Showing posts with label Simple facts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Simple facts. Show all posts
Evolution, - one other point
I have written two posts about evolution but I have not related to this one point: - Obviously there are two lines of plants and animals. - Animals could not have appeared simultaneously with plants because they can not feed off minerals like plants but need plants (or other animals) to feed on. - So the two lines as I said couldn't have appeared together. That is to say at first only plants appeared. Then what? - Could have animals developed off plants? As it seems - obviously not.
- So should we assume some time after plants have already been present again an altogether different line appeared independently? - Neither one of the possibilities appears to be acceptable. Why has this not been mentioned earlier? Perhaps it has.
One other point, - quite clearly, - man too is a different line from the animals. It is not so easy to prove this to contemporary so called “scientists” so mentioning it does not seem to be so useful, - but still I believe off those who arrive at my blog relatively many will understand this point too.
So far.
- So should we assume some time after plants have already been present again an altogether different line appeared independently? - Neither one of the possibilities appears to be acceptable. Why has this not been mentioned earlier? Perhaps it has.
One other point, - quite clearly, - man too is a different line from the animals. It is not so easy to prove this to contemporary so called “scientists” so mentioning it does not seem to be so useful, - but still I believe off those who arrive at my blog relatively many will understand this point too.
So far.
Common sense II
There is this post I have written some time ago. - I did not relate to the point then (there) but there is also a very significant point which - as it seems, - follows what is pointed out there.
(Do note, - as for the post itself, - there is there another point added in the comments section strengthening the idea referred to there)
- If you accept what is said or brought up there - in the post linked - that is, - it means life on Earth did not develop as most assume. - Obviously it had to appear somehow. - If you reject the common explanation following the attitude appearing there it would obviously mean you are supposed to come up, - generally, - with some idea of how things came to be, - some other idea.
- If the theory of natural selection is viewed or seen as almost (- generally speaking practically not just almost) void, useless, stupid, - unrealistic, - than it would naturally follow that all living things on Earth have appeared some other way, - plants, animals, humans. - How?
- As it seems in the absence of this theory we are unable to find another reasoning making sense which would replace the existing idea most of humanity follows at present. - Other than if we accept the idea of higher spheres responsible for the development and appearance of existing species here on our planet. This has a more significant value even! - I mean the very acceptance of the fundamental idea of higher - occult, - spheres and beings - an idea most intellectuals today would not even find worthy of [generally] relating to. If you follow common sense it practically leads you to the conclusion. Not easy to accept, for so many accustomed to see things otherwise. But if a majority will accept others will too, - easy to see. - And if the scientific establishment will admit its mistake (quite a ridiculous actually, - viewed retroactively) than it will be corrected, - though as you can see [in the post] it doesn’t really take academic education or great proficiency in order to be able to tell, - just free thinking and an unbiased mind.
(- Written - 8.1.2021 -)
(Do note, - as for the post itself, - there is there another point added in the comments section strengthening the idea referred to there)
- If you accept what is said or brought up there - in the post linked - that is, - it means life on Earth did not develop as most assume. - Obviously it had to appear somehow. - If you reject the common explanation following the attitude appearing there it would obviously mean you are supposed to come up, - generally, - with some idea of how things came to be, - some other idea.
- If the theory of natural selection is viewed or seen as almost (- generally speaking practically not just almost) void, useless, stupid, - unrealistic, - than it would naturally follow that all living things on Earth have appeared some other way, - plants, animals, humans. - How?
- As it seems in the absence of this theory we are unable to find another reasoning making sense which would replace the existing idea most of humanity follows at present. - Other than if we accept the idea of higher spheres responsible for the development and appearance of existing species here on our planet. This has a more significant value even! - I mean the very acceptance of the fundamental idea of higher - occult, - spheres and beings - an idea most intellectuals today would not even find worthy of [generally] relating to. If you follow common sense it practically leads you to the conclusion. Not easy to accept, for so many accustomed to see things otherwise. But if a majority will accept others will too, - easy to see. - And if the scientific establishment will admit its mistake (quite a ridiculous actually, - viewed retroactively) than it will be corrected, - though as you can see [in the post] it doesn’t really take academic education or great proficiency in order to be able to tell, - just free thinking and an unbiased mind.
(- Written - 8.1.2021 -)
Common sense
Simple logic can sometimes supply the answer to questions aimed totally elsewhere. There is the famous story about Master Tokusan, - who was not yet a master, - and the old woman selling rice cakes. - Tokusan was asked which mind he wants to refresh. (“Refresh”, of course, is an English translation, - but never mind that) Kalo says he should have said he wants to refresh the hungry mind, but then Kalo changes the story in his translation referring to “unreal” mind rather than to one that can not be grasped. However, - putting that aside, - well of course Tokusan wanted to “refresh” the future mind. He wanted to eat the mochi (“rice cakes”) in the future, how could it be otherwise? So without any understanding of “Zen” or Buddhism, and without any knowledge of the Diamond Sutra, - just a bit of common sense, - would have been enough.
So far.
So far.
- the Language barrier, - minor point -
קיימת שגיאה נפוצה שישראלים דוברי עברית מחמיצים לעיתים קרובות ולמעלה מכך.
בשימוש בשפה האנגלית במלה "Bible" הכוונה אינה לתנ"ך, כפי שהנזכרים מורגלים להניח ולחשב, - כי אם לתנ"ך ולברית החדשה, יחדיו זאת אומרת. - בשימוש בעולם דובר האנגלית הנוצרי כאשר הכוונה לתנ"ך בלבד יֵאֲמֶר "Jewish Bible". נכון שכאשר מדובר בחוגים יהודיים בינם לבין עצמם ישתמשו במלה Bible לציון התנ"ך בלבד, אבל כאשר נשמעת המלה בד"כ בציבור או בתקשורת שלא מפי יהודים דווקא, וידוע כי מרבית האוכלוסיה במערב אינה דווקא יהודית כמובן, אז הכוונה כמובן מאליו לספר הכולל גם את ספרי-הברית-החדשה. משמעות לדבר בעקר כאשר נשמעים דברים מפי גורמים שאינם נוצרים דווקא כי אם מכיוון דתות המזרח, הינדים או בודהיסטים, - שאז מדמה לעצמו המאזין העברי שהמדובר הוא בתנ"ך או - מכאן, - ביהדות, כאשר הכוונה היא כאמור לַסֶפֶר הכולל יותר. בפרט לאור העובדה שהדמות המרכזית בספר הכולל הינה ישוע הנוצרי, החשוב מאשר משה, אברהם, או אליהו הנביא, והספר החשוב מבין ספריו הוא הבשורה ע"פ יוחנן, ולא ספר מספרי התנ"ך. קרי מרכז הכבד של הספר הכולל אינו בתנ"ך דווקא, והטעות הנזכרת אינה שולית כי אם משמעותית, ככל שחשיבות לדברים ככלל.
A Remark Regarding Egoism and Selfishness
Some people, as it seems, think selfishness and egoism are just two words for the same thing. I have not questioned but it seems this is the situation. What is supposed to be scientific research of the relevant fields is quite a joke, I am quite happy I am getting a chance to mention, - so I wouldn’t assume any relevant understanding might dawn there. Whether I am right or wrong as for my estimation in the first sentence here, - these are not just mere synonyms describing the same phenomenon itself but are referring to different, even if close, - phenomena.
Selfishness could exist at the absence of egoism, egoism could not exist at the absence of selfishness. In animals, where due to inabilities compared to humans what we call an “ego” could not come to be or be formed, egoism could of course not be traced or appear in the same way we find it in humans. - More simply said, - animals do not have an ego. Referring to something Steiner somewhere said, an animal could not say “I” to itself. - It could not view itself in this way, - obviously it does not have this ability, which we might say is the main thing differing animals from us, - not other points quite reknownly referred to randomly and repeatedly, - and therefore the element in our mind (we aim at undermining the root of on the spiritual path) subsequently rising as what we might imagine ourselves to be, - does not and would not appear in the form we know it ordinarily in the mind and consciousness of almost us all, and as I said animals therefore do not have this “ego” construction in their mental field, of course it could not appear without self consciousness.
This is all of course while those being lower than man could not at all, as a matter of principle, (and it doesn’t matter what exceptions one might or might not think of) exceed beyond the sphere of fundamental selfishness within which they are locked for life. Here may be the place to also remark that there is a fundamental difference between natural tendencies inherited and merely representing a choice of uncontrollable inclinations induced through the body and between true spirituality or the result of actual development representing some real revelation (even if not necessarily clearly evident) regarding the nature of selfishness and consideration. Some might argue that it is all the same and we are nothing more than fundamentally-the-same more advanced animals and that the idea of spirituality is in the first place some primitive thought humanity is better to rid itself of - and the sooner the better. I will not answer this or refer to it here but I might mention this post here you might check. - Anyway no one will argue that animals are not unable - fundamentally at least, - to go beyond selfishness. This is evident to all. - And what this post was trying to refer to is just the difference between the words (and subsequently of course the concepts) “selfishness” and “egoism”. The missing of the differentiation is a mistake, and to this small point I wanted to refer here.
Only at the existence of selfishness could the inner sphere within our mind representing one’s own interests and preferences come to be in the way it subsequently creates the more focused phenomenon you call egoism. (assuming you do) These things have to be seen. There is doubtly much point in just presenting words one is to intellectually refer to in an abstract manner. You have to see it for your self, and it doesn’t seem particularly difficult. You have to see what one phenomenon is and what the other phenomenon is. Otherwise this is to a great deal worthless. But still if some will see and others will following accept it is not devoid of value.
Anyway, this is not any great point, - this distinction is important, but only to some degree. I thought this post would come out much shorter, - but when writing it is sometimes, not necessarily rarely, - different. So far.
December 3, 2017. Will be posted when it does.
Selfishness could exist at the absence of egoism, egoism could not exist at the absence of selfishness. In animals, where due to inabilities compared to humans what we call an “ego” could not come to be or be formed, egoism could of course not be traced or appear in the same way we find it in humans. - More simply said, - animals do not have an ego. Referring to something Steiner somewhere said, an animal could not say “I” to itself. - It could not view itself in this way, - obviously it does not have this ability, which we might say is the main thing differing animals from us, - not other points quite reknownly referred to randomly and repeatedly, - and therefore the element in our mind (we aim at undermining the root of on the spiritual path) subsequently rising as what we might imagine ourselves to be, - does not and would not appear in the form we know it ordinarily in the mind and consciousness of almost us all, and as I said animals therefore do not have this “ego” construction in their mental field, of course it could not appear without self consciousness.
This is all of course while those being lower than man could not at all, as a matter of principle, (and it doesn’t matter what exceptions one might or might not think of) exceed beyond the sphere of fundamental selfishness within which they are locked for life. Here may be the place to also remark that there is a fundamental difference between natural tendencies inherited and merely representing a choice of uncontrollable inclinations induced through the body and between true spirituality or the result of actual development representing some real revelation (even if not necessarily clearly evident) regarding the nature of selfishness and consideration. Some might argue that it is all the same and we are nothing more than fundamentally-the-same more advanced animals and that the idea of spirituality is in the first place some primitive thought humanity is better to rid itself of - and the sooner the better. I will not answer this or refer to it here but I might mention this post here you might check. - Anyway no one will argue that animals are not unable - fundamentally at least, - to go beyond selfishness. This is evident to all. - And what this post was trying to refer to is just the difference between the words (and subsequently of course the concepts) “selfishness” and “egoism”. The missing of the differentiation is a mistake, and to this small point I wanted to refer here.
Only at the existence of selfishness could the inner sphere within our mind representing one’s own interests and preferences come to be in the way it subsequently creates the more focused phenomenon you call egoism. (assuming you do) These things have to be seen. There is doubtly much point in just presenting words one is to intellectually refer to in an abstract manner. You have to see it for your self, and it doesn’t seem particularly difficult. You have to see what one phenomenon is and what the other phenomenon is. Otherwise this is to a great deal worthless. But still if some will see and others will following accept it is not devoid of value.
Anyway, this is not any great point, - this distinction is important, but only to some degree. I thought this post would come out much shorter, - but when writing it is sometimes, not necessarily rarely, - different. So far.
December 3, 2017. Will be posted when it does.
Kalo’s Observation
Kalo says in one of his books (somewhere around 1988-1990) that bent teeth, teeth that are not strait, are an outcome of a faulted emotional-mental state or situation. - He somewhere mocks at the “bravery” of dentists aiming to redeem the situation by physical means. The reason I am writing this is that many, if not everyone, - can observe things and examine the question by themselves.
I have noticed examples of this more than once, and I generally might guess there might be some sort of correlation between the particular faults in one’s emotional structure (Kalo uses the word “array”, - in Hebrew of course) and the particular way in which the teeth grow not in the way or direction they should. - I never tried to particularly fit anything regarding and it doesn’t seem easy. - Still, the main thing is the main point: - The very existence of the principle. I cannot see any chance contemporary (so called) “science” would be able to come up with the way or mechanism by which this occurs. - For anyone sufficiently serious in the field of spirit it is - as it seems - inevitably clear that these “sciences” aiming at investigating the human soul, - while denying its existence, - are practically a joke. It is amazing the trust they receive from many, from a lot of people, from the majority of humanity I guess. - Anyway we could hope for nothing there, - regarding our issue. - Again, - I am not concerned - here in this post, - with the issue of which particular bent in which direction and in what point or area would be the result of which particular irregularity or wrongness in a person’s emotional array or system. - I am concerned with the hope that by personal observation readers of these-words-here will come to verify personally the phenomenon I am relating to really exists.
- First you might see one person where the link might seem reasonable or evident. - Then another person. And then another. - You can not calculate this or try to create some organized system by which the phenomenon could be examined free of the particular abilities of the observer. - You need to see. Wisdom, today, is being neglected to a great deal. Many can not tell the difference between wisdom and intelligence. Amazing perhaps. - Certain elements or factors within contemporary society implement the demand for “objective” testing. - This means as to be accepted things need to be able to be checked by some sort of mechanical system where wisdom will not be in need. If one person is able to see it and another is not it is not objective. Fuck the fools, but this is the way the world is going. - Anyway, - again, - back to our issue: - I’m saying you might first notice the phenomenon, still very questionable, - somewhere, and then notice it again, and then again. With time, gradually, (in most cases, as it seems to me) you can come to notice the general link as a continuous and ever present thing proving its own existence - though not in a very loud voice, - through people you see everywhere in general. Of course the phenomenon would not lack apparent exceptions, and would not be equally evident everywhere. - Where the things would be lighter, less impressive, less considerable, - where the matter would be of distortions that are closer to the common way, - the principle would not be as evident or noticeable as when dealing with worse irregularities. - But there is no hurry. There is no rush. - In Japan, as I recall, - the weight of the higher classes weighs on poor guys in the lower classes, due to the hierarchy of society, - and you can see that sometimes in the way peoples teeth are bent. I recall that, but it has been over 20 years since I have last been to Japan. I don’t know if anything might have changed.
So far for that. The main thing is for you to see. There is no need to go anywhere. - It is just about what you see anyway. You don’t need to conduct an experiment. And not every particular person will inevitably be able to prove to himself (or herself) what I am saying. Though I guess most will, it seems quite easy. As I said, - this is what brought me to write this here, - had it not been convincing (in that way) I would not see a point in writing it. Once the phenomenon is noticed it would point somewhere further, - but that is beyond me here. Let things be. The truth has a quality or a nature of being revealed, as it seems, - though in these strange days we seem to manage to get thing wrong in ways apparently unpredictable. Let this be all.
I have noticed examples of this more than once, and I generally might guess there might be some sort of correlation between the particular faults in one’s emotional structure (Kalo uses the word “array”, - in Hebrew of course) and the particular way in which the teeth grow not in the way or direction they should. - I never tried to particularly fit anything regarding and it doesn’t seem easy. - Still, the main thing is the main point: - The very existence of the principle. I cannot see any chance contemporary (so called) “science” would be able to come up with the way or mechanism by which this occurs. - For anyone sufficiently serious in the field of spirit it is - as it seems - inevitably clear that these “sciences” aiming at investigating the human soul, - while denying its existence, - are practically a joke. It is amazing the trust they receive from many, from a lot of people, from the majority of humanity I guess. - Anyway we could hope for nothing there, - regarding our issue. - Again, - I am not concerned - here in this post, - with the issue of which particular bent in which direction and in what point or area would be the result of which particular irregularity or wrongness in a person’s emotional array or system. - I am concerned with the hope that by personal observation readers of these-words-here will come to verify personally the phenomenon I am relating to really exists.
- First you might see one person where the link might seem reasonable or evident. - Then another person. And then another. - You can not calculate this or try to create some organized system by which the phenomenon could be examined free of the particular abilities of the observer. - You need to see. Wisdom, today, is being neglected to a great deal. Many can not tell the difference between wisdom and intelligence. Amazing perhaps. - Certain elements or factors within contemporary society implement the demand for “objective” testing. - This means as to be accepted things need to be able to be checked by some sort of mechanical system where wisdom will not be in need. If one person is able to see it and another is not it is not objective. Fuck the fools, but this is the way the world is going. - Anyway, - again, - back to our issue: - I’m saying you might first notice the phenomenon, still very questionable, - somewhere, and then notice it again, and then again. With time, gradually, (in most cases, as it seems to me) you can come to notice the general link as a continuous and ever present thing proving its own existence - though not in a very loud voice, - through people you see everywhere in general. Of course the phenomenon would not lack apparent exceptions, and would not be equally evident everywhere. - Where the things would be lighter, less impressive, less considerable, - where the matter would be of distortions that are closer to the common way, - the principle would not be as evident or noticeable as when dealing with worse irregularities. - But there is no hurry. There is no rush. - In Japan, as I recall, - the weight of the higher classes weighs on poor guys in the lower classes, due to the hierarchy of society, - and you can see that sometimes in the way peoples teeth are bent. I recall that, but it has been over 20 years since I have last been to Japan. I don’t know if anything might have changed.
So far for that. The main thing is for you to see. There is no need to go anywhere. - It is just about what you see anyway. You don’t need to conduct an experiment. And not every particular person will inevitably be able to prove to himself (or herself) what I am saying. Though I guess most will, it seems quite easy. As I said, - this is what brought me to write this here, - had it not been convincing (in that way) I would not see a point in writing it. Once the phenomenon is noticed it would point somewhere further, - but that is beyond me here. Let things be. The truth has a quality or a nature of being revealed, as it seems, - though in these strange days we seem to manage to get thing wrong in ways apparently unpredictable. Let this be all.
+
Regarding the time, -
(I wrote this on December 28th, I thought of the idea the day before, - I’ll schedule the post)
Let this be a New Year post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)