Evolution simply describes the way things have come to be the way they are. It is the explanation of how things are the way they are that leaves nothing outside itself, no explanation for the state of things that is outside of it.
Only Aristotelians have any need for a figure that is that which stands outside of things that are to make them be. It is not an actual question that poses itself, it is a question that poses itself after you have posited an ideal world. Meaning, it is a disingenuous question.
If they had the capacity for honesty, Platonists and Aristotelians would say: given that an ideal world exists, how is this real world derived from it? This is an entirely different question from: how can things exist without being derived from an ideal world?
Ideal just means coming from an idea, which means something in a person’s imagination.
I strongly feel the burden of proof is on the Platonists, to show that there is any reason the real world, the one we all see, is derived from a thought a person had, and not the other way around. I cannot stress enough how strongly I feel this.
Pedro: Your argument is a legitimate ine, and the fact that the archaic and the post modern temporal flows are being perceived by less configured spaces, brings into question the relevance of distinction been the Old and New way of holding a Supreme Being responsible fir the shift .
Not that it doesent “exist” on the level of the Old, testimentally, but the New doesen’t intend to negate the Old, it merely humanly forgets the distinction.
Artificially the flow can be reconstructed, like the frames of still reality on a photograph nears perfected filmed simulation.
I think Irrellus is aiming for a bit more of an advanced concept than the narrative continuity between ancient Jewish lore and neo-Platonic Roman lore.
The Jewish God, or Old Testament God, does not come as if from outside reality or nature. The immense and unspeakable greatness of him is, that he doesn’t.
And yet Irraelus may not have brought up the diminishing of temporal significance between the archaic and post modern cintinuum, which appears to decrease the frames or reference within which the continuum between the old and the new testaments may be indicated.
With that the simulation of that significance may not even being to form , an essential difference, ; in congruence to the manifestation of conceivable , or apparent temporal difference-in light of the meta-temporal mechanics of quantum and classical apprehension .
Memes about the nature of a god in relationship with humans do have an extensive history. The progress of mankind over the millennia suggests that these memes exhibit teleology, that they are evolving into concepts of God in which God’s morality as written in sacred texts is becoming more humane, universal and all-inclusive. I’ve read postmodern works that describe God as, not a loser, but as an eventual reclaimer of all souls, including those of atheists. Nels Ferre once opined that even Hitler will eventually be saved.
I fear we are falling into the trap of discussing what the teleology might be, instead of the question of the fact of teleology, of a personal evolution that encompasses more than just the anthroposphere.
I agree with Crick’s suggestion of panspermia–that organic matter in comets and on asteroids fell into the sea, seeding life on the planet. This is prior to the anthroposphere and is continuing now. This is the transition of matter into life, which goes back to matter ejaculated from exploding stars. DNA is a combination of four chemicals, is matter. Yet it expands life. So there needs to be no talk of teleology that does not include matter. There is no mind/matter schism. Add to mind and matter spirit, the intuitive awareness of the whole as a realistic goal. The mind/brain is a masterpiece of evolution and the spirit recognizes its origins.
Your personal evolution from a fertilized egg to an adult human being mirrors the larger evolution of all life forms. The determinism with which this comes to be is not an obstacle for free will. We can make choices within the general confines of evolutionary determinism. That we can hope at all is indication of a spiritual nature. Thus it saddens me to hear some people claiming that they see no need or possibility of hope from their given set of circumstances. They have a choice of accepting or denying the kingdom within, which is the source of hope. Once again, evolutionary determinism is progressive and creative with room for hope in our preferred choices. Still the problem of determinism is as thorny an issue as is teleology.
Our choices can change the course of evolution.
In “The Essential Kabbalah” by Daniel C. Matt quotes Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook: “The theory of evolution accords with the secrets of Kabbalah better than any other theory. Evolution follows a path of ascent and thus provides the world with a basis for optimism. How can one despair, seeing that everything evolves and ascends? When we penetrate the inner nature of evolution, we find divinity illuminated in perfect clarity. Ein Sof generates, actualizes potential infinity.”
Of course, individuals can and do despair. We do this when we cannot see that we are evolving as individuals, or we don’t see things evolving on a grand scale. Why people see things one of these ways or the other is a mystery. Often the ego is blocking the view. Those disparate ways of seeing the world are ones that I traverse often multiple times in a single day.
Thank you for the timely reference. As for the despair, it may be that evolution is not always a straight forward progression, but is riddled with false starts and retrogressive thinking. Ideas such as that we are competitors vying for survival and progression as fortuitous need to be considered in the light of how they have determined existence in the West. We in the West, in a debt no doubt owed to Martin Luther, have worshipped the idea of rugged individualism. Although there is good reason to see the I often as a necessary perspective, it is the Other and the we that are necessary considerations for any sense of morality. In other words orthogenesis as a path to morality may be a crooked road forward. But no spiritual journey is easy.
You and I are both students of the perennial wisdom tradition. I see oneness behind Christianity, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Animism, Science, Depth psychology, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Neoplatonism, Agnosticism even Nihilism. The list goes on. Presently Kabbalism is rocking my world. Also archetypal astrology. Esoteric religion participates in the common core at the center of everything. Like gravity love always seeks the center.
Whoever delves into mysticism cannot help but stumble, as it is written: “This stumbling block is in your hand.” You cannot grasp these things unless you stumble over them.
If it had not been inherited in the blood and substantiated through evolving memes, there would exist today no such phenomenon as religion. In all of its forms religion has continued from shamanism to individual perspectives. It continues to evolve in open minds. It has evolved from belief in a God without to experience of a God within. There is no philosophical argument able to refute experience. Most atheists denounce the God without as described in the OT. They cannot refute the NT hope of a saved, from itself, world. The evolution of God from fatherhood to brotherhood offers the only viable remedy for the evils we do to each other and to the planet.