Re: Design vs. Darwin - aside line

[James N Rose <***>]

:-)

John M wrote:
> 
> 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
> >