The origin of mankind

[dust]

Isn't it curious that official science thinks of us a the peak of an evolution of billions of years. Whereas many metaphysical traditions insist that humanity was far more advanced once before, in time immemorial. That we have fallen from the graceful place we once occupied. Or maybe we were pushed down from it?

 

Some of us think that the world, in terms of human culture, was better long ago -- that humans lived in greater harmony, had a better perspective, more real power, did less harm...

 

Some of us think that we're better and more advanced now -- that our 'advances' in tech far exceed anything prior, that we're healthier and longer-lived, that we're more peaceful, that we're going to spread across the universe...

 

I don't see why it must be either-or. Pretending to know one way or the other, claiming that there is an objectively better way of being, seems to me to be missing the point. I suspect that early humans did have a greater connection to the Source, that there was a great time of relative peace and equality that we can barely imagine. I also suspect that it can't have been all that great if it led us to the world we have now.

 

(edit: removed a whole thing about evolution because I realized it wasn't at all relevant...)

Edited March 20, 2016 by dustybeijing

[dust]

We are the opportunity. We have all the tools required to spread ourselves throughout the galaxy and the universe.

 

Something you are in favour of? Why?

 

Sounds like a dreadful plague to me.

[Stosh]

Dustybeijing, Have you heard the Pink Floyd song ,wish you were here? We humans dont always know what we are choosing or doing, no matter how obvious it may seem later or from a wiser perspective. Offer someone in a jungle medicine, shoes, tobacco... whatever,,, and they gravitate to it. Like a fish not knowing the cleaner water they swim in. And so , the stesses of our own ways burn us up, even as we choose them.

[Junko]

This remains me of our gene get tendency to grow bigger.I see this phenomena in foods too.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Junko

[Stosh]

Perfect analogy.

[Karl]

Something you are in favour of? Why?

 

Sounds like a dreadful plague to me.

 

That doesn't surprise me that you think of man as a dreadful plague. You see man as the villain and I see him as the hero. I have said many times that the over arching belief on this forum is predominantly anti-life-man. For some bizarre reason you despise the material of man, but praise the spirit-as if the two could ever be seperated. If you eventually accept there is no body/spirit dichotomy then this will turn your world upside down.

 

The first value is mans life. It is a value that you must hold as principle and by which everything else is valued. Man is an end in himself. Realising this truth is enlightenment.

[Marblehead]

Well, at least we are still evolving and haven't become extinct yet.

 

And I agree with Karl; without the physical there would be no meta-physical.

[dust]

That doesn't surprise me that you think of man as a dreadful plague. You see man as the villain and I see him as the hero.

 

No... I recognize that villainy and heroism are just ideas. They are not real.

 

It is the human tendency to believe in good and evil, hero and villain, to need to think of life in these terms, but in reality we have 2 analogous but very different concepts: pleasure and pain, or happiness and unhappiness. These are real, physical -- if anything can be said to have meaning, it is the experience of sentient life.

 

And it is this human tendency to believe in good and evil as absolutes, and our love for fighting over them, that means I do not doubt that if humanity did spread throughout the universe, it would do no more than spread the fighting. It would only create more of what we have now. That sounds like a plague. Rather than locusts feeding and moving on, humans feeding and fighting and moving on.

 

Really, I don't care either way, but I cannot understand why one would think this a particularly wonderful idea.

 

 

I have said many times that the over arching belief on this forum is predominantly anti-life-man. For some bizarre reason you despise the material of man, but praise the spirit-as if the two could ever be seperated. If you eventually accept there is no body/spirit dichotomy then this will turn your world upside down. The first value is mans life. It is a value that you must hold as principle and by which everything else is valued. Man is an end in himself. Realising this truth is enlightenment.

 

If you were to look back, even in this very thread at my posts on evolution, you might find that I do not actually believe in 'spirit' (except in the sense of 'mood' or 'attitude'). My Daoism is of the philosophical spirit of the Zhuangzi, where one might tell fantastical stories and ponder on "Dao" and meander through life conversing with skulls, all the while recognizing that it's all temporary. Most here, I realize, do not agree that this is a valid version of Daoism or a valid interpretation of the Zhuangzi, but there we are.

 

Recognizing the nature of reality as such does not mean that man's life is a value I "must hold as a principle", whatever that means. My life I hold dear, and that of my loved ones, but I will not claim that any life, human or other animal, has any kind of special and intrinsic meaning or value, that we're here for a reason, that we have a duty to do anything in particular, or that human life is more valuable than anything else.

 

Life has the value that we ascribe to it.

[Karl]

No... I recognize that villainy and heroism are just ideas. They are not real.

 

It is the human tendency to believe in good and evil, hero and villain, to need to think of life in these terms, but in reality we have 2 analogous but very different concepts: pleasure and pain, or happiness and unhappiness. These are real, physical -- if anything can be said to have meaning, it is the experience of sentient life.

 

And it is this human tendency to believe in good and evil as absolutes, and our love for fighting over them, that means I do not doubt that if humanity did spread throughout the universe, it would do no more than spread the fighting. It would only create more of what we have now. That sounds like a plague. Rather than locusts feeding and moving on, humans feeding and fighting and moving on.

 

Really, I don't care either way, but I cannot understand why one would think this a particularly wonderful idea.

 

 

 

 

If you were to look back, even in this very thread at my posts on evolution, you might find that I do not actually believe in 'spirit' (except in the sense of 'mood' or 'attitude'). My Daoism is of the philosophical spirit of the Zhuangzi, where one might tell fantastical stories and ponder on "Dao" and meander through life conversing with skulls, all the while recognizing that it's all temporary. Most here, I realize, do not agree that this is a valid version of Daoism or a valid interpretation of the Zhuangzi, but there we are.

 

Recognizing the nature of reality as such does not mean that man's life is a value I "must hold as a principle", whatever that means. My life I hold dear, and that of my loved ones, but I will not claim that any life, human or other animal, has any kind of special and intrinsic meaning or value, that we're here for a reason, that we have a duty to do anything in particular, or that human life is more valuable than anything else.

 

Life has the value that we ascribe to it.

You are twisting your own idealism.

 

When I say "you must hold your own life as a primary value" this is not a command. It is a recognition that if you don't hold your life as the primary value, then you won't hold anyone else's life as a value-hence your description of a human plague and your latest assertion that your life is 'no more valuable than anything else'. Here it is clear you hold a conflict by saying you hold your life dear, but not more than anything else, then this should be a clear signal to your own consciousness. You can't have your cake and eat it. Either you hold your life no more valuable than anything else-and thus you care not if you live or die, or you don't believe that at all.

 

If you hold your life as the primary value by which you judge all other values then it is inescapable that man is an end in itself.

 

You deny good and evil and then you argue against 'plagues of men'. If you could not determine moral values then you would be as an animal.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Karl

[Stosh]

It seems there might be middle ground between those two factions. Like it or not , we too are in the human club, though we often arent all that crazy about our collective actions. We have these values , that things are good ,or bad, that humans should have rights, or dont ,that we have families and enemies that we could be plaguelike or rightful citizens.. etc.

But for humans to be plaguelike , is just a judgement on our collective behavior ,every bit as contrived , as the approval of human expansion into the galaxy. Taking away moral judgement means there is no good or bad to be done. Even if we blew up the planet. It couldnt be said to be Bad or Good as fact. Though undoubtedly WE of all creatures, would say that it, from our view, was really pretty bad.

Lets hope we, our descendants, collectively get our act together before swarming out into space.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Stosh

[Stosh]

Heck! Maybe only in the vastness of space will we realize we are pooping on our own lawn, and the only nice spots are where we are not.

 

There are some creatures which are adapted to expand to areas of disturbance and change, they dont exist where the forest is mature. Or for whom it is untenable to remain in place, and they migrate. In far antiquity, I think this was true for mankind, to be able to roam again, to experiment and adapt to other worlds, may bring us back to our own roots rather than squashed out of shape by our own civilizations constraint.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

It seems there might be middle ground between those two factions. Like it or not , we too are in the human club, though we often arent all that crazy about our collective actions. We have these values , that things are good ,or bad, that humans should have rights, or dont ,that we have families and enemies that we could be plaguelike or rightful citizens.. etc.

But for humans to be plaguelike , is just a judgement on our collective behavior ,every bit as contrived , as the approval of human expansion into the galaxy. Taking away moral judgement means there is no good or bad to be done. Even if we blew up the planet. It couldnt be said to be Bad or Good as fact. Though undoubtedly WE of all creatures, would say that it, from our view, was really pretty bad.

Lets hope we, our descendants, collectively get our act together before swarming out into space.

 

We aren't going anywhere until we take our own, independent lives as primary value and learn, again, to apply reasoned thought. We cannot sacrifice everyone to us, neither can everyone sacrifice for everyone else. That's the lesson we had better learn pretty damned quickly whilst waving around mass killing weapons without any sense of good and evil, but with total pragmatism. We had better learn fast to be heroes and to take that responsibility seriously.

 

My guess is we will fail. We have squandered our advantage against natures uncompromising testing of our fitness to survive. We have junked reason, our only tool of survival and we are at the beginnings of a large scale suicide.

[Stosh]

So be it. BUT reasoned thought can just as easily tell me to kill others and take for myself alone or not to.Being convinced that another is wrong or unfit, or bad, defines opponents. And so believing in absolute morality that exists as a static fact, sets armies against one another. Or removes all pretense of constraint.

If we made a small mess, an oil spill, and declared this to be our moral right, then no further judgement can override making a giant mess. Its the end of negotiation and introspection to have these absolutes... IMO

Edited March 21, 2016 by Stosh

[Stosh]

I cant tell, are you the fan of mankind? or a detractor.

[Michael Sternbach]

In 2000, a really beautiful (and breathtakingly  trippy) animated sci-fi movie was produced, called Titan A.E. It plays in a time about one-thousand years from now. It starts with the destruction of our planet by alien energy beings called the drej. The movie doesn't actually say this, but I think these beings are representing humanity's own crystallized (self-)destructive energies. However, the story also acknowledges Man's creative powers: A spaceship called Titan which has the capacity to create an earth-like planet including numerous species of plants and animals manages to escape from Earth in the last moment.

 

 

15 years later, the inventor's son goes on an exciting search through wild space worlds, finding not only a girlfriend but also the Titan that was hidden by his father before he died. During a final battle with the drej, the Titan is activated and actually uses the very energy that the drej are made of for creating a new Earth. That's recycling for you...

 

 

Talk about Adam and Eve... Maybe this is how our planet and its life was once created?

 

Be that as it may, the movie is very archetypal, apt in its portrayal of cosmic alchemy, poetic and... worth watching.

[Karl]

So be it. BUT reasoned thought can just as easily tell me to kill others and take for myself alone or not to.Being convinced that another is wrong or unfit, or bad, defines opponents. And so believing in absolute morality that exists as a static fact, sets armies against one another. Or removes all pretense of constraint.

If we made a small mess, an oil spill, and declared this to be our moral right, then no further judgement can override making a giant mess. Its the end of negotiation and introspection to have these absolutes... IMO

 

This is not a case of absolute morality and you are thinking in the way of a straw man. I'm saying that you are capable of reasoning and logical thought, that this will show you what action is key to your survival and what isn't. It does not say that you are always making the right decision, instead it says you are always capable of making the right decision and so you should try as hard as you can to shine by thinking the best you can. The problem is that we have stopped doing this, we have substituted pragmatism and are busy evading reality. We mentally evade and actively seek not to think and it's here that we are presently. You cannot talk of anything without starting here. We are at almost the lowest point- we can go lower still-we must seek to rise higher. This is what I believe people are doing here, no matter how misguided, they want it to be better, but many are giving away the opportunity by destruction of their minds.

 

Armies should be there to protect reason and the Liberty for man to exercise that tool through mind and body. Armies are not there to protect against arbitrary morals dreamed up by churches and politicians. We must fight for liberty to preserve reason and reason to preserve life and the productivity that goes along with it. That's the only purpose of defence, not to protect property, but to protect the liberty of every man as you would for the preservation of your own life and the freedom to live it productively.

[Karl]

I cant tell, are you the fan of mankind? or a detractor.

 

Fan of mankind is a ridiculous notion Stosh. I only represent myself and see that it benefits me to volitionally and peacefully trade with men who value what I value. My aim is to my own survival first. So that, I'm hero and not villain. Therefore anything that threatens my life, that is anti-life is a threat/evil and anything that helps me to survive and prosper is a good.

 

People that claim 'we are a plague' do not know me and do not share my values and represent a clear threat. I reserve the same for anyone claiming that 'might makes right' or we should give up thinking because reality cannot be know. I don't wish to sacrifice anyone for my life and neither will I sacrifice mine for theirs because I love my life.

[Karl]

In 2000, a really beautiful (and breathtakingly  trippy) animated sci-fi movie was produced, called Titan A.E. It plays in a time about one-thousand years from now. It starts with the destruction of our planet by alien energy beings called the drej. The movie doesn't actually say this, but I think these beings are representing humanity's own crystallized (self-)destructive energies. However, the story also acknowledges Man's creative powers: A spaceship called Titan which has the capacity to create an earth-like planet including numerous species of plants and animals manages to escape from Earth in the last moment.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQO8MTlO69U

 

15 years later, the inventor's son goes on an exciting search through wild space worlds, finding not only a girlfriend but also the Titan that was hidden by his father before he died. During a final battle with the drej, the Titan is activated and actually uses the very energy that the drej are made of for creating a new Earth. That's recycling for you...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnQ8T3UDGJo

 

Talk about Adam and Eve... Maybe this is how our planet and its life was once created?

 

Be that as it may, the movie is very archetypal, apt in its portrayal of cosmic alchemy, poetic and... worth watching.

 

I like Titan AE - I haven't ever thought of it beyond an entertaining film. I don't know if there is a strong philosophical undertone, but it's a great movie IMO and underrated. The scene flying with the light porpoise phantom things .....brilliant 'it's my time to fly'.

[Michael Sternbach]

I like Titan AE - I haven't ever thought of it beyond an entertaining film. I don't know if there is a strong philosophical undertone, but it's a great movie IMO and underrated. The scene flying with the light porpoise phantom things .....brilliant 'it's my time to fly'.

 

 

Talk about trippy...

 

Yeah, the film didn't do well at the box office, even though Junko and I went watching it in the theatre four times. Only recently, more and more people are saying that it was underrated.

 

I always thought of this movie not only as great 'space opera' but also as a nice piece on archetypal psychology, cosmology, alchemy, and eco-philosophy.

[Karl]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAfI1YFA1w0

 

Talk about trippy...

 

Yeah, the film didn't do well at the box office, even though Junko and I went watching it in the theatre four times. Only recently, more and more people are saying that it was underrated.

 

I always thought of this movie not only as great 'space opera' but also as a nice piece on archetypal psychology, cosmology, alchemy, and eco-philosophy.

 

I bought it on DVD years ago and watched it many times since.

[Michael Sternbach]

I bought it on DVD years ago and watched it many times since.

 

So did I.

[dust]

When I say "you must hold your own life as a primary value" this is not a command. It is a recognition that if you don't hold your life as the primary value, then you won't hold anyone else's life as a value-hence your description of a human plague and your latest assertion that your life is 'no more valuable than anything else'.

 

OK, you are not commanding me. Good

 

But what I said was that I hold my own life dear, and those of my loved ones, but will not claim that they are intrinsically valuable. The value that they have to me is the value that they have to me. That which I place on them.

 

By definition, value and meaning are applied/ascribed/inserted/inferred/etc, but they are never universal or intrinsic.

 

To claim that each or any human life is universally valuable is itself meaningless. Value depends on perspective.

From a star's perspective, human life has no value. From my perspective, the Sun has much value, but other stars less so.

 

From my perspective, my life is valuable to me, and I recognize that the life of another is valuable to them -- and it is this empathy, this understanding of what it is to be alive, that means I would be sad to see another human in pain. And indeed every time I turn on the news I get a little sad. And this might make me think that I value others' lives, but really they can have no value to me until I have some kind of contact with them. A child just died somewhere, and I have no idea who he was, and his life did not affect me, and his death does not affect me. What value did his life have to me? And yet how terribly upset would I have been to watch him die?

 

 

You deny good and evil and then you argue against 'plagues of men'. If you could not determine moral values then you would be as an animal.

 

I did not argue against them. I said it sounded like a dreadful plague. It does. It is evident that humanity is already a dreadful plague on this planet, but I'm not arguing for our annihilation.

 

I am as an animal. I am an animal. So are you. No more "valuable" than any other.

[Stosh]

Karl, I disagree that I am setting up a staw man argument. Im merely pointing to the straw nature of your morality argument

.You appear to be playing both sides of the court. Since when did Me First become the standard of heroism? And Me Second ,become the standard of villainy?

In this finite world your pursuit for yourself very often is the loss to someone or something else. You drive a car , that requires roads, you contribute to traffic and deprive.. buffalo.,,whatever. of space. There is no neutrality.

Once you assume your morals have a greater standing beyond just being your opinion, you set yourself as being better and someone else as worse.

Fan of mankind, isnt silly, its just a loose phrase , you got the general idea, so what silliness could it exhibit?

Edited March 21, 2016 by Stosh

[Junko]

This is universal low. Love conquer everything.

[Marblehead]

Oh No!  We aren't going to talk about love again, are we?