Is Humbleness a Product of Suffering or Strength?

[TENYEARS]

So one of the fish has it's own forum, nice. Is the bowl bigger or does it just have mirrors?

Waiting... or not.

 

[BoulderHead]

Hi Tenyears !

Have you allowed yourself to be lured back into the bowl?

 

[TENYEARS]

What bowl? I see only fish doing squareouts in an ocean with no beginning and no end, no top and no bottom.

 

[FZ+]

And hello again to the fish that thinks he is a ruler.

 

[Mentat]

TENYEARS, I had not yet noticed your absence. You seemed as active as ever.

However, I have a question to ask you: If we are the fish, in a bowlless bowl (with no top or bottom or sides), then isn't our reach limitless? IOW, aren't we as free as we could ever hope to be? After all, if you happen to escape an infinite bowl, what space have you left for "swimming"?

 

[TENYEARS]

Your reach is as great as your realization of what is and nothing more. Like I said, what bowl.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Your reach is as great as your realization of what is and nothing more. Like I said, what bowl.

And yet what is it that we're reaching towards? What is there to attain ... if not the art of Zen?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Your reach is as great as your realization of what is and nothing more. Like I said, what bowl.

What difference does it make then that we are in a "bowl" and you claim (claim, mind you, as you've proven nothing of the sort) that you are not. If you can realize beyond that which you realize, then you are "outside of the bowl". Until you realize that which you do not realize, you will never leave the "bowl", and realizing without relizing is self-contradictory/paradoxical, thus logically impossible.

 

[Iacchus32]

Are we capable of thinking our own thoughts? Or, is it imperative that we rely on science for the answer?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Are we capable of thinking our own thoughts? Or, is it imperative that we rely on science for the answer?

Even if you rely on science, you do so of your own initiative, and are thus still thinking your own thoughts. Besides, I wasn't referring to science, but to logic.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Even if you rely on science, you do so of your own initiative, and are thus still thinking your own thoughts. Besides, I wasn't referring to science, but to logic.

Even so, I think this is what TENYEARS is referring to by the "fish bowl." That by relying exclusively on science for the answers, we are not thinking for ourselves, and are indeed limiting "our perception" of reality. And he does have a point.

 

[TENYEARS]

Just because something is recognized as logical does not mean it is. Real honest logic can take you to the edge of what you percieve to be your boarders, but then it is up to you in a moment of unknowing to pass through the threshold.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Even so, I think this is what TENYEARS is referring to by the "fish bowl." That by relying exclusively on science for the answers, we are not thinking for ourselves, and are indeed limiting "our perception" of reality. And he does have a point.

That was my interpretation of TENYEARS' philosophy, until I read the thread about the "Bowlless Bowl". In it s/he indicated that there are no boundaries or limits to this "bowl" that we are in, and so now my opinion of this philosophy has changed: Now I don't see the point in preaching liberation, since we have infinite space as it is .

 

[jammieg]

Whatever limits or restrictions we can percieve or imagine we will find a way to break them, although I would like to know more accurately what those restrictions are.

 

[Royce]

Yet if I know no boarders there is no threshold to pass through. It is we who create our boarders thus our thresholds thus limit our reach. This mentat is what I have been trying to tell you in other ways in other threads. We may be in reality in a fishbowl. But our reality is only in our minds.
Greetings Tenyears Good to hear from you again.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
That was my interpretation of TENYEARS' philosophy, until I read the thread about the "Bowlless Bowl". In it s/he indicated that there are no boundaries or limits to this "bowl" that we are in, and so now my opinion of this philosophy has changed: Now I don't see the point in preaching liberation, since we have infinite space as it is .

Except that science has defined the limits, and this is what most people adhere to, at least on this forum anyway.

 

[TENYEARS]

Iacchus32, that is exactly my point. Science at that point becomes nothing but a fact in a game of jepordy. Disjointed images and symbols. Truth requires one to go beyond that and not by dismissing what is obviously true and esential, but by that which is not.

Take IQ for example. I have always known it was a function of all human beings to have absolute intelligence. In 1987 I became a witness to it in a state of certainty. Only now there was a study of IQ and found it to be a function of nature VS nurture and it was found that nurture was found to be statistically a great factor in IQ. Obviously science is really not to swift for this to not have been done for so long.

Did you know that it was posted in the US News or a similar type magazine that the US goverentment used to use remote viewing to search for soviet missle sites and etc... The government knows it is real. Most governments do. Is it a great conspiracy to withhold the truth, so that people will not believe in themselves so they may be controlled. Personally I would not give a damm, but the planet as we know it is being destroyed and from what I have witnessed, life continues the how is up to you.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Just because something is recognized as logical does not mean it is. Real honest logic can take you to the edge of what you percieve to be your boarders, but then it is up to you in a moment of unknowing to pass through the threshold.

But there would be no threshold - nor, indeed, any borders - if the bowl is (as you say) without top or bottom or sides.

 

[TENYEARS]

Mentat, there may be a day when you realize what I am saying. If you are trying to catch me you would better try to squeeze water with your hands, if the question is true watch where you step, it is said there a whales that can consume you even upon dry land.

Good to talk with you all.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Mentat, there may be a day when you realize what I am saying. If you are trying to catch me you would better try to squeeze water with your hands, if the question is true watch where you step, it is said there a whales that can consume you even upon dry land.

Good to talk with you all.

If you were really correct, you would address my objections direcly, instead of side-stepping them. I don't know if you've noticed yet (though I credit you with an at least average intelligence), but the members of the PFs (for the most part) are not disuaded by your mystic comments that serve as a smoke-bomb to disguise your escape of logical discussion.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Did you know that it was posted in the US News or a similar type magazine that the US goverentment used to use remote viewing to search for soviet missle sites and etc... The government knows it is real. Most governments do. Is it a great conspiracy to withhold the truth, so that people will not believe in themselves so they may be controlled. Personally I would not give a damm, but the planet as we know it is being destroyed and from what I have witnessed, life continues the how is up to you.

Are you suggesting that there's a flaw in the theory of evolution then, in the sense that we haven't really adapted to the environment, as much as we've gotten it to adapt to us, to whatever it is that "suits our fancy?"

While all we have to do is think about something and bam, here we have the next Hoover Dam! Or, a new freeway interchange ... or, a new sky-scraper ... or, some new synthetic material ...

And, while it may not be such a big deal if these things were allowed to evolve over the eons, as adaptations, like the rest of mother nature, this is not the way it's happened. In fact the whole thing seems to have mushroomed up overnight, like some widespread fungus or disease, while ravaging everything in its sight.

Whereas just like any other "deluded" parasite, it has the gall to say, our relationship has evolved "naturally," and is strictly "symbiotic."

 

[Zantra]

I think TEN is suggesting that we're going in the wrong direction- that we need to rely on common sense, but not so much of logic. I can't grasp it's exact intent, because there's no context.

I know I've made some jokes about this (glug glug) but I'll adress it seriously now. I know the reference you're making, I've heard it made in other terms. You're basically saying that even if we reached the limits of the bowl an escaped beyond, we would not understand because it's so foreign to us. Science is a tool. But we must realize that like any other tool, it's only as useful as the person using it. And it has it's limitations. Science isn't complete, but many people use it as if it were. However we are not limited completely. The only limits are those of our imagination, and that is limiless as long as we keep improving it. We must realize finally that there is no bowl, that in fact our bowl is the universe, and we may only go as high as the water allows us, but if we've run out of water, then we must add more;) It's all very zen

Life is but a play, the Earth is a stage, and we are the poor, poor players that walk upon it.

 

[BoulderHead]

If we escaped our bowl might we end up out of water?

http://www.toons.artie.com/ransfrans/arg-o1de-sme11ie-fishe.gif

 

[TENYEARS]

Iacchus32, I was going to say this 10 times before, but I did not but since you are aware of what I a referring to you would be able to continue the projection. In past evoulution, the amount and diversity of life was 10 fold of what it is today. The distinction rate is far beyond the rate of new species and of the species that are left the ability to for them to mutate over a period of time to adapt is beyond any curve. The rate of land consumption and encroachment of society has caused stresses beyond what is realized because it has not yet be thought about yet. Cows, sheep, pigs, dogs, cats, rats snakes and birds. That is what will be left. Oh, yes and farm raised fish which may be killed off due to the inability of natural selection to take it's course which will weaken the stock and cause it to have to be maniplated via chemicals, DNA, etc...

There is no symbiotic relationship.

There are things I know that I have not even spoken or alluded to on this forum.

 

[Zantra]

Ok now I understand- enviornmentalism. I guess yes we can actually be seen as a "virus", consuming all natural resources, changing the ecology of the Earth to suit us, and generally wreaking havoc on our surroundings instead of living in harmony with it like the rest of the life on this planet has done.

As far as you not sharing your ideas with us, I can't fathom why- I don't think you'll find a more receptive bunch to new ideas than here on this forum.

 

[TENYEARS]

Zantra, it is not that I do not want to share, it is that in doing so you lose because it becomes an object to your experience and not true knowlege. It's kind of like showing the the last five minutes of a movie without the sound or the sound without the picture. It takes the zest right out of your search. People like to make it on their own steam. I know I do. If I post the logic some say I do not have and attempt to goad me into, what will you have? To some degree it is dangerous.

Look at Hitler, he took the words of neeeeeeeee chi and transformed them into a dream of a perfect people. Sick as it was there is some aspect of truth in the idea, but what he did relatively speaking was so out of context with the actual realization of ne that it was rediculous. Ah, got to go.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zantra
Ok now I understand- enviornmentalism. I guess yes we can actually be seen as a "virus", consuming all natural resources, changing the ecology of the Earth to suit us, and generally wreaking havoc on our surroundings instead of living in harmony with it like the rest of the life on this planet has done.

Doesn't it seem like a bit of paradox that that which is touted to be the most highly evolved species on the planet, is no better than the lowliest form of virual scum in terms of its impact? How is that possible? Isn't mother nature supposed to be elvoving further and further towards a higher standard of perfection? And so what does that do, make us freaks to the entire evolutionary process? Or, is it possible that we've been "put here" to fulfill some other purpose? Hmm ...

 

[steppenwolf]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Doesn't it seem like a bit of paradox that that which is touted to be the most highly evolved species on the planet, is no better than the lowliest form of virual scum in terms of its impact? How is that possible? Isn't mother nature supposed to be elvoving further and further towards a higher standard of perfection? And so what does that do, make us freaks to the entire evolutionary process? Or, is it possible that we've been "put here" to fulfill some other purpose? Hmm ...

why does it always come down to some problem with 'mother nature'? like something went wrong, what did hesse say? 'man is the failed abortion of mother nature' or something similar, it's poetic but so self centered. I'm sorry but what makes us the most highly evolved species? i have some flea friends who would stronly contest our inability to jump more then our height, and we can't even breathe under water? pathetic, we break so easily, look down at your wrist, veins showing through your pale skin, how easy it is to die

 

[steppenwolf]

oh and ten years... i'll check in on you in a minute, with my fist, until you cry, there.

 

[Royce]

Why are any of you surprised or puzzeled? We are nature, a part of nature and as any species respond to our environment just like any other species. In biology there is no such thing as a stable population. Species multiply under favorable conditions and die off under unfavorable conditions.

Under extreme conditions a species may have a population explosion until its environment can no longer sustain it. It will befoul its environment with waste products until it kills itself off. Or if the extreme conditions are unfavorabe the species may die off completely and become extinct. We as a species were nearly wiped out long ago. our total population was estimated to be below 10,000.

Under stable conditions a species will eventually reach stability with other species in its particular nitche this may of course take hundreds of generations. It is rare that an environment will remain stable that long for such a stability to be reached.

We are now experiencing a population explosion and are befouling our environment. Soon we will exceed the abiliy of our planet to support such a large population and billions of us will die. Thus starting another cycle.

It does not have to be a catstrophic die off but by natural attrition of old age etc with a greatly reduced birth rate and environmental responsiblity. One way or another billions must and will die and not be replaced. Why isn't this obvious to everyone who took high school biology?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by steppenwolf
why does it always come down to some problem with 'mother nature'? like something went wrong, what did hesse say? 'man is the failed abortion of mother nature' or something similar, it's poetic but so self centered. I'm sorry but what makes us the most highly evolved species? i have some flea friends who would stronly contest our inability to jump more then our height, and we can't even breathe under water? pathetic, we break so easily, look down at your wrist, veins showing through your pale skin, how easy it is to die

All I'm suggesting is that maybe we're not "native" to this environment, that in fact we have done a piss-poor job of adapting so far, as you yourself seem to suggest. While the last thing I would do is blame it on mother nature.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Royce
Why are any of you surprised or puzzeled? We are nature, a part of nature and as any species respond to our environment just like any other species. In biology there is no such thing as a stable population. Species multiply under favorable conditions and die off under unfavorable conditions.

There's nothing about our existence here that suggests we've adapted to our environment. For example take a beaver, which has developed a broad tail for swabbing mud and sharp teeth for chewing on trees, thus making him a "specialist" for building dams. There's nothing about man, the "naked ape," to suggest any specialized form of behavior, which has allowed him to evolve and adapt to his environment. Even the apes themselves, seem well suited to what mother nature has provided, and find no need whatsoever to live "outside" of her domain.

P.S. What is the first story in the book of Genesis by the way? Don't you think that might possibly have some bearing on this?

 

[Royce]

Each species other than Man is specialized to some degree. Man is the generalist and unspecialized making him vertually able to instantly adapt to his environment or adapt his invironment to his needs. Man, or Homo Sapiens are the ultimate generalist and adapter on this world whether created as such or evolved as such.

If we were created or planted in this world and not part of the nature of this world, not evoled here, then why is our DNA so much the same as chimp, so much so that we and chimps are more closely related than chimps and gorillas are? Why does our DNA contain that of every form of life on this planet?
From DNA alone it is obvious that we, from the lowest simplist virus or bacteria to Homo Sapiens are all one life form, one nature.

 

[TENYEARS]

Yes, the truth is not so fun is it. I had a dream a few months back and was not pleased. It was just a dream. I was in ocean waters and it was pure sludge, it was floating every where and there was not fish. I went in the water and it was even difficult to swim. I was helping someone. Then I was back upon the land watching posion pour into the oceans. I was looked to with some sort of status that those who were part of the process that were polluting were trying to convince me that it would be ok that it always has in the past. What a sick feeling.

The societies of man which lived in accordance with nature were mostly tribal societes and only tribial societys. The american indians understood the hoop of life. This was not only a beyond the skin realization, but a learning experience also. For example the herding of animals off of cliffs was a supposed hunting practice. A tribe can only eat, carry and treat so much food. I believe and do say believe that due to there practices large scores of game were wiped out and caused hunger to many tribal societies. They learned from their mistakes and slowly developed the practices which were used by the american indians for thousands of years until they were all but wiped out by the late a 19th century. This extinction of course was caused by an inferior way of life.

One may argue all the points one wishes with these statements, but they are true and it will be our undoing.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Royce
Each species other than Man is specialized to some degree. Man is the generalist and unspecialized making him vertually able to instantly adapt to his environment or adapt his invironment to his needs. Man, or Homo Sapiens are the ultimate generalist and adapter on this world whether created as such or evolved as such.

If we were created or planted in this world and not part of the nature of this world, not evoled here, then why is our DNA so much the same as chimp, so much so that we and chimps are more closely related than chimps and gorillas are? Why does our DNA contain that of every form of life on this planet?
From DNA alone it is obvious that we, from the lowest simplist virus or bacteria to Homo Sapiens are all one life form, one nature.

And yet if everything were a manifestation of God, who's to say that we don't represent God on the "highest level" -- "created in His own image" -- as we "step out" of the Garden and face that which has evolved towards us in our own likeness (more specifically the apes). Yet where everything -- even the apes -- seems to be an all inclusive part of nature, except for us that is.

Whereas just as there are evolutionary forces brought into play, represented by Mother Earth, there is also a static element in the whole equation, representing that which would be most like God Himself, the sun. In which case you have the predetermined characteristics of the Father, the sun, and the volitile evolutionary characteristics of the Mother, the earth. Indeed, if man were created in God's image (hence predetermined), then it would suffice to say that everything which is evolutionary in origin, would have arisen to support God's "introduction of Himself" into nature. In which case there has to be a "genetic lineage."

If you read the beginning of the book of Genesis, you can see how readily the idea of this fits in well with that.

 

[Royce]

In the King James version and in the American Standard version there are two versions of creation in the beginning pages of the book of
genisis. To which one are you refering.
If God greated the niverse to evole wouldn't he set it in motion to evolve toward his purpose thus evolving man once the ecology could support him and bestowing him a soul in his, God's image.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
There's nothing about our existence here that suggests we've adapted to our environment. For example take a beaver, which has developed a broad tail for swabbing mud and sharp teeth for chewing on trees, thus making him a "specialist" for building dams. There's nothing about man, the "naked ape," to suggest any specialized form of behavior, which has allowed him to evolve and adapt to his environment. Even the apes themselves, seem well suited to what mother nature has provided, and find no need whatsoever to live "outside" of her domain.

What makes you think Dams are natural? Also, you are straying somewhat from how natural selection works - the evolutionary process does not envision a specialisation, and seek to create entities that are good for it. Your view would be interesting if we are talking about some kind of designed live, but that isn't so. We have simply a generation of random genetic data, which we reject or accept deending on how well it works, not how well it fits a particular plan.

But it's a moot point, as mankind is full of adaptations. Just so common to use we don't notice.

We have different skin colours, adpating us to particular lattitudes.
We have smooth skin, adapting us to mostly hot weather, and water travel.
We have opposable thumbs and dextrous hands, adapting us to tool use.
We have an immune system adapting dynamically to the environment we live in.
We have complex social circuitry in our brains, adpating us to collective living.

Creatures always expand out of their domain - or at least attempt to. That from early times brought evolutionary success.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Royce
In the King James version and in the American Standard version there are two versions of creation in the beginning pages of the book of
genisis. To which one are you refering.

Didn't know there was more than one version. I almost always refer to the King James version if that will help?

If God greated the niverse to evole wouldn't he set it in motion to evolve toward his purpose thus evolving man once the ecology could support him and bestowing him a soul in his, God's image.

Yes, I do believe this is what I was trying to say above. In which case I think it may be just a matter of timeframe, which I would say occurred about 10,000 years ago. At the "Dawn of Civilization."

Also, if man is not living in accord with nature -- which, I don't see how anybody can dispute -- then that coincides exactly with his fall in the Garden of Eden. And what did he fall to? ... The Tree of Knowledge. And why did he fall? ... Because he was playing God. In other words, "all brains and no common sense." And the saga of the fall of man continues, even unto today ...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
What makes you think Dams are natural? Also, you are straying somewhat from how natural selection works - the evolutionary process does not envision a specialisation, and seek to create entities that are good for it.

I don't think I'm saying this at all. The fact of the matter is, a beaver is well suited to building dams, irregardless. Which, if he hadn't developed a broad tail and sharp teeth -- evidence of his adaptation through evolution -- he probably wouldn't be that good at it. In which case it does make him a specialist.

Your view would be interesting if we are talking about some kind of designed live, but that isn't so. We have simply a generation of random genetic data, which we reject or accept deending on how well it works, not how well it fits a particular plan.

Am afraid I don't understand? ...

But it's a moot point, as mankind is full of adaptations. Just so common to use we don't notice.

We have different skin colours, adpating us to particular lattitudes.
We have smooth skin, adapting us to mostly hot weather, and water travel.

These two adaptations here could easily account for what's happened over the past 10,000 years.

We have opposable thumbs and dextrous hands, adapting us to tool use.

Tools? What do tools have to with adapting to the environment, compared to say the development of a thick coat, sharp teeth and a broad tail?

While the idea of opposable thumbs coincides primarily with having a large brain -- which, is apparently what got us into trouble in the first place.

We have an immune system adapting dynamically to the environment we live in.

And yet when the white settlers first came to America, it nearly desecrated the whole population of Native Americans, through small pox. Suggesting that the immune system must not be that highly developed or, that it doesn't take that long to develop acquired immunities ... that is, through the use of man-made substances called "vaccines."

We have complex social circuitry in our brains, adpating us to collective living.

And yet that would seem to coincide with the dawn of civilizaiton now wouldn't it? (See post to Royce above.)

Creatures always expand out of their domain - or at least attempt to. That from early times brought evolutionary success.

And yet with man, with his large brain and impetuous nature, he couldn't wait for the evolutionary process to kick in. And here we are today, with the "evidence" all around us.

 

[FZ+]

In which case it does make him a specialist.

And if we didn't develop hands etc, we wouldn't be so good a specialist in tool making either.

Am afraid I don't understand? ...

The point is that specialisation is a sideshow. The point of evolution is change, and in reality the idea of animals being built to perform certain tasks is entirely false. Species, or groups of genetic information can sometimes be pushed into alleyways that it is hard to get out of. True. But this is an effect, not a principle of the actual action. The idea of mother nature selecting creatures for domains is a product of subjective interpretation and thinking of the random forces at work in antropomorphic terms. Adaptation, without plans, can equally create generic jacks of all trades as it can special units.

These two adaptations here could easily account for what's happened over the past 10,000 years.

Who says particular adaptations have to "account" for everything? Stuff change.

Tools? What do tools have to with adapting to the environment, compared to say the development of a thick coat, sharp teeth and a broad tail?

Everything. Tools don't just pop out of nowhere. They are the product of a mind of creativity and analytical ingenuity, of predictive thought, and dextrous action, of limbs of flexibility and strength. The adaptation of these that give us the capability is every bit similar to sharp teeth et al. Our coats are in our brains, our teeth in our hands. We simply use them so often we don't notice.

And yet when the white settlers first came to America, it nearly desecrated the whole population of Native Americans, through small pox.

And syphilus. And notice that in many cases of disease, it isn't that the "natural" immune system is slow to adapt, it's that the disease organism adapts faster. By rights, it is the microbes that are gods. It is they that really make this world. But needless to say, any immune system is adaptation.

And yet that would seem to coincide with the dawn of civilizaiton now wouldn't it?

The dawn of civilisation is adaptation. We are better adapted in this case than ants.

And yet with man, with his large brain and impetuous nature, he couldn't wait for the evolutionary process to kick in.

Nothing "waits" for the evolutionary process to kick in. Everything spreads and that's what drives and is driven by the evolutionary process. The development of man is very much evolution - even if often unfettered by genes.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
And if we didn't develop hands etc, we wouldn't be so good a specialist in tool making either.

The only other instances of tool making throughout the whole of nature, are such things where a bird will drop a rock on an egg to crack it or, a chimp will use a twig to extract termites out of a termite mound, but that's about the extent of it. Whereas the whole thing remains within a closed system or loop, which is what we call "natural."

And yet once you begin to take things out of the loop, and create the first tool -- nor do I mean just making do with the "impliments on hand" -- and then use that as a platform to create another tool, and use that as a platform to create even further tools, then we begin to speak about those things which are not inherent with nature. And it's at this point that we begin extracting materials, even ourselves, out of the loop, and ultimately wind up depleting all the resources, because we are now operating "outside of the system."

The point is that specialisation is a sideshow. The point of evolution is change, and in reality the idea of animals being built to perform certain tasks is entirely false. Species, or groups of genetic information can sometimes be pushed into alleyways that it is hard to get out of. True. But this is an effect, not a principle of the actual action. The idea of mother nature selecting creatures for domains is a product of subjective interpretation and thinking of the random forces at work in antropomorphic terms. Adaptation, without plans, can equally create generic jacks of all trades as it can special units.

And yet for all intents and purposes, the by-product (effect) of evolution is specialization. Why do birds fly? Why do hippos wallow? Why do spiders spin webs? Why do bees make honey? Why do fish swim? Why are cats experts at catching mice? Why do cows chew cud? Why do camels have humps? Do I need to continue? ...

Who says particular adaptations have to "account" for everything? Stuff change.

Yet it's those animals which are best suited to their particular environment -- hence the notion of specialization -- that typically survive.

Everything. Tools don't just pop out of nowhere. They are the product of a mind of creativity and analytical ingenuity, of predictive thought, and dextrous action, of limbs of flexibility and strength. The adaptation of these that give us the capability is every bit similar to sharp teeth et al. Our coats are in our brains, our teeth in our hands. We simply use them so often we don't notice.

Most unnatural!

And syphilus. And notice that in many cases of disease, it isn't that the "natural" immune system is slow to adapt, it's that the disease organism adapts faster. By rights, it is the microbes that are gods. It is they that really make this world. But needless to say, any immune system is adaptation.

And through the "unnatural" process of trying to counter these diseases, we begin to create (uncannily) more highly resistant and deadlier strains.

The dawn of civilisation is adaptation. We are better adapted in this case than ants.

The only difference between us and the ants is that the ants are well suited to their environment. We aren't. The ants will make use of those things which are "naturally" at hand. And we don't.

Nothing "waits" for the evolutionary process to kick in. Everything spreads and that's what drives and is driven by the evolutionary process. The development of man is very much evolution - even if often unfettered by genes.

Except that we're speaking of a process which has occurred over billions of years, as opposed to that which has occurred over the past 10,000 years or so.

 

[hypnagogue]

What is meant by 'unnatural'?

As far as I can see there's nothing unnatural about human evolution. There is an imbalance between humanity and the environment, but this of itself does not imply anything unnatural about humanity. As Royce has mentioned, this is a natural and recurring cycle of nature. What brings it about is when the species in question becomes too successful, advances too quickly, proliferates too much-- thus disturbing a tenuous balance. Evolution has reached a critical point with human intelligence; now instead of waiting generations upon generations for static, built-in adaptations to take hold and flourish, they are dynamically created as needed in the course of a lifetime, years, months or even less. Human intelligence is the exponential explosion of natural life's ability to adapt to its environment, and even this exponential advance of human ingenuity/technology itself is growing exponentially fast-- is it really any surprise then that humanity has grown too quickly for its own good?

Think of it as a 5 year old boy who has quickly grown into the muscular body of a 20 year old man. Now think of this 5 year old playing soccer with his peers. It will take some time for our child here to attain the physical/intellectual sophistication required to play fairly and safely with his friends-- similarly, it will take some time for our race to attain the kind of large scale intellectual/spiritual sophistication required to attain some kind of long term harmony with nature. Just because we don't have it yet at this stage of our infancy doesn't mean that we are inherently unnatural, evil, or otherwise hopeless.

 

[Iacchus32]

And when we've wiped out all the species on this planet, will we all stand up and cheer, because it was a natural event? Bravo! ... Bravo! ... Well done!

Perhaps it's time to take our heads out of the clouds and take a good look at what's happenning below?

One thing I might add, that if we all understood our stay here was only temporary, that indeed there is more to life beyond what we experience here on this planet (regarding an afterlife), then maybe we wouldn't be so preoccupied with staking "our claim" here? And even give the planet a chance to recover?

 

[Royce]

We are nature, a part of nature and nature a part of us. We were born, evolved, created here on Earth and are a part of the ecosystem. We are not separate or apart from nature. We don't rule nature. The idea that man was created separate from nature to rule the planet and nature is one of the worst things that judeo-christian reiligion has done. Of course the africans, orientals and asians are no better so it probably isn't religion's fault, but just justifying our behavior.
Even the idea that we are steward of nature and the planet is wrong because it sets us apart from and over nature. Like it or not, agree with it or not, this is one small planet invewsted with life and we are on it and of it. Few animals befoul their nest lair or den. Man's nest is the entire planet and we are befouling it. We will pay the price of over population and polution.
When our population falls to below that which the planet can easily sustain then it will recover as well all of life and nature. The only question of importance to us is will we still exist and at what level. Will civilization be able to survive and come to terms with itself and nature? The planet, life and nature could care less if it does or can care. It will survive for a while longer.
Once again. WE ARE NATURE!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Royce
The idea that man was created separate from nature to rule the planet and nature is one of the worst things that judeo-christian reiligion has done.

In other words you're acknowledging, at least in part, what's responsible for our current state of affairs. And do you know what's ironic? Is that this is the very world that the materialists have come to love and embrace!

And, while I will go so far as to say that "this myth" has more implications with the development of Western Culture, it still does not discount the possiblity that the rest of the myth (in regards to our origin) is true. It's like I said, it's the very outcroppings of this myth which the materialists have come to embrace.

While according to the myth, how did we get here? For having eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And indeed, when we look around ourselves what do we find? All this "knowledge" (hence brain power), without the wisdom to deal with it. And the saga of the fall of man continues ...

 

[FZ+]

The only other instances of tool making throughout the whole of nature, are such things where a bird will drop a rock on an egg to crack it or, a chimp will use a twig to extract termites out of a termite mound, but that's about the extent of it. Whereas the whole thing remains within a closed system or loop, which is what we call "natural."

Or Beavers build dams which mould the entire landscape, allowing them to set up a further campaign of mass change against their environment. Or bend wires to forge toothpicks. Hell, ditch all this junk. The first tool making "life", was the first cell, which used the "resources" of the chemicals around it to make the "tool" of cell no. 2, which it used to pretty much take over the world. Or how about the plants, which used the "tool" of oxygen to systematically wipe out almost all of life on earth, creating immediately a new world order? Notice the theme? Your closed system is entirely applied and arbitary. We can't get out of the loop. We drag it with us.

Do I need to continue? ...

Why do humans make tools? Why do humans walk? The signs of adaptation are all present. What is not is the sign of an aim. Even in current society, the macroscopic workings of human change are fickle and unplanned. In fact, such sort of planning simply does not work effectively.

Yet it's those animals which are best suited to their particular environment -- hence the notion of specialization -- that typically survive.

That is not the notion of specialization. Specialization is the notion of being best suited to ONLY one environment. This simply does not exist biologically speaking. Sometimes it happens randomly, sometimes it doesn't. You might ask yourself: "Why isn't there a specialized plant adapted to living slightly south of large red boulders?" Because an unspecialised plants that can live to the south or even north of any boulder has taken that niche. In fact, we don't even identify the niche as even existing. Hence the subjective flaw in your reasoning.

And through the "unnatural" process of trying to counter these diseases, we begin to create (uncannily) more highly resistant and deadlier strains.

It's not unnatural. Disease evolution has always been driven by co-evolutionary competition. Bacteria aren't stupid.

The only difference between us and the ants is that the ants are well suited to their environment. We aren't. The ants will make use of those things which are "naturally" at hand. And we don't.

Er... have you looked in any nature journals lately? Red army ants are currently eating through vast tracts of forest, destroying everything in their wake.

Except that we're speaking of a process which has occurred over billions of years, as opposed to that which has occurred over the past 10,000 years or so.

Doesn't matter. Who says natural evolution has to be slow?

Later...

And when we've wiped out all the species on this planet, will we all stand up and cheer, because it was a natural event? Bravo! ... Bravo! ... Well done!

If we wiped out all the species, we would be in no position for cheering since we happen to be one of those species...

Later...

In other words you're acknowledging, at least in part, what's responsible for our current state of affairs.

What's responsible? Everything is "responsible". The laws of physics are responsible. The eating habits of south australian kangaroos are responsible. The responsibility idea is something that is more or less completely worthless, used only as an excuse for endless futile arm waving. The real point is - which factor is easiest to alter to change the situation to something we want. And in that case, we have the power.

Is that this is the very world that the materialists have come to love and embrace!

I'll add that to my list of "entirely pointless things people who don't know what they are talking about say".

For having eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Mild scriptural point. Looking at the description of the "knowledge of good and evil", that particular event had indeed more to do with wisdom than knowledge. Real knowledge makes no pronouncements as to good or evil, but the tree refers to ethical implications that can only lie within the bounds of "wisdom" of judgement.

And the saga of the fall of man continues ...

Funny, as then man would be unusual in "falling" upwards.

 

[TENYEARS]

Lots of good points here, I will go with the army ants and maybe forest fires huricanes/tornados, droughts etc... These all wipe out large areas of land and resources, but in the billions of years of evoulution there has been specialization which occurred to sustain a balance in the environment. This specialization was non other than the survival of the fitest. A forest fire wipes out a hundreds of square miles of forest and yet it takes this heat to release the seeds of new trees for some species.

The new problem is the proportion of fall back is gone. The buffer from to absorb such occurances are gone. Now when a forest fire occurs it is like riping out a significant section of your lungs. I do not want to expound on this but it is relatively true for all the other things. When you add to the fact that you need wood for building, fencing etc... The issue becomes actually black and white and there is no gray. Humanity is on the verge of an accellerated collapse. Some from it's self and some from a cycling nature which is not completely understood of which it's coping ability which was set up through billions of years of natural selection have now been diminished to the point of near extinction.

Note: One can say man has adapted to his environment. From some perspective this is true, what is also true is cause and affect. The tribal societal life which held humanity in a relative balance with it's surroundings is now gone. We will reap what we have sown, I hope you like toxic soup.

See the indians understood the balance, their religion was actually based on an understanding of physics along with mystical experience that some would like to debate. It is because of this close proximity with relality and a high regard for the balance of nature that the world has existed to this point and time. If humanity was to have expanded like this 5,000 years ago, we would now be living in a desolate waste land.

 

[jammieg]

Bah, it'll all work out. It's only human to always believe the end is right around the corner, the good thing is by doing this we avoid a lot of dangers. The best one I've heard is that when you add up all the pros and cons of all the technologies of the world and then just look at the cons alone(although small) can easily add up to enough bad to kill the individual. The world does seem kind of dangerous these days, but then that's only if I choose to drink and drive, or smoke crack and fly, or the biggest often overlooked killer smoke cigarettes. On the other hand the world has become fairly nice in many ways, people live much longer and in better health and education than just 200 years ago.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Or Beavers build dams which mould the entire landscape, allowing them to set up a further campaign of mass change against their environment. Or bend wires to forge toothpicks. Hell, ditch all this junk. The first tool making "life", was the first cell, which used the "resources" of the chemicals around it to make the "tool" of cell no. 2, which it used to pretty much take over the world. Or how about the plants, which used the "tool" of oxygen to systematically wipe out almost all of life on earth, creating immediately a new world order? Notice the theme? Your closed system is entirely applied and arbitary. We can't get out of the loop. We drag it with us.

For the most part you're just speaking about the rudimentary beginnings of an eco-system here. Not much to lose in terms of diversity.

Why do humans make tools? Why do humans walk? The signs of adaptation are all present. What is not is the sign of an aim. Even in current society, the macroscopic workings of human change are fickle and unplanned. In fact, such sort of planning simply does not work effectively.

The only thing that gives us the ability to adapt is the fact that we have a large brain, and we are able to synthesize those things which we are unable to adapt to through natural selection. This is why they call it man-made and artificial. And hey don't blame me because I never coined the term.

That is not the notion of specialization. Specialization is the notion of being best suited to ONLY one environment.

Yes, much in the way fish have adapted to water and birds have adapted to the air.

This simply does not exist biologically speaking. Sometimes it happens randomly, sometimes it doesn't. You might ask yourself: "Why isn't there a specialized plant adapted to living slightly south of large red boulders?" Because an unspecialised plants that can live to the south or even north of any boulder has taken that niche. In fact, we don't even identify the niche as even existing. Hence the subjective flaw in your reasoning.

And yet some plants are better suited to shade, some are better suited to intense light and heat, some are better suited to different soil conditions, some are better suited to boggy environments, some are are better suited to higher altitudes, and what not.

And if you wish to continue further than this, I would suggest that all you're doing is knitpicking and splitting hairs with me.

It's not unnatural. Disease evolution has always been driven by co-evolutionary competition. Bacteria aren't stupid.

Except that we have to come up with more and more environmentally "unfriendly" ways to deal with them.

Er... have you looked in any nature journals lately? Red army ants are currently eating through vast tracts of forest, destroying everything in their wake.

Even the vegetation? I doubt it. In which case I suspect it would be just a matter of the wildlife filtering back into the area once the ants are gone.

Doesn't matter. Who says natural evolution has to be slow?

Later...

Who says the best way to learn is by intensive cramming and study? Seems to me like the best way to bring about the most aggressive types of behaviour and/or adaptations, including a more "toxic environment."

If we wiped out all the species, we would be in no position for cheering since we happen to be one of those species...

Later...

Except that we wouldn't have to blame ourselves. Hurray!

What's responsible? Everything is "responsible". The laws of physics are responsible. The eating habits of south australian kangaroos are responsible. The responsibility idea is something that is more or less completely worthless, used only as an excuse for endless futile arm waving. The real point is - which factor is easiest to alter to change the situation to something we want. And in that case, we have the power.

Just in case you're unfamiliar with the first part of Genesis ...

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion[/color] over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue[/color] it: and have dominion[/color] over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:26-28).

Notice the words dominion and subdue?

I'll add that to my list of "entirely pointless things people who don't know what they are talking about say".

Please tell me that the above passage doesn't reflect the ideals of the modern materialist, and the notion that man has dominion over "all things." And then tell me that mine and just about everyone else's perception is wrong here. And, that it's not the materialists who are trying to justify things "the way they are."

Mild scriptural point. Looking at the description of the "knowledge of good and evil", that particular event had indeed more to do with wisdom than knowledge. Real knowledge makes no pronouncements as to good or evil, but the tree refers to ethical implications that can only lie within the bounds of "wisdom" of judgement.

Funny, as then man would be unusual in "falling" upwards.

The whole thing implies that man was endowed with a large brain from the get-go, without the "formal" ability to use it.

 

[FZ+]

For the most part you're just speaking about the rudimentary beginnings of an eco-system here. Not much to lose in terms of diversity.

How many beaver ecologists have you been talking to? Methinks you have heard the whoosh of the point go by. The point is the arbitaryness of your tool distinction.

The only thing that gives us the ability to adapt is the fact that we have a large brain, and we are able to synthesize those things which we are unable to adapt to through natural selection.

The brain, the human brain is a product of natural selection. By extension everything we do is due to natural selection. The point though is to point out how misleading the ideas of "natural roles" and "niches" really are.

Yes, much in the way fish have adapted to water and birds have adapted to the air.

And humans are adapted to the earth. Or bacteria have adapted to the universe.

And if you wish to continue further than this, I would suggest that all you're doing is knitpicking and splitting hairs with me.

Uh... no. It seems you have missed the point again. I am saying that looking for specialisation is misleading, because we first define those specialities subjectively. We set the resolution at which we consider everything to be so neatly fitting a role, and then we act surprised when our categories don't match up. The existence of individual specialisation doesn't matter, as I never said specialisation doesn't happen. But it is not the essence of the idea of natural selection.

Except that we have to come up with more and more environmentally "unfriendly" ways to deal with them.

And when we do so, a new lot of organisms take over, and we end up being very "environmentally friendly" to them.

Even the vegetation? I doubt it. In which case I suspect it would be just a matter of the wildlife filtering back into the area once the ants are gone.

And what do you think happens once humans are gone?

Who says the best way to learn is by intensive cramming and study?

Who says natural selection gives a damn about best? It doesn't have a destination, or a timetable. It just happens. You are antropomorphising...

Notice the words dominion and subdue?

Great. Let's all blame God. Sure, that helps.

What I am saying is that it has nothing to do with blame - blame is in the eye of the beholder. It is a matter of whether we are able to do something about it.

Please tell me that the above passage doesn't reflect the ideals of the modern materialist, and the notion that man has dominion over "all things."

It doesn't. It reflects the modern egoist, who insists that man has a special position all to himself, and is some how divided from nature. Which fits more to spiritualist, and a great number of religions than to materialists. The ideal of materialists is that stuff happens, and we are one of these stuff. In fact, part of the whole philosophy of materialism is to put mankind at a position of not being above, below or side to side of any vacuous concepts.

And then tell me that mine and just about everyone else's perception is wrong here.

Yes. Utterly and completely wrong. (since when is the bible a materialist text?)

And, that it's not the materialists who are trying to justify things "the way they are."

Yep, that's wrong too. The idea of justification just doesn't exist, as far as materialists are concerned. We do not have dominion over nature, because nature doesn't exist as an individual entity. We should act - because we can act to steer things in the direction we like.
Notice how crazily hard I have been at opposing:
(a) The specialness of mankind
(b) The control of mankind
(c) The distinction of nature as a separate entity.
(d) The idea of a god-given right or duty.


Whilst agreeing that:
(a) Certain actions will be bad for mankind.
(b) Diversity is a good thing.


You appear to be fighting a strawman... or even, yourself.