morality within evolution

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Now, we can either continue in a good-natured spirit, or end this conversation, or degrade into a cesspool of calling each other's ancestry by several kinds of animal names. The choice is yours. Personally, I think the last option is a waste of time. The middle option is regrettable but not impolite. The first option would be best in my opinion. That choice is now up to you.

I will accept the above as a civilized peace-offering and continue our debate, for it is obvious that you are an interested student of human evolution and should be encouraged to know more. But it seems to me, as I read your observations that very little field work is involved in your basic assumptions. Your dismissal of each and every one of my original field observations makes it difficult for me to take this debate to a higher level. You have not only dismissed me, but the extensive field work done on DNA and a host of other anthroplogists as well. I have spent most of my life with native cultures. I was born and raised in Africa and have Xhosa ancestry. I have been initiated in Animism, Shamamism, Yoga and Zen Buddhism. I see myself as a reasonably well-versed metaphysician and not an unrehearsed social commentor. My television documentarties covering a wide variety of human cultures, as well as wild life behavior, have been broadcast world-wide without adverse criticism. The reverse in point iof fact. If you can kindly supply me with some of your own credentials and explain more of your field experiences, we can perhaps go on from there.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Q!

Originally Posted by Quahom1

True colors shining through...

Truth is we don't know squat.

Exactly.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, MagnetMan.

I will accept the above as a civilized peace-offering and continue our debate, for it is obvious that you are an interested student of human evolution and should be encouraged to know more.

Very well.

But it seems to me, as I read your observations that very little field work is involved in your basic assumptions.

Less than Hislop, Frazer, Jung and Campbell, I will grant, but of a similar kind.

Your dismissal of each and every one of my original field observations makes it difficult for me to take this debate to a higher level.

If by dismissal you mean respectful disagreement, then be prepared for plenty more. I am willing to hear your input, which by my understanding makes me open-minded. Whether or not you are able to hear me will define your level of open-mindedness. We can hear each other and disagree, and still be friends, and that is OK.

You have not only dismissed me,

Please look again, you will see at no time have I dismissed you. My disagreement with your assessment is no reflection on you as a person. My only beef with you is the attitude of your presentation. I recommend that you meet me, and all others here in this place, as equals.

but the extensive field work done on DNA and a host of other anthroplogists as well.

I am aware of a great deal of the research going on. Might I direct you to a number of threads dealing with a variety of issues on the subject?

Now, have I held powdered Neandertal bone in the palm of my hand? No.

I have spent most of my life with native cultures. I was born and raised in Africa and have Xhosa ancestry.

I am pleased for you, I am certain this is an experience to cherish for a lifetime.

I see myself as a reasonably well-versed metaphysician and not an unrehearsed social commentor.

I am sure you do.

My television documentarties covering a wide variety of human cultures, as well as wild life behavior, have been broadcast world-wide without adverse criticism.

No adverse criticism whatsoever?

Forgive my simple observation using logic, but even the greatest religious philosophers of all time faced criticism. Especially in their own day.

If you can kindly supply me with some of your own credentials and explain more of your field experiences, we can perhaps go on from there.

I realize this is a favorite game among academics; "how much alphabet soup do you have behind your name?" "My degree trumps your degree!"

I was taught that a small mind discusses people. A great mind discusses ideas. What say you?

[taijasi]

I'm lost ... what was the idea again?

andrew

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by taijasi

I'm lost ... what was the idea again?

andrew

Why, taijasi, I believe that's the shortest post you have written!

I am honored...

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I was taught that a small mind discusses people. A great mind discusses ideas. What say you?

I'm sorry. I find you far too evasive. (Just an opinion, nothing personal) Perhaps we will meet in another life.
Kwaheri Bwana

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, MagnetMan.

(Just an opinion, nothing personal)

No personal offense taken, I trust the same with you.

Perhaps we will meet in another life.

I would look for it, and once again welcome you with open arms, as a brother. As a peer.

Kwaheri Bwana

Thank you, and farewell to you.

Hágoónee’ Hosteen (Navajo)

Do-na-da-go-hv-i (Cherokee)

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

I broach this subject cautiously, I want to keep it strictly in the context of the development of religion and morality. If the mods feel this post is inappropriate, then please edit accordingly.

I am confused about blood sacrifice. Pagans of the past practiced animal sacrifice, as does Judaism of the past. By extention, Jesus, as the Lamb of G-d, serves the "fullfillment" of sacrifice for Christians.

At this point I hesitate to say all, but many animist cultures also practice blood sacrifice. Is there a key in connecting blood sacrifice to morality, and why?

What purpose does blood sacrifice play in the evolution of morality in Neolithic culture? It doesn't seem to me to hold any evolutionary advantage. It seems a rather curious artifact to influence so much of the world.

The hunt, it must be something to do with the hunt...

[MagnetMan]

Animism - a naive state of consciousness that experiences Nature as a soul, was practiced (lived actually) throughout the Stone Age. It forms the root of mankind's spiritual behavior. I have seen it in practice among the Bushmen of the Kalahari. It is innately moral, for it is based on the ethic of non-trespass and meticulous sharing. This divine trait underlies all subsequrent social distotions of its original purpose. And because we all lived in a hunter/gather milieu for more than 99%of our time evolving into higher states of consciousness, should we survive the trails of our current teenage, I believe our intuitive imprint with the spirit that underlies life, will inevitably resurface and redirect our spiritual behavior.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

Animism - a naive state of consciousness that experiences Nature as a soul, was practiced (lived actually) throughout the Stone Age. It forms the root of mankind's spiritual behavior. I have seen it in practice among the Bushmen of the Kalahari. It is innately moral, for it is based on the ethic of non-trespass and meticulous sharing. This divine trait underlies all subsequrent social distotions of its original purpose. And because we all lived in a hunter/gather milieu for more than 99%of our time evolving into higher states of consciousness, should we survive the trails of our current teenage, I believe our intuitive imprint with the spirit that underlies life, will inevitably resurface and redirect our spiritual behavior.

The only "morality" within evolution is survival. If one animal's actions benefit the survival or comfort of another larger, predetory animal, then the predator will naturally allow the smaller one to survive, and may even show kindness towards it.

But it has nothing to do with actual morality (as an abstract thought), it is merely a logical decision based on convenience to the superior (physical/psychological/mental) life form. Or, it may be a case of necessity of survival for the greater life form.

Morality has nothing to do with evolution, because it most often counters evolutionary demand. I'm certain you are quite aware of this.

Morality for example is creating rules of war and engagement, that do not allow for total extermination of the enemy. That is totally contrary to evolution, which demands that the weak be erradicated by the strong. Or the defective be elliminated by the perfected. Morality is treating others as equal, when evolution demands that there is no equal, only inferior and superior camps.

The only concept even close to morality within evolution is mutual gratification. One animal needs his hide picked clear of parasites, and another feeds off of those parasites. Hence bird and rhino co-existed in a mutually satisfying relationship. The bird cleans the rhino's hide, and the rhino doesn't let anything happen to the bird, or the bird's eggs or nest. The rhino knows not to destroy what gives it relief from the parasites on its hide.

Man's morality is different, mostly because it counters evolution. (or maybe not so different). Man cares for the elderly and sick, the deformed, the mentally inferior. Why? A twenty fiver year old soldier in top physical shape, and all his life ahead of him, will jump on a grenade in order to protect an aged woman, or children not his own...why? That makes absolutely no evolutionary sense! Is it because in his mind he will be noted in history as laying down his life for those that might not have made it to begin with? Again, that thinking counters the survival of the fittest concept.

Now, once we domesticate animals, then the morality and evolution issue begins to cloud. Domestic animals tend to mimic the moral behavior of man. And that counters evolution as well, or does it? If I raise a dog for three years, and give him all the love, attention, food, time, etc., he can handle, then starve him for a week...what happens then?

I have read of humans feeding off of humans in desperation, in order to survive, however that has been rather rare (in non-cannibalistic societies). Most of the time the desperate find another food source, or die, rather than eating one of their own. Think a loyal dog who is starving would do the same thing? Maybe, but I doubt it. If so then morality supercedes evolution. It is a concept that surpasses the will to self-survive (if it can be demostrated in animals as well as man).

In summation, Morality does not exist in evolution, only convenience. Morality supercedes the natural order of nature, which is to survive at all costs. Morality often expresses itself at the ultimate cost, hence is beyond basic nature. Even Bushmen have moral values that override evolutionary requirements. And the key word is "override".

I hope I made some sense here Magnetman.

v/r

Q

[MagnetMan]

I hope I made some sense here Magnetman.

v/r

Q

With due respect (and I do respect your line of reasoning) I must say no. To begin with, you place human consciousness above and apart from nature. You see nature as a souless mechanical system that materialized piecemeal for no other reason than procreation and consumption without an iota of ethical consciousness. My view is entirely different. For all its good intentions,I personally do not subscribe to religious interpretations of Gensis. I go along with science and see the human primate as an evolutionary extension of Nature. My personal belief is that the reason for our super-natural ability to articulate universal consciousness has always been part of the Divine plan - a vast evolutionary effort, with a small touch of randomness added, designed to evolve a specie that is able to fully appreciaite and take glory in Nature's beauty and wonderful wealth of diversity. We, I believe, are the physical vehicle by which God can see and sensually experience Himself in social and spiritual realms that organic Nature cannot.

As for morality, that is a concept that can only come into being when there is deliberate trespass anywhere in Nature. The Laws of Cause and Effect are universal - without them. there would be no way to protect the integrity of any atomic association and nothing but chaos would result. Thus the wrath of a jealous God is real. For man to become a witness, he was allowed to trespass and domesticate Nature. He left Eden to toil in the soil. But there was a price to pay. Hence this huge moral confusion between science and religion which we struggle with today. Lasting answers will only come when Science explains the metaphsyical potentials within the nuclear equation. They will inevitably get around to it. In the meantime, as a practicing metaphsyician, I have taken the liberty of prempting science and have invested the last twenty years outlining the first draft of a unifying principle that fuses physics with metaphsyics. If you are truly interested in gaining further insight into an alternative line of thought, I suggest you check my profile.

The key words you missed in my original post were "meticulous sharing ." That is the foundation ethic that elevated humans above all other primates. It predates organized religion and is moral to the core. It did not come easy.

[MagnetMan]

Quahom1
Reading back over my previous post, I realize that it is presumptuous of me to accept that you would buy my book just in order to understand my answer to your rationale. It was the difficulty of finding a short answer that made me; give up and end my answer that way. Here is the best I can do.

Religion sees man as a special creation of God, unrelated to Nature.
Science sees man as a creation of Nature, unrelated to God.

I see God in Nature - literally and figuratively.
And Nature in God - literally and figuratively.

Everything in the cosmos made out of the same gases, liguids and minerals. All is conscious. All is Divine.

Man is the intermediary that, as our evolution continues to unfold and take us higher states of consciousness, will eventually bring it all together.

When both science and religion agree on this, our present moral delema will end. Peace.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

Quahom1
Reading back over my previous post, I realize that it is presumptuous of me to accept that you would buy my book just in order to understand my answer to your rationale. It was the difficulty of finding a short answer that made me; give up and end my answer that way. Here is the best I can do.

Religion sees man as a special creation of God, unrelated to Nature.
Science sees man as a creation of Nature, unrelated to God.

I see God in Nature - literally and figuratively.
And Nature in God - literally and figuratively.

Everything in the cosmos made out of the same gases, liguids and minerals. All is conscious. All is Divine.

Man is the intermediary that, as our evolution continues to unfold and take us higher states of consciousness, will eventually bring it all together.

When both science and religion agree on this, our present moral delema will end. Peace.

My "religion" does not look at man that way. Man is in the world (in nature), just not of it (tied to it). The "science" I'm aware of has no conceptions of man's creation or relationship to a "God", only people do (the ones that use science for their own personal purpose or agenda).

The only "animal" on earth that strives to leave the element he finds himself in is man. And, he has succeeded. His success grows each day.

Yes, all is made of star dust (it is the building block of life). But stars do not bring forth the spark of life. Yes, man is a steward of this planet, but then that begs the question "who granted man stewardship of the planet?" Obviously we didn't make this marble. We were given it to maintain. We haven't found a single planet even close to this one (at least anywhere near us, relatively speaking). There is no planet nearby we can just fall to and start again (not without some serious terraforming on our part). The land is conquered, and so is leaving the confines of our planet. Now we are tackling the sea (which by the way, will teach us to survive on the surface of Venus).

If left to our own devices, we would plow through everything to get our own way. But, something within us (foreign to our natural state), checks us. It isn't part of our animal make up. It has been introduced into us from without. That is why we struggle with it every day, because it conflicts with our natural desire to take everything there is to take.

Which in turn leads us back to the original theme of this thread. Morality within evolution.

Man, is one of the weakest animals on earth (physically). Yet all animals wild, fear and suspect man...now why might that be? Perhaps it is due to the fact that animals sense in man his predatory nature, his total disregard for everything but himself. They (nature) do not see or sense outright, the "morality" of man. Quite the opposite. In fact it takes animals time to see the proof of morality in the animal called man, mostly because it takes a concerted effort for man to consistantly display that morality.

I submit, that if left to our own devices Magnetman, our natural "morality" would not stop us from firing our "nuclear guns". We got 'em and we know they work, and the enemy stops moving after we use them.

We don't even have to use fission bombs. We know how to make Neutron bombs, which kill everything but leaves buildings standing and land radioactive free. Yet we outlawed their construction let alone use (with alot of objections from other humans).

Your points about human growth? I happen to agree. But even they are artificial in the world of nature. (an opinion, not a slight towards you personally). Only man contemplates such abstract thought (and attempts to consciously apply it to his life). My horse, dog, cats and ferrets could care less about spiritual growth and morality. They only know few things, food, shelter, God (I strongly believe), and love (or kindness), and respond accordingly.

Man on the other hand is capable of reacting (or acting), totally opposite of what an animal might do for lack of the "neccessities" I just mentioned. There is nothing natural about that either.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[juantoo3]

Some pretty good thoughts, Q!

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Some pretty good thoughts, Q!

Thanks Juan, but somehow I don't feel so good about posting them...

Magnetman, you are entitled to your opinions, and I think them valid from your perspective, and enlightening to me. Indeed, you have points and arguments that I would truly hope is the truth for all of us. (it would be so nice for all).

I say this, because I must admit I deliberately set out to dispute every point you had made... for the wrong reasons. And for that, I apologise.

I also did not realise Magnetman, that you were a published author, and I am most interested in finding and reading your book(s). Please tell me the title(s).

v/r

Q