SimpleGuy wrote:Life is just a breath , if ends your life is over. So simply close your eyes and feel to the inside during your breathing and listen to own sound. If you begin to understand without explanation, the first step for you is taken.
What I get from such exercises is a sense that we are as rooted to the atmosphere as plants are rooted to the ground. We exist in this effective Flatland on the surface of our world, protected by the thin layer of atmosphere through which we swim like fish, and are just as dependent.
I had an equally simple thought yesterday while watching one of those fun documentaries about the dangers of space - neutron stars, gamma ray bursts, etc. What got me thinking was the depiction of the early solar system as essentially a shooting gallery. Basically, the universe started with the ultimate violence and the processes of star formation, supernovae, and the endless collisions have continued ever since. However, over time it has quieted, become less violent. Looking at the human project, we have long hoped to find safety and relief from violence and suffering, and the best answer we have for it is morality. Love, friendship, respect, mercy, kindness, understanding, goodwill, humour, calmness.
The shift towards ever greater calm and peace (accepting that progress is seldom smooth) is the great project of life as far as I can tell thus far.
Thanks Greta for mentioning me. I was just pointing out, that a certain metaphysical value, without understand "could" exist, by practising some kind of meditation. Flatland depends on your geometry and the amount of alcoholic beverages beeing consumed. With a non euclidean normalization, which is then an affine normalization this could look different.
-- Updated November 20th, 2017, 4:14 am to add the following --
Spectrum wrote:I believe all things adapt to changes [no agency] within whatever the constraints. Whatever the resultant is due to this adaptation.
However humans with self-conscious and a higher rational brain has evolved [inferred by observations] with a continuous 'improvement' module*, i.e. in general humans will strive to improve upon its existing state in relation to those aspects of life which are changeable.
* note the continual improvements in average, the level knowledge, technology, health, wealth, etc. over the last 1,000 years of human existence.
In spite of humans' 'improvement modules', they are not evolving. And this is because evolving is one thing, and trying to
evolve is quite another.
In spite of all the improvements in technology, health, wealth, etc, man is not evolving. He's fundamentally the same being
that he's been since the Stone Age. In fact, if anything he's slightly devolved - he's become weaker, more dependent, more out-of-tune with nature, and never has its existence been on such a precarious footing as today....
The problem is , even if they would evolve , in which way could they evolve. Once ever postulated a contradictory constraint everything could be tautological. The biggest nonsense then seems reasonable. This may sound queer, but some extremely old cultures, like the antique aztecs, would have sacrificed each other in rituals for those reasons. A simple evolution due to constraint may not be successfull, until one imposes constraints on the constraints.
-- Updated November 20th, 2017, 4:29 am to add the following --
For example the aztecs were once famous for having football games to the honour of the winged snake god quetzal xoatl. The competitors came out of every tribe and it was a big honor to compete for the representative of the gods (their emperor). Once one team had lost it should get cannibalized by the whores and the staff of the palace. The winner of those contest was then beheaded for honour as a sacrifice to the winged snake god. Once one realizes that this is one of the famous constraints , who would think that anything reasonable was somehow possible? Although the aztecs had talent in math and arciteqture , one should realize to evolve after constraints could not imply any direction for sense.
-- Updated November 20th, 2017, 6:56 am to add the following --
For the human species, these times were in the approximate 40.000 years of existence by far more present than any humanistic thinking. The problem is, that technology doesn't mean necessary that we evolve in a humanistic sense. Just think about the soylent green film of charlton heston, where technology is used in a inhumane way to feed the population.
-- Updated November 20th, 2017, 7:05 am to add the following --
Despite the previously made remark , the aztecs thought about their society as a highly evolved one compared to the surrounding tribes of mesoamerica due to the fact that they didn't use cannibalism for food supply but for religious reasons.
-- Updated November 20th, 2017, 7:36 am to add the following --
If you don't count primeveal behaviour which is stubborn and primitive to the reason of life you should reformulate your question. What's the reason to live in a cultivated technological society?