I wasn't being hard on her Pat, I just expected more within a cultural evolution thread where the melding of minds is extolled as a key element in the progression of such. If there is any immediate example of cultural evolution it is within the Minds Eye group which has been referenced as a culture within a culture in prior threads. Therefore it would be expected that dialogue would be essential in the confirmation, consternation or defamation of one's post in order for the group to evolve. I couldn't have any inkling or notion as to your thoughts concerning the post but only until now that you have revealed. Unfortunately I'm not a world renowned psychic with the ability to read distant minds as did the late clairvoyant Edgar Cayce. Molly clearly makes an assumption that my personal internal environment is imbued with toxic fear and doubt based on my identification and recognition of factual evidences of a skewed global platform. It has been noted in multiple previous threads that I personally take the position of voyeur and exclude the external as much as possible but this does not exclude the understanding of the nature of all that is external to my being. We all know by now who and who not to be associated with on a personal level in this group; this is the cultural evolution process in our microcosm of M.E. social interaction. It doesn't change the volatile nature of the world but each individual can create his or her own environment by simply gathering with those of like mind. I think what Molly is trying to get at is the fact that while we are all a synthesis of all that is in the universe we are all a "self" first and foremost. In Molly's Infinite Nature thread on 2/10/09 I disagreed with Kierkegaard in his stating "“Man is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two factors. So regarded, man is not yet a self.” to which I responded: As the stars glitter in space individually they are all part of the grand scheme of the cosmos as are dust particles that move about suspended in air, some gather as blankets upon a surface. Such as it is for man, the individual mind moving about freely and sometimes gathering with other minds in unison while at the same time a part of all galactic particles. Man is a self, a self that is a part of a whole. What sets man apart is the faculty of reason, the awareness of being a self and a part of the whole. We are here but we are also there, in the parallel scheme, oft times realized only within our dreams. Even upon physical demise the senses go on to reside within the whole as I've often referred to as the soul, the continuum of self, the self, individually and as part of all things, as Albert would have it, the infinite nature includes the universe. This experience of living is merely tangibility of the self and does not negate the existence of self without physical representation. Such is the way of all things unseen, as the fragmentation of a whole into invisible atoms, the dispersing of the whole structure, still in a sense retaining a quality of the whole. Existence here seems, as Shakespeare relays, fascinating, however man's existence here has great many limitations, for the part has taken a fixed form that is mortal, where as the infinite nature of man has no boundaries, no limitations. Just as atomic particles come together to form a fixed mass that is confined to it's form as a rock or a piece of steel, either of which will erode in time, so has man taken form. Though our nature is a synthesis of the temporal and the eternal, our self in the physical form remains confined and limited. So the very essence of our evolution is a continuum of life cycles, birth and death of generations each gleaning from the universe whatever can be utilized for individual growth and the common good.
On Aug 10, 8:27 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10 Aug, 12:17, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Cultural evolution is merely a bi-product of environmental > > circumstance whether contemporary or prehistorically. To suggest that > > ancient ancestral people were lacking syllogistic capability is > > inaccurate. Cultural evolution in prehistoric era was based on the > > same principles as today, that being communal assimilation and > > adaptation to new environments. People seek growth with similar > > beings and therefore cultural evolution can be differentiated by > > varying cultures. We process more information today because our > > environment has expanded thereby affording us more information to > > process. While on the surface it seems much progression has taken > > place I don't see all of it as being based on individual conscious > > choice but rather initiated by social dictates by select groups. > > Pointing out freedoms of women, children and minorities is not enough > > to establish an evolution when there are other groups that are non > > conforming and in violation of the supposed evolution. This is > > evidenced, as Lee points out, by the numerous contradictions in social > > behavior especially on a global level. We are no more socially > > integrated today that we were as cave men; they had clubs and we have > > bombs. We are still territorial and oppressive to outside groups. We > > use terms like "it is illegal" to enforce bias and discriminate, we > > create laws that allow for the use of "deadly force" upon a suspected > > threat and more jargon to initiate war. This purported cultural > > evolution is rife with flaw and fallacy. I call it the "Disney > > Effect" which essentially creates a facade to conceal the horror > > behind the pretty picture. Disney has for many years presented > > animations of cute little animals playing in the forest and created > > this image of loving and caring about nature while the reality is > > this: Bulldozers come in and raze the land while killing and > > displacing thousands of animals so that Disney can build their theme > > park. This is primarily what we have today; a facade giving the > > impression we have progressed socially when the fact is the world is > > full of horror, horrendous acts of violence, genocide and egregious > > violations of human rights. Aside from the subjective view and the > > microcosms of change apparent here and there we haven't changed much > > at all; we just have new tools. > > Don't be too hard on Molly. When I read this, I though, yep, that > about sums it up, as you really haven't left that much to say; it's > all spot on. If you want solutions, well...what is that you think all > humans can agree to? The only thing I can think of is "that there is > no one thing that all humans will agree to." Which leaves us > stuffed. Perhaps we humans need the old 'Alien Invasion' concept to > give us a common enemy to act as a rallying point for us all. Right > now, we are, as we have always been, our OWN enemy. And, as you've > rightly stated, that's never changed, only the methodologies and > machinery OF that enmity have changed. Brotherhood of Man?? Yeah, > well, United We Stand was a cheesy pop song, albeit a noble vision. > But we (humans) need a common factor that we ALL believe in. > > > On Aug 3, 7:46 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > All aspects of human civilization—language, art, aesthetics, > > > technology, architecture, organizations, governments—depend upon > > > essential human relationships for their evolution and expression. > > > > * Question: What is actually evolving? > > > > * Answer: The quality and quantity of relationships between people, > > > assuming the form of shared meanings, agreements, relationships and > > > groups of relationships. The cultural domain is inter-subjective, > > > because it exists between subjects, yet is often not objectively > > > identifiable. But the fact that these shared spaces of meaning are not > > > objectively identifiable does not hinder us from experiencing them as > > > being real. As such, the subjective world includes not only individual > > > consciousness but the inter-subjective domain of relationships as > > > well, making the interior universe much more substantial. These > > > relationships are real, yet they exist in the internal universe. The > > > evolution of this internal universe accounts for the fact that women, > > > children, and minorities now experience and possess more freedoms than > > > in any time in written history. > > > > What do YOU think? > > > > For more: > > > http://www.i-awake.net/2010/08/spiral-dynamics-introduction.html-Hide > > > quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
