Although the title of this seems to indicate that some type of summation or analysis will take place, that is not the case. Only if you think in terms of the above, or accept the dialectic, would you assume that there is a debate brewing. I'm here to tell you that such is not the case.
Something about the above, I find quite troubling.
Evolution, although definitely, seemingly could plausibly serve as an explanation, So can Creation.
Clearly, something exist. Was it created? We can assume such. But, we actually can not say that anything was created, for we have no knowledge as to whether creation itself was created, or if it has always existed. In a sense, we can say that to the extent that the possibility that creation existed, may be the same, in a sense, depending on how you look at it, as saying that it has always existed.
If I hold in my mind, for a number of years, the idea of the wheel, and only decades later "create" it, does not my thinking about it, in all of it's nuances, technical details, manner and method of it's construction, not also represent an "existence"? And as it's assembled, surely the items used to assemble it, have already existed, and so, does this newly put together item, truly represent something that did not exist previously? in a sense, absolutely not, and in a very, very small sense, we could say that it did not exist before...
But that's not what this is about. My beef is with Intelligent design.
It sounds intriguing at first, but only until you know the history of Intelligent Design.
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". It is simply put, a new age explanation for the existence of God.
Something that is equally as asinine is the U.S. National Academy of Sciences debasement of intelligent design, in which they state, "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.
That seems to me to be equally silly. So, we're going to limit "reality" those things which can be tested by experiment, predicted, and can propose new hypotheses?
I don't know that the universe needs to bow at the feet at man to be understood.
the theory of evolution, is the scientific result of painting oneself into a corner.
Clearly, despite entropy, there is something that is not only able to survive, but to evolve, to change, to become stronger, more complex, more perfect, without any seeming, outside entity being observed, in any fashion, to serve as an intervening agent.
And so, the logical conclusion, is that there is a force at work that drives this effort, that moves it forward, that protects it, informs it, makes it aware, and causes it to react.
I find it quite curious that as entities, made up of this very same stuff, that we, on a new order of consciousness, have succeeded in creating creations by utilizing our understanding of things.
but, the complexity of existence, is more complex, more subtle, more perfect. Chemistry, is, "the science of the composition, structure, properties, and reactions of matter, especially of atomic and molecular systems."
molecules, depend on the structure of atoms, atoms, on the structure of subatomic particles, cells, on the nature of multiple entities, and so on and so forth. What seems clear to me, is that as the higher ordinal constructs are continually created, they are all dependent on the potential of their constitutional parts, and that only if constructed, and put together in certain ways, are the higher ordered entities able to "work".. and so, our consciousness, is in essence, the consciousness of creation. Although we may live a short time, we are constructed of the ageless.
We don't have enough time to solve the other riddle. (the real riddle is the riddle of self and coming to know self. the other riddle is the chase to unlock all of the secrets of existence).
So what do we have time to do?
We have time to be true, to give it our best shot, to do what we know, what we feel, what we think, to be right.
And when we die, we can know that we did our thing to the fullest.
the strangest thing, is this little bit of awareness that we have. and how it dominates our existence. And even, how we interpret this bit of awareness as being so incredibly important. And strangely, how completely right and wrong that interpretation is.
Do we really need to solve the science of creation? What answers will that inquiry yield? and what meaning? Will we be capable of inner peace? of super-consciousness? or perfect unions between man and wife? or immortality?
I wonder what we will achieve when we find, and isolate the power, the reason, the truth of existence, and have "proved" it, tested it, and made hypotheses based upon our understanding and it all checks out.
Will we be happy? Will it change anything? how could it? how could it change anything?
It is incredibly sad, that this experience, this happening has occurred, and we are alive and a part of it, and yet, so fully mired in insanely neurotic rituals that reign in, harness, and subjugate the delicately ever-blooming flower, of the ever-present "now".
Maybe I should save myself, and suffer what will be.
it's so hard, because even the most sage will tell you, that it is all suffering
But there is a way to save yourself, find the truth, know the truth and end all suffering. The Buddha's taught, The Four Noble Truths. suffering exists; it has a cause; it has an end; and it has a cause to bring about its end.
I don't know about you, but I'm stuck on quenching the thirst for desire. My life has been standing by the door with it's hat and coat on, waiting for me as I continually look over at it and say, "I'll be there in a minute, I only need one more." The simple fact is, that there's always a good reason to grab one more, and the only reason I can see not wanting to grab one more, is because one is somehow satisfied.
Now, what Buddhism has to do with who we are and what we are, I do not know. My suspicion is that it's not so much about who we are, as it is about accepting it. You can not tear apart the doll to see what is in it, and accept it at the same time.
But I think we've worked it all out, because we are only going to smash a few atoms, and leave the vast majority of them, intact.
No comments:
Post a Comment