The origin of mankind

[Karl]

Ah yes, there are parasites, and the backer may or may not be one, but the person most at risk, is the one inventing the net on the island, he has- either or -type consequences , he may still eat or just die. The financier, plays a spread, and directs capital which statistically pays off , or maybe not, But thats not a life or death risk. He risks imaginary numbers , which he likely borrowed and can file bankrupcy and hire lawyers to defend him, if he screws up. Like a Trump.

Faced with the iron hand of nature , the burning sun and the non negotiable tropical storm , hes a big pussy. No rich guy takes the risks of the poor if he can help it. Maybe that fastfood worker can feed their kid tonight, maybe they get fired for some trumped up bullshit. The poor learn courage and caution, live with the dire immediate consequences of the dinkiest of issues. The rich think they risk much because the paper zeros are many. I dont blame the well off , I just dont think they are any better,and may be just as bad, or easily .... worse.

 

You aren't really talking about the free market by the sounds of things. Currently the stock market is just a big, state owned Casino. It's a nationalised financialisation system. The fiat paper value is controlled by the Wall Street cartel which, in turn, owns the Government. It's a massive fraud played out by criminals who game the system free of any risk. The losers are the productive people and the savers.

 

This isn't how lassez Faire capitalism works, it's just plain old crime in which the criminals control the justice system, the government, FBI and CIA. This is the result of compromise and giving away right for privileges. Evil gets more evil until someone decides to change course. I find it quite incredible that the mass of people are still taken in by the bullshit of the democratic system and mixed economy. The US people, you would think, would figure out that they were promised a republic and got a democracy, that they have shafted themselves in order that the crooks shaft them good and hard. In the UK we have an excuse, we were born with a big red white and blue dick jammed up our back sides. We have always had a corrupt system and it was our elite that spawned the foul democracy evil.

[Nungali]

was the early forms of hominids 'mankind'  ?  
 

What  differentiated  'us'  ('Mankind' )  from all the other animals.  What are the essential differences that distinguish Man ? 

 

What are your thought on that   (anyone ) ? 

Edited April 2, 2016 by Nungali

[Stosh]

I think theyd be considerable as mankind, at least as far back as heidelbergensis, which , was the nearest ancestor of all humans and all its dna lineages , including neanderthal denisova sapiens etc.

Though Im not actually sure about the humanity of all humans living now, its a fair assumption to assume some degree of commonality mentally behaviorally etc as indicated by physical similarity.

 

Back beyond then , Youd have to decide what your favorite human traits are. Upright walking and hands and probably several other traits are considered to have preceded our enlarged brains. The bigger brains are secondary developments, and may just indicate expanded capabilities, whereas the human spark or soul or condition could reasonably have begun long before.

 

Theres probably only one trait that humans have thats basically unique IMO , imagination.. and even that is speculative to say or just not true outright.

 

Theres no accurate fact or even reason to consider humans to be ultimate evolutionary specimens in any way. We simply are what it is we are individually,,, if we exist that way at all.'...... Enlarged breasts for show ,when not in breeding mode , is unique to humans .

Edited April 2, 2016 by Stosh

[Stosh]

Karl, Im not specifically aiming at free market or other market. The poor are in a much chancier risky situation than the rich ,, period. The rich pretend they have more risk because they play with more paper zeros,, but its not good enough to actually Be rich,, youve got to vindicate that by making false claims about merit. A rare man it is whos just happy for his good fortune and just marks it up to chance.

[Marblehead]

When Y'all are done with mankind lets please do womankind.  They seem to be a different species.

[Junko]

Maybe it's about a horror.....!

Edited May 1, 2016 by Junko

[Michael Sternbach]

When Y'all are done with mankind lets please do womankind.  They seem to be a different species.

 

[Apech]

was the early forms of hominids 'mankind'  ?  

 

What  differentiated  'us'  ('Mankind' )  from all the other animals.  What are the essential differences that distinguish Man ? 

 

What are your thought on that   (anyone ) ? 

 

 

My understanding is that 'man' was originally more a verb than a noun.  For instance people who managed estates, villages and so on in the Domesday Book could be either a man or a woman - but were referred to as the man.  So man-kind (where kind is from words like 'kin' meaning 'family of'.)  So mankind would include any beings who have this function of managing (i.e. shape or control) their environment - and so I think many hominids could be included within mankind - the variation being only in the extent to which they do this.  Animals inhabit and generally speaking adapt to their environments - while mankind tends to shape his.  Some examples of say beaver lodges and dams and so on would be a kind of proto-man behaviour.

[Karl]

Karl, Im not specifically aiming at free market or other market. The poor are in a much chancier risky situation than the rich ,, period. The rich pretend they have more risk because they play with more paper zeros,, but its not good enough to actually Be rich,, youve got to vindicate that by making false claims about merit. A rare man it is whos just happy for his good fortune and just marks it up to chance.

 

The rich were once poor, the poor can one day be rich. You talk about perspective and yet you miss the most obvious place in which it resides. Man can choose, he is not fettered by the absolute. He is not stuck as a chair, coral or, cat. He is blessed with a reasoning mind and a body to act. He must reason in order to act, that is his only source of survival.

 

In a Laissez Faire capitalist society in which the protection of mans rights were upheld, then every man has the opportunity to apply himself-it does not mean he will be succesful, but some will and they will create. Because they create there will be more for everyone and even the least lucky, the least talented will be improved by that creative growth.

 

If you hobble your strongest horses to the capacity of your weakest, then the carriage of progressive wealth creation will crawl slowly, or perhaps stop all together. Let your strong horses free and they will pull the weaker along with them, progress will be swifter.

 

Do not concern yourself with the poor unless your intention is to minister amongst them in some way. There will always be relative poor, but they are not trapped in poverty if there is opportunity. Many of the poorest in the UK and USA during the industrial revolution have become hugely wealthy and have far more than the land holders had under the feudal system.

[Stosh]

Ill leave that be, for another day ,if I may. Its an involving topic, we're a bit removed from the intent of the thread. Yes?

[Karl]

Ill leave that be, for another day ,if I may. Its an involving topic, we're a bit removed from the intent of the thread. Yes?

 

"We most certainly are Stan" :-)

[Stosh]

"We most certainly are Stan" :-)

Been digging around I see,, Decibelle got just a bit farther though. ,

[Karl]

Been digging around I see,, Decibelle got just a bit farther though. ,

 

Ha. No, it's from the old B&W TV show Oliver and Hardy. You should watch a few episodes, still very funny.

[SEEKER OF TRUTH]

Junko wrote:

I still haven't found out how human beings got created and since when we have been on this planet.Did we come from outer space? Or did we evolve from animals? Were extraterrestrials or angelic beings involved? Let's start to find out!

The way I understand it, is we, as in everything, came about and are still coming about, from evolution (not Darwin's theory). It started with Universal spiritual energy -Creation/The Universe- of which everything is a part of. The Universe expands to know it's self, to evolve and everything in it evolves over the coarse of trillions of years, then the Universe/Creation contracts, still evolving, for trillions more years, then, after contracting completely all the spiritual energy returns to Creation and Creation rests for seven times as long as it took to expand and contract and evolves with the information gathered from the evolution of all it's parts in the previous expansion and contraction. Then a more evolved Universe/Creation begins to expand and evolve again.

 

 

Of coarse all this is impossible to prove, at this point in time, so we need to look for evidence of the truth of it, using our intellect to search for clues, which takes work. We can't be lazy and search for the truth. 

 

I see that you are from Switzerland I would think that that would be one of the best places on Earth to start looking for the truth.

[Stosh]

Well, if we're going to be abstract and speak on far-out levels, a post I placed elsewhere might have relevance here. It was slightly off-topic where I put it. It does, however, relate to a cyclic account of the universe and the application of intellect to understand it.

 

I'll get a link

 

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/39870-discussing-reincarnation/?p=680743

That is kind of far out. ..I dont even know what it says. Whadda ya think on a less far out level?

[Michael Sternbach]

Junko wrote:

 

The way I understand it, is we, as in everything, came about and are still coming about, from evolution (not Darwin's theory). It started with Universal spiritual energy -Creation/The Universe- of which everything is a part of. The Universe expands to know it's self, to evolve and everything in it evolves over the coarse of trillions of years, then the Universe/Creation contracts, still evolving, for trillions more years, then, after contracting completely all the spiritual energy returns to Creation and Creation rests for seven times as long as it took to expand and contract and evolves with the information gathered from the evolution of all it's parts in the previous expansion and contraction. Then a more evolved Universe/Creation begins to expand and evolve again.

 

 

Of coarse all this is impossible to prove, at this point in time, so we need to look for evidence of the truth of it, using our intellect to search for clues, which takes work. We can't be lazy and search for the truth. 

 

I see that you are from Switzerland I would think that that would be one of the best places on Earth to start looking for the truth.

 

I quite agree. Your post reminds me of a congress I attended four years ago together with Junko, where the famous physicist Roger Penrose - the co-creator of the Big Bang theory - introduced his new, refined theory, called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology.

 

In this theory, the Universe keeps expanding for an incredible number of years until all the matter in it has been transformed into light. This transformation includes the evaporation of all the Black Holes, and to me this part is particularly significant because it is believed that Black Holes are storing the information of all that they have ever absorbed, not unlike cosmic computers. It is actually theorized that this data storage takes the form of some kind of holographic reproduction, reminiscent of the Akasa chronicles. This information is set free eventually and (in my own extension CCC) becomes the "genetic code" for a future Universe.

 

Returning to Penrose's original theory, once there is only light left in the Universe, there will be no more time and space, and Infinity will become a reality, as space and time will at once expand infinitely, and contract to nil.

 

The latter is the same as a Singularity that leads to another Big Bang and therefore to the creation of a new Universe, which I would think of as the reincarnation of the former one.

 

When I asked him about it, Penrose said he doubts that any information from an earlier Universe could reach the current one, as it would likely be erased by the Singularity - but it makes more sense to me that there is in fact information being transferred, much like there is "karma" passed on from one human incarnation to the next. In this way, there can be an evolutionary process of the kind you are describing.

 

On aforesaid congress, I grabbed the microphone that was offered to the audience and spoke of the parallels between CCC and metaphysical systems like Hinduism and the Kabbalah (according to which the Universe is created from Infinite Light). The physicists replied that they don't mind me making that kind of connections to "religion", but that such considerations are excluded from their own research.

 

While that is fair enough, I believe that there must be a union formed between science and spirituality eventually in order to truly understand what Creation is all about.

 

For instance in the view of the neo-platonic philosophers, the Universe was modeled as a union of physical and metaphysical elements, and this must be the the model and goal for any true Theory of Everything.

[Stosh]

Im thinking strictly speaking fractal means something progesses according to the fibonacci sequence. What the clip showed were swirls... the unpredictable redistribution of rotational energy.

There are four known energies making up this universe, so I figure it will be difficult to eliminate two of those, or reduce it all down to one force vs one antiforce. But well, maybe youll do it. But it doesnt clue me in about your ancestry , the tides of human endeavor, etc. Which is a scale of things that I could relate to ,and have wonder about. Nungalis info about Aboriginal australians , with some digestion strike me as..... poignant. Anything you might be good about sharing on those lines? Where your grandparents originate, tales of your people... that kind of thing?

[Marblehead]

I see that you are from Switzerland I would think that that would be one of the best places on Earth to start looking for the truth.

But don't even think about looking in the banks.  We all know about Swiss bank accounts.

[Nungali]

I think theyd be considerable as mankind, at least as far back as heidelbergensis, which , was the nearest ancestor of all humans and all its dna lineages , including neanderthal denisova sapiens etc.

Though Im not actually sure about the humanity of all humans living now, its a fair assumption to assume some degree of commonality mentally behaviorally etc as indicated by physical similarity.

 

Back beyond then , Youd have to decide what your favorite human traits are. Upright walking and hands and probably several other traits are considered to have preceded our enlarged brains. The bigger brains are secondary developments, and may just indicate expanded capabilities, whereas the human spark or soul or condition could reasonably have begun long before.

 

Theres probably only one trait that humans have thats basically unique IMO , imagination.. and even that is speculative to say or just not true outright.

 

Ha!  You jumped to a position I was going to labour towards step by step !    

 

The imagination !   ... Not that I can prove an animal does not have an imagination, but it is the way we use our imagination in relation with tool making that I see is the differentiating and essential human quality ... this creative expression of imagination  - or rather - the desire -  to create potential expressions of imagination and have at least some of them manifest in the physical world, to me , is the essential nature of 'soul'   - the desire to express the unique human function (whether by tool or artistic expression )  without it,  (  first, an acknowledgment of 'soul' and then its expression in 'outward reality' )  one can even bend their perception of reality (often without realising that is what happens )  to make  their desires fulfilled ... then all sorts of weird psychological shit is imagined  ( or ; they are actually bending reality    

 

 

 

Theres no accurate fact or even reason to consider humans to be ultimate evolutionary specimens in any way. We simply are what it is we are individually,,, if we exist that way at all.'...... Enlarged breasts for show ,when not in breeding mode , is unique to humans .

 

Yes.   I want to follow on with this idea more when I have time  ....    but there is no need, in doing that, to suppose any  level of ultimate evolutionary specimens  ... I am just considering our uniqueness and the obvious traits that DO  distinguish us and have led us to the situation we are now in.

[Nungali]

.... but right now, I need toast and coffee   

[Marblehead]

.... but right now, I need toast and coffee   

I thought it would have been biscuits and tea.

[Nungali]

My understanding is that 'man' was originally more a verb than a noun.  For instance people who managed estates, villages and so on in the Domesday Book could be either a man or a woman - but were referred to as the man.  So man-kind (where kind is from words like 'kin' meaning 'family of'.)  So mankind would include any beings who have this function of managing (i.e. shape or control) their environment - and so I think many hominids could be included within mankind - the variation being only in the extent to which they do this.  Animals inhabit and generally speaking adapt to their environments - while mankind tends to shape his.  Some examples of say beaver lodges and dams and so on would be a kind of proto-man behaviour.

 

 

Good ... yes,  but a lodge,  house or nest is made by many animals , so we can exclude that function as being distinctly a human trait that no other animal has .

[Apech]

Good ... yes,  but a lodge,  house or nest is made by many animals , so we can exclude that function as being distinctly a human trait that no other animal has .

 

 

That's right demote the beavers - beaverist!

[Nungali]

I thought it would have been biscuits and tea.

 

nah ... its still early here .... toast in the morning, biscuits for afternoon tea  ( biscuits used to be banned in Tasmania  -  the state of illegal biscuits ....  but they were allowed bread , and toast.  ) 

[Nungali]

That's right demote the beavers - beaverist!

 

 

HUH ? 

 

 

Saying beavers are not quite the same as humans  is a demotion now  ?  

 

 

see the end of my post 571 

 

 

... however I do admit to being a Beaverist in the earlier parts of my life 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2016 by Nungali