Re: Design vs. Darwin - aside line

[John M <***>]

James: I did something I was not capable of fro some
time: I read your science-sermon all the way. I wonder
if Judith will be able to reply to it even longer <G>.
Funny: we think so similarly and express it so
differently. 

"> It took a long time for aquatics to learn new body
> forms and explore being atmospherics and terrans.<"
In my formulation: "it took a long time in aquatics to
alter into variations applicable in atmospheric and
terran existence and to proliferate into such" 

and the ">That would be: 'all', without exception.<"
I would use only 'potentially? 'all' without
exception.
 
I enjoyed your exhortation.

John



--- James N Rose <***>
wrote:

> Thank you Judith for reminding us to actively 
> do other things than post to the list - to 
> truly spend time on focussed thankfulness today.
> 
> This man does that every day .. its my continued
> mantra in spirit.  So I am still going to post
> today.
> I owe John a detailed next-voice in this
> conversation,
> .. saving that for another writing session later.
> 
> 
> Something else just came to mind to verbalize, that
> may
> be a rehash of 'obviates' but I'd like to write
> about it
> anyway.
> 
> 
> As I sat here typing this morning, with my cursor
> backed 
> up a few lines and over to the far right, my eye
> spotted 
> a typo - next line down and over to the far left. 
> As I began
> to back-space on the line I was in - planning to get
> atop
> the typo then down arrow to the location - I
> realized that I
> was taking the 'long way' to get from one spot to
> the next.
> 
> What on a 2D 'obvious' flat plane was effectively
> the 
> 'shortest "distance"' in immediate measurables, was
> really 
> -longer- than if I had forward keyed and let the
> cursor wrap
> around and drop to the typo location - say, 10 units
> of distance
> versus 30 the first way.
> 
> And what then flitted in thought was that 'yes, of
> course, 
> potentials and connections that aren't in immediate
> display
> may generally be present, so that the shortest
> 'distance'
> between two items may not be the first impressioned
> 'measurable'.
> 
> No great revelation there. pretty well known
> already.
> But sure and away the more typical of life's
> situations
> than habituated thought let's us think on or use
> actively
> every day.
> 
> Intellectualizing about modelled versus natural is
> analogue
> to that.  A 'modelled world' being patterns of
> what's in the
> kitbag of recognized phenomena, and the natural
> world being
> inclusive of all the remaining real yet not
> known/specified
> phenoms and relations.  That would be: 'all',
> without exception.
> 
> Which, in and of itself presents an omnivorous
> problem.  Just as 
> Cantor threw open wide the door to MANY infinities
> and transfinite
> relations - a doorway which few have ventured
> through to explore,
> and none have ever laid claim to correlating with
> extant real
> phenomena - we are at tranfinities's sibling
> threshhold.
> 
> When 'causes' are considered vis a vis -these-
> arenas of relations,
> what results is: either fundamentalist/reductionist
> bovine-like
> rechewing of concepts-cuds, or, the challenge of
> braving wholely uncharted language and relations
> terrain - 
> all the while trying to stay tether (and -relevant-)
> to the
> world(s) that our minds are familiar with from
> up-to-this-moment
> experience and conscious alert identification (as
> in: alert dreaming;
> actively aware of being aware while actioning
> awareness mentally and
> behavior-wise).
> 
> This is the 'many-bodied problem' taken to
> outrageous limits.
> At the moment we seem stuck at intuitive
> appreciation.  Its a new
> but sort of comfortable way-station to be at: at
> least we have a 
> sense of knowing the realm of 'what we don't know'.
> 
> John feels unsatisfied with this situation and I
> know I do too.
> And here is where I know that the ideas we all keep
> prompting
> one another with are valuable.  Because we bring our
> individual
> concepts priorities to the conversation and keeping
> them
> forefront.  One person prioritizing sensibilities,
> another
> prioritizing potential mechanisms, another
> prioritizing
> devotion to the overarching vision of the nature of
> what we seek and the new-memes needed required in
> order
> to stay true to the new vision.
> 
> 
> I'm probably going overboard with this extreme
> dissection,
> but I do it mindfully yet cautiously, so as not to
> replicate reductionist errors once again; or get
> accused of
> it.
> 
> "Clear analysis"  will always and unavoidably
> include
> reductionist 'choices'.  The universe built us to
> think/be
> that way.  So, we are true to the qualia it
> anticipated,
> and shouldn't self berate ourselves for being true
> to
> the nature of our being. We're strying to stretch
> those
> qualia and expand our capacities and refine and
> better
> our knowings.   And we'll use what we've developed,
> for better or worse.  
> 
> It took a long time for aquatics to learn new body
> forms
> and explore being atmospherics and terrans.
> 
> We are chrysallines. And we'll use/be what we are
> until
> the inner knowledge resident in our soma-structure 
> transforms us into different structures - with
> different
> capacities for ideation and realization ... and
> expression.
> 
> And all our 'will' to transform takes back seat to
> the
> inner truths and pacings of transformation that we
> are 
> as well - our chemistry and physiology/logistics.
> 
> We can't close our eyes, sit down and 'will' our
> metamorphosis,
> but we -can- engage the changes as they become
> available.
> 
> And, we can invent and by design put into place,
> better
> conceptual environments where the whatever that we
> are becoming,
> will have a native comfortable place to sustain and
> survive
> there.  In all likelihood, that is the upshoot value
> of 
> all the conversations and urged on mentations we do
> here,
> and everywhere we go.
> 
> Our speed of thought and projection into 'gosh, look
> what's
> possible, if only more people thought this way than
> that'
> is wonderful and exhilarating on one hand, and
> frustrating
> on the other, when fruition doesn't arrive at the
> pace that our
> minds dream.
> 
> 
> But it will, my friends.  It will.
> 
> Life bless you all; happy Appreciation Day.
> 
> Jamie
>