[ 10.09.2002 ]
Teleology and theology meeting scientific rivals over a cup of tea.
Why does people walk on two legs? Is it a proof of man's superiority to crawling critters in our feet? Or is it actually shortage of legs and missing wings that drove us on two feet. Or then again it might be reasonable - unlike Creator - to trust it is just because of evolution suffering hang over having a suddenly creative thought in lines "gee, that'd be a crazy idea - an erect walking mammal on two feet; Why haven't I come across that earlier! And the new idea my collegues called thumbs, that'd silence the critics for a moment..." The fact is we have two legs (2 pieces) that are unlike our hands (2 pieces also) and they all grow out of body. Why, what is this result of? Obviously it's easier for octopus and other cefalopods to have "arms" (tentacles really, 8 pieces) placed in head which isn't placed in torso as they've got no torso at all! (Or if they have, they're not the sweet three-hearted octopussies that change color by emotions. They're squids. And boy are they
freaks of nature...) And then again, what purpose does it serve, that odds have stressed the things to organise this way? One can explain these by evolution or by divine plan/will but I don't think these actually contradict each other the way religious and scientific answers are often seem to do. But I admit there seems to be unintelligible mishmash of limbs in the rules of this chaos that forms the specific elements of the animal kingdom. Like it rules the vegetative and mineral kingdoms. Like it rules the ruler. the wonderous and outrageous part of it to an intellectual person with imagination is the parts of Creation like the flying fish (lat. Cypselurus heterurus; at least the Creator could be seen somewhat humoristic albeit insane and possibly dangerous). And the sum of hearts of octopus. Or the idea of cefalopods in general. So apparently Creator got confused in some point and did to his work the same the frustrated kids do - hit it. And then cry. And then start to play with it again, otherwise the nasty kid from nextdoor (any one of the seven Archons) came and took advantage of situation to smack it into pieces and laugh at the misery caused (though the play had already gone wrong).
I believe that what God the creator (known also as Ialdabaoth) did when he moulded the physical animals would be more like neoplatonistic cosmology understood as modalities: creating animals; setting their form; by making universals and ideals; and their possible and impossible attributes a complexity resounding with others; making a set of general modifications and agents to run the system. My wiev on Creation is colored in polychromatics of gnostic heresies' rather than monochromatic literal (or litter-al)interpretation of a vulgar X-tian that were never too fond of philosophy when speculating on the Beginning (they rather go by the book - it's always the safest and easiest of the wrong ways to not thinking). Also Spinoza's philosophy has been a great inspiration to me, and as I see it, the people claiming Spinoza an atheist are the vulgar X-tians I mentioned. Yes, I don't believe there was an entity that thought - at least, not in the sense we think - that, "hey, what the hell... let there be light; okay and ...stuff, as I'm up to it..." And so on. SO natural laws would be the very core of active creation set to happen by the Creator winding his play on move. Why is it that nature is organised in some peculiar symmetry instead of some other kind of symmetry? That's why - because it's not the only way it could have been but this just happens to be a version of creation running. It's like the scientific world of theories and hypothesis on Reality: it's a set of hypothesis and axioms that are given proof to and by each other and as there seems to be need of adjustment there's done a little adjustment - that's the way evolution works, by the way. God is nature, or in other words, they are the opposite sides of the same coin (which doesn't mean at all they are dichotomically separated from each other - on the contrary). Separated the laws of nature seem arbitrar in nature - and actually they are - but together they are a complex defining itself as a complex. That's why our contruction and symmetry and everything is the way everything is. Or who knows what kind of symmetry there is inbedded in phenomenal world of ours - in dimensionsional stages parallel to that of ours; in the very same atoms our world consists of (you know, between the particles of atoms is more empty space than there is actual stuff in an atom).
IA! IA! Cthulhu calls, they're already here! ! ! ! !
One could try to imagine how this world could be if the sky was red and all bones lacked phi and humans had no lungs. If you happen to be a science-oriented (the
fiction part's additional) have you - seriously - tried to answer in these? Have anyone asked you? Then you must know the answer, which is a loud
"How the hell should I know, really?! " I just like to use the imaginative capabilities of reason a go every now and then. And enjoy the creeping madness that will overtake the screaming me one day. When I think of teleology of Aristotle I feel he just kept to his common sense. Had he gone to extremes with teleological explanations he probably would have given in to insanity eventually. Poor bugger, didn't know what he missed...
Mr EagleOwl [5:26 AM]
[ 10.07.2002 ]
"Any five year old could understand this - go get me one!"
This probably isn't very original.
Yesterday I saw some news of "possible terrorist acts" which got me wondering these same philosophcal problems that even child asks (I asked, as a kid - I almost got detention). Like why is it that soldiers/commandos/guerrilllas of "ours" are good and "good Christians" pray for their victory and their souls. Or what ever the religion or vocation of "your own" happens to be. Soldiers kill, and this awkward fact is probably somehow (without a single exception very lamely) told by priests/political leaders to be just and good - though religion/vocation/politics clearly indicate that killing a fellow human being isn't okay. On the contrary, killing people is deemed to be a mortal sin.Or something equal to that. Still soldiers kill, that's their job. They are always considered the "good guys" on both sides. And when they're not...
they're not on your side anymore, are they?
Okay let's not stick to soldiers, they're probably best left to kill each other. Let's think of radical activists and terrorists and fanatics and other good guys on the wrong side.
You know, those who beg to pardon and disagree with your opinion on abortion -for example -and those don't beg pardon but bomb the offices of abort practising doctors since human life is holy and not in hands of other people to end.
So Who'd you like to have for an enemy, after all one is said to be as powerful as his enemies. There's a plenty to fight for and against, choose your pick. Abortion - are you for or against? Fine so fine, go take arms and of you go. Animal rights? Nuclear power? Equality between races and sexes? Between religions? Equal rites? Between people of different social standards and very unequal resources? Could you stand up - for example - metal industry and start doing heinous amed strikes to homes of environmentalists on your own without any conpensation? Or for the right to education for everyone. Of course it gets more complicated than that but what can you do if you don't even think? You can at least try to stick to the negative golden rule of "not doing unto others as you wouldn't have them to do to you". If you allow it to be simple it is. After you've chosen your side you're very likely to every now and then forget to think for yourself and produce some political/religious muttering the side of "good guys" practice. Might be good idea to have a kid for a reminder. If it don't work at least there's more cannonfodder.
Like I said, not very original and philosophy enquiry this one. Too bad that any five years old can understand this but their parents don't even dare to think of it as they are too preoccupied brainwashing their children. But sometimes it does good to think things over, think of the consequences the other people didn't think of
as they were on the side of "good guys". Even if you eventually do to them as they would have done to you, rather than choose the gandhian attitude of passive resistance. Go vote and kill the bastards, they've deserved it well, but don't come afterwards penitently wobbling that you didn't even think of the consequences. Instead go kill yourself, please, do humanity a favor. Choose what ever the side if you have to choose a side: suicide, medicide, deicide, genocide... . But you probably don't, since you're a good guy on the wrong side in eyes of your neighbour fanatic. (Meaning you're not a good guy at all by his criterion)
My choise is passive resistance against uneducated and tunnel-visioned religious beef-eaters and mul-ti natio-nal cor-po-ra-tions (for fighting against that you can blame Napalm Death). Probably racists too. Child pornography? Yes. Pope? Well, I don't actually support the guy if he's not against Iranaeus (if you don't know Iranaeus, he's the reason why Christendom has had to settle for only four gospels instead of the 35 once in circulation). Hard drugs? Guess so, depending on productivity and purpose of usage. Definitely against the one-flavor-pleases-all pop and conformism. But would I kill for these? No, probably not. This has nothing to do with life's sanctity in a way that I shouldn't support right to abortion and euthanasia - there's a growing over-population anyhow, and the Planet Earth doesn't seem to cope with the well being of rich Western buggers. But I try to concentrate on things I advocate and not to give too much concern to those not immediately linked to my projects. But we'll just have to wait and see, I guess.
Mr EagleOwl [5:58 AM]
