Thoughts on evolution

[Dawud]

Speaking of civilization, there was an ancient civilization in South America that in bone-dry desert mountains, they irrigated fields to grow cotton and they traded their cotton at the coast for fish. They lived almost entirely on fish and had some pretty big cities.... I read that in a book called 1491.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Not middle-eastern?

In the sense of city building, weapon making, metallurgy, warfare, the wheel, mathematics, astronomy, written language, codified law; they are one and the same.

Besides, what has any of this to do with Mitochondrial Eve?

Or do you disagree with Dawkins?

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Dawud

Speaking of civilization, there was an ancient civilization in South America that in bone-dry desert mountains, they irrigated fields to grow cotton and they traded their cotton at the coast for fish. They lived almost entirely on fish and had some pretty big cities.... I read that in a book called 1491.

Immigration to the Americas is its own brand of controversy. Some hold as inerrant the dogma of no immigration previous to the Clovis people, others point to artifacts that sure do resemble the Solutrean culture, and others still point to an anomolous find in a cave far south on the Pacific coast of either Peru or Argentina (I'd have to look it up, but its around here somewhere at CR...). The prevailing hypothesis is a trek from Siberia across the Bering Straights through a presumed but undemonstrated pathway through the glacier. A seaborn hypothesis is gathering some support, suggesting immigration in seal skin boats from Europe sailing across at the foot of the glacier as the most likely explaination of how Solutrean points made their way into America.

But the cave find in South America just goes against all of the prevailing hypotheses...

[Dream]

Dear Readers:

I once found indisputable evidence that the ancient worlds of the different continents shared both languages and products. It was an orange hardback book in a dusty community college library. Unfortunately that book has disappeared from the stacks of the old lib. (Perhaps the library staff became disgruntled and careless over budget cuts or lost their temper over lack of shelving and office space.) Maybe some new person put in on the 'Free Book' rack by mistake. In my overconfidence in the library's permanence I never thought to take down the book's ISBN number. If you or anyone you know has seen an orange hardback book that solves the world's anthropological mysteries, please contact me. Thank you.

[Dawud]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Immigration to the Americas is its own brand of controversy. Some hold as inerrant the dogma of no immigration previous to the Clovis people, others point to artifacts that sure do resemble the Solutrean culture, and others still point to an anomolous find in a cave far south on the Pacific coast of either Peru or Argentina (I'd have to look it up, but its around here somewhere at CR...). The prevailing hypothesis is a trek from Siberia across the Bering Straights through a presumed but undemonstrated pathway through the glacier. A seaborn hypothesis is gathering some support, suggesting immigration in seal skin boats from Europe sailing across at the foot of the glacier as the most likely explaination of how Solutrean points made their way into America.

But the cave find in South America just goes against all of the prevailing hypotheses...

I wish I remembered the name of the book, but it was pretty clear to me, at least from a recent book, that it's accepted that there was immigration to the Americas long before the Clovis culture.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

But the cave find in South America just goes against all of the prevailing hypotheses...

I'm no expert in early American archaeology. Or any archaeology, for that matter. Not my field of anthropology.

However, so far as I know, the most commonly accepted hypothesis is a crossing on a land bridge from Asia to North America, and then following the warmer coastline to South America. At the time, the Ice Age had tied up much of the sea in ice, so they crossed on land, following game herds.

A small minority of archaeologists propose that a second colonization of South America occurred from either deliberate or accidental seafaring that went from Polynesia/Australia. Australia and environs had people very, very, very long ago- in fact, pre-modern human species went there as well. It is unlikely, but nevertheless an existing hypothesis, that some people came to South America via a sea route. It is unlikely because of the enormity of the distance and the primitivenss of technology. However, seafaring traditions have been more advanced than people often thought in terms of their navigation skills, so I suppose one never knows.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I think, in short, it's a matter of participation by degree throughout all creation, but in that aspect, human nature stands at the pinnacle. "Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father, that all fullness should dwell" Colossians 1:19 — and that in Him, we too can participate in the fullness of all things. Flora, fauna and mineral life participates according to its station in life — it can participate in that fullness according to itself, but only human soul, and it is this that marks it human, can participate in that fullness, according to Him.

I don't disagree with this, at least not entirely. I don't particularly see humanity as the only stewards of the earth, but I do see us as being in the role of stewardship compared to other animal species.

human nature can experience all nature, being constituted of mineral, flora and fauna life, as well as angelic ... I think we're 'top of the tree' but all that such an idea means is we have a responsibility to all forms 'below' us ... a responsibility to care and nurture, not to dominate and use ... the trick is to acknowledge the vertical and the horizontal relationship as equal.

This is interesting. I don't know that we really can experience all of nature, at least not without some mystical insight. For example, what is it to be a tree? To be water? Wind? I think we can imagine it, and I suppose I agree we can experience it, but few of us do. The openness mystically one must have to experience shape-shifting, in terms of perception, seems to be considerable. But I suppose in concept, I agree. I don't see us as the top of the tree, but rather somewhere toward the middle, with the nature spirits, elementals, and earth herself as above us, and other living beings as under our stewardship, as our life is dependent on places and elements, and so is under the stewardship of nature spirits. I realize that is an odd perspective and not a Biblical one, but I figured that may make my thought process more transparent to readers.

I do agree that we are in a stewardship role, and it is a responsibility we have toward other beings rather than domination.

I think my point is partly that we cannot know what we are in comparison to other beings, at least not through observation. We may think we experience all of nature and other beings are more limited, but that is grounded solely on belief and not on observation. We really can't know at all. For all I know, my horses sometimes catch a moment of feeling human, just as I have moments of sensing what it is to be a horse.

The former I think is fundamental, in the aspect that we utilise art to re-present things, we are managing and communicating concepts, and then we explore them ... not only what things are, but what they signify.

In this way, you mean, I am thinking- symbolic thought. The basis of language. But other animals do have this, some to an extraordinary capacity. Chimps can speak when they are taught to and they do connect artibtrary symbol to meaning. They do learn the concept of past and future, and displacement of space (i.e., they can talk with someone on the phone and understand that person is somewhere else).

Art is something beyond mere communication, but how to define that something else is the difficulty. What made people suddenly begin drawing in caves and carving jewelry all those years ago? And why do other animals seem to not particularly do this (at least not nearly so much)? This is the mystery, yet even that is a matter of degree.

We participate freely — and that is the foundation of humaan morality. We are called to live within the Law because we choose to, not because we are made to.

Then there must be a solid difference between morality and ethics for Catholicism. It is clear that other social animals do have ethical codes, and choose whether or not to participate, and consequently reap what they sow as we do. Perhaps the difference is an element of God's will as opposed to social norms, but that would be a matter of belief for human societies (one I would agree with, but nevertheless not a scientific stance). In terms of observation, there seems to be little that distinguishes human morality from other social animals' group standards for behavior, except that as society grew larger and more heirarchical, our norms were codified into laws and grew ever more complex, because the informal sanctions that work in small-scale societies do not operate properly in more anonymous groupings.

Aquinas argued the point well — creatures who live to their perfection are 'more' in that sense than us, but the human potential reaches further than the creaturely, so the possibility for is is greater, higher than angels, as St Paul said, and St Thomas Aquinas demonstrated.

The potential for what? The only capacity I really see more fully utilized in humans is perhaps creativity. We fail miserably for the most part in terms of love, peace, joy, and any number of other wonderful traits. And I fail to see how we could know how other beings experience something like love, so we wouldn't know if we had more potential or not. It's all conjecture without evidence. I've never found that this part of Christianity made sense to me in comparison to my experience and observation of the natural world.

I also get confused in terms of spirit-beings, because on the one hand we are told humans are the only ones with completely free will and thus the highest potential- above angels. Yet on the other hand, we are told angels used their free will to go against God (i.e., Satan and demons). That doesn't make any sense- either angels have free will or they do not. In the former case, that makes them little different from ourselves in potential, though different in power and obviously in incarnation. In the latter, Satan and demons are not what Christians generally think, or are not existing at all, or were created by God for some purpose.

As I have experienced various nature spirits as well, I tend to think these do have free will, based on that experience, and they do seem to use it (as in, not every spirit out there that is aware and self-actualized seems to use it wisely).

The higher might know more, but its delight is no more than the lowest, nor does the lower suffer any privation because of its low estate — God gives Himself to all equally, and without let or measure — all life knows the joy of living.

I don't really tend to see in terms of higher/lower, but I do agree that God gives equally to all beings.

The idea of hierarchy is not unnatural, in fact it is utterly natural, and the idea of unhierarchy, which is chaos or anarchy, is disorder. The two exist in a tension, but without order and hierarchy, the world would run the risk, in any and every moment, of simply falling apart.

The idea of hierarchy may not be unnatural, but I don't think that makes it correct. The opposite of hierarchy is not anarchy- this is a falsity that plagues modern Western society. In society, the opposite of a hierarchy can vary- democracy, for example. Consensus. Egalitarian. Just because something does not operate in a hierarchical manner does not mean there is no way of making decisions, or no relationships that hold the processes together. Modern physics seems to indicate a fabric of the universe that is, if anything, far more "chaotic" than anyone thought. Yet it works. Things do not fall apart. Order does not necessarily rely on hierarchy at all. Most of human history, people were hunter-gatherers without any real leadership at all. Decisions were made by consensus. There were no laws, no judges, no police. Yet it worked. People survived just fine. Just because our own society is hierarchical and we extend this as the "natural" way to be does not mean nature or other societies must operate this way. It is our cultural lens that taints our perception, causing us to believe that what we are used to is what must be.

That is the fundamental sin ... man ignored which way the compass pointed, and chose to serve himself.

I agree. But I put forth that the compass is still there. And it is written in nature for all to see. It is there by grace, but God never left us. We can choose to serve God and other beings at any time.

[Dream]

While we are adept at chattering to each other, we are not able to agree. I suggest that this is the essence of a language problem. We strive to deny it, but we do not understand each other. We just can't seem to get our city built properly, and its very frustrating. Eventually we will all have to go our separate ways. I'm not sure where this fits in with evolution. Only the strong survive?

Originally Posted by Thomas post #6

...The former I think is fundamental, in the aspect that we utilise art to re-present things, we are managing and communicating concepts, and then we explore them ... not only what things are, but what they signify....

Originally Posted by Pathofone post #22

...The openness mystically one must have to experience shape-shifting, in terms of perception, seems to be considerable. But I suppose in concept, I agree....

..Just because something does not operate in a hierarchical manner does not mean there is no way of making decisions, or no relationships that hold the processes together. Modern physics seems to indicate a fabric of the universe that is, if anything, far more "chaotic" than anyone thought. Yet it works. Things do not fall apart. Order does not necessarily rely on hierarchy at all....

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus santa-v-god thread post #7

I saw today a database of 4200 different religions and their splinter groups. 4200 different groups that believe they have the truth and that others are, at best, misguided. What does critical enquiry of that fact say other than people make it up, not A God....

Genesis 11:7-8 Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Dream;147924
[B

Genesis 11:7-8[/B] Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city.

Ah, the limitations of words.

I think, sometimes, if everyone were open emotionally and mentally to each other, it would be far easier to have dinner with you all and just hang out and think with each other. No words necessary.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Dream

Genesis 11:7-8 Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city.

And the confusion regarding false religion goes on , and the last book of the bible tells us all about false religion, and it also tells us just what will happen to false religion. that is why the people who belong to the true God are out of false religion .


and they have allowed the true God to take them in .


revelation 18;4 Is what it is all about , yes in the bible book of revelation false religion is known as a symbolic woman and her name is

BABYLON THE GREAT (the worldwide empire of false religion)



just as that litral building of the tower years ago was done in opposition to Gods purpose, so the worldwide empire of false religion today, is in opposition to the true Gods purpose.



but no worries ,because the true God JEHOVAH PSALM 83;18 is making sure that those who want to do things his way, are being gathered from all nations , and they are separating them selves from BABYLON THE GREAT which is false religion ,and that GREAT CROWD from all nations have allowed the true God to take them in REVELATION 7;9-10


SOON BABYLON THE GREAT WILL MEET HER END ,


MEE IS OUT OF THERE its all happening in this time of the end


and it is very good

[Thomas]

Hi Path —

Originally Posted by path_of_one

This is interesting. I don't know that we really can experience all of nature, at least not without some mystical insight.

My speculation is that insight was lost at the Fall: "And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked ... " (Genesis 3:7) signifies a vision of the externals, whereas before I believe they saw with 'insight'.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

For example, what is it to be a tree? To be water? Wind? I think we can imagine it, and I suppose I agree we can experience it, but few of us do. The openness mystically one must have to experience shape-shifting, in terms of perception, seems to be considerable.

I do not read it quite so literally. Not so much a matter of this tree or that rock, but rather the one-ness of everything.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I don't see us as the top of the tree, but rather somewhere toward the middle ... I realize that is an odd perspective and not a Biblical one, but I figured that may make my thought process more transparent to readers.

Understood. MIne is a different paradigm.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

In this way, you mean, I am thinking- symbolic thought. The basis of language. But other animals do have this, some to an extraordinary capacity...

I hold that man is pre-thought, not a product of it, as per the Cartesian axiom "I think therefore I am" — rather "I am, and I am a being that thinks". It's not language per se, its what language attempts to communicate.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Art is something beyond mere communication, but how to define that something else is the difficulty.

I would say art is to do with re-presentation ... it's the communication of abstract concepts.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

What made people suddenly begin drawing in caves and carving jewelry all those years ago? And why do other animals seem to not particularly do this (at least not nearly so much)? This is the mystery, yet even that is a matter of degree.

There are some who suggest the explosion of art across the world coincides with the infusion of spirit into the soul that elevated the creature from a mode of being, to something conscious of itself as a mode of being...

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Then there must be a solid difference between morality and ethics for Catholicism. It is clear that other social animals do have ethical codes, and choose whether or not to participate, and consequently reap what they sow as we do.

I think animal ethics are pragmatic. Basic human ethics are the same, but they can also be above that idealist, and above that religious.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

The potential for what? The only capacity I really see more fully utilized in humans is perhaps creativity.

I think that is everything.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

We fail miserably for the most part in terms of love, peace, joy, and any number of other wonderful traits.

And yet we recognise and value those qualities, as things worth dying for. The recognition alone is a start, and if we fail, it's because we measure ourselves against transcendental values. The next thing to learn is we cannot do it alone.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

And I fail to see how we could know how other beings experience something like love, so we wouldn't know if we had more potential or not. It's all conjecture without evidence. I've never found that this part of Christianity made sense to me in comparison to my experience and observation of the natural world.

I have never seen in the natural world any evidence of the philosophy of love, or the reflection and consideration of its meaning. I see evidence of love, but not of the love of love.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I also get confused in terms of spirit-beings, because on the one hand we are told humans are the only ones with completely free will and thus the highest potential - above angels.

Not the Catholic or Orthodox position. Angels can and must be possessed of free will if they are to converse with humans. That's why traditional Christianity (East or West) for me.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

In the former case, that makes them little different from ourselves in potential, though different in power and obviously in incarnation.

But that is the difference, angels are spirit, and are 'purer' because they see with insight, whereas humans are spirit and matter, so 'more' than angels in that regard. In this world, that's everything.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

As I have experienced various nature spirits as well, I tend to think these do have free will, based on that experience, and they do seem to use it (as in, not every spirit out there that is aware and self-actualized seems to use it wisely).

Wisdom is connected to insight ... I would suggest a nature spirit does not possess the insight of an angel, nor of a human being.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

The idea of hierarchy may not be unnatural, but I don't think that makes it correct.

I think order is fundamental to the Cosmos. Without it, nothing could exist.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Consensus. Egalitarian.

Human overlays.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Just because something does not operate in a hierarchical manner does not mean there is no way of making decisions, or no relationships that hold the processes together.

Relationships are hierarchical. Hierarchies are all about relationships.

The Music of the spheres is the music of hierarchy.

I suggest you're putting a negative cultural value on the term. I think hierarchies are wonderful, but woefully abused.

The body is composed of cells, all the same ... but they get together and say, "I'll be a kidney" and "I'll be a toe" and "I'll be a heart" ... without hierarchy, you'd nevver have a human being, or a horse, or a fly, or a crystal, or a flower ... just gloop. But you don't get them saying, "No! I wanna be the heart, the heart's the best bit!"

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Order does not necessarily rely on hierarchy at all. Most of human history, people were hunter-gatherers without any real leadership at all. Decisions were made by consensus. There were no laws, no judges, no police. Yet it worked.

That's speculation, surely? I would suggest hierarchy is implicit in any 'order' and that 'natural leadership' emerges naturally. The better hunters would lead, etc.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I agree. But I put forth that the compass is still there.

Oh, absolutely, but in Christianity it is the imago Dei ... the miss that modernity makes it the compass points not to me (as Adam and Eve tried, and as modernity would have it) but to God.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Dream

We just can't seem to get our city built properly, and its very frustrating.

Of course, the Tower of Babel is an allegory to show what happens when man assumes he can 'conquer' the heavens.

Originally Posted by Dream

Eventually we will all have to go our separate ways.

Separation is the problem ... one solution is to seek the One True Way, and cease to labour under the illusion that we can invent our own.

The serpent said "No, you shall not die the death. For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods." (Genesis 3:4-5)

He lied, and in our pride, we fell for it.

Thomas

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Of course, the Tower of Babel is an allegory to show what happens when man assumes he can 'conquer' the heavens.

And to think I thought it was one of warning that building multi storey structures with sun dried mud bricks in an earthquake zone was a bad idea.

The serpent said "No, you shall not die the death. For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods." (Genesis 3:4-5)

He lied, and in our pride, we fell for it.

Thomas

This is a simple allegory. It states:seeking knowledge for yourself is going to get you hurt. Now why would any church want to say that I wonder?

tao

[Thomas]

Hi Tao —

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

And to think I thought it was one of warning that building multi storey structures with sun dried mud bricks in an earthquake zone was a bad idea.

Such is the genius of the analogy — that so many truths are conveyed in the one story.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

This is a simple allegory. It states: seeking knowledge for yourself is going to get you hurt.

Then I would suggest the point of the analogy has been missed, for the hurt does not lie in the quest for knowledge, but in the quest for particular knowledge, in this case, the knowledge of death (Genesis 2:17).

The Lord alone is "all in all" (eg Ephesians 1:23), not man, but that is what he reached for, "to become as God" (Genesis 3:5) and to take possession of that which was given. He over-reached himself, and fell. Pride will get you hurt, not knowledge.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Now why would any church want to say that I wonder?

Because it is true? And, for my part, I wonder why any man want to refute it?

Thomas

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Thomas

My speculation is that insight was lost at the Fall: "And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked ... " (Genesis 3:7) signifies a vision of the externals, whereas before I believe they saw with 'insight'.

I think this is common to believe among Christians- that we are incapable of insight due to our fallen nature. However, I think it is demonstrably untrue, as even non-Christians have among their ranks those who have profound insight- the shamans, Buddhist monks, and mystics in various religions manage to see the interior- or as I see it- they see what is real rather than the superficial.

I do not read it quite so literally. Not so much a matter of this tree or that rock, but rather the one-ness of everything.

I see. I still hold that we cannot observe or know that this sense of oneness is limited to human beings. In fact, in my own spiritual experience, I am almost positive it is not. Nature radiates the truth of oneness, and I am simply open to her message. It is pure speculation to think that only humans receive this truth.

I hold that man is pre-thought, not a product of it, as per the Cartesian axiom "I think therefore I am" — rather "I am, and I am a being that thinks". It's not language per se, its what language attempts to communicate.

I agree, but I think this could be extended to practically any creature. "I am , and I am a being that XYZ." Why is thinking (philosophically in our way) considered greater? Higher? There is no logical reason for this, in my opinion. It certainly has not bought us a better, more sustianale existance. In fact, many of the great teachers of the world religions emphasized the need to get away from this incessant and noisy philosophizing and thinking in order to become at one with the divine. We are to be as children...

I would say art is to do with re-presentation ... it's the communication of abstract concepts.

I think it runs far deeper than that- art and music and dance. It's the union of soul and body, of spirit and matter. I can only speak for myself and some other artists I know- creating art isn't about the concepts, but about the spirit. I am expressing what I see beyond the surface- it is my expression of mystical insight. Perhaps for some it is about concepts and for others about spirituality? I find communicating through art and music is akin to communicating through telepathy and empathy- it is a more direct route to communication, unburdened by word and the categorization process of our thoughts. I find it interesting that when I communicate with animals, I generally receive sensations and visuals. We can communicate in this way with each other, but we have to become quiet enough to "hear" it.

There are some who suggest the explosion of art across the world coincides with the infusion of spirit into the soul that elevated the creature from a mode of being, to something conscious of itself as a mode of being...

Of course, there is no evidence in the record. But this seems appropriate spiritually. Although apes seem to have this to some degree as well- they are self-aware and paint with intention, although we may not find it fine art.

I think animal ethics are pragmatic. Basic human ethics are the same, but they can also be above that idealist, and above that religious.

I think animal ethics are more than pragmatic. Otherwise, the many instances of interspecies assistance and altruism would not be explicable. However, I do think for the most part animals just are and do, and people are thinking about what we are and do. I don't necessarily think that is a good thing. People tend to explain away their basic impulses to do good, to love, to embrace, to be what is most beautiful about humanity. I think the rest of nature tends to embrace pragmatism in a way that fufills the ideal. For example, it is pragmatic to be sustainable, but it also fulfills the ideal of being kind to other beings, to respecting God's gift of creation, etc. Generally, what is ultimately pragmatic (in the sense of a long-term planning horizon) is also the ideal. We cloud our thinking with selfishness and short-term planning horizons (the two are linked) and this derails both pragmatic ethics and ideal action.

As for what is religious, I think it is clear in social science that religion was generally an additional social layering of sanctions and rewards on ethics that are pragmatic and ideal. That is, religious ethics (outside of ritual rules) are generally nothing new or different, but a new way of saying something that people should do for the continuity of society anyway. It is really impossible to distinguish what benefits society (stability, low violence, altruism) from religious ideals (the 10 commandments).

What is interesting and more complicated are the elaborate and seemingly arbitrary rules in religion... Most seem to be about creating solidarity and distinction on the surface, but I put forth that ritual rules have ties to greater, more cosmic consequences. I just don't think there is only one way to accomplish this.

I think that is everything.

I think it is everything in terms of what makes us distinctive. I think it doesn't matter much spiritually unless and until we can, as God does, merge creativity with love. So long as we fail to fully embrace what we truly are, we fail to fully realize the Kingdom of God among us. We create to our own destruction, and we ignore our true purpose in Nature.

The recognition alone is a start, and if we fail, it's because we measure ourselves against transcendental values. The next thing to learn is we cannot do it alone.

We fail because, for the most part, we act in self-centered ways. It isn't about how we measure it. We fall short measuring by Nature's standard as well. How many species are as brutal, as cruel, as cunning in their violence and greed, as humanity? We need only look to Nature to see that ethics is not all about fluffy lovey-goodness, but also that there is something horribly amiss with much of humanity. We are out of step with the rest of what is- out of harmony.

Transcendental values? Heck, we don't even measure up against natural values. My dogs and horses take care of each other better than many human parents give love to their own children.

Of course we can't do it alone, but then, neither does any creature. It is a matter of openness- of knowing one's place and sacrificing self for that deeper Self that is in harmony with all that is. Other creatures of Nature seem naturally open to this, as do most children. We train ourselves out of it- teach ourselves to pull away from God and our innate ability to have insight into what is the best path and to rely on society and laws/rules, which are always limited.

I have never seen in the natural world any evidence of the philosophy of love, or the reflection and consideration of its meaning. I see evidence of love, but not of the love of love.

That's interesting. I profoundly sense the love of love when I am in communication with Nature. I profoundly sense the culmination of the natural world in life, creation, and love.

But I put forth I see it as relatively irrelevant. If humans philosophized less, and actually loved more, we'd be better off. It is the love itself that is God, in my opinion, not the thinking about the love.

But that is the difference, angels are spirit, and are 'purer' because they see with insight, whereas humans are spirit and matter, so 'more' than angels in that regard. In this world, that's everything.

This is interesting. What of humans that see with insight? Or do we just categorize humans as being incapable, without any evidence?

I guess at the end of the day, what I see in this is a lot of complexity without any tie to observable or even experiential reality. If I have experienced humans who have insight, or conversely, if we accept the legends (in the Bible) that some angelic beings have taken on incarnate forms... then where is the boundary between human and angel?

Wisdom is connected to insight ... I would suggest a nature spirit does not possess the insight of an angel, nor of a human being.

They have their own type of insight, from what I've sensed. Actually, it seems that all individual beings have their own insights.

Human overlays.

As is hierarchy.

Relationships are hierarchical. Hierarchies are all about relationships.

No, they are not necessarily. Hierarchy demands higher and lower. That does not need to mean inferior and superior, but yes, higher and lower. Relationships may be equal- that is, horizontal rather than vertical. Hierarchies are necessarily vertical, and this is not the only way to have a relationship.

I suggest you're putting a negative cultural value on the term. I think hierarchies are wonderful, but woefully abused.

Actually, hierarchies are just how some things work and not how other things work. I don't see them as the only way things work, more due to observation of reality than wishful thinking.

The body is composed of cells, all the same ... but they get together and say, "I'll be a kidney" and "I'll be a toe" and "I'll be a heart" ... without hierarchy, you'd nevver have a human being, or a horse, or a fly, or a crystal, or a flower ... just gloop. But you don't get them saying, "No! I wanna be the heart, the heart's the best bit!"

Here, though, it is not a hierarchy, but a bunch of parts that work in an emergent system. Hierarchy implies higher and lower. To some extent, this works in the body (i.e., you need your heart and brain more) but in others, it doesn't (you need both your heart and brain equally). The various parts of the body communicate and interact without a clear order of "who" is in charge- you would think the brain, but that would be an incomplete story on anatomy and physiology...

Even more so we see this in ecology... The natural world is messy. Ordered, but not easily categorized.

That's speculation, surely? I would suggest hierarchy is implicit in any 'order' and that 'natural leadership' emerges naturally. The better hunters would lead, etc.

No, not speculation. Evidence is in modern hunter-gatherer groups and early ethnography. Yes, under some situations, some natural leadership emerges, but it is non-binding and this person is not any higher than the others. Their capacity to lead is based on their being able to obtain consensus among members, which is not hierarchical.

Oh, absolutely, but in Christianity it is the imago Dei ... the miss that modernity makes it the compass points not to me (as Adam and Eve tried, and as modernity would have it) but to God.

Thomas

I agree- the compass points to God.