Re: virus: More tangents on religion, etc. (prev. Demon Thread)
ken sartor (sartor@lanl.gov)
Mon, 29 Apr 1996 09:24:03 -0500
At 12:04 PM 4/27/96 -0400, Reed Konsler wrote:
>On Sat Apr 27, 6:14am Marc Connolly quoted BECOME WHAT YOU ARE (by Alan Watts):
>"Is it too impossible to admit that
>all our well-laid traps for happiness are just so many ways of kidding
>ourselves that by meditation,psychoanalysis,Dianetics,raja yoga,Zen
>Buddism, or mental science , we are somehow going to save ourselves
>from that final plop into nothing?"
>
>*****
>
>Hmmm,
>
>I guess I find this sort of thinking...distasteful. I say that to begin with
>because everything that follows is kind of an expression of my gut feeling that
>saying "things are the way they are" is a cop out.
>
>What is conciousness for, if not to change the environment?
>Meaning = Effect.
>
>Perhaps it is futile to save ourselves from "the final plop" but I would argue
>that evolution requires a dynamic equilibrium, a "pressure". If one does not
>strive for SOMETHING then stagnation is the result, and stagnant systems become
>less stable and less compeditive. I will entertian the idea that science may
>not be the best way to apply this required selection manifold, but to apply
>none at all is folly.
>
>Homo Sapiens are so phenomenally successful at surviving that many selection
>presures on us have been removed. If evolution is to continue; if we are to
>build more complex, adaptable, and better "fit" systems of culture we cannot
>accept the world "as it is". We must strive to change it, even ephemerally,
>temporarily...within the context of art and science.
>
I am unsure that homo sapiens are even successful at surviving.
How long did the dinosaurs live before their collective demise?
Heck, for survival prospects as a species, sharks are way up there...
but, homo sapiens? Correct me if i am wrong, but don't we have to
wait about 100 million years to decide still?
BTW - there is a book that i am particularly fond of called "The
unbearable lightness of being". One reason i like it so much is
the philosophy that it expresses (or at least what i came away with).
Essentially, it says that to optimize a decision make it, live your
life to see how it turns out, go back, make the other decisions and
see which one works out best. There is no other way. In other words
we all muddle through life making decisions with far too little
information and pretend that we know what we are doing...
I don't know if or where the above fits in... just thought i would
throw it into the mix...
__&__
/ \
| |
| (o)(o)
C ,---_)
| |,___|
| \__/
/_____\
/_____/ \
"Murphy was .......................................................
an optimist"
Homer's law.