Continuing with the conversation
The problem with the idea that god keeps human from doing worse, is that it is not well thought out.
Because if you think this idea through, you will see that the thought places the agency of change in an external factor.
When Darwin placed that agency in something external that was not god, it got us all riled up.
The machinery of god, created by man, worked overtime,
and even worked against Darwin, though Darwin was just observing things and he had not set out to pitch himself against this machinery.
The only way change comes is through evolution, and of course it happens all the time, but if you want to concretise change, you are completely failing to see the workings of evolution in daily life.
When you fail to do that, you start grappling for answers and want to have a role to play, in this change that is happening.
So you fall back again on the idea of god.
It is true that we also sometimes want a concrete change in things, but those have to be curtailed to political issues alone.
The reason I feel this is, the only change a group of humans in the same lifetime can concretely create is a change in their politics. Because politics is the manipulation of the human mind, and that is the only thing a human can manipulate without doing anything but living it out.
Take a close look at Darwin's theory and you will see that the species have evolved over lifetimes. You may argue that technology and the other things, even pollution, are so powerful that they have hoodwinked evolution, but that argument is incorrect.
Yes, if you really do, then I believe you are looking at it from the Anthropocene.
Disembark from the Anthropocene, because you cannot view evolution with any constraints, and that is why your argument becomes incorrect.
Look outside.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not a Science person, just because of the above conversation. If anything, please categorise me as a highly political person, because I view Science, with a desire to understand its politics.
For instance: Elon Musk: I know what he is doing is masked in the garb of science, but if you ask me, he is wasting good money, and money is something the rich should be a little more liberal about sharing. You are yet to compensate for slavery, to begin with.
You want to reestablish this order on another planet? Running away, are we?
What I am trying -- almost suffocating for the want of having -- to say, is that kindly focus on the world around you, there may not be a thing called justice in this utopia of yours, but there is a thing called justice, in a man's world. To hell with your courts of justice, which you created to have us believe, you want justice too! Anarchy surely is your monster under the bed.
I see that Mr Musk is the kind who thinks we must have nothing to do with anarchy. I must live in the present and project my own version of the future, he feels. And hence, he is somebody, who does not believe in the theory of evolution, and rather is a believer of the god concept.
How bloody convenient.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because if you think this idea through, you will see that the thought places the agency of change in an external factor.
When Darwin placed that agency in something external that was not god, it got us all riled up.
The machinery of god, created by man, worked overtime,
and even worked against Darwin, though Darwin was just observing things and he had not set out to pitch himself against this machinery.
The only way change comes is through evolution, and of course it happens all the time, but if you want to concretise change, you are completely failing to see the workings of evolution in daily life.
When you fail to do that, you start grappling for answers and want to have a role to play, in this change that is happening.
So you fall back again on the idea of god.
It is true that we also sometimes want a concrete change in things, but those have to be curtailed to political issues alone.
The reason I feel this is, the only change a group of humans in the same lifetime can concretely create is a change in their politics. Because politics is the manipulation of the human mind, and that is the only thing a human can manipulate without doing anything but living it out.
Take a close look at Darwin's theory and you will see that the species have evolved over lifetimes. You may argue that technology and the other things, even pollution, are so powerful that they have hoodwinked evolution, but that argument is incorrect.
Yes, if you really do, then I believe you are looking at it from the Anthropocene.
Disembark from the Anthropocene, because you cannot view evolution with any constraints, and that is why your argument becomes incorrect.
Look outside.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not a Science person, just because of the above conversation. If anything, please categorise me as a highly political person, because I view Science, with a desire to understand its politics.
For instance: Elon Musk: I know what he is doing is masked in the garb of science, but if you ask me, he is wasting good money, and money is something the rich should be a little more liberal about sharing. You are yet to compensate for slavery, to begin with.
You want to reestablish this order on another planet? Running away, are we?
What I am trying -- almost suffocating for the want of having -- to say, is that kindly focus on the world around you, there may not be a thing called justice in this utopia of yours, but there is a thing called justice, in a man's world. To hell with your courts of justice, which you created to have us believe, you want justice too! Anarchy surely is your monster under the bed.
I see that Mr Musk is the kind who thinks we must have nothing to do with anarchy. I must live in the present and project my own version of the future, he feels. And hence, he is somebody, who does not believe in the theory of evolution, and rather is a believer of the god concept.
How bloody convenient.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted by seena at 11:38 PM
0 comments
