04 June 2003 @ 11:01 am
Once Upon A Time, In The Universe Next Door  
Goan' tell you chillen a lil' story now, and hope ya's listenin'.

Once upon a time (or, as we start Fairy Tales in the South, "Y'all Ain't Gonna Believe This Shit, But..."), there was a planet, upon which creeped, crawled, and waltzed a multitude of creatures. The majority of them were six-legged, but we are not concerned with them. Instead, we focus on a tiny minority of domesticated primates who built pyramids and wrote books and hoped to escape the planet one day and enter the Galactic Community, for they had forseen that a planetary-based culture was an eventual death sentence, since their entire culture was largely based primarily on the refining of a non-renewable natural resource.

These were very clever primates, excellent at mimicry and even occasionally capable of creative thought. However, they had, over the last 4 or five generations, stagnated. They denied this, of course, pointing at the works they had wrought, but refusing to see that each step forward was countered with another step back somewhere else.

The problem was that they did not know they were misusing their brains. Only about 2 percent of the primates used their brains for fun and profit; the rest used their brains for misery and failure, and thought that something was wrong with the universe, and they called this the Problem Of Evil.

Experts on the Problem Of Evil were known as "theologians". They were very erudite primates, skilled in primate logic, who wrote long books trying to answer the question "Why did God create an imperfefct universe?" 'God' was their name for the hypothetical biggest-alpha-male-of-them-all. Being primates, they couldn't conceive of things being run without an alpha male in charge of it. They assumed that the universe was imperfect because it wasn't set up for the pleasure and convenience of the primates. It wasn't set up for the pleasure and convenience of the six-legged majority, either, but they weren't bothered by this. The comfort of planetside species has very little to do with the cosmic drama. A few of the primates realized this. They were known as cynics. Cynics were primates that realized the monotonous life/death cycle of terrestrial life, but did not have imagination enough to conceive of future evolution once longevity and escape velocity had been attained.

Planetary life is cyclical. For instance, the six-legged majority followed a life-script of four (or more) stages. In general, the pattern was: (1) an embryonic or egg form, (2) the larval period, (3) the pupal or chrysalis stage, and (4) the adult insect. During each stage, the biot (or biological unit - the so-called 'individual') passed through a metamorphosis where it was partially or totally transformed.

The same was true of the domesticated primates. Most passed through, and kept neurological circuits characteristic of, the following four stages: (1) imprinting and using the self-nourishing networks of the primate brain - The neonate or infant stage (oral biosurvival - first circuit "eat it or flee it" imprint), (2) imprinting and using the emotional-territorial networks of the primate brain - the 'toddler' stage (anal status consciousness - "dominate or submit" imprint), (3) imprinting and using the semantic circuits - the verbal or conceptual stage (symbolic rational consciousness - "either/or" imprints), (4) imprinting and using the socio-sexual circuits - The mating or parenting stage (tribal taboo consciousness - "good and bad" imprints)

However, what only that aforementioned 2 percent had discovered was that there were circuits above these four. A fifth circuit (sometimes known as the neurosomatic circuit) allowed conscious feedback between the "mind" and the "body". It also allowed those biots who had formed it to realize that things were not as mechanical as they thought, but could instead be as convenient as most biots claimed they wanted things to be. Many of these mutated biots became convinced they were divine, not realizing that this feedback mertely allowed them full control of their perceptual field. The feedback loop kept them looking and feeling better and younger, and some began to believe that they could "cure" others.

Regardless of these happenings, it was nearly universal that these fifth-circuit biots grew critical of the machanical responses of first-circuit approach-avoidance, second-circuit domination-submission, third-circuit either-or logic, and static fouth-circuit sexual roles. They called on other biots to be free as they themselves were.

The other biots usually either declared these fifth-circuit biots to be divine, or they killed them. Sometimes, they did both.

Almost no one in this comedy of errors understood the sixth-circuit (metaprogramming) that was possible. Had more risen to a fifth-circuit state, they may have understood that stagnation at the fifth-circuit level was pure hedonism, which, while fun, doesn't accomplish much. Unfortuately, they didn't. A sixth-level circuit would have allowed them to see not only quantum causality, but the static state of their own situation, as well as allowing them to see multiple reality vectors...thereby encouraging them through possibility.

There are 2 more potential circuits, but there's no need to go into that. These primates blew themselves up in a fit of second-circuit posturing, brought about by the alpha males, who usually claimed they did it in the name of the biggest-alpha-male-of-all.

But all this happened in the universe next door.
Current Mood: disgusted with humanity, as usual
Current Music: Iron Maiden - Man on the Edge
God of Thunder and Rock'n'Roll: The Maskarchmage on June 4th, 2003 11:02 am (UTC)
A lot of this is paraphrased/ripped off from R.A. Wilson...just thought I'd admit that.
wesa on June 4th, 2003 11:16 am (UTC)
"'God' was their name for the hypothetical biggest-alpha-male-of-them-all. "


this is some great stuff to wake up to, thanks man.
Jayneerotocism on June 4th, 2003 11:34 am (UTC)
That was wonderful. It made my day in a cynical sort of way. Now, you have to answer the question posted in my journal. Just to ammuse me. I a curious primate, I must know. :P
God of Thunder and Rock'n'Rollarchmage on June 4th, 2003 12:22 pm (UTC)
Will do...
Sribbles McBottomfootachmanage on June 4th, 2003 12:26 pm (UTC)
Sounds like someone was reading a bit too much Douglas Adams.

Personally, I like the idea of an alpha-male-of-alpha-males.
God of Thunder and Rock'n'Rollarchmage on June 4th, 2003 12:48 pm (UTC)
Nah, Adams would have been funnier, this was much more Wilson.

Yeah, I know you like the idea. Personally, I see no reason to believe in something that not only has no proof, but no point. Especially one that promotes so much discord among the species.

But that's just my opinion.
Sribbles McBottomfootachmanage on June 4th, 2003 12:53 pm (UTC)
Promoting discord is bad.

Promoting love is OK, IMO.

Besides, proof is absent in all other alternatives. So what do you believe? How did we get here? Aliens?
God of Thunder and Rock'n'Rollarchmage on June 4th, 2003 01:37 pm (UTC)
Discord is only one means of breaking the barriers that humans have erected that keep them from becoming enlightened...however, I doubt that Christianity can say, with a straight face, that it doesn't sow discord.

And, what, you cannot separate promoting love without promoting an alleged being "behind it all"? I never said promoting love was a bad thing...I said that humans don't need the biggest scapegoat of all.

OK, I'm not sure when this turned into a creation vs. evolution debate. But, for what it's worth, I am much more happy to put my "faith" in the cold, hard, reproduceable facts that have been discovered than I am in what books of dubious origin claim.
Sribbles McBottomfootachmanage on June 4th, 2003 02:01 pm (UTC)
This isn't C vs E debate. It's just that there aren't any other alternatives to the story of creation that include cold, hard, reproduceable facts. I won't argue evolution, but I'll tell you that the evidence it claims is merely that. I mean, there are records of Juleas Ceasar's existance, but neither you or I or anyone, for that matter, can prove he existed. And that's just the way it is. The very same faith that drives us Christians to believe in "the biggest scapegoat of all" is the very same faith evolutionists use to -not- believe in him. Or anyone for that matter. It's not just evolution. But I'm just saying, to claim what you're claiming is pretty ignorant. Of course I could go on about this, but I simply asked a question, and if evolution is your answer, then that's your answer.

And I see nothing wrong with promoting love while promoting an "alleged" being "behind it all." Nor will I argue that Christianity does not sow discord.

On that very same token, Conservativism, Liberalism, Communism, Bhuddism, Taoism, Muslim, Judaism, Socialism and any form of opinion will cause discord with someone. Because not everyone agrees on everything, nor will they. You can't isolate Christianity, nor can you isolate religion. You want to blame something for discord? Blame free thought. Despite what John Lennon dreamed about until taking the eternal nap of naps, we're not all going to be one. There will always be someone out there that hates someone else. No matter what. And not a march-for-peace in the world will change that, sadly.
God of Thunder and Rock'n'Rollarchmage on June 4th, 2003 02:16 pm (UTC)
So, in essence, you are saying that to accept the annals of science and history is no more valid than blind faith in something with no proof? That is a bit too solipsistic to accept.

Taking your metaphor of Julius Caesar, there is no more proof that anything before this very instant existed than anything...which is a potential point (that we are all created RIGHT NOW with all memories implanted). But if that is true, it doesn't support much of ANYTHING. At the most, it is a convenience.

I don't isolate religion as 'the course of discord', I merely state it as ONE source. Discord is not brought on by free thought...diversity is brought on my free thought. Discord comes from the human propensity to NEED to be right, and the desire to attack that which is different instyead of attempting to understand it first...or, more importantly, to find middle ground.

You say discord is bad...and then say that discord is to be blamed on free thought. Should it be inferred, then, that you feel free thought is bad? I hope (and assume) not.
Sribbles McBottomfootachmanage on June 4th, 2003 02:27 pm (UTC)
1) I'd have to know exactly which alternative it is you're defending by attacking Creation. Just because there's no proof does not mean there is no evidence. Which is what I've already said.

2)A convenience to squelch your convenience. A la "None of us were there when it happened, but because Mr. Scientist says so, his "evidence" precedes age-old "evidence" because age-old stuff is age-old and lacks proof. Even though, so does Mr. Scientist."

3) But as we already stated, ultimately, there is only one truth. 2 + 2 will always = 4 and in the end, there will either be an all powerful alpha male or there won't be. The sun is plasma and the earth isn't flat. There's not as much gray matter as people would like and government institutions teach. One of us is going to be right, whether the other guy likes it or not. That's why we have free thought to choose which side -is- right.

4) I said promoting discord is bad. Murder is bad. Promoting murder is bad. But if someone can have a negative opinion of someone else without murdering them, that is free thought. Free thought is not bad. Free thought is ultimately the only freedom we really have.

Ah, this is refreshing, really. I've been thoroughly lacking a good debate for some time. Ever sense our last one, I think. :)
God of Thunder and Rock'n'Rollarchmage on June 4th, 2003 02:35 pm (UTC)
1> Well, now, I never attacked creation...you brought that up. But I do support evolution, for the purposes of positioning, here.

2> What are you holding up to debate scientific evidence with (I assume we are still on creation/evolution)? Perhaps more important at the moment, though, is what exactly are you claiming, that scientific research, evidence, and testing is not legitimate?

3> True, there is only one capital-T Truth. Of course, it could turn out that NEITHER of us is right, and we are all living in a novel or just marbles in the palm of the great Green Pixie or wayward atoms cycling thorugh space randomly or something. Yes, we have free thought to choose which side is right for US, but not to choose which is right for someone else.

Agreed, it was time for a good back-and-forth!
Sribbles McBottomfootachmanage on June 4th, 2003 02:53 pm (UTC)
1) Fair enough.

2) Well, first, I'll start with the fact that evolution, to this date, has absolutely no Scientific evidence to back it up. Scientists have denounced it as science and the theory demands that the very definition of science be bent for its acceptance. Science requires observation and no one has phyically observed evolutionary progress. Ever. Even the carbon dating system isn't entirely trustworthy. Sure, every day there's some type of "progress" for Evolution. Yet with each step forward, things are changed. It's as if the claims were wrong, then corrected, then the corrections were wrong but they were corrected, but the corrected corrections are now wrong, but now they're ok, etc. To this day, I've heard only two observable, defendable peaces of evidence in favor of evolution. Those being the sickle-cell anemia issue in Africa and the fruit fly. But both of those had negative effects on their subjects, so that destroys the basis for the evolutionary theory. In all honesty, I really don't see the weight in pitting both Evoltution and Creation against eachother because there are scientists with "scientific" evidence on both sides. I'll go ahead, though, and hold up, because you asked, the fact that since every DNA strand is unique and since the very rotation and measurement of our roatation around the sun decides our fate, since the universe is so vast and full of stars, yet there's not a single constilation that mirrors another, since there's not a single thumb print that matches a someone else's, I have no other choice, it would go against every bit of reasoning in me, I would find myself stupid if I had any inclination that any of this was made outside of the design of some higher being. That may not be science, but I find it pretty convincing. And honestly, I find evolution to be nothing more than a scapegoat in and of itself to avoid such things as morals and ethics.

3) I've often thought this, myself. But having developed in my mind what I later found to already exist and named Pascal's Wager, I'm looking at fruit over consequence. If You're right and I'm wrong, then I've lived a wonderful life and I've got nothing to lose. However, if I'm right and you're wrong, then I've got everything to gain and I can only hope you tagged along at the last second. And if Osama's right and both of us our wrong, then...shit.
God of Thunder and Rock'n'Roll: Smoking And Thinkingarchmage on June 4th, 2003 03:08 pm (UTC)
2> Well, now, saying that science requires 'observation' is and is not true. "Pure" science does, and thus makes anything from past time impossible. Does this make facts learned previously no longer valid? Of course not. Beyond that, though, science requires fact, and in this method, we can learn more about what we cannot observe. Am I saying this makes them "natural laws"? No. It is true that there are no observable instances of evolution, because it happens on a macrocosmic scale. But the vidence we find shows us that it doe sin fact exist.

As for the changes: this is the part of the essence of science. Things are discovered, theories are tested/researched, and consensus is gained on what "is". Should later evidence make this change, science can acdept it. In an intelligent and changing world, ir stays abreast of knowledge? How could we establish one set of thoughts, and stick with them throughout time? Tjat would be stagnation. Men once thought that we could not fly...but scinece showed we could. Men thought that we would never leave our planet...but science showed we could.

Now, using evolution as a scapegoat for morals is another story entirely.

3> *G* If you didn't bring up Pascal, I was going to. I'm the same way: whether I'm right or wrong, I've lived a good life, and I've helped others, and I've done the right thing, and I feel good about it. Now, I just hope that more people take that sort of an attitude, and perhaps we can all distil it into something we can all agree on, without allowing something unproveable to get between us.
Sribbles McBottomfootachmanage on June 4th, 2003 05:45 pm (UTC)
2) I see no problem with sticking with a system that works, and I think that's what it all boils down to. This is just me well formed opinion, mind you ;) but I honestly believe that those who continue to search into evolution and change the status so it works, are simply searching for a reason to *not* believe in a higher being. That's just my opinion, mind you, but it's been developed for the very reasons we've discussed, and one of those is that they do have to keep changing the story whereas we believers have not. That adding to the fact that we were here first, it just seems like a losing game to me. To me. I'll stress that this is my opinion. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and honestly, it ain't broke.

3) It's if I'm right that I'm worried about. My belief system doesn't have a real happy ending for unbelievers. *lifts hands in defense* But that's not me talking, that's the man up stairs.
God of Thunder and Rock'n'Rollarchmage on June 4th, 2003 08:41 pm (UTC)
2> Well, now, truth be told science was there first. Man developed a need and belief in a hgher pwer long after we learned how to make somethign work by trial and error. But you may have perhaps meant thatsince 'God created all' religion was there first. That assumption is based on belief in religion, which is a cyclic argument...and man was triying and erring long before he discovered enough causality to engage in debate about the nature and creation of the universe...so that is a dead end argument.

As to flexibility...well, all I'll say on that point is that what continues to grow continues to stay on top of the game; what stagnates and refuses to change gets left behind.

3> Depends on your flavor of Xianity....whcih gets into a WHOLE new discussion we should save for another time. But it's a chance I'm willing to take.
Sribbles McBottomfootachmanage on June 5th, 2003 10:45 am (UTC)
2) There's a time in history that the politically correct won't touch on, simply because it stands on the thin line of superstition and the sixth dimension. We often use the term "outside the box" which is kinda funny because it takes exactly that to accept the concept of a God, yet it's the religion that's always viewed as narrow and enclosed. That time would be when man actually walked and talked with God. God would come down in either his form, a human form, an angelic form, a pillar of flame, a smoking cloud, a storm or a burning bush. He would physically interact with those of that time. This would explain why we never really questioned his existance. But later, the connection between us and him was severed. And that's not really even a fair statement as, from what I can remember, he only did such things with decendents of Abraham. We aren't his "chosen children." Another topic for another time, perhaps. But you know what I'm talking about.

Contuing to grow is one thing. Being wrong again and again is something entirely different. You can say, "we go left to get to Santa Monica," then come to find out "oh wait...it's right," only to conclude that "dammit! We go straight, one block, then left, THEN right!" And of course, you never really get to Santa Monica. That's not growing. That's just being lost. Until you guys actually get a stable, solid and proven (since that's your drive and your responsibility ('your' being the sense of evolutionists and their constant drive to prove everything with solid, tangible things like dirt (but you can't prove a spirit exists))) story down that provides you the necessity for Truth, we win by default. It's a disadvantage you have that you really put upon yourself. Though somewhat admireable, I don't think it will work seeing as how neither of us were there when the great 'big bang' occured, no matter how it occured. All I need is faith. You need something more visual, physical, tangible. It's not that Creationism refuses to change, it's simply the fact that it doesn't need to. Everything brought up against it, it has easily shrugged off, with valid responses, mind you. Of course, that, I suppose could be viewed as cyclic. But then again, so can everything.

3) I mean my belief system, which was the topic of discussion in this segment, that says unbelievers and unrepenters will go to that great big fiery pit of despair. Don't even thiiiiii-*hack cough gag wheeze cough cough* Don't even think about trying to escape.
God of Thunder and Rock'n'Rollarchmage on June 5th, 2003 11:05 am (UTC)
2> That's based on the idea that what you discovered was not correct or tested. Science is more like saying "Here is the weay to Santa Monica." Later on, someone comes to you with "Hey, I found a better, faster way to get there," and we all look over it (because others have found 'shrtcuts' before, most of which are either no better, or frankly worse), and we all agree that yes, that is a better way. If someone can find a way that is even better than THAT, or a new road is built that changes the map, then we can evaluate, test, and choose the one that really does fit the bill. On the other hand, the group that staunchly supports this ONE ROAD, regardless of what else is happening, just because some guidebook said it was the RIGHT road for everybody, looks just as goofy as the group across the street saying they are wrong, but THIS ROAD HERE is right for everybody, and willing to get into a gang war about the right road...when we could all just look around, and agree on what road gets us where we are going, regardless of who you are.

3> For the record, which particular flavor of Christianity do you follow (genuinely curious)?
Sribbles McBottomfootachmanage on June 5th, 2003 11:22 am (UTC)
2) No, that doesn't cut it because the 'new road' disproves the old one. It's not "this is better because..." It's "The old one doesn't work, but this one does, because..." And then Christianity says "Hey, neither of those roads will work, but this one does. Trust us!" Of course, no one will really know until they get to the end of the road and find out where it actually led us.

3) For all intensive purposes, I'm non-denominational.
God of Thunder and Rock'n'Rollarchmage on June 5th, 2003 05:44 pm (UTC)
2> That's situational. Depending on the discovery, it may or may NOT exclude the previous road. Regardless, it is still a proveable road, where the 'religious' road is not. Your last bit is speaking of 'end of the road' in terms of afterlife, etc...and that's another discussion entirely. AT that point, we cannot even define where the road is leading us...much less what the path is. We CAN agree on various turns to make, and various dead-ends to avoid, but we cannot agree on where it gets us...or why we're traveling.
Sribbles McBottomfootachmanage on June 5th, 2003 06:44 pm (UTC)
Right, but here's the thing. The discussion was Creation vs Evolution (not the origional, but what we've been debating) and the problem is neither are proveable. There may be proveable evidence that evolution exists in progressive growth of a certain organism or species, though I have yet to see anything that has not been contradicted by new facts, but there is not one proveable fact explaining the creation of the world.

How did we get here? What was before here? What happened? After all, that was my origional question, and you still haven't addressed it.

The progress of a species does not explain its absolute origin. So I ask again, how do you think we got here?

As for where the roads lead...well, it was the best I could do. I still don't think your analogy was accurate. :P
God of Thunder and Rock'n'Rollarchmage on June 6th, 2003 01:06 pm (UTC)
OK, well, we definitely HAVE wavered from the original question then, and perhaps it is because I misinterpreted the original question, and we just went with it.

In addressing the question, though, I think we're going to stalemate again (since I can't prove evolution and origin of species, and you cannot prove divine creation). Let me take it on a slightly different (and more interesting) tack, that doesn't get into such a dead end subject:

Which is more important, as a species: where we came from or where we are going, and why?