The Joy of Battle

[Lacewing]

our notion of evolution and the purpose of species, that is what drives their actions, is correct in theory but may not be totally correct in reality. and what i mean by this is, consider that all species, and all living organisms necessarily have defects, and it is these defects that result eventually in their extinctions which allows for evolution to occur. were it not for these defects, species would not evolve and humans would not exist. so defects are an inherent part of nature as well, and in line with 'natural' purpose of evolution.

I like the way you described this. Very reasonable.

Accepting a bigger natural flow that we are a part of.

now, what if the uniquely human defect was to forgo 'conscious evolution' in favour of happiness?

I like the concept of favoring happiness over our rabid obsessions and willfulness with anything, including our supposed "conscious evolution". I think we should be wary of ourselves, knowing how creative we can be!! I think we are creating all of the drama and phantasms of this Earth life (as well as what we proclaim is "above that"). It's quite a show we are putting on for our experience. Such conscious evolution is quite imaginative... but not very sustainable, and often destructive to everything around it.

Basking peacefully in the moment can be much sweeter... at least for those who feel inclined to gravitate toward such a thing.

I try to find reason and respect for the way things are, but I also wonder about a more "advanced" evolution possibly being one in which we don't kill ourselves.

[11011]

nick,

that illustrative quote by Einstein sounds kind of like what i said doesn't it? like the religious feeling he described, that's eerie...never thought of it as a religious experience but i suppose it could be...my notion of happiness that is

The being of Man is not evolving. Man is in the process of adaptation in response to influences like technology. Man may be adapting but his being, his “isness” is devolving due to increased fragmentation.

that's interesting. i like that, evolution vs adaptation. what is fragmentation? also, what is inner unity?

i have considered some of the negative impact technology has on humans, like just in terms of how it affects their brains and stuff, but i never thought it could actually prevent our evolution, yet that makes sense.

however, technology isn't something we just adapt to, but is also adaptation itself, no?

but what you're saying is that as a form of (collective?) adaptation, it's hurting us?

also, is conscious evolution compatible with things like technological advancement, or would people have to give that up?

can technology be used to help with conscious evolution?

The great battle we all face is the battle between our higher and lower natures. The lower usually wins which is normal for the fallen human condition and why modern successful adaptation must lead to collective human devolution. What may happen to animal man is one thing. The result of the inner path leading to conscious Man is another.

i like this idea of conscious Man, and i think it is a worthy goal. to the extent it's similar to what Einstein talked about, that religious feeling, and moving from a fear based religion to a truly moral one, is ideal.

but here is a question. if we look at different types of people on earth, in terms of how they are, with those acting according to 'lower Man' at one extreme and those acting more in accordance with 'higher Man' at the other, to what extent is there codependency between these two?

can there be higher Man without lower Man, and vice-versa? are they mutually dependent?

'someone has to do the grunt work' is basically notion here. there are still poor countries, for example, partly because the world is more economically functional and profitable that way, which allows the luxury of some to become 'higher Man'. in order to become 'higher Man' he must rise above his primitive conditions of life, but that can often only be achieved or sustained by keeping others down.

this is where technology comes in. perhaps technology has the ability to support these conditions for everyone, the conditions necessary for all people to evolve consciously?

and at this point i am kind of reminded of the so-called technological utopia that was supposed to happen at the turn of the century, lol, you remember that?

remember you may have been told as a kid, that robots would be making our dinners and whipping our asses? whatever happen to that

my thoughts around this are, although i haven't really given it much, is that basically it's still more economical to use humans instead of robots for many things. in other words, while technology is replacing humans in some areas, in others it is not, yet people are expected more and more to work like machines, which probably isn't doing their conscious evolution service.

so ya, i don't think technology is evil, i think we need to obtain some sort of conscious evolution in relation to technology, specifically, and of things of the same category, which will give us a support base for our own further conscious evolution.

i wonder what's keeping people locked in to sub-optimal modes of being. probably fear. it is really hard to shake it seems, also i blame health scares. everyone is afraid of their health nowadays, even when they re totally healthy. i get this sense fear definitely still being used to control people or make money off them, the incentive probably being fear as well. but it's hard to break out of that fear when so much of society and the world is organized around it, and your friends, parents, etc, are mirroring it back to you. few are willing to say 'i don't care if i die!' and stop reacting to the fear, and instead evolve.

it takes a leap, like leap of faith.

[Nick_A]

11011

that's interesting. i like that, evolution vs adaptation. what is fragmentation? also, what is inner unity?

Evolution and adaptation are not in essential conflict. They should be complimentary.

The psychological attraction Einstein is referring to is the attraction to wholeness. The attraction to science is the attraction to specialization or fragmentation of the whole into a virtual infinity of fractions. There is no reason for them to be in conflict. The fact that they appear to be is proof of our fallen human condition.

Are you familiar with Plato’s description of our tripartite soul? We live primarily as three separate parts: intellect emotion, and sensation. They have the potential to be connected consciously where a person could think, feel, and sense phenomena as a whole. Imagination has replaced consciousness for us so these three modes of contact with the external world are unified by imagination. We can think one thing, feel another, and sense the third all at the same time and rationalize it as normal by the power of imagination. A person with inner unity experiences the world as it is rather than as opposing parts which must be reconciled by imagination.

i have considered some of the negative impact technology has on humans, like just in terms of how it affects their brains and stuff, but i never thought it could actually prevent our evolution, yet that makes sense.

The problem really isn’t technology but our fallen human condition which cannot put it into a conscious perspective. I’ll stick with Einstein for a moment:

1. Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
2.
The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
3.
There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance

“A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” Einstein

These ideas are so offensive for secularism in modern times since they first suggest a conscious intelligence which is the source of universal laws and consequently our functioning universe. Secondly they suggest the universe itself as a living machine. Obviously this is intolerable for all those attached to the earth and humanity as the ultimate in human evolution..

also, is conscious evolution compatible with things like technological advancement, or would people have to give that up?

Why should they be? Science provides knowledge of the interactions of laws and conscious evolution is the path to acquiring a human perspective in which technology works for Man as opposed to Man working to support machines as happening now.

but here is a question. if we look at different types of people on earth, in terms of how they are, with those acting according to 'lower Man' at one extreme and those acting more in accordance with 'higher Man' at the other, to what extent is there codependency between these two?

can there be higher Man without lower Man, and vice-versa? are they mutually dependent?

I’ve learned and come to accept that Man is a mini universe and structured on the same principles as our great universe. Does my head need my legs to function as a complete person? It would seem so. Some people become more open to awe and wonder than others. Animal Man on earth exists as it does to serve nature which isn’t concerned with conscious evolution.

Higher consciousness always serves to help the quality of consciousness beneath it. Where nature functions by reacting to mechanical laws, consciousness functions by relative conscious awareness of its place within the universal structure .

'someone has to do the grunt work' is basically notion here. there are still poor countries, for example, partly because the world is more economically functional and profitable that way, which allows the luxury of some to become 'higher Man'. in order to become 'higher Man' he must rise above his primitive conditions of life, but that can often only be achieved or sustained by keeping others down.

I refer to conscious rather than higher Man. Conscious Man being free of the inhibitions created by fear and imagination is free to act as conscious man rather than react as indoctrinated conditioned Man. Why keep others down. Why not provide what is necessary to awaken to what it means to be worthy of the name human? Must physical work oppose consciousness? I've learned that under the right conditions it promotes it.

this is where technology comes in. perhaps technology has the ability to support these conditions for everyone, the conditions necessary for all people to evolve consciously?

Conscious awareness is the conscious awareness of our connection with a quality of consciousness greater than our own and life on earth at a lower level. I don’t see how having a better car promotes conscious awareness even though it may attract more women.

i wonder what's keeping people locked in to sub-optimal modes of being. probably fear. it is really hard to shake it seems, also i blame health scares. everyone is afraid of their health nowadays, even when they re totally healthy. i get this sense fear definitely still being used to control people or make money off them, the incentive probably being fear as well. but it's hard to break out of that fear when so much of society and the world is organized around it, and your friends, parents, etc, are mirroring it back to you. few are willing to say 'i don't care if i die!' and stop reacting to the fear, and instead evolve.

Yes, the more we are caught up in daily concerns the less we become capable of feeling objective human meaning and purpose in relation to universal wholeness.

Have you noticed how much emphasis in modern education is placed on facts and indoctrination? When was the last time, if you ever have, read anything on what it takes to develop the being of Man where knowledge can be put into a conscious perspective?

If you are like me you hear a great deal about social justice but none of the “experts” assert why it is impossible for the fallen human condition. They are closed to the reality of the fallen human condition and only serve to make its effects worse by proposing imagination and denying the potential for human conscious evolution leading to a conscious human perspective. The sad truth is that only a few in these times still have the inner freedom to be open to and need the quality of understanding Einstein suggested. Technology has enchanted the majority sufficiently to deny it in favor of video games.

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930


1948
"One never goes wrong following his feeling. I don’t mean emotions, I mean feeling, for feeling and intuition are one.” Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 95. – conversation on September 14, 1948)