The idea that humans are the purpose and pinnacle of life on earth is called anthropocentrism. It's a very narrow and arrogant worldview with incredibly harmful consequences.
Sure thing, but I said that existence is the expression of infinity, it tries to reach its maximum [kinda like yoga]. That doesn’t put humans at the top as it doesn’t say they are the highest expression. Anthropocentrism suggests that humans are more important [central], where I am simply saying we are part of the expression which animals etc are too. In fact if you add the whole of nature [universe] together then the whole expression is massively greater than the human element of it! This is what I call the ‘universalists’ take on it.
Why centre on anything, why not decentralise on everything?
The meaning of ‘evolution’ can change and has done, I am simply thinking of it in context to the entire reality map I.e. ceugant > universe > earth > life.
If we go by the term….
Quick definitions (evolve)
verb: undergo development.
verb: work out.
verb: gain through experience.
I don’t see why I cannot use its meaning in the context of change in and of the universal expression?
Species can change even if they don't "need" to (evolution by selection) through influences like genetic drift and mutation. Genetic equilibrium (also called Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium), where a population's genotypic and allele frequency remains identical to that of their ancestors, is a theoretical state that does not exist in nature.
Yes but you still get similars, crocs are very similar to ancient crocs etc. …we could say the archetype doesn’t change, life emulates it as well as it can.
But this is thinking within the box of anthropocentrism, the root cause of the ecological nightmare(s) we're facing right now on this planet.
Capitalism is the root cause I’d say, but I agree with your point, though it is not enough to say humans aren’t more advanced generally as that is simply not true. I think my universalist take on it suffices for all parties [or else I have it wrong].
Again this is purely anthropocentric thinking. I apologize in advance for the extensive quote, but it addresses several of the questions you've raised above much better than I can:
Only if we don’t see the bigger picture, humans may not be the most advanced form, but they are on this planet ~ though as I say the whole of nature is a greater expression still esp, if there are more advanced species out there, or indeed if there are more advanced realms of eternity out there! The gods are more advanced than us, and each species type has an universal archetype [usually deified in pagan religions], so as a druid I would not wish to upset or insult them as that would be an insult to divinity itself. Obviously such archetypes are approximations, ultimately just as there is something that is and can be time, space and energy, then with ceugant we are actually looking at something that is indescribable due to its shapelessness, hence the archetypes are within the expression and not the ultimate reality.
Bacteria can do all sorts of things we can't do, like eat rock. They kill humans by the tens of thousands every year and we have been their food for tens of millions of years before we were even capable of detecting their presence. They adapt to nearly all environments, including boiling water. And there are no such things as more advanced and less advanced forms of life.
I take your point, but it is ridiculous to suggest germs are as advanced as humans, how would you define advancement
? I would think of it in terms of; most universally dextrous, can do more things, can think [at all] more, can express more, can perceive more, can invent more, can understand its environment more [does a germ understand a computer] etc.
Now tell me what you think advancement means!!!
In other words it's an emotional or psychological crutch? I'm sorry, but I don't believe that the truth of something is measured by how much comfort it brings us to believe in it.
I agree, but I said; “if there is a purpose or something being learned”, the materialistic view gives neither of these. It may be true that reality is the expression of infinity [ceugant], we don’t know, but it is absurd to say we can explain everything with the materialistic view, hence the use of the term ‘if’ in what I said. Funny how materialists are always calling people like me arrogant lols
I don't find the world to be mechanistic at all. What, in fact, could be more a more classic textbook example of the Cartesian mechanistic view of the world than your idea of bodies as mere vehicles for the more important ethereal "drivers" within them who "advance" along the track exchanging vehicles as they go?
Materialism is mechanistic unless you add ‘mind’ to the equation, it is purely physical. I don’t know if it bodies or just ceugant as the driver, equally if we take the Egyptian view [which I rather like] then the body is also a spirit form, I don’t see it as dualistic [like the Cartesian view] ~ that is until the body dies.
Quite simply, I believe that there is no point in presuming the existence of beings for which I see no evidence and very limited utility.
Well yes it is very difficult to see spirit being in any way effectual or having any utility if you see the mind as physical. The only difference is that I flip the whole thing on its head and see mind as primary and the material as secondary, though I don’t see that as a duality as they are both ultimately made of the same thing [ceugant].
The problem as I see it is when for some people the search stops being about the great indescribable wonders of life, the universe and our own inner worlds and instead becomes all about "me me me" and spiritual self-aggrandizement.
So we are not even allowed to be gods now
, funny how christian-like thought slips into materialistic philosophy, is there any reason in materialism why we shouldn’t think ourselves as grand or great, or that we shouldn’t kill anything and everything we want ~ there just are no moral basis to it, and all arguments are null and void if all things are organic machines. This is why I have continually looked deeper into it all, and so far no one has put up a valid argument to the basis.
the truth is naked.
once it is written it is lost.
what is life; life is not a question.
genius is the result of the entire product of man.
death cannot be experienced.
life is not brought to us in slices of unrealised perfection, we get the whole cake.