Nature abhors a vacuum. Apparently in a space with all particles removed there would still be spacetime. Yet I am dubious. Logically if there are no particles how can there be distance and time? Or in other words how can there be the "potential" for movement without there being anything to move? It seems to me that spacetime would be created around every particle rather than have some independent existence? There ends my naive and limited foray into physics...
except for this. What happens if a ball of ions is spun very fast and some charge imbalance occurs at random? This creates an imbalance in the magnetic field which might reinforce the charge imbalance to create a big potential difference... as long as it is spinning. When it slows down then the potential difference is released and kaboom.
So a vortex is created in the air alongside a lightening bolt. Ionised air is trapped in the vortex and hey preso. Such an unusally charged object may indeed behave statically like the ball lightening observed.
Maths aint good enough to explore this... maybe have a go one day
Thursday, 30 July 2009
Tuesday, 28 July 2009
Darwin and Dawkins
Just had a discussion which brings out an old and seemingly facetious point which has rather more depth to it than I once thought.
If Darwin is correct then spreading our species is the "goal" of life. If Dawkins is correct then it is our genes which are playing this game.
But in either it leads to having lots of well looked after children - as they are the vehicles of "our" genes.
Some might argue that not having any children ourselves but supporting "althruistic" individuals to make sure that "alturistic" genes do well is the same thing. But then a cheat who cleverly pretends to be alturistic will get the support that was due the "real" genes and so do rather better than they should. An equilibrium will be set up between the two variants etc etc. Dawkin's Green Beard hypothesis etc etc.
However in Dawkin's case (unlike Darwins) it is hard to see how he has actually achieved in siring or helping his own gene pool?
Even Hugh Heffner (who became the discussion) hasn't had an inordinate number of children. Many of the most "successful" Alpha males in the society actually have very few children and it is hard to see how they support "their" genes in the wider population either.
Though thinking this out - maybe selecting for "business" orientated individual from a "general" breeding stock and then giving them high salaries and status effectively selects for the "business" genes and makes them do better in the next generation. Not that they have more children, but that any such genes that occur in the population get supported. Need to think through properly some day...
If Darwin is correct then spreading our species is the "goal" of life. If Dawkins is correct then it is our genes which are playing this game.
But in either it leads to having lots of well looked after children - as they are the vehicles of "our" genes.
Some might argue that not having any children ourselves but supporting "althruistic" individuals to make sure that "alturistic" genes do well is the same thing. But then a cheat who cleverly pretends to be alturistic will get the support that was due the "real" genes and so do rather better than they should. An equilibrium will be set up between the two variants etc etc. Dawkin's Green Beard hypothesis etc etc.
However in Dawkin's case (unlike Darwins) it is hard to see how he has actually achieved in siring or helping his own gene pool?
Even Hugh Heffner (who became the discussion) hasn't had an inordinate number of children. Many of the most "successful" Alpha males in the society actually have very few children and it is hard to see how they support "their" genes in the wider population either.
Though thinking this out - maybe selecting for "business" orientated individual from a "general" breeding stock and then giving them high salaries and status effectively selects for the "business" genes and makes them do better in the next generation. Not that they have more children, but that any such genes that occur in the population get supported. Need to think through properly some day...
Games and Toys
Wittgenstein was more of a genious than I realised. His idea of language games is really fruitful indeed. Its been explored a lot in this blog, the idea that most of what we do is part of miriad games. Games being systems of rules like football which organise how we approach things and each other and provide meaning. Games par excellence however include things like business, economics and politics which provide all the elements of simple success/failure scoring and mediate the complex interaction of players.
Realised also the importants of Toys. One of the characteristics of consumerism is the attitude brought to things of "toys". I realised this weekend looking at the middle classes on holiday in the New Forest the diversity of toys. Cars of every description, clothing of likewise, bikes, caravans, car attachments, trailers etc So many things which are actually irrelevant to visiting the New Forest. They are simply toys - a child wanting the new action man or computer game is no different from someone getting a new car.
It is becoming very apparent the depth of the games and toys that surround us and which essentially dissipate our energies in nothing productive. A business who builds a huge business empire has done well within the game, but like the player of monopoly when the game ends where is he? What will he do with the pile of paper that no longer has any use? What is the big end to our games? That is death. When death comes all the game playing stops and we are left with Reality and whatever we have done in Reality. Whatever we have done in the games is immediately NULL and void.
Am realising this regarding housing. Exploring still the use of a garage as a home but more now the use of camping/sleeping rough. It is actually no different from the garage which is actually no different from being in a flat. When we are asleep we do not know where we sleep, anymore than when we are at work we are sitting at "home". To say we "live" in a house is a rather odd thing to say when we are at work! We "live" wherever we happen to be. What it has come to mean has become confused with the game of property. I "live" in a house is very close to I rent/own a house. And this means that the law will respect certain actions by me in that space in favour of other people. But the "law" is another game which is also highly linked with the social structure. If a high ranking person wants our house then there are ways that they can get it. The idea of a "social contract" I realised recently is ideal but bourgeoise - most of the people supposedly having made this contract wouldn't understand it anyway. It is bourgeoise legalistic language for a social structure that is imposed and nurtured through violence, exlusion and games. That no-one is above the law is a nice idea, but when a group of people have a joint interest that is "sufficiantly" big then that becomes the law. While no-one is technically above the law, people with the support of the "sufficiently large" group can act beyond the law. The Iraq war being an excellent example. The misuse of tax payers funds in the banking crisis another. The law exists only to determine when people act within and without the law - it is not binding or potent in any way.
Given all that it is mazing how people will spend a good deal of their lives attending to this game of "house". Everything from paying mortgages to refurbishment and chosing wall paper colours etc. Yet like all games, step outside the context and it is NULL.
This may sound negative - it is not in anyway a criticism but a clarification of the boundaries of LIFE. The big question is how we approach this all important issue of the NULL, and what is beyond. Atheism to end is the most naive approach as NULL is the real issue behind theism as anyone who has ever seriously questioned what G-d is will have discovered again and again!
Realised also the importants of Toys. One of the characteristics of consumerism is the attitude brought to things of "toys". I realised this weekend looking at the middle classes on holiday in the New Forest the diversity of toys. Cars of every description, clothing of likewise, bikes, caravans, car attachments, trailers etc So many things which are actually irrelevant to visiting the New Forest. They are simply toys - a child wanting the new action man or computer game is no different from someone getting a new car.
It is becoming very apparent the depth of the games and toys that surround us and which essentially dissipate our energies in nothing productive. A business who builds a huge business empire has done well within the game, but like the player of monopoly when the game ends where is he? What will he do with the pile of paper that no longer has any use? What is the big end to our games? That is death. When death comes all the game playing stops and we are left with Reality and whatever we have done in Reality. Whatever we have done in the games is immediately NULL and void.
Am realising this regarding housing. Exploring still the use of a garage as a home but more now the use of camping/sleeping rough. It is actually no different from the garage which is actually no different from being in a flat. When we are asleep we do not know where we sleep, anymore than when we are at work we are sitting at "home". To say we "live" in a house is a rather odd thing to say when we are at work! We "live" wherever we happen to be. What it has come to mean has become confused with the game of property. I "live" in a house is very close to I rent/own a house. And this means that the law will respect certain actions by me in that space in favour of other people. But the "law" is another game which is also highly linked with the social structure. If a high ranking person wants our house then there are ways that they can get it. The idea of a "social contract" I realised recently is ideal but bourgeoise - most of the people supposedly having made this contract wouldn't understand it anyway. It is bourgeoise legalistic language for a social structure that is imposed and nurtured through violence, exlusion and games. That no-one is above the law is a nice idea, but when a group of people have a joint interest that is "sufficiantly" big then that becomes the law. While no-one is technically above the law, people with the support of the "sufficiently large" group can act beyond the law. The Iraq war being an excellent example. The misuse of tax payers funds in the banking crisis another. The law exists only to determine when people act within and without the law - it is not binding or potent in any way.
Given all that it is mazing how people will spend a good deal of their lives attending to this game of "house". Everything from paying mortgages to refurbishment and chosing wall paper colours etc. Yet like all games, step outside the context and it is NULL.
This may sound negative - it is not in anyway a criticism but a clarification of the boundaries of LIFE. The big question is how we approach this all important issue of the NULL, and what is beyond. Atheism to end is the most naive approach as NULL is the real issue behind theism as anyone who has ever seriously questioned what G-d is will have discovered again and again!
Status & Work
Nothing new here but it has become very clear to me now the nature of this state of existence.
Social structure is a very huge force in our lives. People adhere, reinforce and think in terms of social structure instinctively. What is odd however is that it is never formally expressed. How often does a "boss" say "Do this because I am boss?". Normally when a boss is wrong they realise that the company will benefit if they "manage" a correct solution. But in reality social structure is the reality and the boss of sufficient social standing will lose nothing even if the maintain a wrong course! Suprising given the popular rhetoric about democracy and free markets etc etc.
Where I get stuck is that my view point is more practical. A job exists because something needs to be done. If you can do the job and you do a good job at a good price then you are the right person for the job.
Such a view leads in the n-degree to the question what will there be to do when everything has been done? Questions raised in the sci-fi realm when robots and machines do all our work.
The direction of the huge thread in this blog has been to realise that while supply/demand drives the creation of "work", labour is mediated by social structure. Once social structure was aligned with "class" but now it is aligned with capital (which are essentially the same, except the capital 'class' now is devoid of 'class' in the sense of aryan manners and gentlemanly behaviour).
If work dried up the world would be faced with a huge problem, namely how to reinforce the social structure. How can people be in charge, rule or be superior to others if there is no labour structure? It was once done by a class system. What will exist in the post economic world (when the jobs have all been replaced by machines) to reinforce social inequality?
Social structure is a very huge force in our lives. People adhere, reinforce and think in terms of social structure instinctively. What is odd however is that it is never formally expressed. How often does a "boss" say "Do this because I am boss?". Normally when a boss is wrong they realise that the company will benefit if they "manage" a correct solution. But in reality social structure is the reality and the boss of sufficient social standing will lose nothing even if the maintain a wrong course! Suprising given the popular rhetoric about democracy and free markets etc etc.
Where I get stuck is that my view point is more practical. A job exists because something needs to be done. If you can do the job and you do a good job at a good price then you are the right person for the job.
Such a view leads in the n-degree to the question what will there be to do when everything has been done? Questions raised in the sci-fi realm when robots and machines do all our work.
The direction of the huge thread in this blog has been to realise that while supply/demand drives the creation of "work", labour is mediated by social structure. Once social structure was aligned with "class" but now it is aligned with capital (which are essentially the same, except the capital 'class' now is devoid of 'class' in the sense of aryan manners and gentlemanly behaviour).
If work dried up the world would be faced with a huge problem, namely how to reinforce the social structure. How can people be in charge, rule or be superior to others if there is no labour structure? It was once done by a class system. What will exist in the post economic world (when the jobs have all been replaced by machines) to reinforce social inequality?
Sunday, 19 July 2009
What is NULL?
Just saw this in an explanation of NULL in a computer reference:
A variable is said to be null when its value is invalid or doesn't bear any significant or recognizable value.
Isn't that the same as saying "out of context". When something is without context or out of context then it is NULL. Take a fish and set it out of water and it becomes NULL.
Links with the old observation that meaning derives from context.
A variable is said to be null when its value is invalid or doesn't bear any significant or recognizable value.
Isn't that the same as saying "out of context". When something is without context or out of context then it is NULL. Take a fish and set it out of water and it becomes NULL.
Links with the old observation that meaning derives from context.
Thursday, 16 July 2009
To litter or not to Litter? - meditations on Lydney
Just returned from holiday to Wales. Arriving in Lydney last Wednesday it was a real pleasure to step immediately into beautiful woodland but the local clearly didn't appreciate it as forest and waterways were piled high in burger boxes and other takeaway rubbish. How odd I thought that they should litter their own doorsteps. Then I realised that for us who had travelled the 130 from London the forest at the back of their garden was their doorstep, but for them in Lydney - - who evidently didn't travel far - their garden was their doorstep but the forest was removed and far away. I imagined immediately an alien arriving at Earth and seeing us littering our "doorstep" with utter carelessness!
There is a lot in this. My first take was seeing the downside of the concept of "property". That which people feel to be "theirs" they take care of - which is good. But the implication present in this "care" is that things which are "not theirs" they do not take care of. It is a short sighted and two faced concept of "care". Yet I (coming from London) should not have cared about Lydney or its people at all by this measure.
Evidently the appreciation of Nature transcends petty property boundaries as does an appreciation of people. But a trap is set because the person who appreciates Nature may come to own that appreciation and form a new type of property (as I have done in the past). An offence against Nature is perceives as an attack against them. This is another myopic type of "care" because hatred is then extended to those over the fence who do not appreciate Nature. Those who litter Lydney are not enemies of those who appreciate Nature at all.
Adding to this I realise that even travelling to Lydney is an act of ego. I have begun to realise that I can travel hundreds of miles in the UK and find new species of insect and plant ... and then returning home I find them in Berkshire or Kent. Going on holiday gives us the belief that things are "new". It hightens our senses and causes us to look at things again. But I realised in Paris (and noted in this blog) what the tourist calls "new" is really "everyday" to the people who live there. What causes the tourist to look again at Paris is nothing about Paris but simply a hightened state of mind causes by the act of travel. A Parisien can look at Paris with new eyes just as easily if they want. As my sister once said, the purpose of travel is to return home and see it as home. Or, I'll rephrase, the purpose of travel is to enable us to be have a strangers eyes upon our own home. The wildlife of Berkshire is every bit as amazing as that of the Forest of Dean (outside Lydney). Before criticising the people of Lydney for overlooking the natural paradise outside their gardens maybe I should look at my own life on Reading.
Later in the week in Hay-on-Wye, in a bookshop, I found an excellent quote from Heraclitus: Dogs bark at those they do not recognize (fragment XVI). Ignorning the official understanding I understand it to mean that people who have not yet travelled beyond themselves (experienced ecstasy) take great care of themselves but leave litter in the world around themselves. They also make a great noise about that which is "new" [to them] and forget that which is "old" [to them]. The world is so divided according to their own perspective. Yet we know that the Truth (or Logos, Dao, Dharma, Dhamma) is the same for all people so it follows that our opinions and personal experiences and whims are not truth. The foolish - as Heraclitus calls us - are fixated upon the world according to only ourselves.
The problem with all this littering and not littering is that each of us is fixated upon looking through our own perspective. Some will say that we have no choice as we are stuck within individual bodies and individual eyes and literally have different perspectives. Yet SRH! to say such a thing is already to have access to a universal truth which applies equally to all people. This is the first statement of LOGOS which is beyond mortal conception.
During the holiday this Dogs bark at those they do not recognize developed into a more settled conception of dialectics and the Logos. All things are empty because they are nothing until they are split by the mind into oppositions. It rained a lot on holiday. Those who have always been wet however never seek dryness and so they never realise they are wet. Those who have always been dry know nothing of wetness and never realise they are dry. It is only I who are wet and now seek dryness who is wet. And if I see the clouds amassing I anticipate the rain and feel my dryness more acutely than ever. Existence is created in tension between opposites. This is exactly why "My Muse" has been so long lived because somehow I understood this a long time ago and created a "real" "girl" by holding our sexuality so close but never releasing the tension. Male and Female are opposites each experiencing the other through the tension.
It matters not whether you like being dry or like being wet - the point here is that they are exist in relation to one another and when they are not held side by side for comparison they fade away and eventually cease to exist. How can one desire dryness or wetness when one doesn't even know that one is wet or dry!
The foolish mind like the dog is always raised to barks by the arrival of the Other - the arrival of wetness to show up our own dryness. This is the trivial life of the mortal who is brought to realise his own Life too late when Death comes knocking to scatter and make litter of him.
There is a lot in this. My first take was seeing the downside of the concept of "property". That which people feel to be "theirs" they take care of - which is good. But the implication present in this "care" is that things which are "not theirs" they do not take care of. It is a short sighted and two faced concept of "care". Yet I (coming from London) should not have cared about Lydney or its people at all by this measure.
Evidently the appreciation of Nature transcends petty property boundaries as does an appreciation of people. But a trap is set because the person who appreciates Nature may come to own that appreciation and form a new type of property (as I have done in the past). An offence against Nature is perceives as an attack against them. This is another myopic type of "care" because hatred is then extended to those over the fence who do not appreciate Nature. Those who litter Lydney are not enemies of those who appreciate Nature at all.
Adding to this I realise that even travelling to Lydney is an act of ego. I have begun to realise that I can travel hundreds of miles in the UK and find new species of insect and plant ... and then returning home I find them in Berkshire or Kent. Going on holiday gives us the belief that things are "new". It hightens our senses and causes us to look at things again. But I realised in Paris (and noted in this blog) what the tourist calls "new" is really "everyday" to the people who live there. What causes the tourist to look again at Paris is nothing about Paris but simply a hightened state of mind causes by the act of travel. A Parisien can look at Paris with new eyes just as easily if they want. As my sister once said, the purpose of travel is to return home and see it as home. Or, I'll rephrase, the purpose of travel is to enable us to be have a strangers eyes upon our own home. The wildlife of Berkshire is every bit as amazing as that of the Forest of Dean (outside Lydney). Before criticising the people of Lydney for overlooking the natural paradise outside their gardens maybe I should look at my own life on Reading.
Later in the week in Hay-on-Wye, in a bookshop, I found an excellent quote from Heraclitus: Dogs bark at those they do not recognize (fragment XVI). Ignorning the official understanding I understand it to mean that people who have not yet travelled beyond themselves (experienced ecstasy) take great care of themselves but leave litter in the world around themselves. They also make a great noise about that which is "new" [to them] and forget that which is "old" [to them]. The world is so divided according to their own perspective. Yet we know that the Truth (or Logos, Dao, Dharma, Dhamma) is the same for all people so it follows that our opinions and personal experiences and whims are not truth. The foolish - as Heraclitus calls us - are fixated upon the world according to only ourselves.
The problem with all this littering and not littering is that each of us is fixated upon looking through our own perspective. Some will say that we have no choice as we are stuck within individual bodies and individual eyes and literally have different perspectives. Yet SRH! to say such a thing is already to have access to a universal truth which applies equally to all people. This is the first statement of LOGOS which is beyond mortal conception.
During the holiday this Dogs bark at those they do not recognize developed into a more settled conception of dialectics and the Logos. All things are empty because they are nothing until they are split by the mind into oppositions. It rained a lot on holiday. Those who have always been wet however never seek dryness and so they never realise they are wet. Those who have always been dry know nothing of wetness and never realise they are dry. It is only I who are wet and now seek dryness who is wet. And if I see the clouds amassing I anticipate the rain and feel my dryness more acutely than ever. Existence is created in tension between opposites. This is exactly why "My Muse" has been so long lived because somehow I understood this a long time ago and created a "real" "girl" by holding our sexuality so close but never releasing the tension. Male and Female are opposites each experiencing the other through the tension.
It matters not whether you like being dry or like being wet - the point here is that they are exist in relation to one another and when they are not held side by side for comparison they fade away and eventually cease to exist. How can one desire dryness or wetness when one doesn't even know that one is wet or dry!
The foolish mind like the dog is always raised to barks by the arrival of the Other - the arrival of wetness to show up our own dryness. This is the trivial life of the mortal who is brought to realise his own Life too late when Death comes knocking to scatter and make litter of him.
Monday, 6 July 2009
The way of peace?
This weekend past I had a wonderful juxtaposition of a trip to a monastery to watch an ordination ceremony and the following day lunch with a very nice girl. I never made the trip to the monastery and the lunch didn't go very well. But its got me back on one of my favourite subjects : arretez versus allez.
I suspect that what a girl is looking for requires some effort on the behalf of the male. You simply can't get a girl as you naturally are. You need some type of "gift" be that a job, car, money etc. Given that the self is "empty" this is not a very great goal for a woman.
Now this presents me with a challenge because I am committed to being myself. I refuse out of principle to "become" someone. It always seems to me that women, bosses, parents etc are trying to mould us into something that we are not. Yes we are actors, yes we can act but it is not true and it is a jacket that we take off at the end of the working day. But I don't want to pretend I'm only interested in being.
So I'm beginning to see that actually it will be impossible for me to get a girl or a job or anything because I refuse to play the game. I'm only interested in just being.
So my thought now and why I turned to writing this blog was the realisation that the very sense that it is impossible makes me want to do it. I want to prove that I can get the girl simply to find out what it is about. I've had the girl before by accident - but never won her. So what I realise now is that things become valuable simply because we can't get them. The mythology says that we have something to learn. A closed door must be overcome and defeated and through this we will be better people. But is this really true? Do we need to overcome every closed door? We know that in realist there is nothing behind the door. Many people have no difficulty getting the girl and it makes little difference to their life - so why should it make a difference to mine? It is simply the fact that it is a hindrance and a challenge to me. Is that it!
Is it actually a wise thing to do to turn away from a closed door and find another way that is not closed? The American model of beating our opponents and overcoming our hindrances simply ego and empty pointless conquest.
Is this the wisdom... to simply just walk away from that which we fail at and leave it undone.
I can think of a thousand positive thinking gurus disagreeing with me saying that I should grow and prove myself - but maybe they are all wrong.
The way of peace is just to walk away... for that is all we will do after the door is bust open! So after a brief foray into allez (I can't remember when this started) I'm going back to arretez to calm the flames and search for peace once again.
I suspect that what a girl is looking for requires some effort on the behalf of the male. You simply can't get a girl as you naturally are. You need some type of "gift" be that a job, car, money etc. Given that the self is "empty" this is not a very great goal for a woman.
Now this presents me with a challenge because I am committed to being myself. I refuse out of principle to "become" someone. It always seems to me that women, bosses, parents etc are trying to mould us into something that we are not. Yes we are actors, yes we can act but it is not true and it is a jacket that we take off at the end of the working day. But I don't want to pretend I'm only interested in being.
So I'm beginning to see that actually it will be impossible for me to get a girl or a job or anything because I refuse to play the game. I'm only interested in just being.
So my thought now and why I turned to writing this blog was the realisation that the very sense that it is impossible makes me want to do it. I want to prove that I can get the girl simply to find out what it is about. I've had the girl before by accident - but never won her. So what I realise now is that things become valuable simply because we can't get them. The mythology says that we have something to learn. A closed door must be overcome and defeated and through this we will be better people. But is this really true? Do we need to overcome every closed door? We know that in realist there is nothing behind the door. Many people have no difficulty getting the girl and it makes little difference to their life - so why should it make a difference to mine? It is simply the fact that it is a hindrance and a challenge to me. Is that it!
Is it actually a wise thing to do to turn away from a closed door and find another way that is not closed? The American model of beating our opponents and overcoming our hindrances simply ego and empty pointless conquest.
Is this the wisdom... to simply just walk away from that which we fail at and leave it undone.
I can think of a thousand positive thinking gurus disagreeing with me saying that I should grow and prove myself - but maybe they are all wrong.
The way of peace is just to walk away... for that is all we will do after the door is bust open! So after a brief foray into allez (I can't remember when this started) I'm going back to arretez to calm the flames and search for peace once again.
Doctors only treat the symptoms...
Doctors only treat the symptoms of the fundamental incurable sickness which is the impermanence of the body.
Doctors exist because whether healthy or not, our body is a ticking bomb waiting to explode itself as indeed are all things. What is will always become what is not.
This puts the endeavours of the medical industry in the proper perspective - treatments not cures. Which opens the door to the cure which is what religions describe.
This is in response to a friend saying that her father as a doctor considered that he knew suffering better than the priests of the Catholic tradition. Thinking about this gave me this realisation.
Doctors exist because whether healthy or not, our body is a ticking bomb waiting to explode itself as indeed are all things. What is will always become what is not.
This puts the endeavours of the medical industry in the proper perspective - treatments not cures. Which opens the door to the cure which is what religions describe.
This is in response to a friend saying that her father as a doctor considered that he knew suffering better than the priests of the Catholic tradition. Thinking about this gave me this realisation.
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
On Emptiness
So we grasp emptiness...
I'm wondering whether this means that we understand that actually there is nothing to grasp and that our lives were created without meaning and will end without meaning and everything that we will ever be is at root neither to be celebrated nor ignored because it never was anything anyway.
The true Greats of History and Mankind are thus the people who die as they were born realising that in reality nothing actually happened in between!
If this is true this makes sense of my own rejection of all progress and achievement and my own desire to see the lack of goal and purpose in everything.
Of course back to Earth everything has direction, meaning and purpose - but only within our own contexts and conditions. Everything is alive in the now, but from the standpoint of eternity it is only fleeting and temporary. (Sounding a bit Kantian?)
I'm wondering whether this means that we understand that actually there is nothing to grasp and that our lives were created without meaning and will end without meaning and everything that we will ever be is at root neither to be celebrated nor ignored because it never was anything anyway.
The true Greats of History and Mankind are thus the people who die as they were born realising that in reality nothing actually happened in between!
If this is true this makes sense of my own rejection of all progress and achievement and my own desire to see the lack of goal and purpose in everything.
Of course back to Earth everything has direction, meaning and purpose - but only within our own contexts and conditions. Everything is alive in the now, but from the standpoint of eternity it is only fleeting and temporary. (Sounding a bit Kantian?)
Evolutionists error
Watching CH4's "Inside Nature's Giants" I noticed a blatant error in the picture of evolution being expounded. Its also the same error that perfuses through the whole of GCSE Biology. It is the error of essentialism...
That is to say that "species" are given an actual status. People then say things like "elephants are adapted to their environment by having big ears". One wonders what happens if an elephant adapts to living in water... is it still an elephant?
It is not that elephants are adapted to living in these conditions but that the animals that have this genetic history and are adapted to this environment are called elephants. Form, History and Environment are One in an organism.
So we can't accurately say that "elephants" are adapted to their "environment"! "Adaptation" is a very subtle concept that seem to suffer this crude misuse all the time even by the biggest proponents of evolution like Richard Dawkins!
That is to say that "species" are given an actual status. People then say things like "elephants are adapted to their environment by having big ears". One wonders what happens if an elephant adapts to living in water... is it still an elephant?
It is not that elephants are adapted to living in these conditions but that the animals that have this genetic history and are adapted to this environment are called elephants. Form, History and Environment are One in an organism.
So we can't accurately say that "elephants" are adapted to their "environment"! "Adaptation" is a very subtle concept that seem to suffer this crude misuse all the time even by the biggest proponents of evolution like Richard Dawkins!
Recession linked to reduced pollution...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/25/carbon-emissions
By implication then economic growth is linked to increasing pollution... what a suprise! Can't have both!
By implication then economic growth is linked to increasing pollution... what a suprise! Can't have both!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
The classic antimony is between : (1) action that is chosen freely and (2) action that comes about through physical causation. To date no ...
-
Well that was quite interesting ChatGPT can't really "think" of anything to detract from the argument that Jews have no clai...
-
There are few people in England I meet these days who do not think we are being ruled by an non-democratic elite. The question is just who t...
