End of the World

… and it seems patience while holding on to tensions is the most significant challenge.

Just read this article … Ron articulates the above comment …
[b]

[/b]

I know that religious passivity in waiting for some fictional eternal heaven after death does nothing in changing or altering the world now in our present. People in power love the religious passive meek because they easily rollover on command in prayer.

Turning the other cheek and begging like slaves in passivity the perverse religious form of apathy, inaction, or indifference it is no wonder why those in power make sure there is a church on every street corner.

The world cries out for revolution but the religious fold their arms in passive inaction looking towards the sky pronouncing that God will one day return saving them where there is no reason to do anything whatsoever. I know this has always been a slavish mentality I could never embrace.

ZS … you’re a real charmer … at least for those who understand your posts. :slight_smile:

ZS and Ierrellus

Just heard and later read another saying from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas … number 113.

Seems to dovetail nicely with ZS’s post here as well as some thoughts I shared in another OP today:

[b]

[/b]

thoughts expressed in another OP

[b]

[/b]

What is attributed to the historical Jesus may or may not be true … the fact that “something” was in the air 2,000 years ago and this same “something” remains in the air today is undeniably true.

Of course … ZS will say this “something” is known to all as pollution. :smiley:

  1. Do you consider two or more different realms (for example the physical as the first realm, the chemical as the second realm, the biological as the third realm … and so on)?
    1a) If yes: Are this realms like the Leibnizian monads?
    1b) If not: Does “genetic determinism” really produce “all organisms”, as you said, or is the genetic determinism itself also (just like all organisms are) a product of the physico-chemical nature?

To me, genetics is something between the chemical realm and the biological realm.

[tab]

[/tab]

On genetic evolution. Barring interference, DNA is predestined to form a certain type of organism. Stem cells are destined to form organs and organisms. The question of how does DNA “know” what to do is answered in that it does what it is It is a self replicating chemical compound that becomes organic growth and development. It constructs from itself. The fuel an organism needs for growth and development are the chemicals found in its own body. I don’t know how this fits Leibnizian philosophy. For me there is only one realm, which is chemical, and all other states of organic development are extensions of chemical activity. Organic and inorganic are two interdependent sides of a single phenomenon.

So, if I have translated your text rightly, then you have answered my question 1) with “no”, so that 1b) remains: Does “genetic determinism” really produce “all organisms”, as you said, or is the genetic determinism itself also (just like all organisms are) a product of the physico-chemical nature? Your statement that “organic and inorganic are two interdependent sides of a single phenomenon” does not sufficiently answer that question, because interdepedence is not causation, and I was asking for the causation (a producer [cause] produces a product [effect]).

This is an intriguing derivation. There seems an inverse cause and effect between the development from inorganic to organic stayes.

Let me illustrate the complexity of this.

The tree is an organic substance . the tree dies and devolves into the ground becoming crystal.

Now, the inductive causitive of any derivational process involves the mind, which strictly speaking is some kind of absolute end point of development of structural change from elemental microorganism where the incentive change from molecular to a genetic material can only be inferred by the same mind, differentially and through inductive not deductive logic.

Does not nature anticipate the program by this reverse process ? The change into a crystal has this intrinsic character, whereas sub atomic particles can not be shown to have intelligence except by quantum analysis of random probable behavior which occurs in the two slit experiments on photons.

The irony of nature’s wisdom may become a hypothetical example.

How does monadology fit into this process? The monads represent closure within various systems built on the assumption which Saint James introduced by his forum on numerical analysis, vis. does .999999999999=1.00. Liebnitz maintains the identity, as if, such super imposition is a necessary functional anti-derivative, which then he had to maintain on faith. Saint James seems to imply, if I understand him correctly the idea that such faith in absolite closure is not necessary but contingent. I think I agree with his analysis.

The idea of absolute closure may not be necessary to retain faith, and there is no exclusive binary identifiable source to argue other than differentially, not integrally.

The outcome of this argument may correspond to certain mystics’ opinion, that crystals possess consciousness as well.

For prophesy believers.

The prophet Isaiah predicted the end of the world as commencing with the building of the third temple at Jerusalem. With all the other predictions having come through of the creation of the new European union, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the impending course of predicted events and their outcome is no longer merely a matter of contension.
The facts are beginning to show much more.

I wonder how much of the “body of thought” attributed to Leibniz stems from his study of the book “I-Ching”.

Presumably the influence was negative given the book’s atheistic source. :slight_smile:

It’s simply unthinkable that a ‘body of thought’ emerging from the minds of savages could be in any way superior to the intellect of the “Children of the Light” … Children of God" … simply unthinkable. :smiley:

Arminius,
If organic and inorganic matter are part of a cycle it becomes difficult to suggest which comes first or does one cause the other. It is probable, if the 1950s experiment to produce life is accurate, that life began on Earth with the coming of an atmosphere that could sustain it. The 50s experiment, in which chemicals supposed to comprise Earth’s early atmosphere were brought together, produced amino acids. What is important to me is how these chemicals “know” what to become. If their activities were simply automatic. i.e., it is what is does, this makes a reasonable case for the Anthropic Principle.

Irrellus, ill take up the slack here, not with standing , just to add a formal ingredient into this mix.

The question of knowledge may not only suggest an equally nebulous concept of consciousness, but entropy, decay may be the progenitors of the minutest elements of what such concepts may become from a potential formative basis.

Consciousness and knowledge too, may be understood in continual conjunctive relation, but as such they may be overlapping processes , where the more overlap the more signification.

There is no insignificant knowledge , and that is why we are calling conscious knowing a qualification to it. But that may imply that automatic action reaction type inorganic behavior we-differentiate, the difference between the built in automatic and willful .

In fact there is no contradiction , only a narrowly defined band in a spectrum of larger bands, if the analogy is appropriate.

In this scheme there is no difference between a thing defined by what it does , or one that is what it is by virtue of how it does it, and more likely is the evolution of attributing increasing inner causation to previous outer ones.

When this last frontier between inner and outer melts away, then the picture becomes clearer.

If evolution is goal oriented, decay and entropy may amount to necessary shedding of no longer necessary parts of a given program. Of course this assumes a lot. It assumes that there is a goal that extends beyond the facts of individual organisms or a larger teleology than that which determines the growth and development of individual organisms, which puts us in the realm of the religions that claim there can be eternal life.
It seems that we humans are constructed to adapt to certain environments and that there is no inner need that is without an outer source of supply. I think about this condition when I contemplate God. We were made to survive. Something out there wants us to.

I often think to myself humanity is destined to destroy itself and there is nothing that is going to stop this even a fictional contrived God won’t. ^^^

But a real God might intervene.

The world would be better off without science??
Without science we would still be living in caves, struggling to survive like wild animals…
I agree that religion has caused many problems.

Homo sapiens will become extinct sooner or later.
Even if we collonise other space-masses, life as we know it will become impossible with the heat-death of the universe…

Why would it if such a thing we’re real? So far we have 2800+years of absence and non-intervention to match from this entity you believe exists.

It’s a bit pointless to speculate about the end if you are unaware of the cause of continuance.

The only thing equally delusional or destructive to religion is the belief in scientific progress and innovation. In my mind we were better off as primitive animalistic savages living off the ignorant bliss and bounty of nature.

Yes, our extinction is an inevitability and no matter of prayer, self determination, or science is going to change any of that. This is the realization that most refuse to accept, the natural inevitability of total annihilation to everything.

???