more evolution
Some reading in a magazine tonight revealed some writings by Robert Anton Wilson and Graham Hancock…
Shedding some light on an older posts (twisting and evolution) about intelligent design (and offline discussion with Joen), and some ongoing debates with Daniel about thie issue outlined in these phrases:
“substituting a true transpersonal life with a grammar
structure, thinking that renouncing nouns or similar old abstinence (in
spiritual work) actually works as means of becoming enlightened, while
in fact it only reinforces the very thing they want to avoid. It is
basically non-acceptance…….
I just tend to disagree and think that relinquishing the usuage or
whatever is just another superego-represion..
“
“A change in language can transform our perception of the cosmos” -Robert Anton Wilson
This is based on the premis that altering our software and behavior is a way to alter our hardware and our tendancies for future behavior…”fake it until you make it”…
Please consider the difference between me saying:
“They must stop using oil. ”
and
“I think we should reconsider our oil usage strategies and patterns”
the difference between:
“do it!”
and
“lets do it”
between:
“light is a wave”
and
“when perceived with certain equipment, light exhibits the properties of a wave”
“i am a male nurse”
and
“i engage in work in a hospital as a male nurse”
“the facts in absolute irrefutable reality are…”
and
“the evidence from a specific perspective indicate that…”
the world is quantum. and there i go again… the world appears to be “quantum” (dependent on relativity) and “IS” statements get weaker and weaker as we gain the capacity to embrace a “post-Quantum E-Prime” framework for existence and language / behavior software… is your language flexible enough to be considered quantum soft?
And about the random emergence of DNA molecules “religion” - it has been compared with the idea that a junkyard will transform itself into a stealth bomber if left to enough billion years of hurricanes and tornados…. Any takers on that bet?
Evolution is perfectly plausible and likely and beautiful and eloquent IF we have DNA - without/before the existence of a functional language for life(DNA), evolution is statistically astronomically universally bloody unlikely. Crick had the same debate inside - and it was VERY challenging to him as a scientist who wanted to be a realist… [small aside note: Crick is said to have been on LSD when he visualized the DNA molecule]
hmmm what is DNA and where did it come from???
