_Z_
from far far away
if life were a person
what kind of person would it be?
this persona would have all the attributes that we see around us, every kind of good and every kind of ‘evil’!
it struck me whole considering this notion, that the people i have least liked in life are the most like how i see it, whereas the people i get on with best are those who are least like it - although we are all part of it.
some say that because life is both dark and light, then we should except these aspects within us, yet monotheistic and panentheistic religions move away from this and towards an unnatural yet more human worldview. in the general scheme of things there appears to be an ‘evolution pyramid’ whereby we are all evolving on every level - but to what?
is it then more advanced to be not like life, or should we be more natural? personally i think that if like were a person i wouldn’t like it or even want to know it. this leaves me in a dilemma; why do i consider myself as above everything we know, and why are we better than the world we are presented with?
...and i think we most definitely are better than life!
---------------------- ------------------------
a reply to anaganese forum - please read!
yes this is the curious thing, why do we even try to be anything other than ‘as nature intended’. on another level many people i know go on about going back to nature or understanding the duality thereof, but i think in this kind of ‘pagan’ perception there is a duplicity, and one can [in the extreme of the case] become a bit schizophrenic as a result.
as i said; all religions, political and philosophical changes to have been like an evolution pyramid. we can see this on a genetic level...
after 17 generations an individual can be linked to any historical person of that past era. it goes in steps, each successive generation belongs to a group which expands exponentially. we may see this as like two number pyramids, one where all the factors in the base converge into any given individual at the apex, the other is the inverse of this but to the entire base. in people terms then we may say that we are all [within the greater group e.g. Europe] related, with the individuals at the apex being generally composed of the base.
essentially, in real terms this means that all the factors of the simpler ancient genetic/societal/environmental tree, are converged into each specific variant of the modern tree. thus each of us are a complex of a multiplicity. here then we can see how humanity has become increasingly advanced and more complex, it makes sense then that the result will be betterment. well i suppose all that advancement could become less advanced ethically but that would be like saying more equals less!
there remains a general theme whereby advancement in technology etc. has filtered through to a more general advancement. we can see evidence of this in the continuing idea of less advanced peoples being referred to as barbarians by successively advanced civilisations - Greek then roman etc.
what kind of person would it be?
this persona would have all the attributes that we see around us, every kind of good and every kind of ‘evil’!
it struck me whole considering this notion, that the people i have least liked in life are the most like how i see it, whereas the people i get on with best are those who are least like it - although we are all part of it.
some say that because life is both dark and light, then we should except these aspects within us, yet monotheistic and panentheistic religions move away from this and towards an unnatural yet more human worldview. in the general scheme of things there appears to be an ‘evolution pyramid’ whereby we are all evolving on every level - but to what?
is it then more advanced to be not like life, or should we be more natural? personally i think that if like were a person i wouldn’t like it or even want to know it. this leaves me in a dilemma; why do i consider myself as above everything we know, and why are we better than the world we are presented with?
...and i think we most definitely are better than life!
---------------------- ------------------------
a reply to anaganese forum - please read!
yes this is the curious thing, why do we even try to be anything other than ‘as nature intended’. on another level many people i know go on about going back to nature or understanding the duality thereof, but i think in this kind of ‘pagan’ perception there is a duplicity, and one can [in the extreme of the case] become a bit schizophrenic as a result.
as i said; all religions, political and philosophical changes to have been like an evolution pyramid. we can see this on a genetic level...
after 17 generations an individual can be linked to any historical person of that past era. it goes in steps, each successive generation belongs to a group which expands exponentially. we may see this as like two number pyramids, one where all the factors in the base converge into any given individual at the apex, the other is the inverse of this but to the entire base. in people terms then we may say that we are all [within the greater group e.g. Europe] related, with the individuals at the apex being generally composed of the base.
essentially, in real terms this means that all the factors of the simpler ancient genetic/societal/environmental tree, are converged into each specific variant of the modern tree. thus each of us are a complex of a multiplicity. here then we can see how humanity has become increasingly advanced and more complex, it makes sense then that the result will be betterment. well i suppose all that advancement could become less advanced ethically but that would be like saying more equals less!
there remains a general theme whereby advancement in technology etc. has filtered through to a more general advancement. we can see evidence of this in the continuing idea of less advanced peoples being referred to as barbarians by successively advanced civilisations - Greek then roman etc.
