|View single post by Joe Kelley|
|Posted: Sat Aug 11th, 2018 02:29 pm||
|So...new day. The natural mouse trap includes a very complex brain that is capable of very complex choices which are indicated, or referred to, in efforts to communicate with words such as "creativity," which refers to those things that are created with these complex brains that make these complex decisions. That is such a powerful, natural, adaptation that this form of life armed with this powerful adaptation is capable of moving, on its own power of will (so to speak), to other planets.
No choice? As a specie, a collective sum total of choices, we can outlive our own planet, if we choose. No other live form (known to me) can do this on this planet. That is adaptation on the highest level so far possible: at least according to a common, collective, viewpoint, a working viewpoint, if not the most accurate one possible.
If the choice is to just let nature create any abnormality, and allow any abnormality to control every other example of life on this planet, without choosing to defend effectively against such a potential, destructive, natural course, then what good is the complexity of that, adaptive, natural brain? Absent a natural need to defend against those destructive abnormalities, that species, with all it's power to create, creates it's own destruction instead of creating a defense against it's own destruction, along with creating, by choice, the means to outlive planets, and perhaps outliving solar systems.
Nature makes self-destructive, species destructive, examples. So why are they allowed, with out effective defense, to control all the other life forms on a planet, when it is clearly known that failing to defend against that will result in the destruction of all life on that planet. Why would nature allow that, and we are back to my entropy, ectropy, attempts to create a better illusion.
If nature created a power into a life form that allows that power to effectively defend against destructive mutations, and that power can be called, for lack of a better word, morality, then armed with this morality power, these individual examples of living beings, having moral brains, and having creative choices, can choose to nurture that part of the brain, feeding it, and what happens in that individual example of that brain created by nature with that adaptive part of that individual brain? That example smiles, and like a pebble thrown into a still pond, that smile inspires other smiles.
What happens if the choice is to ignore that moral, adaptive, part of the brain, and the choice is to harm other people with whatever works to do so, such as deception, and such as threat of aggressive violence, and such as horrid, torturous, life destroying, aggressive violence visited upon a targeted by someone, who starts out with a moral brain, but someone choosing to ignore it? Deception like that pebble thrown into that pond works like a wave, and then another wave, affecting more and more water, but not on a flat surface, the pond is what we call experience, and what we call history, which is - at least in my way of thinking - the foundation of science.
Violence works the same way, opposite of a smile, altering the pond, creating ever more violence, along with ever more deception, each initial deception, and each initial aggression, inspires moral brains, and brains without morality, to respond in kind: more deception, and more violence. The pond turns red with blood, and the species causes it's own extinction.
The opposite is a natural order chosen by those with the power to do so, as you point out, to figure out what is at work, when, where, how, how much, why, etc., painting that better illusion, building experience, and choosing to accurately discriminate between false versions of history and true versions: science. I think that is why Stephen Pearl Andrews chose the title of his book: The Science of Society.
In history, when, where, and for how long, the worst ever criminals command the most power, to nurture destructive creativity, there is evidence piled very high where millions of life forms suddenly expire unnaturally. What happens, in those times, in those places, to lead, by choice, to that end result? In those times, and in those places, who wrote history? Who is writing history right now? Is it a choice to be born into a time and place when the worst evil people control the most people? Is it a choice to accept history as it is written, or is it a better illusion to test, and retest, any information, such as history, for validity, before accepting it as it is written?
I think that it is very possible that our time here is not the norm for complex life forms. Complex, natural, life forms normally thrive, and normally are peaceful, because that choice, or that path (even if it is not a choice), is the path that leads to high complexity, and that path leads to more power. I think it is false, and worth investigating for validity, that the destructive path is the path that leads to more complexity, and more power. Simply put the false claim that involuntary association, or blind obedience in falsehood without question, or might makes right, or any other claim of authority based upon enforcement of obedience through deception, threat of aggressive violence, and aggressive violence, or crime, or slavery, is a false claim, it is what I call rule by criminal means, and it is the path toward less complexity, less power, and destruction of life: entropy. I will quote from my copy of The Prince to illustrate the false experience, the false "better illusion," and the false experience that causes otherwise moral, peaceful, powerful, people to destroy each other.