I think I know what you’re saying and I suppose you have a point but, looking at it purely from the point of view of a Homo Sapien, I still find it conjures up some bizarre scenarios. Take comedy: I mean, lizards just aren’t that funny. And acting: Lets face it, lizards don’t have a very large repertoire of facial expressions, how are you supposed to know if they’re happy or sad or trying to give someone a sexy look? How would they manage the kissing scenes when they don’t even have lips. I’m not saying there couldn’t be an advanced lizard society somewhere in the Universe but I’m afraid I don’t find the thought very appealing.
Steeped in anthropomorphism, it is difficult for us to imagine DNA on another planet evolving into something other than humans. It may amount to sheer hubris to believe we humans are the crown of all possible creations.
If creation is hubris (anything which exists means the result of hubris), is the peak of creation something therefore which is incapable of hubris - so anything which means consciousness means the ability of hubris?
Homo sapiens commit hubris, indeed, but surely any life form possessing the same ability of awareness can commit hubris as well, and so as long as awareness is reality, hubris is eternally relative.
Deductive reasoning sequence: awareness is potential of hubris, and no awareness is no potential. But no awareness is no ability to act, or to value, so value and action are dependent on ability of hubris (or vice). Is it therefore error if perfection can involve value and action, yet be anti-vice in any form?
In your mind, what constitutes as perfection?
Well I do have to confess a certain amount of pride in not resembling a lizard, regardless of the fact that the photo on my driving licence may undermine that belief to some extent.
Creation has nothing to do with hubris. There is normal pride; and there is excessive pride (hubris). Look up the word before you assert that some amount of “hubris” is necessary for a creative act. It’s a negative term!!! Perfection? I wouldn’t know it if I saw it.
Why does everyone here act as if movies and t.v. shows over the last part of century 20 showing “aliens” who were not human in appearance did not expand the idea of what DNA evolution could possibly produce?
And no, Harbal. You don’t resemble a lizard. 
Creation has nothing to do with hubris. There is normal pride; and there is excessive pride (hubris). Look up the word before you assert that some amount of “hubris” is necessary for a creative act. It’s a negative term!!! Perfection? I wouldn’t know it if I saw it.
[/quote]
Can you verify the absence of link between creation and vice, or hubris? If a lecturer speaking at any university to students about the negativity of hubris needs lots of hubris elsewhere (mansions, nations, social media, instagram, career titles etc), is that wrong?
hubris–Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance-- The Am Heritage Dictionary. Hubris has more to do with narcissism than with any human incentive to do or make (Create).
But doesn’t making something require presumption. If a Hollywood director requires years and years of presumption, requiring billions of people to continue to be divided from one another, referring to one another as migrants, or as squatters or as strikers, or as terrorists, and never as trees and planets, isn’t that an error? The movie can as much as anything else be thought of as the meaning of life, and it requires division and violence, and hubris.
Presumption is not hubris. It’s guess work. Only the motives of individual producers can be open to scrutiny.
So, if a movie takes a decade to make it’s all about hubris and exploitation of the unfortunate? Where do you get such nonsense?
Presumption is not hubris. It’s guess work. Only the motives of individual producers can be open to scrutiny.
So, if a movie takes a decade to make it’s all about hubris and exploitation of the unfortunate? Where do you get such nonsense?
[/quote]
Yes. Because movies can be the reason of existence it’s fair to give them the identity of exploiting others. But to revert back to the point about creation in general: can it be confirmed, that awareness as a creation is able to never be dependent on hubris?
Yes. Because movies can be the reason of existence it’s fair to give them the identity of exploiting others. But to revert back to the point about creation in general: can it be confirmed, that awareness as a creation is able to never be dependent on hubris?
[/quote]
Yes!
Yes!
[/quote]
By what exact means?
In the creative act hubris denies one of being humble enough to accept constructive criticism. Only God is perfect or pure enough to create without pride, and can certainly not be accused of creating through arrogance.
Should the universe (nature) “just appear”?
If yes: Why?
If no: Why?
Should there be “a creator”?
If yes: Why?
If no: Why?
Is God subject to criticism? What is the perfect creation? As far as I can see, the RNC that recently took place is able to exist after anything in reality, and that’s full of hubris (and bigotry and hate) - is the perfect creation therefore that which is free of depending on the ability of the RNC?
Maybe perfection means reflection (all people who worked for Emperor Nero being my private correspondence on Facebook with Jessica Brown Findlay - or presumably her), but then reflection requires division, so even reflection must not apply to perfection.
I don’t believe the universe just appeared, but accept the fallacy of cause and effect. I believe that a creator simultaneously needs awareness and no awareness.
You accept something you believe to be a fallacy?
You don’t like to make things easy for yourself, do you?
Truth is balance. The universe being created simply means the question of what caused the creator of the universe.
As with most of the stuff you write, I don’t have a clue what you’re trying to say.