Synergy

I don't understand the vexation. Is it unreasonable to say that the statement "Our genetics make us do undesirable things we can't stop" is a belief some of us hold? Or is the vexation due to believing it is an obvious fact, which I am being obtuse for failing to accept? Salmon, do you categorize your statement about human nature as a belief, or as a fact? I'd like to be clear on that part. -S-

Frozen Feet, it sounds like you did one the easiest and quickest things you can do to possibly improve your mood—get some exercise. Meanwhile, sometimes the best we can do when feeling defeated, hopeless, or apathetic, is to slow down, breathe, and reflect on a few things like: Right here right now I am okay. I've gotten through tough days and challenges in the past. I know I will probably feel better again tomorrow, or another day soon. We can let the feeling be, not resist it and make it an enemy, but also realize that it's just a feeling and will shift. I tend to distract myself from negative feelings I can't quickly shake by doing something I enjoy like watching a movie or playing a game. Facing the unknown in life is one of those great existential angst issues that can be really hard on us...if we let it be. Looking to many stories of successful people in the world, some commonalties they tend to share is, they believed in themselves, that they could achieve what they desired. They didn't stop trying until they got there/they don't take no for an answer. As SoT thoughtfully points out, life really does tend to support us, if we stick with it. Having a loss of direction, vision, focus, and passion is okay, so be easy on yourself. I know the following statement sounds like a tired cliché, but it's hugely true. If you choose to see this shift in your life as a potential opportunity to take a new direction that may be even more fulfilling for you than your previous vision, it can be a little exciting, and not merely disappointing, scary, or depleting. One of the best ways to tap back into a vision and passion for ourselves can be as simple as getting quiet enough with ourselves for a bit, quieting our noisy minds, to let something emerge from deeper inside, something in our heart that already has an idea where we want to go next. Worst thing to do? Let the mind run endlessly with its depression-creating stories about how we failed or how we're not good enough or how the future is going to disappoint us. Hang in there. I'm confident you will feel better again soon and will land on your (frozen) feet. -S-

Salmon, okay, but you're also highlighting my central point. We have a belief around "human nature" that says, "We just don't/can't get along based on our nature." And as should be amply clear, I'm asserting that it is our belief that this is true that makes it true for us. If we held a different belief, we'd find we did and could get along. This is the power of consciousness and choice. It should be evident that this is a chicken and egg argument. Which came first, the "nature" or the belief? All we can look to (so far) are those smaller scale examples around us of how people live and "get along" who hold a different belief. Monks in a monastery, as just one example. I see evidence that belief overrules the devil that makes us do it. The belief is the devil. -S-

To sporefrog: On "supernatural." I like wordplay, but I also like transparency. There are probably a number of things I accept as natural, or at least as possible, which you would relegate to the supernatural/unreal/or wishful thinking. There is at least one thing that has happened to me physically and demonstrably which most people would relegate to the category of "supernatural." Originally Posted By: sporefrog Aren't you, in some sense, suggesting your beliefs are better than many of those who came before you? I think treating everyone better is a better idea than enslaving people who have a different skin color than you, and I am willing to stand up and condemn the practice of dumping acid on women who show skin in public. I will certainly say that many beliefs are better than those. Sure, okay, we'd agree. And doesn't estimation of "better" always depend on the sponsoring beliefs? Those who dump acid on women are convinced they are doing the right thing according to their belief. Terms like good/bad/better are all relativistic to something. We'd have to agree on what that something is. As I mentioned earlier, I try not to use those qualitative comparative terms much, but usually when I do, as in this case, I'm only looking at what the stated goal is, and how whatever we're doing is actually accomplishing it. The bottom line is always simply what works. Overall, as human beings, we say we are for peace, freedom, and equality in the world. Would we not agree that the majority of human beings want the same basic things? I'd actually argue that at our deepest core we all do desire the same things, whether aware of them or not. We have all kinds of laws, beliefs, customs, institutions, and so forth in place, which presumably should reflect who we claim we are trying to be in the world. The only real thing to measure is, how's it working? If it's not working, why not? I'm saying there are underlying beliefs hosting all those other things I just listed, which are not resulting in the kind of peace and freedom in the world we claim we value and believe in. So, yes, there is a "better" belief system relative to our stated goal. If we believe we are animals fighting over resources, dog eat dog style, that might is right, to the victor go the spoils, history is written by the winners, survival of the fittest, that the solution to an "evil" is to propagate more of the same evil (kill to stop killing), well, again, all I can ask, is how do these work for us when we live by such beliefs? I'm interested in what actually works for the experience we agree we want. I don't see our genes forcing us to plunder and kill one another and poop in our own nest. I see that our beliefs, including ones about our genes, can contribute to us doing that though. As the title says, we are animals, but we don't have to act like it. We have this conscious mind that chooses now. And many say it also loves and sees nobility and higher purpose in being. I personally hold that all persons are deserving of love, respect, and honor unconditionally. That's the definition of love really—unconditional esteem. But whether one believes in anything grandiose about our existence or not, the great majority of us still desire peace, freedom, and equality to be our experience. I think in some ways, our genetic explanation/excuse for our behavior is merely an updated, materialistic variation of "the devil made me do it." No less conveniently designed to absolve us from the consequences of the choosing we are doing. Psychologically, our very clever ego loves anything that takes the threat of shame from itself, and that includes accountability. Originally Posted By: sporefrog many people will say something to the effect of, "If nature really has no purpose or there really is no God or my favorite supernatural explanation isn't real, then morals don't exist, or there's no reason for people to be nice to each other, or my worldview no longer has any foundation." And I think this is a silly argument. I read you. Can you understand how someone would think and feel this way? I think it points to an actuality that people living by some external code can have a hard time admitting: we're ultimately making all this up and deciding for ourselves—our thoughts, ideas, and beliefs about everything. If we've lived under a belief system that something other than ourselves is deciding, creating and controlling our experience for ourselves, then it can be threatening, even devastating, to consider the stark, awesome responsibility we actually hold if we embrace that it is in our own hands and no other's. It can be a major existential crisis. I'm speaking from experience here, because I've been through something like this in my own life, having spent my early years believing in a traditional sort of God who was shaping my life. It is not easy to go through, and it again points to the inestimable power of belief over each of us to shape our perception and experience for our self. We're all in this together. People deserve mercy, patience, and understanding for being in whatever mindset they are in. Unless we believe they don't. See my point? Any actuality underlying it all, is in one sense, irrelevant. The bottom line again, is no matter whether we believe in an outwardly mandated, universally existant morality or not, we collectively wind up deciding as humans what is moral for ourselves and order our world around these decisions. When our concept of morality is shaped dominantly by fearful beliefs about ourselves or our gods, we are going to get results that...well, we've seen the results so far. Mixed at best. Utterly horrific at worst. I keep thinking I'm about spent on the topic, but then get immersed again. My field is psychology, and I see myself steering more and more in that direction. Until your next thoughts, cheers reciprocated. -S-

In response to sporefrog's other recent post. Originally Posted By: sporefrog What I want you to consider, is that you can reach all of the conclusions you're making about how such a belief system might look without presupposing anything without evidence, like the existence of a God-ish force integrated into all life. OK. All that's vital is for us to believe that you can't separate what you do to others from yourself, that there is no true separation or natural betterness between us based on beliefs or cultures or national boundaries or skin color or gender or sexuality or anything else. When we look into the face of another and see ourselves looking into a mirror, we behave differently than when we speak in terms of us and them. I don't really care how we arrive at this belief. It might be presupposing to suggest anyone with beliefs has them without evidence. If you mean materialistic evidence that we can measure with our machines, sure, we'll likely never have evidence. But evidence abounds on any number of other levels of experience or knowability. A most simple example: Love exists. Prove it by scientific method. Yet, who will argue that love is a huge part of who we are, what we do, and what we experience? Beauty exists. Measure it. Music is magical. Make a machine to create the perfect song. I resonate with your discussion of how tribalism (expanded in nationalism) has been a significant culprit in much of our behavior. I see tribalism not as a first cause, but as an intermediate effect which is also a cause that has further effect. If that makes sense. For me, that still doesn't appear to address the curious instinct in plenty of diverse people to risk their life in a moment to save a stranger, someone not of their tribe, culture, faith, skin color, or anything in particular apart from a shared humanity. Originally Posted By: sporefrog The fact that we have these tendencies to begin with is clear evidence to me that there is nothing but neutrality at work in nature. I'd be curious to hear you address specifically how belief fits into this. What do you see causing, driving, controlling, or altering our beliefs? Do you even agree that it's our collective beliefs that are driving our behavior now as conscious, choosing beings? Are you suggesting we basically collectively operate on autopilot, despite anything our minds are doing, that our "nature", which is indifferent, drives us despite the convictions of the human mind? I'm not clear yet on your view on this aspect. I enjoyed how you depicted ways in which we do affect and shape one another. Poetically stated. Originally Posted By: sporefrog This reality exists with or without a belief in the supernatural. Sure. There remains an absolute reality despite what anyone believes about it. I don't believe at all in the concept of "supernatural." For me, it's oxymoronic. Everything that actually is, is of course natural. And to me, and others, everything is also quite "magical." Yesterday's magic is often today's science. Everything we conceive is relative to and frequently limited by our other conceptions of the moment. -S-

Originally Posted By: Poached Salmon If you are going to seriously look at the behavior of Jesus, Mohammed, or any other prophet as being a preferable extreme of human behavior, you are projecting your own desires for the human race. There is no reason to think that their actions are (as an absolute) more preferable than those of the folks I mentioned. I could flip this argument around. Seeing selfish and hurtful behavior as the norm and as human nature is our projection. Considering how many of the beliefs of recent millennia have reflected us to ourselves as wicked and incurring the wrath of our gods, isn't it more likely that deep in our collective psyche at this point, we have a likelihood to project our "badness" as our norm? I'm thinking most of us in our own heart would prefer the Dali Llama to Stalin. The behavior of saintly sorts isn't some anomalous extreme, it's the way we actually behave under a different paradigm of belief. Such people point us toward our real nature and potential. Like Jesus is said to have said, "You'll do these things and greater." The reason most of us have not, is we haven't believed our examples yet. We continue to believe in superiority/inferiority, lack, gods who need something from us, and separation from all other life. We continue to behave accordingly. The worst of the worst demonstrate the extreme of what fear in the heart and driving the ego creates. Any of us is capable of such extreme. Not because, it's "our nature" to do so, but because it is the natural product of fear, as opposed to love. As for how rare or extreme our positive examples are, they may represent a pinnacle of potential, but I don't think they are as far removed from human experience today, depending on the company you keep. I've known truly amazing, wonderful people in my life who have demonstrated a lot of the same spirit and behavior as some of our historical icons. I can see it in anyone, actually, when any layers obscuring it are stripped away. It's curious to me how reluctant we are to even embrace the possibility that we are better in essence than we think we are. We dare not. And because we can't see it in ourselves or believe it in ourselves or in our most glowing examples, we don't produce it for ourselves. Kind of a catch-22, don't you think? Originally Posted By: downward dog HEY POOR, HEY POOR, HEY POOR YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE POOR ANYMORE. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDGSDFGDSFHGSFBD Who are you, and what have you done with Slartucker? I see your Front 242 and raise you Nine Inch Nails: "God is dead, and no one cares." Though really, the oft non-contextually quoted Nietzsche said it first. Originally Posted By: sporefrog First off, have you noticed how descriptions of people and their actions tend to get more and more fantastical the further back they happened to live? I don't for a minute think it's likely that all or most of the things ascribed to Buddha or Jesus actually happened, but I don't want that to confuse the issue. Take a more recent, well-established example like Gandhi. Everything that I am saying is totally compatible with someone like that, or any non-supernatural account of someone like Jesus or Buddha (i.e. a revolutionary moral leader) existing. The sheer recognition that our genetics have, for all intents and purposes, not changed in a few tens of thousands of years, yet we have gone from tribal hunters and gatherers to our present day society certainly speaks to the plasticity of the human brain. I'm working my way backwards to your posts. I'll get to the first one separately. I don't buy historical accounts as literal or unadulterated truths of what was. We've had debates about Bibles and whatnot here in the past. I think we have a lot of truth and wisdom in the world naturally marred and mixed by what humans also do with such things subsequently. I think enough of the reality remains to point to something, at the least. I do see that the essential message of these persons from our past is always the same at deepest essence, from culture to culture. I observe that whatever Jesus actually did was potent enough to spawn a massive shift in thought and belief over time. I believe something startling and compelling enough took place to capture a lot of people's imagination and change the world. How? The only way. By changing our beliefs about ourselves and what is possible for us. I think we've taken steps in the direction we want to go. I agree, we demonstrate tremendous flexibility with the minds we have. Our beliefs have been evolving dramatically for millennia, and resultingly, our institutions and behaviors have shifted dramatically. As we think new thoughts, we do new things. As conscious, self-directed beings now, must not the focus be on the beliefs we hold which drive all our choices? Are you suggesting that our genes drive and override us despite what our minds are doing? I see everything at this point in human development as pinned upon a battle for the mind. Nothing else makes any real or lasting difference, if we can't change our minds. -S-

Thuryl, thanks for being hugely gutsy and sharing. You've got some real courage. That's got to be a monumental set of feelings and choices you are contending with. Here we are bantering about nature, and you are wrestling with one of the most mysterious, loaded, and polarizing issues nature seems to deliver to us—our sexual and gender identity. I know this kind of issue is less rare than it might appear to many of us who have never had to face it head on, but that's of little comfort in one's own immediate environment, when facing less than sympathetic or tolerant loved ones. You've got big choices to make. No one can advise you what to do or when to do it—you know for yourself. If there's anything I feel like I could put forth, it's that we tend to be healthier and happier when we get to be true to who we are, even when it comes at outward cost. I believe in plenty of love and support in the world, and it can come from the most unexpected, unsought places. Regardless of any scrappy moments we've had here in the past Thuryl, I've always regarded you with admiration. You call it like you see it, you're bold, and you've got that savagely witty, irreverent Aussie humor I particularly enjoy, frequently even when it's aimed at me. I think you're a very cool person. I think you have what it takes to figure out what to do about this and see it through, and you know you have a lot of people who care and support you, even if they are flung all over the globe out of sight. There's a very empowering book on one man's journey through gender identity called "She's Not There." This man identified himself as female, but was going through adult life as a male. She eventually made the transition and managed to create a beautiful life for herself. Best wishes, my friend, -S-

An addendum for Sporefrog on human nature, which you brought up and I didn't address. I think our take on what human nature is depends a whole lot on where we are looking, would you agree? I will agree that the collective majority of human behavior through recorded history reflects the depiction you offered. I also see the exceptions in the mix, pointing to another way. What do we make of the anomalies, if we even have eyes to see them? If you believe accounts of figures like Jesus or Buddha being at all as described, do they represent human nature, because they didn't behave according to what you describe as human nature. What do we make of altruism, of the seeming human instinct for many people to react before they even have time to think to risk their life to save that of a stranger? Is that human nature? I will suggest that the qualities we presently see as human nature are the resulting product of human beings when they are operating under certain beliefs and assumptions about themselves. I see some of our deepest beliefs root us in fear, and therefore, a large part of our collective and individual behavior is motivated by fear. And we all know that fear leads to the Dark Side™. What might "human nature" look like if we were operating on a different set of beliefs about ourselves and the nature of life? I guess I'm saying that a whole lot of what we consider to be human nature might be better seen as the product of human nurture, millennia of thoughts directed toward ourselves since the dawn of consciousness and eventually codified through millennia more of religious and governmental practices. We may have been behaving a certain way for what seems like a long time now, but it doesn't mean it's hard coded into our being. -S- P.S. - Yeah, Thuryl, I said 10,000 years at first, before I thought a little more about the actual math. P.P.S. - By the way, Thuryl, I'm quite curious what this conundrum you mentioned yesterday that you're facing is. I'll bet a lot of us are. Do you care to elaborate?

So, Thuryl, do you consider Zager And Evans' song to be a more optimistic or less optimistic picture? I thought it was optimistic that they sang we might lazily take another 7,500 years to destroy ourselves. -S-

I have to say I love the optimistic well-wishers who compose this forum. Thank you, as ever, for your warm, kind, and gentle votes of confidence, appreciation, and tolerance. You surely inspire one to wish to demonstrate one's best. For Sporefrog: Thank you for the considerate discussion you offer. I'm enjoying it, and I appreciate your generosity of spirit. Here are some short statements that may clarify where I'm coming from. One: Anything I state is, of course, an opinion, though I don't mean it's the product of my fantasy. Two: I don't believe in predetermination of the kind where any particular future is inevitable. The kind of future I believe we will experience is still entirely dependent on whether or not we choose to do what it takes to get there. Three: I don't believe in an external force to push us in any direction. I believe in an internal one that is hard-written into the coding of all life. Four: I do believe in a universal consciousness or God, as we most often describe it, behind the existence, and therefore purpose for all of life. Point four shapes everything else more than any other point, because let's face it, it's a big one. It probably means we'll differ on the meaning of a lot of things we each observe, or whether we see inherent meaning in them at all. Five: I do believe that the future evolution of consciousness may involve learning to manipulate energy/matter on the quantum level, consciously choosing a particular selection out of the field of possibilities. I don't see this as bizarre or mystical at all, just on the very fringe of scientific exploration at present. To elaborate on point two: I heartily agree with you that it is vitally important that we do something—a lot of things—and not be passive and apathetic about where we are going. I share a similar concern that a number of religious (and non-religious) beliefs in our world lead people to be passive, to the detriment of us all. And, incidentally, the only way to change the world is to change beliefs. I see that we tend to focus on any other level than the one of beliefs in trying to fix our problems. My girlfriend just called and mentioned how one person zoomed to take a parking spot she was waiting for, and another turned the wrong way down the road to take the other. This was at the flagship Costco here in Kirkland, WA. I see this behavior as a largely unconscious result of the survival of the fittest/I am separate from everything else belief system. When we believe, as some like that Jesus fellow or Buddha or others came around claiming, that we are one, connected, inseparable from one another and therefore would do well to treat each other as ourself, it leads to very different behaviors. Belief is everything and I don't see the ones we've collectively embraced for a few millennia now serving us and life too successfully. We need to direct ourselves consciously, mindfully into our future at this point, as we face a nearly full capacity of human population on the planet. I think Student of Trinity is probably right that we will balance out around 10 billion. Self-determination under an adapted and expanded set of beliefs is the only way I can see us make it to a far distant possible trippy, sci-fi kind of reality like I describe, if that is indeed what awaits us. The nature of consciousness is free will and choice for ourselves. But we have to make choices that work with the whole. I think dialogs, even like this, are an essential part of that process. They can create new thoughts for us, which can lead to new beliefs, which will result in new behaviors. I get repeated comments that I engage these dialogs because I am trying to convince someone of something through argument. That's not the point. For me, it's the whole notion of putting more ideas, thoughts, and possibilities into the mix. Time, and the individual will sort it all out for the self. Ideas are like seeds which may germinate eventually upon further experience and information. If our future is not like what I'm describing, I still expect it will be something similarly far beyond our present capacities—and even our imaginations. The evolution of consciousness itself is what is most powerful and fascinating to me. I think we've underexamined the possibilities in increasing orders of consciousness developing. One scale of order is the community that makes up any complex organism. Can we imagine what is possible if organization and consciousness were taken up another equivalent level, another magnitude of order? I really do think life is going to keep making fantastic advances of this sort wherever it exists, as long as it persists. To elaborate on points three and four together: The collective choice is up to us. There's no God that needs it to happen any particular way or is limited by what happens on this wee planet. We can obliterate life on this planet if we choose, and the show will go on elsewhere. God continues to enjoy its expression. My point is the show is going on, and it is here with the specific purpose of going on somewhere. I doubt we're the only show in town. But we've got a pretty good show roughly drafted here so far. It would be a shame for all that creativity to go to waste. And as I like to vote repeatedly, I think we are going to keep this show going, but we may have some rough performances coming up to mixed review, as we tinker dramatically with the script. We've told a good story for a long time, but the audience is getting restless and we've learned so much more about our craft. Time to amp it up a notch. No one wants to see Cats forever. Well, almost no one. I think we have a couple of furries here. The origin of life on this planet and in this universe itself is intriguing, and remains our biggest mystery probably. How and where does life start at all? It is possible other life planted or generated life by intention on this planet or that this entire universe is the intentional creation of other life. I think we have a way to go before we'd even have the means to figure that one out. Sporefrog (and anyone else for that matter), will you paint more of a picture for me where you imagine life and human beings will be going in your paradigm? And, how about making it your most optimistic picture, at that? The less optimistic ones are probably all too familiar by now. -S-

Please be informed that we will be shortly sending you our latest monologue directly by email. It's a pdf, and only takes up 8MB of disk space. Moat that dam! -S-

Thuryl, you're more lovable than you think you are. Or at least more than you act like you are. -S-

Yeah, I'm wordy, except when I'm not. Has it been noted that everything lengthy I've written subsequent to my one initial, not-really-all-that-long post was in response to inquiry and assertion? If you don't want to see my answers, don't ask me questions. I'm not good at short answers. It's really that simple. It's my nature to try to give thorough answers to inquiry. I'm not saying it's my best skill or quality. Meanwhile, it is mostly the people who assert they do not believe the sort of thing I'm discussing and do not enjoy what I say or how I say it, are the very ones who continually invite my ongoing dialog on the matter. I file this all under personal exercise for me and entertainment for you. If people truly aren't interested in my dialog, is it really so hard to stop acting interested and stop perpetuating it? -S-

Your girlfriend is trying to convince you that because she once told you she loves you, she never needs to tell you again. Do you agree with her? -S-

Originally Posted By: Ephesos Originally Posted By: Synergy I tend to be interested in the deepest underlying core of belief that shapes all our other beliefs...Ultimately, it's what we'd call spiritual belief. The realm of metaphysics that underlies the physics. This is a rhetorical technique I can't stand. What I read here is essentially "You have the right to your opinion, but mine are more central and important." I can understand how you'd read my words that way, but consider how this conclusion rides upon your own projection of who you think I am being. I don't think my opinions are more central or important, though I won't deny that a false ego self in me would like to think so. I think what has largely hampered humanity on this planet is precisely the belief that some opinions are more important than others. It's what we kill each other over. I'm saying two things. 1) I'm not able (or at least personally find it unuseful) to debate finer points that rest upon a foundational belief when the foundational beliefs do not make it possible for me. I could do it, but that would be role play, playing a role that is not really who I am at all. 2) I'm also saying what usually floats my boat is to dialog on the basest underlying level of beliefs (deeper does not mean "more profound" here, it means it lies further down underneath other layers that rest on top). I like examining that level, because that is more fascinating and meaningful to me personally. That doesn't need to be the case with anyone else, and it doesn't imply any other level isn't equally fascinating, meaningful, useful, and worthwhile. Each person gets to enjoy who they are and what inspires them. I think it's all great, Eph, I really do. I'm gonna be me and focus on the angles that engage me, and everyone else is going to do the same. Where we have overlap is where we can have some hopefully enoyable and friendly dialog where no one need be threatened by anything or see anyone's area of interest as better or more important. Now, I'm not clueless. You and I and others are aware than in the past when I've had some of these kinds of discussions, I have permitted ego and emotion to greatly infect my words and motivations. Greatly. I freely confess that. I am a humanist though, and I deeply believe in the never-ending capacity (if not actuality) of any human being to grow and evolve. We are never the same person two days in a row even, as we are a little bit different every single day from the day before. You can choose to take me fresh as I am right here right now, or you can project your image of me from some experience of the past, a person who you might realize I am not being today. I can't fault you for seeing what you do in my words, but I do invite you to consider at least that it is possible this person is not the quite same person you encountered one or three years ago. I will always grant anyone that likelihood, and would love to be treated with the same good faith. At the very least, for most of us, I'll wager, it makes a person a whole lot more attractive when they demonstrate some degree of faith, or at least hope in the capacity of their fellow human instead of assuming and condemning them to be and forever remain the worst. So again, what am I doing? I'm sharing thoughts, beliefs, ideas, musings that interest, amuse, or convict me. Why? See the previous sentence. They interest, amuse, and convict me. They also delight, intrigue, fascinate, and challenge me—and a whole lot more. I share them time and again here or wherever else I might, because I never know what's going to come of putting something out there when the inclination strikes me, who's going to respond, what's going to transpire, who I'm going to find. I can reliably predict that some of the same people are going to come forth and mock me for my effort, belief, or style. That's the distraction, not the meat for me. I consider it a personal test of my own growth and integrity, the degree to which I let it affect me. That's another reason I post here now and again on some of the very same subjects. It's a great exercise for me personally to gauge my own progress. Originally Posted By: Ephesos Originally Posted By: Synergy Now, if life were merely doing what it does mindlessly, randomly, or even accidentally, I really would have no reason to expect any such thing. So, if you don't expect it to be that way, it obviously couldn't be that way. For someone who is into so-called deeper truths, what if the deeper truth turned out to be that there was no such thing? Then I'd live and die and be absolutely none the worse for it, having enjoyed my happy beliefs while alive. I don't understand the sentence that if I don't expect life to be (purposeful, headed somewhere), that it obviously couldn't be that way, unless you mean that I'm conceited and think that something is only possible if I think it is. If it helps, I'll concede right now that I could be "wrong" one hundred percent about everything. I'm not afraid of that anymore, because the evidence and experience has mounted too high for me to ever be able in this lifetime to arrive at the perspective that it's all just happening without a purpose, a guiding principle, a delightful goal in mind. To bother to challenge this level of conviction, you might as well argue with someone about why they believe in God. It's never been an argument for words. It's based on the personal and experiential and is largely unquantifiable in any means of measure we have at our disposal. Originally Posted By: Ephesos Originally Posted By: Synergy And once life on a planet hits a degree of consciousness, the process of evolution can begin to speed up, because it can become intentional and self-directed. On one level, we're already on the brink of doing some remarkable and conceivably disastrous things with genetics, but that's not really the only way I mean this would happen—through technology alone. So... what do you mean by this? Because it sounds like you're talking about eugenics. </Godwin> No, far from it, I'm referring to conscious evolution. It has a lot more to do with harnessing the power of mind than that of technology, though who can say how the two will integrate? I think we've barely begun to get an inkling of the vast capacities of consciousness, and particularly, collective consciousness, but our awareness and exploration is accelerating rapidly at this time like no time before we know about. Unlike the crude, heavy-handed operations of our recorded history, we are going to begin to choose to do things collectively and voluntarily, not by force of law and threat of pain. The penal system of attempted control is an endless, self-reinforcing morass. We'll demonstrate a higher way, but it will require a higher consciousness than we've mostly been operating in so far. Namely an awareness once again that anything we do cannot be separate from ourself. What we do to any other part of life, we do to ourself. Self interest will dictate collective interest eventually. Voluntarily. Logically. It will be the ridiculously obvious choice to make. Originally Posted By: Ephesos Also, to respond to an ongoing point you've been making, parasitism and carnivorism are not going to evolve out of the system, unless other things stop being so tasty and nutritious. Evolution simply does not work that way. Not yet right here right now. It'll take a degree of conscious evolution to make that kind of shift, if we decided we wanted that change, and I'm not even saying we would, but personally, if I could, I would. It's an intuition I have about something perhaps much further down the road. So far, life has been almost exclusively operating on an unconscious level (think autopilot/instinct.) Once it hits the point where it advances sufficiently in its conscious awareness of itself and, subsequently understands the nature of all life, and then begins to harness its own capacities through consciousness, that's when the really fun part begins. Collapsing quantum fields of infinite possibility intentionally into the singular actuality of your choice is a powerful tool indeed. I choose to not limit myself to the assumption that because I have not yet seen something happen a certain way, it can never happen that way. I see rather that it has never yet happened any other way, because there has been no organized or empowered intention yet for it to happen any other way. I see the outplay as a very patient process. Life/God is not in a hurry. We've got all the time in the world, because time is infinite. There's no end to the process of life, but it's forever changing. It probably never does quite the same thing twice, the possibilities and variations of creation are so endless. Originally Posted By: Ephesos Originally Posted By: Synergy Obama said it in a speech a while back, "We are all one." I see the paradigm creeping into our collective awareness in a heartening way. If Obama actually meant those four context-free words to endorse this "paradigm", I swear to god I'm voting Republican. I don't expect he consciously meant it on any level beyond, "We humans are all brothers & sisters and need to learn to get along as one family on one planet." I'm going to guess that sentiment doesn't alarm you too much. That sentiment is the resulting attitude that tends to proceed from seeing what I'm trying to describe. I'm not saying it's coming from the same core belief in his case, but the awareness of the essential solution is creeping in on whatever level of awareness. Necessarily so. The drive of life dictates that it has to happen at this time in our evolution, so no one could stop it if they wanted to. Life/God is way bigger than us and will do what it's going to do. And like I said, it could be with or without us, but my vote of confidence is for the latter. @Slarty: Any edits I have made in posts that are uncredited were made immediately after the initial posting and have almost exclusively been made to fix grammar or sloppy structure. I got the impression you were suggesting something unscrupulous from your comment a while back. P.S. - Phanes...a blog is not what I enjoy. Would you prefer I not post here?

This sentence is interminable. -S-

@Sporefrog: Your perspective of life is an entirely reasonable one, and there's no need to attempt to dissuade you from it. We've both basically stated our paradigm of how we see life working, and based on the foundational difference, everything else we see will predictably be somewhat different. I tend to be interested in the deepest underlying core of belief that shapes all our other beliefs. Whatever that is for someone, that's cool. It deserves respect. Its okay. Our core beliefs are also what shape everything we do on the planet, and what we do to each other, so thus my primary interest on this level. I agree that we observe parasitism and plenty of other non-cooperative forms of behavior in life right now, especially among ourselves, and it has even been what we can call successful, if not particularly preferable or pretty. Because I do believe that the whole reason for the existence of life is for a grand, ever-expanding outplay of the nature of the "being" behind all life, I see it as hardly done with where it's going. In other words, life is doing some things pretty crudely right now, including what we humans are doing these days, and that too is part of the grander arc of getting to where we are going. Related to some of the asides in this thread, failure is part of the larger process of success, and as such is not failure at all. I don't see parasitism or even carnivorism as where life has to settle or stay, just as it didn't stay with one-celled organisms in the ocean forever. And once life on a planet hits a degree of consciousness, the process of evolution can begin to speed up, because it can become intentional and self-directed. On one level, we're already on the brink of doing some remarkable and conceivably disastrous things with genetics, but that's not really the only way I mean this would happen—through technology alone. As stated prior, I do think the development of where life is going in this world is still in a fairly infantile state, and though a bit crass, literally, we as humans are the one species who as adults continue to foul our own nests (thus the joke about needing to change our diapers.) We've been trying out certain paradigms of belief for some millennia with our new mind and consciousness with observable results, which we may argue may or may not be working for us and life on the planet very well at this point. Life's a process that always has a higher plateau to achieve, as I've been stating. Just because we observe the level it is at now does not mean it stays at that level, just as I expect a five year old is going to be more mature than five in a few years. Now, if life were merely doing what it does mindlessly, randomly, or even accidentally, I really would have no reason to expect any such thing. It might be business as usual or not at all at any point hereafter. So again, it does come down to the basic underlying belief about what it's all about. So, for me, this is all about the paradigm of how it all works, and not an attempt to prove anything, though I do offer evidence to support this view to my limited, rather unscientifically-adept ability. It becomes a very personal matter trying to explain all what factors in to arriving at such views and beliefs, and it's been a lifelong quest of mine for settling deep inquiries into life. Ultimately, it's what we'd call spiritual belief. The realm of metaphysics that underlies the physics. The oneness and interconnectedness of all life emanates out of this perspective as well. It permeates a wide range of spiritual tradition that spans millennia. I think it's the only view that will enable us to get our act together in time. Obama said it in a speech a while back, "We are all one." I see the paradigm creeping into our collective awareness in a heartening way. -S-

Originally Posted By: Randomizer So you think mankind is heading for an extinction crisis and we will be replaced by the most successful animal around now, the cockroach. Naw, I think we're going to make it, because we'll get it together in time and forge ahead. Speaking of how and when we go, my Grandma sure got it right. She said for years, "I sure hope the Lord takes me quick." She got her wish. She died of heart failure standing up at the sink, and was still standing when my brother found her. OK, that's morbid, but it's a not a bad way to go, if you gotta go. Originally Posted By: Sporefrog I think the areas where I seem to disagree with you the most are when you seem to either anthropomorphize nature a bit too much, or seem to think the development of life is somehow directed. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter though. With mercy to Ephesos, whose lungs are getting a very healthy workout since I joined this thread, I'll try to summarize briefly where I'm coming from. I do see life as purposeful and directed, not from outside itself by a puppetmaster sort of God, but intrinsically from within. I see an organizing principle to all of life built in, and I think that's no accident. I don't care what anyone wants to call it, God or the Universe or whatever. The very nature of life is to evolve in every sense of the word, to become something grander, and I do observe and believe it ultimately accomplishes where it is going through cooperation. The evolution of consciousness in human beings is just the beginning of where it's going on this planet, I'm guessing. We may think we're all grown up, but I think we're probably still babes in the woods so far. Which is okay. It's always okay to be and act the age you are. I believe, and science is increasingly pointing to, a universe which is an interwoven tapestry of incredible complexity on the quantum physics level. It sees all things as one interconnected energy, one life. On that level, we can't do anything to any part of life without affecting all of life. On the human level, anything we do to another person, we have done it also to ourselves. I think I see now why sages and masters for eons have come around saying the same thing: do unto others as you would do unto yourself, love your brother as yourself, we are all one. I do believe our solution lies in recognizing this, and acting on it. As long as we are intolerant of other humans for their differing beliefs and cultures, and go to wars over these things and resources which we are squandering and hoarding rather shamefully from one another, I don't believe we can survive too much longer as a species. I think our old belief system of ultimate separateness from each other is broken. I see our only solution is to start believing in our oneness, just as our individual body has come to be known as one unified thing built of many individual life forms we call cells. I think that's the trademark and unifying principle of life in the universe. It's what life does and where it's headed. If it looks messy and crude on our planet in our experience so far, I think that reflects our infancy in the process. Our diapers need changing a lot still. It's okay to be acting our age. But we do grow up. You don't fix the five year old, the five old just keeps growing up. Life looks after itself. It grows us all up in due time. Life, with a capital "L" might as well be a synonym for God. Same thing to me. It's okay if you or anyone does not see things this way. I don't got nuthin' to sell. I just like talking about what thrills me, even if it is a swirled mixture of science, metaphysics, and spirituality. I see all these as inclusive and not at odds with one another. I think all fields will ultimately converge when we figure it out sufficiently. I also think it's entirely okay to be entirely wrong. I trust Life. I trust the process. It's way bigger than me and my little big brain. Someone kindly tell Ephesos he can pull his fingers out of his ears now. -S-

Phanes said, "Fox would pay good money for that." But they'd try to make the cable carrier subsidize it. -S-

VCH, you lived to tell the tale! Well, who the heck wants to talk about all that boring methods and results stuff when you can dig into abstract theory? ; ) I think we can use all the visionaries in schools we can get. At least you committed the unforgivable sin of failing to deliver to the school the product it wanted—with epic-scale style. I'll wager you didn't fail to deliver something that was true to you and your interest, and personally, I'd rather hear that out of anyone than anything less. Be easy on yourself. Fail is just one temporary part of the bigger process of succeed. -S-

And a rainy day all around, it would appear. How can you fail? You tried your best presenting your perspectives, I'm going to assume, am I right? -S-

OK, you did it. I'm at a loss for words. That sounds....really big, Thuryl. -S-

My verdict is still out on who I think Obama is going to be as a president. My intuition says he is sincere, but he has likely bitten off more than he can chew as one man. Because I believe he is essentially sincere in his concerns for the people and sufferings of Americans, and really does want to work to improve our lot, I think we'd do well to give him some time. America's a huge, bulging container vessel of a country, and it doesn't turn on a dime. Even more importantly, he may be the president, but he can't effect significant change alone. He needs active and sizable backup, support, and activism by American citizens to have the clout to make it get anything through the houses. I think it's a team effort, and I miss the day when Americans really believed in and stood behind their president. We're so cynical and disillusioned now, but now more than ever, I think we need to be onboard together if we hope to pull ourselves out of the morass. That means bi-partisan togetherness, not merely along political lines. Have your fights during election season, but work together, as best you can during the term. Ego and personal agenda is so majestically out of control in D.C. It's hard to watch us devouring our own tail over party politics in the midst of national crisis. How bad will it get before Americans rise up in significant enough numbers in ways loud enough to scare our elected representatives into getting something done for the people again? That's what I am convinced it will take, no less. And I think that means things have to get pretty uncomfortable first for the majority of Americans. Too bad, that last part. -S-

I'm curious about what brings you to that conclusion. -S-

And yet, nearly all of life feeds on life, and what do we make of that? Dying is as much a part of life as living, and something else must die in order for anything else to live for most life on the planet. I have a hard time coming to terms with that, personally. I don't like seeing anything suffer. Sentiments aside, life seems content to sacrifice of itself continually in the name of its own overall progress. I do not assume that animals eating animals—or even plants—is the end product of evolution of life on this planet. It bugs us. Maybe that's an inkling of where it is ultimately headed here. Who is to say we won't evolve to harness the energy of the sun directly into our bodies one day and bypass this tedious work of gathering, preparing, eating, and excreting food? All energy is sun energy. Why not cut out the middleman? Excelsior! The real question I would guess we care about personally, is what role do we get to play in the game of life, which surely includes our death. Is it enough? Is it good enough? Are we here to struggle to perpetuate our genes and hand off the most toys before we go, or do we get to get something more enduring out of the Life game? Because any one life is pretty short, and arguably pretty meaningless on a purely animalistic level of existence...as the existentialists explored. Remember the game of Life? There's a First World creation if there ever was one. As a bit of an aside, I think a huge amount of what the ego of the human mind has developed over the last few millennia is precisely in response to its inability to come to terms with the inevitability of its own death. Eph, welcome back. No reason one can't change one's mind. -S-