This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Hello, Who Are You?
Welcome, Brother and Sister. Peace be unto you.
So a while ago we finally had a chance to meet, strike hands and exchange pleasantries, after all this time of crossed schedules and missed opportunities. Chumba has been busy with the trials and tribulations of personal apocalypse. Indeed, we shall all experience our own revealing in one way or another, and sooner rather than later, perhaps sooner than you expect, or want.
Let us sit down now at the table. I'll bring out the board. It'll take some time to set up all the pieces and explain how each operates. After all, if one is to engage in a contest, it is only fair that each player know the parameters of engagement.
CONTEST. To make defense to an adverse claim in a court of law; to oppose, resist, or dispute the case made by plaintiff. To strive, to win or hold; to controvert, litigate, call in question, challenge; to defend, as a suit or other proceeding. - Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, p. 391
Indeed, the Court of Chumbawamba is always in session. But don't mind your first insinuation. This is not as serious as it may seem. You haven't been accused, but you are being challenged.
Or if you prefer, we can use an alternate paradigm to describe this engagement. Instead of a gameboard we can call it a stage, and instead of pieces we shall instead have characters. In fact, just bring your own paradigm. This spectacle can and will be observed in any number of familiar constructs, all featuring their own nuanced perspective that altogether bring a fuller understanding of that to which I am to minister. Pick the one best suited for you and go with it; I'll be a gracious host and adapt to your preference. Think nothing of it, Arabs are typically like that.
Keep in mind that no apocalypse is the same twice, so a lot of this is going to be new for me as well. In fact, I expect to learn as much from you as that what I am going to proffer.
Now, before we discuss the structure and semantics of this engagement, I should first start with the most important aspect here, which is you.
Who are you?
Do you remember?
Do you remember where you are and why you're here?
...
Let's do an exercise. Take a moment now, and quiet your mind. Remove unnecessary distractions. We're going to meditate on this. Close your eyes and relax for a moment.
Now, open your eyes, and look around you.
What do you see?
I guess that really depends on where you are. Most of you, my dear cohorts, are inside a man-made structure somewhere, likely surrounded almost, if not entirely, by man-made objects. And if you thought about it for a moment, all of the things you use on a daily basis--your bed, your clothes, your house, your car, your roads, your place of work--basically everything, is man-made.
If you're like most people in the developed world, you might go your entire day without touching anything made naturally. Think about it. Even much of the food you stuff down your gullet is processed, man-made. Short of the purely plant and animal products you might consume, like a salad or a bowl of fruit or a steak or some chicken, much of your food these days is artificial, processed meats and vegetables.
Unless you're blessed to be living in a "country" environment, in your world, nature is merely the backdrop or garden adornment of your man-made worldly universe. Yours is a world almost entirely made by man. Your concrete walkways stingily allow for some meager foliage to protrude into the tidy man-made world, and perhaps you're blessed with front and back yards where you allow a lawn, some flowers and shrubs, and perhaps a few trees to exist, tidily maintained and confined to your preferences.
But the vast majority of your landscape, I'm guessing, is the creation of the hand of man. And it just sits there generally, not doing anything. It's all dead. Even the things that do something, like a clock, or a radio, or an oven, are just neat boxes that perform magic tricks based on properties of the physical universe that man has learned to master, but each of those objects ends in and of itself. In order for there to be more clocks or radios or ovens, and in order for there to be even working clocks and radios and ovens, requires the constant presence of the hand of man.
Now, I interject here my apologies to those who are reading these words on a farm, or a mill, or in the woods, on the beach, or just somewhere outside. Here, I am not primarily speaking to you.
But for the likely majority of you, contrast your likely setting with, say, a healthy forest. There, you have tall, lush trees. Creatures like birds and squirrels are zipping about; bugs flit here and there. There are flowers, an array of shrubs, aromatic grasses. In other words, there is an abundance of life all about you. Everything you see in such an environment is alive in the truest sense of the word.
So, uh, who made it? In your (“your” again being the majority of you) world, someone somewhere made your stuff. So, who made the forest and the trees and the birds and bugs and flowers? You see what I'm getting at here. I don't believe stuff like that “just happens” or is “just there”. In my Earthly experience, nothing just shows up without someone, or something, putting it there. Though they seemingly appeared out of nowhere overnight, someone put those Georgia Guidestones where they are. They had a maker. No one will dispute that. No one is going to argue that four slabs of granite self-assembled and spontaneously expressed a philosophy of global genocide and universal control of the world's population through some heretofore unobserved process of momentary sentiality of a previously inanimate substance.
Getting back to the forest and its contents, one might say that it was created as a result of “natural processes”. Ok, fine: natural processes. But who set those natural processes in motion? Somebody, or something, somewhere, had to have initiated it. Forgive me, but the “big bang” explanation just does not satisfy me or anyone who actually thinks for a moment and considers the proposition.
At this point there is none to arguing this either way. I beg you, my beloved guest, simply to accept and agree, for the time being at least, that we answer the inquiry as to who made the forest and all that is in it thusly: "It is natural", where "natural" has the meaning "made by nature". Let us just agree on this definition. Definitions are important, and to communicate effectively, it should go without saying we must agree on them. And if you plan to stick around, that is the definition I intend to use...for now.
So in conclusion, I pray we can agree that everything we can observe, and beyond, all of what we can see and touch and taste and smell and hear, natural or otherwise, has a maker. Cool?
Good.
There is a point to this. A major one. One that we must continue to explore later, after you have acclimated to our now agreed upon propositions above.
As for me, the Kingdom is presently under seige, and Chumba is dispossessed of his lands. A battle to turn the tides is in the making; plans must be lain and provisions garnered. And so with this I must take leave to my chambers. I shall return, and I pledge, in an expeditious manner.
In the meantime, make yourself comfortable, relax, close your eyes, and remember who you are...
I am Chumbawamba.
»
- advertisements -
Criticism is fine. Fraud is not. It's not even a fine line issue: you straight up built a strawman and then set it afire. Go burn your effigies outside.
Hang on, I didn't make the straw man, you did with this statement: "So in conclusion, I pray we can agree that everything we can observe, and beyond, all of what we can see and touch and taste and smell and hear, natural or otherwise, has a maker".
There is no basis, absolutely no basis on which to make this claim other than the "god as creator" program your neural hardware is running. Theists have been doing this for centuries, propogating flawed thinking, undermining the pursuit of knowledge on credible grounds. No sir, you can't get away with this. I call the the above statement out for what it is, garbage. What makes a snowflake dear sir. A stunningly beautiful assemblage of water molecules. Does your god craft each one individually or do the most basic and fundamental laws of physics mandate the shape through cold and dispassionate pushing and pulling of electomagnetic fields. I can already anticipate your retort because I have interacted with many "god as creator" programs running on hundreds of other pieces of hardware. You will retort, god made the laws of physics. OK, I'll accept that if that is your belief. What we have determined though is that god does not need to be directly involved in the making of anything, the laws of physics are his proxy, his tool or tools. Already your watchmaker analogy is starting to fall apart because a human is directly involved in the making of man-made objects, a vastly different scenario.
Now we have removed god from being directly involved in the creating on a second by second basis but instead setting in motion the processes for it to happen remotely and in time we have regressed back to the point of the supposed big bang and what set this in motion. This is where you stated honestly that you don't know what could have caused the big bang, I don't know, scientists don't know, nobody knows.
So where the fuck are we. If we agree nobofy knows, there's little fucking point waxing lyrical isn't there? The thing is though, based on the many interactions I've had with the god program, even though I extract the admission of ignorance many times, it's not genuine because it's impossible to extract oneself from the hard wiring and inpossible to escape from the belief once cemented in the structure of the brain.
I don't really want to offend Chumbawumba nor do I want to antagonise. I'm on a non-committed personal quest/journey to understand the human mind. I'm fascinated by ego and our propensity to hold absolute convictions in spite of glaring and undeniable fact that no conviction has any more merit than any other conviction and indeed we are forever cut off from the ultimate knowledge of the origin of the universe. There may well be other advanced civilisations in the universe whose beings have brains the size of planets whose knowledge we could not comprehend. We may indeed be so prinitive to these civilisations that they would swat us as insignifcant pests just like we do mosquitoes. If that was indeed true where then do your convictions lie.
OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE ALREADY, THIS IS NOT ABOUT GOD.
It's really one of the more laughable (in a sad way of course) displays of the sheer asinineness of 'thinkers' like you who immediately cannot merely dismiss the exploration of another possible set of beliefs, you feel compelled to lash out and attack anyone who dares to challenge your preferred beliefs.
You truly reveal yourself to be fully the ignorant ass you ever so clearly are with this little display of what you seemingly consider to be an expression of intelligence?
"Let me summarise Chumbawumba, let me spell it out. We don't know, nobody knows, are you honest enough, intellectual enough and wise enough to admit this."
Really?
Here let me fix it for you:
Let me summarize BringOnTheAsteroid , let me spell it out. We don't know, nobody knows, are you honest enough, intellectual enough and wise enough to admit this?
I'll just assume that even a 'smart' guy like you would acknowledge being a part of the we?
Yes, I admit this, did you not understand a word I said. We don't know, I DO NOT KNOW. If you claim I should be prepared to entertain one delusional and completeky arbitrary form of reality then you MUST be prepared to entertain an infinite number of equally diverse, arbitrary and delusional forms of realitywith absolute equality.
I find it fascinating how uncomfortable and dare I say scared humans become when you drag them to the precipice of the unknowable. I'm not attacking any one belief if you want to attribute that word to me, I am attacking ALL beliefs. I am not proferring the "WE DO NOT KNOW" thesis as a belief or opinion, I am stating it as an unalterable, unalienable, unarguable fact.
It boggles my mind that I even have to argue the toss, it really does prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how fucked up humans really are. We're stuck on this tiny dot of planet in a space so vast as completely incomprehensible and the intellectual petulence of the adult human will have them believe they know what caused the big bang. For fucks sake, we are beyond help.
You don't know if you will be killed walking across the street, but that does not stop you from making a decision based on best evidence available We have fantastic evidence for a creator. There is no need to complicate things, it's very obvious and simple. Just as it should be. I used to be cloudy too, but now, things are much clearer. Not perfect, but more than enough evidence to make my mind up. Peace. Seek and you will find.
Believe or not as you wish. I (and a great many others) suggest that much actual knowing can occur however through means that are legitimate but poorly understood. It seems to be not even necessary for this knowing to arrive via 'religion'.
ISEEIT, you don't say. Revelations is based on this notion that knowledge is revelaed to the believer. You know why this concept is so popular. It's simple, it doesn't require any effort on the part of the human whichs levers a prime human quality, laziness. It is much harder and less appealing to spend decades in the laboratory unravelling the "truth" than it is to pretend that knowledge magically and telepathically materialises in the mind.
Come on mate, you've got to do better than that.
God was supposed to be a simple, overarching concept used to explain our observations... just like attributing star patterns to various personas, etc. Eventually, god became the bedtime story we read to ourselves so we can sleep at night... our little comfort blanket. The truth is that man is alone in the universe. I'm sure there are other organisms that are competing for resources in the universe just the same, but there is no man in the sky making sure we're OK. If we want to succeed (presuming it is even possible), then it will be from our own sweat, ingenuity, and heartache... not some celestial gatekeeper.
lol - methinks you have been a tad too fast in reading the article. I see some hints of theism, went through a third time and still don't find any "Him" or "He" as in your comment "Your use of the word He and Him betrays your programming"
edit: I mistook your reply to a general comment to the article, now I've realized that you were answering to Frastic, who does make a more theistic argument than Chumbawamba. though I still don't see the "Him" and "He"
but your rebuttal of theism in general is as good as any, no skin off my nose about that. in fact, +1 - imho too we don't know
just a question: doesn't your use of a nick like "bring on the asteroid" suggest some kind of cultural "programming" too? I might be wrong, but I sense some WASPishness coupled with lots of Science vs Religion "war" in both the "End of Times" idea and the "God does/does not exist" debate which make me think I can somehow pinpoint your cultural origin, not that far from Chumba, from my perspective
ZH is a mostly economic/financial blog. A thought for you: there is a demand for spirituality, and there is a demand for religion
and markets - i.e. what people do - are prone to eventually trample on those who forget things like demand and offer ;-)
Ghordius, how can I possibly be excempt from the "programmed biological organism" thesis short I claim that I have some magical ability to think without my brain. This is my point, we are biological automatons programmed with a certain take on reality based on the absolute chance of our own circumstance. My moniker is a throw back to my somewhat nihilist attitude, nothing more, nothing less. I have no beliefs, I only learn that which can be derived with scientific rigour. THE only reason I base my learning on scientific rigour is because it seems to work and has had a very good track record of calling a spade a spade and consigning bullshit to the dustbin. People have been blathering on about god for bloody thousands of years and all I can say is if a god does indeed exist it is unworthy of worship. The untold suffering perpetrated on innocent beings in this world is beyond horror. To all those that want worship something that allows the amount of suffering there is on this world I'd suggest you have a serious case of Stockholme Syndrome. Of course another possibility is that god does not exist and all the suffering in this world then becomes entirely understandable. My final comment on this thread is this. Have the humility to keep your fantastical and indeed delusional religious belief to yourselves.
Uh huh. Ok.
Lost Skeleton of Cadavra - I'm a Scientist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BlqogvkOpI
.
The Science Behind The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtotCkyQbPk
.
The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra - Dinner Scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdNbCvVSWSI&list=PL2K7O-0HlhewTMyKnl5l6wt...
I'm struggling with your point but let me put it this way: The words "I believe" can be followed by virtually an infinite combination of words as long as the ensuing sentence abides by the laws of grammar and is comprehensible in terms of the general use of the English language. Each sentence in the resulting set (an infinitely long set) has equal merit because it's a personal belief and by definition not something that can be tested or objected to. So a belief has absolutely no grounds of merit outside of the neural network hosting it. "I believe that our universe is actually an atom inside the wheel bearing of an aliens billy cart". It can't be argued with, can't be objected to because belief is almost axiomatic, it just is what the believer says. So it's a useless notion to be discussed, it's a useless word. It's been hijacked by the "god as creator" program though to mean "I know".
It's a glitch in the program, garbage in, garbage out.
ah, a self-certified"nihilist attitude"! Can't hide that I'd love to find out how this streak/meme group propagates itself, and where
"...if a god does indeed exist it is unworthy of worship" - well, there is a lot of religion dedicated to this theme, including the Gnostic's belief in the Demiurge
I'm all for "calling a spade a spade", but also about gentility, i.e. leaving each to his/her beliefs as long as they don't try to force them on me
I suppose in some respect I have heeded the call to arms made by the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens and Sam Harris. The gentility you speak of seems to be a one way street, somehow theists have carved out a niche in interpersonal relationships that makes it taboo to question belief. This is a very interesing and fascinating thing of itself because in the true Darwinian fashion only a belief system that sets in place this kind of taboo can survive for any length of time. Truly fascinating throw back to evolution. Those religious groups that did not promote this societal behaviour presumably died a natural death. Of course the process was not as beautiful and subtle as evolution by natural selection. In the old days if you questioned the doctrine of the time you were fucking horribly tortured in brutally sadistic ways. So people learnt pretty fucking quickly to shut the fuck up and nod and smile approvingly as the wide eyed nutty evangelist spoke in tongues or the local catholic priest performed an exorcism. I'll be honest, if I was subject to the threat of death by torture I too would praise the lord, I too would feel jesus's healing power, I would see the light. In other words I would download the "god" program very fucking quickly and play along.
Not familiar with Harris, but Dawkins and Hitchens were likely the victims of childhood abuse, perhaps sexual in nature. Especially so with Hitchens. What a tortured fuck that guy was.
I gather he is probably enjoying the empty void of nothingness in his "afterlife".
So your religion is science. Ok. And just like any good religion, it has limited the scope of your inquiry to that which the religion defines as the be all and end all of reality. Ok.
I used to think like you. Verbatim.
If my beliefs bother you so much, why are you here? I'll tell you: because deep down inside, in places you don't go, you know you're wrong, and you so much want to know the truth.
Well, I can't give you THE truth, but I can give you some.
Drop the attitude and stick around. This is not going where you think it is. It has a surprise ending, but you'll have to wait for it. This will take a while.
The truth is that science is sterile... scary... and unfulfilling. Unfortunately, this doesn't make it wrong... but sometimes this realization causes us to choose to believe otherwise. (aside from hundreds of generations of our predecessors likely imposing their beliefs upon us via biology).
I also think it's disengenuous to dispense with the scientific method because of the politics of science. Yes, we can agree that popular science is as much religion and politics as it is actual science. However, we can disagree that this somehow negatively taints the scientific process or otherwise undermines legitimate breakthroughs due to the scientific method (its success). Essentially you're simply making an ad hominem attack...
I was not dismissing the Scientific Method. All religions have some good elements in them. They can be useful tools in the right hands or destructive weapons in the wrong.
Modern science is about controlling the narrative of our reality: what we take in from our senses is then modulated by "science" to produce an outcome predetermined for optimum advantage to those who control the "scientific" literature.
Once again:
Brevity is the soul of wit.
7 paragraphs is brief
Brevity is the soul of twitter.
Uhhh, the one that created all this would have attributes that qualify for a bit more than just: "god-like". He would be God - period, exclamation point, end of sentence! I want to be God over my entire field of view, but have a bit of trouble making the leap, since I don't even know how much dust is on the bottom of my shoes. There is a God and I know this, by automatic sentiments imploring His help when I'm in deep trouble or cursing directed at Him that arise from the deepest recesses of the soul.
When my soon to be 1 year old grandson almost jumps into my arms when my daughter comes to visit, that my friends , is life. It is not something enjoyed by a chimp or opossom. That is called joy and love. Are we put here for a reason? Was there a beginning of time? Does your God live outside of time? Mine does. I did not choose Him, He chose me. For that I am eternally grateful. Do I wish for you to believe in Him? Sure do. Will my grandson still leap into my arms when he sees gramps if you choose not to? Sure will. I have heard several times life is what you make it. I have studied some of the philosophers. I think, therefore I am. Is it surprising that since we are created in His image and His likeness and is the creator of all things that His children would be creative? I think the apple does not far fall from the tree. I think when the grandson comes today for a swim, life will again make me smile. Live, love, laugh and be thankful. I do not live on a farm but in a four county area of nine million people. The feral cat in my back yard just had a far too slow moving mourning dove for his lunch. A bit of nature there Chumba. You ask questions that man since the beginning of his time here on earth has asked. For us we are fortunate enough to have time to ponder. For early man, maybe not so much "free time" as eating and guarding the family may have taken much more of that precious commodity we call time. I will look forward to reading more. You have a way with words and I admire that. Words are the building blocks of the universe and the Book I read says life and death are in the power of the tongue so I admire a man who chooses his words carefully and as daddy always said God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason. Write on,
Life is a state of mind.
Much sense there deerhunter, but I'd like to take exceptiion to your assertion that animals don't feel anything in the way that we do. If you develop a relationship with an animal (say a cat) where you closely observe what seems make happy, you can actually see that he pulls his lips up into a smile at certain times, and when he badly wants something, (our cat has currently managed to find 8 things to request, and is getting better at indicating exactly which one) and you deliver it, at the point where he realises you are going to do what he wants, his eyes go all shiny, just as mine do when I am in that situation. If I am unhappy, or excessively busy, even though I may have made damn sure he has one of everything, he makes a point of coming and interacting or sitting with me, which seems to depend on the nature of my situation.
OF course he is just an animal, and even if were possible he has any feelings, they must be incomparably simple compared to the higher level that you operate at, "deerhunter", but your blanket assertion that animals cannot feel "joy" or "love" sits as easily with me as the official story behind 9/11, for much the same reasons.
I know this is "fight club" and some of my posts have looked like a member of the audience poking one of the contestsnts with a stick and then running away, which is a bit rubbish TBF, but I don't have a lot of time to stick around and argue at the moment this "useless eater" is finding that the less I have to do in a conventional sense, the more busy I actually am. Doing stuff that seems to really matter, and trying to avoid that game invloving chasing small numbered bits of paper that seems to occupy so much of the less "conscious" (whatever that means) population.
But I am definitely trying to help, overall. Hope you got something out of this post. because if you or no one else does, then I will have wasted my time. And us tree hugging, tinfoil hat wearing nutjobs, sure do hate waste...
"The feral cat in my back yard just had a far too slow moving mourning dove for his lunch."
Life & death.
Solid comments deerhunter, there is indeed a reason God gave us two ears and only one mouth.
Dup
Chumba, nice talk but you have cast a net with some big holes in it. As long as the murder of the unborn continues, this demon infested planet will become a sea of blood. These innocent victims, 500,000,000 and counting, cry out for justice, and you can be sure that their cries are heard.
I've seen this post many times, posted by many people who enjoy a strong dose of `Moral Outrage`, I am morally outraged, and I feel good, I'm not like those people who cause my moral out rage, I am pure, they are foul, look at me, shimmering in my moral outrage for all to see! All very good no doubt, but what are you doing about the `problem?`, If the parents of the `unwanted` don't want to raise them perhaps it is better they are never born, My question to you; How many unwanted children have you given nurture and shelter too, are they living in your house now? If they are I apologize for my implied criticism. I am Sparkey
The 'problem' is not that these lives are rent from the womb using sharp instruments; the problem is these lives' seeds should never have been planted in the first place. If you don't want to have children, don't have sex. Why is it so hard to understand that? Is it because the Bible/God/Church tells us to multiply and then doesn't address the consequences of that multiplication?
For me, the whole anti-abortion argument hits a big wall on this issue.
You didn't ask me, but I support no children and many children. I keep my organ in my pants where it belongs, and have no offspring. I intend to keep it that way for the foreseeable future. However I support many. My treasure is stripped from me, ultimately at the point of a gun, and the government forces me to support the fruit of those who choose not to choose.
I keep my organ in my pants where it belongs
It must be horribly uncomfortable when you take your pants off at night. I used to keep my guitar in there, but it wouldn't stay in tune, so now I just carry a harmonica.
The fruit of those who choose not to choose, had no choice in their conception or birth, may God bless you in `Your` Moral outrage, why can't those sinners, and they are sinners, keep their organ in their pants, and be pure like me! you say in so many words.
Is this the only treasure the government spends you disagree with?
Isn't there something in the `Good Book` about; Blessed are the children...what would you rather they spent the money on?
life is but a dream
enjoy it
fear nothing
for everything
is yours!
Love is the Law.
Don't you know, we are all iterations; all is iterations.
Interesting post, chumbawamba. I hope I do not bring a discordant note in this article by claiming that I never understood why we humans call all the non-human processes natural and the human processes artificial
I am this moment in a very "artificial" environment of an old city. my current dwelling was mostly built some 600 years ago, and the cellar and basement are from Roman times. all deemed as artificial, because they were built by humans
in front of my window a swarm of bees have made a nest. they build, too. though this is deemed natural
and yet those bee architects use a mathematically pure form - the hexagon - which many would deem as "typically human", as particularly found in Arab architecture and art, similar to your octagonal avatar
of course, a swarm of bees is regarded by many as as dangerous as a wolf, a wild beast that has no place in a city
yet bees are one of the most used "domesticated" animals, one of our most important beasts of burden, worldwide, way more than dogs
and they aren't even prone to predatory behaviour - and we humans are, and "our" dogs, too
meanwhile I suspect the bee's nest had one of their "political revolutions" - the worker bees left a dead queen on the ground
the Queen is dead - long live the Queen
if we would ask the bees what's life about, they would probably answer: working, and by that raising the next generation, and defending it up to that point they can defend themselves, work and by that raise the next generation, and so on
I wish you all the best in your defense
Ghordius,
I agree with you. The words aren't meant to disparage man's accomplishments. But the difference between what "nature" creates and what man does is life. Whatever man creates is dead and does not reproduce. Likewise the animals. So far, we haven't been able to match our own creation. And genetic engineering doesn't count. All scientists are doing there is taking the existing building blocks of the Creator and re-arranging them. I endeavor never say never, but I doubt man will ever have the capacity to match his own creation, at least not in this dimension.
Think of a simulation of an old mainframe computer. A modern computer can replicate every last digital function of an older generation computer in software, but it can never be the computer itself. It will only ever be a soft representation of it. The software can never manifest into the actual hardware.
You get what I'm saying?
All scientists are doing there is taking the existing building blocks of the Creator and re-arranging them. I endeavor never say never, but I doubt man will ever have the capacity to match his own creation, at least not in this dimension.
You are creating an impossible standard... by your standard it's patently impossible for humans to ever best or equal the "creator" given the only thing we have to use are the building blocks he? provided us [law of conservation of ______________]. You also have to admit the infinite regression in that what the "creator" used to create our universe might have just been the building building blocks of a prior "creator", thus the "creator" we know may have done nothing more than we do. [I think it's also folly to call this a creator, given the term imposes human qualities... most notably, consciousness...].
I'll posit that the re-arrangement of what "god" gave us is indeed playing creator. The ability to challenge what the "creator" handed down is one of the quintessential human traits and, frankly, necessary for us to have any meaningful existence.
sure. what I meant, now that I'm in the frame of mind to avoid my typical verbosity is that a lot of what is living "creates" (bee's chambers, buildings, shells, coral reefs) as you say "dead things", but we also shapes the living (breeding dogs example, agriculture, ants & aphids etc.) while our real focus as living beings in the greater context is to procreate. and that's where we get new life. I see it as a matter of scope
and even when we don't directly procreate - for example most wolfes don't - it's still all about the next generations. if most people would "get this", we'd have a completely different world
Bees are too cool (pasted -- I am NOT as smart as a bee:
>>I never understood why we humans call all the non-human processes natural and the human processes artificial
We?
Don't get all hoity-toity about your relative enlightenment. Ignorance beats the daylights out of knowing how the sausage is made--as long as you don't eat the sausage.
As for "artificial", the word's been badly abused. It now means "fake", but it once meant "created through artifice". Robert Louis Stevenson referred to God as "the great artificer":
Trusty, dusky, vivid, true,
With eyes of gold and bramble-dew,
Steel-true and blade-straight
The great artificer made my mate.
does "artificial" now really mean only "fake"? My, I feel old... Anyway, I thought the comment above was about "dehumanizing". a process that kicks in before a tribal war, and increases agressiveness. now you've confused me with your comment about "relative enlightenment"
Sorry, Ghordius, my comment was directed to Autumn's "We?", except the part that wasn't.
Nothing personal, I'm just not a big fan of reality, like Bruce Johnston in Disney Girls (1957):
"Reality, it's not for me, and it makes me laugh
Fantasy world, and Disney girls, I'm coming back"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUVEwrYYfWk
I like your post Ghordius.
you are too kind. it's a piece of human "work", and so an "artifice". if deemed "beautiful" by other humans, then it might even be recognized as "art". as in artisan and artist
and yet "nature" can be so breathtaking beautiful in our human eyes that we might recognize the universe as the greatest work of art
by that, we might even think that there is a great artisan, a great artist behind it. it might be
and yet this very recognition might also just mean that we look at the universe with human eyes, i.e. with the eyes of artisans, of artists
projecting the essence of what we are in the universe, in the same way as I see the artist, the parent and the worker in the bee, the predator in the wolf and dog, the artisan in the breeders that changed and shaped wild animals into dogs, and the defender in the dog
what am I? mostly what I do
Very Socratic.
He does post some good stuff.
My guides for about 35 years have been these:
"Know Thyself."
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
"To thine own self be true."
All from Socrates and more that I could mention, but will leave aside. In any case it's why my nick is Setarcos, because I am backward compared with him and/or Plato and others who have inspired me, such as Rene Descartes, Immanuel Kant, David Hume and Carl Jung.
Anyhow I too reject Big Bang as a silly theory, whereas I favour Steady State.
An analogy is a forest (universe) wherein, at any given time, a tree (star) is dying BUT, overall, the forest stays the same over eons.
I find infinity much easier to intuit, than beginnings and endings, except in a local context of course ... and it's interesting to note that no sooner have cosmologists and/or astronomers 'determined' the age and extent of the Universe, than fresh observations push the age and boundaries out further. And my thought experiment is to imagine myself in the furthermost observed galaxy and imagine what I would see, which I think would be very much like I see now, but with our galaxy appearing to be 'at the limit' - the rub being that I would be able to see other galaxies FAR beyond current observations on our planet. Therefore the Universe is logically infinite.
In my view Big Bang is merely a pseudo-science spin on Creationism, i.e. some god kick-starting the Universe out of nothing.
I reject Darwinism too - if that is taken to mean 'random chance mutations' leading to species as we know them today, BTW Darwin was faulty in thinking that birds on the Galapogus Islands were evolving into different species. NO they were merely expressing genetic potentials in differing environments.
To end this post:
Socrates' only claim to wisdom was ignorance in matters profound.
Me too, though I have offered my thoughts on profound matters.