Journal Entries
A part from a conversation
Posted Jan 13, 2005
This comes from my recent conversation with Dim26Trav .
Read the following. The following addresses "influence and causality" or "people being the end product of a series of results from factors", and the following finally addresses "De-evolution":
>>Relationship of Subjectivity/Objectivity:
>>The above "influence vs. causality" model can also be illustrated in
the relationship of subjectivity and objectivity (ontic-wise, not
epistemic-wise).
>>Consider the old cartoon of the 5th grader, who has just presented a
school report card of all F's to his dad, who is sitting in the
favorite easy chair. The father has looked sternly at the kid, and the
kid has asked the important causal question: "Well, Dad, what do you
think? Was it ENVIRONMENT, or HEREDITY?"
>>The kid has won the day...if the dad says "ENVIRONMENT", then the
parents are to blame...if the dad says "HEREDITY", then the parents
are to blame likewise...UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES is the kid a
'fault-center'. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/what.html
I thought THIS was hilarious! LOL.
The author is correct. I agree with him. If a *being* (for instance
the child) is redefined to mean "as set of results from
factors", then there is no such thing as conscious choice. When
Secular Science redefines people to be as programmed entities, then
this is a horrible conclusion! When the human condition is redefined
to mean that of a biological robot --which is unable to think and make
conscious choices because of program history-- then I *sigh* and say,
"What a irresponsible way Secular Science has slotted humanity into!"
Ultimately, as a logical following through of this line of thought,
Secular Science has taken away a person's conscious responsibility and
has reduced him/or her to that of machines. Not only have people been
defined as biological machines, but we are in such a low and confused
condition because Our Only Purpose Is To *Live and Reproduce*. To me,
this final conclusion is *Mindless Replication* (such as that of a
virus that infects the face of the Earth). Oh, as well, the Theory of
Evolution tries to establish a higher purpose for humans to attain
(for all life to attain). But the notion, "Survival of the fittest",
is actually truly evil and will only defeat itself. LOL. Just hear
me out. According to Socrates, "Survival of the fittest", or of each
man versus every other man, will only result in men killing each
other. Each man fights the other, and the last standing will then do
himself in (self-destruct) because he would be alone and have only
himself to quarrel with. LOL. The notion of "Survival of the
fittest" really translates to mean as "Life As War" or "each one, kill
many" or "Naqoyqatsi". The Evolutionary notion of "Survival of the
fittest" is really not evolution but de-evolution into oblivion. Now
Darwin only observed how life changes its outward appear. So, he
could not infer *what the consciousness of life was* and what its
purpose was. Charles Darwin was unfortunately not asking
philosophical questions because he was only studying the matter of
this world. He recorded what objective reality looked like to him.
He only saw the fighting (the sin of the world), the war, or "life eat
life just to live", and he then tried to infer from this objective
reality as to what the propose of this struggle is. His final
conclusion was the notion, "Survival of the fittest." ...And this
notion, I do not subscribe to. 
Discuss this Journal entry [9]
Latest reply: Jan 13, 2005
Ooops! Sorry. I mean, Greetings Thomas Kent! :-)
Posted Jan 12, 2005
Now, when I remembered our *first* talk with one another (your reply to my "Greetings from the Christmas Nazis"), I got ruffled. But, I have preened my feathers straight again.
Anyway, I understand my human condition well, so I will be posting my more radical ideas in my story (as metaphor and as character's dialogues) instead of posting essays in other people's journals.
Once you've read my recent email to you, I hope that we can develop a better understanding of each other. As of now, I don't know you and you don't know me. So all mistakes have been made in ignorance.
Discuss this Journal entry [1]
Latest reply: Jan 12, 2005
Greetings Dim26Trav
Posted Jan 12, 2005
Now, when I remembered our *first* talk with one another (your reply to my "Greetings from the Christmas Nazis"), I got ruffled. But, I have preened my feathers straight again.
Anyway, I understand my human condition well, so I will be posting my more radical ideas in my story (as metaphor and as character's dialogues) instead of posting essays in other people's journals.
Once you've read my recent email to you, I hope that we can develop a better understanding of each other. As of now, I don't know you and you don't know me. So all mistakes have been made in ignorance.
Discuss this Journal entry [1]
Latest reply: Jan 12, 2005
I am a Debater. :-)
Posted Jan 12, 2005
I will only be posting my story from now on. I have to do this because I am a debater. As a debater, I present another perspective to consider or (as another action) I make a retort. I do get into fights, like my father (and this does not imply that he is a bad man), by debating with people.
I, one time, debated with brother when I shouldn't have. I do misread people's moods. When my brother said, "Leiann, the greenhouse effect is premanently changing the seasons... [and he was going to add more]." I started a debate with him by saying, "The seasons are always changing. On a geological scale, long-time seasons (according to our perspective) have changed... [and I was going to say more]." But I pissed him off, and he said that I didn't try to listen to him. He was right, and I later apologized.
Discuss this Journal entry [1]
Latest reply: Jan 12, 2005
Greetings!
Posted Jan 12, 2005
Well, I will only be writing my story for now on.
******************************
I have to keep my "reply" posts to other people's journals to a few words. Ah, sheesh, I write essays. Well, there is no other recourse but to keep my essays in my journal.
******************************
Discuss this Journal entry [1]
Latest reply: Jan 12, 2005
ViveAnn
Researcher U1171759
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."