you change so that you can do that, but it's not your ongoing existence that Life values, and so you may serve Life better by dying than you would by continuing on. To man, who has different priorities, this seems like an example of the cruelty of Life, and it seems unloving. Life and Love are the same. On the entropy issue, I see organization and disorganization as opposite ends of nature's circular movement. As such there are no opposing forces beyond the polarities that give rise to this movement, nor is there a continuous process of entropy. A tree decays, but in it's shadow is another seedling sprouting. The body develops, peaks out, and then begins dying, but at it's peak it gives birth to new life. Not all cycles are the same size, and so we might look at our place in the cycle of birth and death of the planet, or of galaxies, and conclude that there is only entropy, but there is also birth for planets and galaxies, and even the universe. It's just that humanity is only a dot somewhere on that enormous circle. "Live long and prosper" and "exploding into diversified expression" are distinctions without a difference.. it's all Life living itself.. individually or 'wholistically', it's still Life happening, and everybody has their favorite 'story' about that 'happening', but the story is not the happening.. the story is an expression of the perceiver's private mindscape and their preferences.. 'pointing' is a useful reference to escape responsibility for the story reflecting your beliefs.. "Love" is a story about Life, and there are lots of 'Love stories', depending on the experiencer's perspective and beliefs.. will you claim to have the definitive 'story' about love? Be well..
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 15:54:11 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2013 15:54:11 GMT -5
Nobody has said all of humankind is 'at war' - reckless, selfish, greedy, all that - with the rest of nature. What I've said is that mankind has different goals and is not operating within the self supporting structure of nature, which doesn't support those goals. I was responding to Epi who said that. No, you weren't, but you might have written a story around Laughter's phrase 'at war' as Epi did. You, Epi and FJ are all arguing against ideas that nobody here has shared, and you're doing it again with this below about human hybrids and trashed planets and such. It's fine but I don't share your interest in those topics.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 15:59:24 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2013 15:59:24 GMT -5
Greetings.. Right. I say there's a fundamental misunderstanding in general as to the nature of life itself. Self identified individuals want to live long and prosper, while Life is only interested in exploding into diversified expression. Mankind wants to function autonomously/personally while Life functions wholistically/impersonally. Mankind fears death while Life embraces death. Life supports expression, and so it will keep you alive and help you change so that you can do that, but it's not your ongoing existence that Life values, and so you may serve Life better by dying than you would by continuing on. To man, who has different priorities, this seems like an example of the cruelty of Life, and it seems unloving. Life and Love are the same. On the entropy issue, I see organization and disorganization as opposite ends of nature's circular movement. As such there are no opposing forces beyond the polarities that give rise to this movement, nor is there a continuous process of entropy. A tree decays, but in it's shadow is another seedling sprouting. The body develops, peaks out, and then begins dying, but at it's peak it gives birth to new life. Not all cycles are the same size, and so we might look at our place in the cycle of birth and death of the planet, or of galaxies, and conclude that there is only entropy, but there is also birth for planets and galaxies, and even the universe. It's just that humanity is only a dot somewhere on that enormous circle. "Live long and prosper" and "exploding into diversified expression" are distinctions without a difference.. There's a huge difference, which I just got through describing. Diversified expression isn't an orientation toward longevity or toward individual prosperity.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 16:14:34 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Aug 31, 2013 16:14:34 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. "Live long and prosper" and "exploding into diversified expression" are distinctions without a difference.. There's a huge difference, which I just got through describing. Diversified expression isn't an orientation toward longevity or toward individual prosperity. You just want 'your story' to be 'the' story, the difference is in your beliefs about Life.. Life, manifesting as individuality, wants to "live long and prosper, AND Life manifesting into "diversified expression", is also expressing the purpose of living long and prospering.. each is purposed for perpetuating Life.. Be well..
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 16:21:20 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2013 16:21:20 GMT -5
Greetings.. There's a huge difference, which I just got through describing. Diversified expression isn't an orientation toward longevity or toward individual prosperity. You just want 'your story' to be 'the' story, the difference is in your beliefs about Life.. Life, manifesting as individuality, wants to "live long and prosper, AND Life manifesting into "diversified expression", is also expressing the purpose of living long and prospering.. each is purposed for perpetuating Life.. Be well.. Humans want to live long and prosper. If Life 'wanted' that, then humans would live longer and prosper more than they do. Life isn't operating under some constraints, so if that were the orientation of Life, then that's what would happen. It's self evident that Life is not doing what you want it to do. Life doesn't care about your story.
|
|