Western Scientists have made Zero Progress for Evolution of Humanity.

[lazysamadhi]

It is, of course, hard for a man of Western culture to accept the idea that an ignorant fakir, a naive monk, or a yogi who has retired from life may be on the way to evolution while an educated European, armed with 'exact knowledge' and all the latest methods of investigation, is moving in a circle from which there is no escape.

 

That is only because people believe in progress and culture. There is no progress whatever. Everything is just the same as it was thousands, and tens of thousands, of years ago. The outward form changes. The essence does not change. Man remains just the same. 'Civilised' and 'cultured' people live with exactly the same interests as the most ignorant savages. Modern civilisation is based on violence and slavery and fine words. But all these fine words about 'progress' and 'civilisation' are merely words.

 

G I Gurdjieff

 

Do you think that Gurdjieff is an ignorant racist or do you think that Western Scientists have truly made Zero Progress for the Evolution of Humanity which it is the ignorant fakirs, the naive monks and the retired yogis who will bring about the True Evolution of Mankind in the future?

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

If:
all material can neither be created nor destroyed;
Then:
All semblance of perceived 'progress' is [only] the rearrangement of the pre-existing/continually existing material.
So:
"Evolution" is a self perpetuating and self contained continuum from which there is neither gain nor is there loss.

[9th]

Do you think that Gurdjieff is an ignorant racist or do you think that Western Scientists have truly made Zero Progress for the Evolution of Humanity which it is the ignorant fakirs, the naive monks and the retired yogis who will bring about the True Evolution of Mankind in the future?

 

Your question itself is wrong, and therefore there is no right answer.

 

It is like me asking you: "Since gnomes eat unicorns, how will leprechauns ever survive the winter?"

 

Your use of capital letters is quite creative, though - good job on that!

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Science has given us a lot of knowledge and things. I have great respect for the field. Everyone should learn science as best they can.

 

 

However, people themselves have not truly developed, only accepted an increasingly 'civilised' social contract.

 

 

Real development is a matter of individuals meditating, introspecting, questioning their mental and physical/verbal habits and their deepest beliefs, seeking hard to see things and themselves as they TRULY are... and acting in a way based on that mindstream-gasm perspective.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Seeker of the Self

[safi]

Scientists look outside of themselves for answers rather than within. That's the mistake.

Edited February 23, 2013 by safi

[skydog]

Your question itself is wrong, and therefore there is no right answer.

 

It is like me asking you: "Since gnomes eat unicorns, how will leprechauns ever survive the winter?"

 

Your use of capital letters is quite creative, though - good job on that!

 

Yeh I kind of heard something like 12314511100011001010 and my brain responded with 11?1 lol

[Apech]

Your question itself is wrong, and therefore there is no right answer.

 

It is like me asking you: "Since gnomes eat unicorns, how will leprechauns ever survive the winter?"

 

Your use of capital letters is quite creative, though - good job on that!

 

It is well known that unicorns can only be captured (and hence be eaten) by virgins. Therefore all gnomes are either virgins or have virgins associated with them for unicorn capture and eating purposes. Leprechauns hide pots of gold at the end of rainbows. rainbows are sacred to the goddess Iris who s married to Zephyrus and therefore clearly not a virgin ... meaning that leprechauns are unable to lure, capture and eat unicorns through her intervention. As the winter is a time of darkness and cold, without sufficient unicorn meat the leprechauns can hardly survive and thus the answer is none.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Apech

[zanshin]

People usually can get enough to eat in developed countries. The problem is more the poor eating too much cheap processed food and being obese. I think people not starving and being able to get enough food is some good progress.

[zanshin]

PEople hardly ever have to resort to eating unicorns, rats or leprechauns anymore. If gnomes don't reproduce, how can they evolve and make more gnomes?

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

People usually can get enough to eat in developed countries. The problem is more the poor eating too much cheap processed food and being obese. I think people not starving and being able to get enough food is some good progress.

 

 

Given a choice between starving and malnourished or obese and sated?

Edited February 23, 2013 by Northern Avid Judo Ant

[zanshin]

..

Edited April 19, 2020 by zanshin

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

I also think from a woman's perspective society has made some progress. I'm not a piece of property and can make my own decisions much more than women in many times in history.

 

 

But consider this:

 

 

The intrinsic right of free will was never NOT yours, or ANY woman's.

 

 

Physical interference aside, the only thing holding anyone back from making their own decisions is the fear of the consequences.

 

 

 

 

Fear of consequences holds frightened individuals "in the closet" in all areas of life, weather dominance/submission, gay/straight/bi/transgender, homeless or bankster, president or priest or warden or hacker.

 

 

We can be anything, and fear it... we can have anything we fear at all... but while we fear it, we find that we are unable to exercise it.

 

 

 

 

 

True terrorists are not [the] people, but the civilized agendas that suit to control [the] people.

 

 

 

 

There is no solution to the world, only experiencing it.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

ARG i swear this is automatic writing...



I have been doing this a lot.



I DONT remember typing any of that, but i recognize the truth behind it all.





This isnt the first post of mine that i dont recognize on the surface, nor have recollection of composing o_O

There are about 3 in my PPF that i dont remember, and there are others scattered about this and other forums that i know were my doing, but i dont remember knowing the things i typed, in spite of recognizing outlined truths...



It seems i have a running habit of forgetting my own insights...?

[9th]

[9th]

new is the new new
atomic fission splits god from man
zero relevance to big bang origin story
floating zero point field hands
steering clans bound to wheel in sands
turning foundries into boundaries
sound and fury signify phantom autograph
steel cut phonograph recordings from atlantic
broadband spell casting crystal decoder ring
ghost writers uncover sleeping prophecies
coursing through veins of mineral reciprocity
criminal ore city melting point field transit
hybridized vehicles drive honeycomb fissures
fertilized with stone carved pesticide
vanishing drones of homeless queen
screen door combustion cone finally
spiral into grid displacement conclusion
quantum fusion crypts inter buzzwords
towards endless fuel exhaustion
boats slip stream to stream and shore to shore
charon installed as ferryman application
requiring one-time low low payment
your money or your life

[oildrops]

The quote first states that one archetype is representative of evolution, while another is not. It then goes on to say that evolution is a facade, while the "essence" is unchanged.

 

I like Judo Ants interpretation/augmentation.

 

I think that biological human psychology takes millions of years to evolve. Our instinctual behavior has not caught up with the industrial revolution, let alone the technological world we now live in. So it would make sense that our "evolved" society is actually just as primitive as it was during the dark ages, but we have complicated and institutionalized things enough to smear the lines.

Edited February 23, 2013 by oildrops

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

i would like to find a "reset" button. that we can all remember all our mistakes, but go back to basics and live anew, while avoiding our mistakes.





THAT is real, REAL, TRUE, GENUINE, PROGRESS!


Everything in the name of "preserving progress" as it is now, is "anti-evolved".

Edited February 23, 2013 by Northern Avid Judo Ant

[oildrops]

No one should ever do anything.

[Spotless]

Do you think that Gurdjieff is an ignorant racist or do you think that Western Scientists have truly made Zero Progress for the Evolution of Humanity which it is the ignorant fakirs, the naive monks and the retired yogis who will bring about the True Evolution of Mankind in the future?

 

This is a message about the nature of how we have continuously identified with getting somewhere - going somewhere and never being. The view that Evolution will go to those that "become self-aware"and however strange and outcast they may seem - while Humanity continues to race toward the next bend in an endless circle of sleep.

Stepping outside of the circle is as out of vogue today as it has ever been - the idea that their is an "outside" is viewed as being only appreciated by lunatics and those that abandon humanity.

 

Gurdieff was speaking from his time - and it is still fully true. But one thing has changed - our world has become much smaller than when he was alive. Conscious teachers are springing up and their teachings are available 24/7. However dreary the world may seem at this time, all is not as it seems.

Edited February 24, 2013 by Spotless

[Phi92]

I don't think that Western science and philosophy is all good. It has some very serious and major setbacks. Alas, so does Eastern science and philosophy.

 

If we talk about spirituality, then seek the native tribes of Africa, South America, Asia, Australia... They know.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

cuz the native tribes of north america wont talk to us cuz they're fed up with our shit

[voidisyinyang]

Do you think that Gurdjieff is an ignorant racist or do you think that Western Scientists have truly made Zero Progress for the Evolution of Humanity which it is the ignorant fakirs, the naive monks and the retired yogis who will bring about the True Evolution of Mankind in the future?

 

yeah as Vandana Shiva states -- growth occurs from the inwards to the outward. So this is a must for evolution. Science is an external reductionist process and industrialism has caused genocide and ecocide -- the fastest extinction rate of species in the history of life on Earth. Large mammals stopped evolution by the 1970s according to conservation biologist Michael Soule.

 

Ramana Maharshi stated "there is no evolution" - why? Because even the whole material universe returns back to pure consciousness as Emptiness which is the only eternal reality.

 

Gurdjieff stated that the dominant life on Earth has to help the Moon spiritually evolve or else the Moon destroys life on Earth. Modern humanity by not doing alchemical training does not help the Moon evolve and so the Moon is destroying life on Earth today.

Edited February 24, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[9th]

"There are," he said, "two lines along which man's development proceeds, the line of knowledge and the line of being. In right evolution the line of knowledge and the line of being develop simultaneously, parallel to, and helping one another. But if the line of knowledge gets too far ahead of the line of being, or if the line of being gets ahead of the line of knowledge, man's development goes wrong, and sooner or later it must come to a standstill.

 

 

"People understand what 'knowledge' means. And they understand the possibility of different levels of knowledge. They understand that knowledge may be lesser or greater, that is to say, of one quality or of another quality. But they do not understand this in relation to 'being.' 'Being,' for them, means simply 'existence' to which is opposed just 'non-existence.' They do not understand that being or existence may be of very different levels and categories.

Take for instance the being of a mineral and of a plant. It is a different being. The being of a plant and of an animal is again a different being. The being of an animal and of a man is a different being. But the being of two people can differ from one another more than the being of a mineral and of an animal. This is exactly what people do not understand. And they do not understand that knowledge depends on being. Not only do they not understand this latter but they definitely do not wish to understand it.

And especially in Western culture it is considered that a man may possess great knowledge, for example he may be an able scientist, make discoveries, advance science, and at the same time he may be, and has the right to be, a petty, egoistic, caviling, mean, envious, vain, naive, and absentminded man. It seems to be considered here that a professor must always forget his umbrella everywhere.

"And yet it is his being. And people think that his knowledge does not depend on his being. People of Western culture put great value on the level of a man's knowledge but they do not value the level of a man's being and are not ashamed of the low level of their own being. They do not even understand what it means. And they do not understand that a man's knowledge depends on the level of his being.

"If knowledge gets far ahead of being, it becomes theoretical and abstract and inapplicable to life, or actually harmful, because instead of serving life and helping people the better to struggle with the difficulties they meet, it begins to complicate man's life, brings new difficulties into it, new troubles and calamities which were not there before.

"The reason for this is that knowledge which is not in accordance with being cannot be large enough for, or sufficiently suited to, man's real needs. It will always be a knowledge of one thing together with ignorance of another thing; a knowledge of the detail without a knowledge of the whole; a knowledge of the form without a knowledge of the essence.

"Such preponderance of knowledge over being is observed in present-day culture. The idea of the value and importance of the level of being is completely forgotten. And it is forgotten that the level of knowledge is determined by the level of being. Actually at a given level of being the possibilities of knowledge are limited and finite. Within the limits of a given being the quality of knowledge cannot be changed, and the accumulation of information of one and the same nature, within already known limits, alone is possible. A change in the nature of knowledge is possible only with a change in the nature of being.

"Knowledge by itself does not give understanding. Nor is understanding increased by an increase of knowledge alone. Understanding depends upon the relation of knowledge to being. Understanding is the resultant of knowledge and being. And knowledge and being must not diverge too far, otherwise understanding will prove to be far removed from either. At the same time the relation of knowledge to being does not change with a mere growth of knowledge. It changes only when being grows simultaneously with knowledge. In other words, understanding grows only with the growth of being.

"In ordinary thinking, people do not distinguish understanding from knowledge. They think that greater understanding depends on greater knowledge. Therefore they accumulate knowledge, or that which they call knowledge, but they do not know how to accumulate understanding and do not bother about it.

[teknix]

Science wins because it is subject to change upon aquiring new evidence, where-as many religious followings believe things dogmatically or without evidence and do not "change" as new evidence is aquired.

 

The ultimate question as to how life got here isn't truly known, nor does science claim to know with any sort of certainty. Theories are only the most probable explanations of phenomena, they aren't absolutely certain like some of the dogmatic beliefs claim to be.

 

Science is what we can know objectively, and it is mutually exclusive from beliefs.

[teknix]

I wonder if the claims that the OP posted are more accusatory than any sort of constructive criticism. It seems more like childish finger pointing and name calling because the other fails to offer an "better" alternative or any belief system that has a better track record or that is more pliable to new evidence.

Edited February 26, 2013 by teknix