2
« on: Tuesday, April 21, 2015, 23:15:37 PM »
At first I was interested by the thread's title. Then, as I caught up to the several on and off-topic replies, I somewhat started to feel very wary of even commenting, let alone share my own take on Evolution and sub-sequently God as one can never really talk about the former without at the very least considering the latter.
Despite this I figured it wouldn't hurt to participate even if only to later realise how de-contextualized or misunderstood my words may have been --or, on the contrary, how lacking my ability to express, understand, percept and summarise may have been altogether.
The aforementioned realisation that within a circunstancial event (1) lies an ever established conflict / morphe between two or more points of perception is the very key to understanding the degree of subjectivity and relativeness that humanity has ever since tried to understand and convey in an objective manner. While this nature-driven premisse enriches and provides versatility and dynamism abundantly it often limits and preemptively prevents us from connecting to the core essence that ties us to the Earth, further inducing humanity unto an individual-based perception of any events in occurrance while simultaenously alienating the value of its various forms of input and output.
(1) - Whether the nature of the conflict in understanding something is made responsible at the expense of an exterior reaction or at the otherwise lack of a clear enough action from its punctual source; --In order words, whether the nature of the conflict arises from the deflected frequency of an output or otherwise the infected input of the same kind.
Evolution henceforth becomes not just a simple matter of belief or proof given how fragile and human-limited these concepts are in nature. It could then be said or otherwise refuted that we understand nothing of the World we live in but merely of the World we, as a form of genetic compromise, can perceive. Given this condition it is then possible to presume Evolution as not being a systematical and cyclical progression/regression from Point A to Point B but rather an a-systematical and terminal form of expression of a single exclusive Point A that is subsequently theorised and hypothesised as progressive or otherwise depending on the given ability to percept at the exact moment of the event.
Figuratively speaking you could say Evolution is not within the sum of the colours and strokes that make a painting but rather in how unrelated they are throughout the process. Evolution exists not in what is but in what isn't. Have you ever thought about it? Religions tells us what is through no need of proof [i.e:. This is a painting and it is absolute as a single entity] whereas Science tells us what could be through the seek and summarise of proof [i.e:. This might be a painting given the sum of its various entities] -- though none look to assert both what was and was not at the given moment of its discovery/contemplation.
Ironically, it is Art who has been most concerned with documenting perception of what was/is and wasn't/isn't. For instance, Prehistoric Art/Paintings are a prime example of this as it produced records of what several animals looked to be and not be, were and weren't and came to be and be not. In this sense, one could bring fundament to the statement that percept of Evolution is only as great as that through which it is expressed. In this regard, the Bible and any other past/current scientific thesis should be considered records of the evolution of its components deflective of conjugal meaning or quantitification as opposed to singular veins from which Evolution is sought perceptively.
P.S:. I might have, well, gotten a bit carried away in all this. I did try writing as little as I could without sacrificing too much of the vital information that coheres around the subject that is Evolution and its fundamental ingredients.
That's my contribution!
/Dan
Show Posts
