Supreme or Humans first.

HEy BRad. Its only "logical" that since the supreme being encompasses nature and human beings alike, supreme being comes first since nature created humans long after its many other creations. But I think to look at creation and wiegh them according time would quite frankly be a misleading and disproportionate perspective. If we return to the most basic view of things where all is one and one is all, our subentities under THE entity are all of equal importance and time, really, doesn;t exist. We humans have existed in the world long before we were humans as different forms and enitites. The actual essence is alwasy there. So I think(props to Henning) that we humans and the supreme being emerge at the smae time. Unless its the actual entity of a human of that specific form.

@mike
That was rosa's point, not mine.

Humans were "created", science says, through evolution right? we started out as monkeys! and the monkeys started out as the bacteria in the water right? AP Bio people should be the most clear Anyhow, humans didn't start out as humans and so the real question is what created the other living organisms we evolved from right? since everything we know should have a beginning...the beginning of everything most likely came from a higher power...if not where did the beginning come from? It's really hard to argue there is no higher power because everything that happened could have been caused by the higher power to appear to be caused by something else. i don't know if i'm making any sense it's hard to concentrate on a four-day weekend

so henning, since this is more theory/opinion-based, and there's no absolutes, we're more arguing for the sake of logic? persuasion?

about the virus thing.. cruel as it sounds, what if the holocaust was also another way to keep the humans from overpopulating our planet? why the Jewish population, then, you might ask? well, if we're all equal, that might just be due to chance that the central intelligence chose them as targets. actually if we're all equal, then would it matter if it were Jewish people or Catholics or Muslims or Hindis? i'm NOT trying to diminish the respect that is owed to the Jewish population or make the holocaust seem less horrible. i'm just putting an idea out there.

dont worry annie, I totally get what you feel there because i've had the same feelings for many things. The Bible talks about how the world is going to be in chaos before Judgment Day (I think) so I used to think all the calamities from global warming, all the pandemics, and whatnot were going to culminate to that (meaning I naively thought the world was reaching its end, soon. xD) But then seriously, if natural selection works, it should equally apply to human beings. Why should we humans be spared this global, possibly universal (though we wouldnt really know, unless we discover life elsewhere), law of nature? So we might have a "bigger control" of this planet than other species (in that we can manipulate a heck lot of things) but I still think that in the end, nature rules. I love whoever pointed out that global warming isnt killing nature because nature and its creatures will evolve, natural selection occurs, and new species will arise, keeping nature alive. It is us we are killing (unless of course, we make Earth uninhabitable to all living things). So back to my point about Annie's point, I have always wondered, all these massacres, either man-made or natural, maybe it is to keep humans from stepping too much over the line [of Earth's carrying capacity for us]. We know we seriously can't keep growing at this exponential rate, that sooner or later, we'll reach carrying capacity and something's gonna happen, or maybe somethings. Because, as Emerson says, everything happens for a reason, right?
But yeah, as Annie points out, wars (or eugenics) kill so many people. Nature fights back with global warming/worldwide diseases, humans fight with intracompetition (if that's the term, kinda forgot).
haha yeah, that's just a slight sidetrack, something I've also thought about for some time too ^^

my stance would still be that sbeing came before hbeing, but it would be a different matter if we were arguing nonlocal domain vs physical domain (or let's just add quantum domain to that equation for that matter). In that case, I think all three are "cocreated" at once, concurrent with each other, becasue in the end everything boils down to the theory that "we are all one." that would mean that all three domains affect each other because in a sense they are all each other. if that makes sense O_o. Is there even a beginning to all this or is this just like a mobius strip - no beginning, no end, it just is?

goodness this is exactly what I kept on thinking everytime I read/interpreted Emerson. It seemed all like a huge circle: A indicates B, which then goes on to show how C works, and then C supports the occurance of A.
and as Emily asks, is there a beginning? What is "the beginning"? I was taught that God has no beginning or end. If we are all one and time doesnt exist, is there a point in trying to find a beginning, one which does not seem to exist? I think I've started to confuse myself xD

@Mike.
So youre saying that the essence of humans mightve been floating around, along with when the SBeing was around, but it didnt become the physical human form until way later? hm..

I just want to throw in a reminder here, the supreme being/higher being/essence/potential whatever you wish to call it, resides in the nonlocal domain. This realm has neither time nor distance which are merely two more possibilities in a place of infinite possibility. Everything "occurs" or rather, exists in a single moment, all at the same time and all coordinated, the nonlocal domain is a point, a line, a plane, a space, it is infinite and uncontained, it always was and always is and always has been (this last part in terms of our domain, which DOES incorporate the existence of time in its infrastructure).

This in mind, I think it can be safe to say, though I'm in want of a better term, that the supreme being "came first." Matter that exists as a manfestation of the potential in the local domain, humans are a recombination of that matter which resulted eventually over time guided by the laws of the physical world. This is in terms of that which exists in our physical realm however, "time," again, is insubstantial and trivial in the nonlocal domain, so it's next to impossible to tie bradley's two given ideas and tie them together under the rule of "time" and come up with an answer that holds true in one domain as well as in the other.

@joyce, nature IS killing nature, stop thinking of things in terms of "man-made" and "natural." Normally "man-made" would be a sub-classification of what is "natural" but a lot of what peple are saying implies that they view it as "unnatural." It's not, human's are as much a part of nature as other more "natural" things, our actions and what we do on this earth is natural.

Addressing people of the discussion as a whole: If you view our "destruction" of the earth as unnatural, by analogy wouldn't that mean you view the actions of any other animal as unnatural? Our pollution and overpopulation is just what happens, it's what humans do, it's not unnatural in the least. There's no fight going on between humans or nature, we aren't fighting to prevail against some opponent in a game, and that's it, it's not a game between team human and team nature, nature isn't trying to extinguish us. Just stop thinking of it that way, it's completely innaccurate view on what nature is and what humans are, life isn't a battle with the objective: kill nature, or kill humans.

uh so in response to Fiona: well in my previous post i said i wasn't sure so don't get me wrong, it was just an idea countering the theories other people came up with saying that the Supreme Being came first:) My main message is to say that, i agree with Henning that we could debate this topic from every different perspectives and it really all depends on our own opinion. Frankly, I can see where you are coming from Fee, it's quite logical and plausible. But in my own opinion, i agree with Rosa, Mike, Henning,Ken, along with the others( sorry i can't remember everyone!) that if we were to return to the most basic and fundamental origin of life---or the universe, essence of every rock, tree, bacteria, water falls etc. would already exist. This is speaking to the idea of the universal Being= the connection of all essence flowing in and out through the Universe, with forces pushing and pulling it, gathering everything as a whole. So here's my theory:

There is an abundance of energy--movements of microscopic atoms held together by bonds and forces within everything. This is the basic, and most essential building block of existence--vibration. So now, here we have: vibration, energy. In non-local terms, there is no distance and there is no time for things to occur. It's a whole other dimension. So Supreme Being and the Universal Being might just simply exist together because these forces of Being are here, on earth. We, like Joyce said, just label it so we think we created it. We, as humans, living things on this earth can feel these sources of power--that's how we know it's there. What distinguishes us from all the other species on earth is that we are a species with the mind. Our mind is what makes us so extraordinary and unique. Our mind is why we have the spiral dynamics--evolution. WE don't evolve just physically with natural selection, we evolve culturally, mentally, emotionally, and you name it. We have the ability to accelerate and grow and develop and advance ourselves to almost an "infinite" degree. Both genders have shifted dramatically--no, our whole species have shifted. We are capable of altering and shaping just about everything to an extent we're most fit. We are humans. So my point is that the Supreme Being, and the Universal Being just simply exist, it's just there--we have to accept it. And i dont think I'm going to question which one came first, all that matters to me is that they exist. There is no time, refering back to the Power of Now. I think that's a logical and well explained concept--props to Tolle. Yeah, there's no time, in nonlinear terms, we're just bubbles of energy evolving and changing but there's no time if we're viewing from a very general and basic level.

Guys- let's be free of the psychological time and just see that there is no past, future, but there is the present. What if everything we've witnessed IS the present. Yes theres the happened, but that doesn't mean there's "time"

"Time is what keeps the light from reaching us. THere is no greater obstacle to God than time"--i agree with Rosa, there's no point in arguing which one came first. Because that's just our minds wanting to classify and label and put into the filing cabinet. Let's just accept that those two powers exist in the Universe and that there's no literal time to determine which one came first. Both Powers are significant in our lives and they're the most fundamental and essential aspects of our essence.

Kenny wrote:
@joyce, nature IS killing nature, stop thinking of things in terms of "man-made" and "natural." Normally "man-made" would be a sub-classification of what is "natural" but a lot of what peple are saying implies that they view it as "unnatural." It's not, human's are as much a part of nature as other more "natural" things, our actions and what we do on this earth is natural.

Hm...I totally understand your point here and I concur. We are part of nature, so I guess what we manifest is also "natural".
But I think what I said was misunderstood (and very likely I did not express myself clearly enough, so I apologize). I wasnt using the "man-made" and "natural" as a dividing line. I said that humans also fall under nature, so natural selection also works for us, and that global warming/wars/illnesses are the mechanisms that are acting about natural selection. the only reason i mentioned "man-made" and "natural" is because we usually think that we humans created the global warming mess and that nature is responding, or that we had decided to kill each other in battles (maybe this is human nature or something. NO i am NOT suggesting that it is human nature to kill others. I am just sayin that this is a part of humans that isnt acted out through what we conventionally define as "nature" (the birds and trees and such)) I am aware that the paragraph after that quote is directed to such a distinction. But understand, I was supporting what you just said Ken, I agree that humans are part of nature, and we are not exempt from nature's laws. Wars/Holocaust, global warming, and those other examples are just my reasoning to back up that statement.
and the second point I think I didnt express clearly. it sounds a bit weird when i try to think of an analogy but here goes. when i say nature isnt killing itself, i mean that nature, as a whole, doesnt disappear. there is internal disappearances, but the whole still exists. you exterminate a species, nature still goes on. it'll find a way to fill up that niche. nature is flexible that way. you can take parts away, but you can't destroy the whole (unless of course, as i mentioend before, you make Earth totally uninhabitable. but is nature just limited to living things? doenst it also include the ocean, wind, and those things? so even without living creatures, the nonliving things are still nature. right?)
I hope that's makes more sense. (sorry if i still sound illogical. it's like midnight ) but again i apologize for the misunderstandings and I'm thankful for what youve pointed out ken. Ms. Kay sure is right when she said we're being tested on how well we can articulate ourselves to be understood.

haha, in response to eph's post. as i was reading the last paragraph, i had the thought of how it seems like we're giving up, we're letting all this be an "excuse" for why we can't find the answer. but then, i realized this is my egomind. it wants to classify and find the freaking answer. it thinks we're being lazy in that we're just gonna attribute what we can't answer to what we've suggested. but isnt that the mystery of life? are we really meant to know all the answers? what good will it serve us? i like how eph says it: Let's just accept that those two powers exist in the Universe and that there's no literal time to determine which one came first. Both Powers are significant in our lives and they're the most fundamental and essential aspects of our essence.
but of course this isnt to say that we shouldnt try to seek the answer, we still need to maintain that high level of curiosity or else we wont grow.
i think of that quote "it's not the answer that's important, but the question". i never really understood it until now.
yay

would it be wrong for me to say that I believe you're all going in the wrong direction with the current conclusion of "simultaneous existence?"

while time may be nonlinear and no more than a concept, it can still be defined. Take the concept of infinity, for example. Infinity itself isn't really a number, and operations with infinity as a number tend to be undefined.
For example, infinity minus infinity = 0, right?
However:
(3+Infinity)-Infinity=3
Thus, the answer is actually undefined. The same applies to the operation "infinity*0," which is also undefined.

Though infinity itself can not be operated with, we can use rational number operations to yield infinite results or irrational numbers that have infinite digits. Thus, I believe such concepts, though possibly undefinable at the non local domain, are definable at the domain of our existence, the local domain.

If time is nonlinear even at the level of our existence, we would perceive everything as simultaneously occurring events.

I get what you guys are saying by "if time is nonlinear then there is no point in arguing whether humans came first or the supreme being came first," but think a bit first. We, humans, are not what you call "non local." We exist in the local domain, even if we did originate from the non local domain. In this sense, it is the rules of the local domain that apply to us, and in the local domain time, though a concept in general, can still be defined and perceived. Unless humans have existed since the dawn of time, which isn't possible in the local domain, I don't think you can conclude that we have come into existence the same time the supreme being came into existence.

Then again, I can not say that the local domain hasn't existed since the dawn of time for sure. However, it is highly unlikely that humans, an ASPECT of the local domain, have been in existence as long as the local domain has.

if you got lost somewhere in the above paragraphs-and that's perfectly understandable-I'll lay it out in a more concise manner:
-Time, a concept undefinable in the non-local domain, still applies to the local domain in the sense that it can be perceived
-Humans are part of the local domain
-Thus, humans are subject to rules of time, and therefore can not be a nonlinear existence

The nonlocal component of humans, after all, is the soul, which according to our definition, originates from the supreme being.

So in the end, it comes down to the same the same thing: whether you believe in the supreme being or not.

Once again, if you believe in it, then your beliefs will tell you that the supreme being "came first"
If you do not believe in it, then to you the concept of the supreme being is nothing more than a religion that we humans have fabricated.

Maybe then, what Bradley is asking, is which originates from the other, human or the supreme being?

my apologies if I made contradictory statements. if you spot any, kindly point them out and I will correct them.

Then again Kenneth, consider what we've talked about in class. Why is it that HUMAN BEINGS are the species that cause Global Warming, wars, deforestation... etc? I don't see whales doing those terrible things, do you? What makes us so special that we get to do all these destructive things to nature? What makes us different? Consider our large, advanced brains, then. What's made us different from our close ancestors, the apes? Could it be the addition of the egomind? or maybe the egomind was already present in apes. Then could it be perhaps the SIZE of our egominds? We have the largest prefrontal cortex - the part of our brain that supposedly created all our egomind thinking right? (correct me if i'm wrong. It might not be called prefrontal cortex - simply the front part of our brain) The back part is with all the primal instincts. Remember how in class we discussed how the egomind out of control is what is making us break from nature's natural course, it's what's making us so destructive and not in tune with the rest of nature. Yes, that means that we're an anomaly, that we're cancerous to nature, YES that means there's a difference between nature and humans - unless you want to continue to think of it in a strict literal technical way. We've deviated from the rest of nature, making us UNNATURAL - the same way if a group of cells start deviating from NATURAL cell cycles and divide uncontrollably, it's called cancer and is considered UNNATURAL.

Henning:

-Time, a concept undefinable in the non-local domain, still applies to the local domain in the sense that it can be perceived
-Humans are part of the non-local domain
-Thus, humans are subject to rules of time, and therefore can not be a nonlinear existence

you mean "humans are part of the LOCAL domain"??

otherwise i agree with you (though I didn't quite understand the infinity equations). Perhaps perceiving time as "linear" would help us humans, manifestations at the physical (local) domain, deal with everything. Therefore we are subject to both nonlinear and linear time rules - I know that sounds a bit funky O_o - since we belong to both. But then I say again, time really is just another abstract term that we humans have coined in order to let us communicate the "original idea" - or essence - with each other more effectively right?

ok, i understand whyeph and rosa (and others?) would say we shouldnt bother ourselves with this question since the answer is probably insignificant or inconclusive, but kudos to joyce for pointing out passion and curiosity and growth. thoughts are what's making us evovle, right? or that's waht i remember we agreed on in our class discussions O_o. And education is supposed to help us with our thought processes, so i would think the process of thinking is important and significant. "The question is more important than the answer" - yay! So i would think it IS productive for ourselves in terms of our own intellectual/mental growth, but the answer would always be indefinite - since as Henning pointed out, absolutes in these kind of discussions are invalid. We're supposed to grow from these discussions, right? So yes, we know that there is no definite answer, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a discussion, right?

Despite the above post, the idea of "do not delve too deep into the mysteries of the universe" is still wise advice. There are good reasons not to, and your mind knows it.

While typing up my post a while ago, I started thinking about the age old question of how/why things exist. My conclusions (actually, lack of conclusions) were unsettling thoughts, that literally made me feel uncomfortable.

Ask yourself the following:
-How is it that the universe exists?
-How is it that a higher power exists?
-What does it feel like to not exist?

Spend too much time thinking about it, and you made end up insane.

This, however, states something else. If you think about it, existence, our universe, MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL. The basis of our universe is CONCEPTUAL, and this concept is the concept i mentioned above:infinity.

If one thing was created by another, than there is always going to be a being higher than the previous, an infinite number of higher beings.
If one thing has existed forever (nonlinear existence) then it has existed for an infinite amount of time.

The feeling of nonlinear existence, and the mere thought of it, actually makes no sense at all to us. How can anything exist if it never came into existence?

We can never fully understand this concept of infinity. No one can. If you think you do, I must say you're either insane or mistaken. Because of this, once again I must say you can not apply this concept to humans. We may have a link to it, which is our link to the nonlocal domain, but this link is not the same as actually existing in the nonlocal domain, which is why we can only understand a mere portion of this concept.

The rules of the nonlocal domain do not apply in the same manner at the local domain.

@annie
That's right, thanks for the catch.

Annie Fu wrote:Then again Kenneth, consider what we've talked about in class. Why is it that HUMAN BEINGS are the species that cause Global Warming, wars, deforestation... etc?

Regarding this, I'll just restate what he said, in my words.
Humans are a product of nature. Things we produce are also part of nature, as they all involve elements that already existed in nature. Thus, anything we should do is by definition, "natural." Just think of it in a classification way, like the animal groups we all learned in bio (and you guys probably reviewed). Kingdom->Phylum->Class->Order->Family->Genus->Species

Nature->Mammals->Humans->Products/Impact

Artificial things are by definition a product man.
Man is a product nature.
Therefore, anything artificial is also a product of nature.

When you say you don't see whales damaging the environment like we do, well, I doubt you've seen them performing photosynthesis like plants and bacteria do. Every animal has a different impact on our environment, but that doesn't make them any bit less or more natural than they really are.

Okay, that was a bad example, thanks for correcting that =]

But just to clear things up for everyone again, my main point was that humans are the ones that are no longer existing in harmony with the rest of nature.

Unless we're gonna start a debate on the definition of "in harmony" O_O

well, despite being the only species that seems to have caused such a significant impact, we still cannot escape the classification of "natural," no matter how "superior" we believe ourselves to be.

hey guys! let's keep in mind Bradley's initial question lol. i'm noticing some digression.
If Henning and Annie would please explain to me how humans not being in harmony with nature and the idea about existence ( Henning) connect with the Supreme Being and the Universal Being?

Henning- do you mean that because humans are in the physical domain, the local domain, that the nonlocal domain concept doesn't apply to us physically? in other words do you mean that we can't exist in the nonlocal domain, but only our souls can? If so, henning, i think that's quite reasonable because in the "Mind, Matter, Spirit" packet, it stated evidence of the nonlocal domain. However i don't think we can actually live in the nonlocal domain. Henning--help me connect back to the Supreme/Universal Being.

Annie-- that was what i was saying earlier:) yay. I completely, without a doubt, whole heartedly agree with you that human beings--because of the ego mind, evidently are more and more removed from nature. It's like we're creating and amending everything to terms where we see most fit. We're being manipulated by our very massive ego mind and here's how we're contributing in the system of excessive consumerism. but that's another whole other matter to discuss about! If you want, to all you guys posting, we can discuss these topics in the free discussion part of the forum. lol So, Annie, how is this related to the question of Universal Being/ Supreme Being and the matter of which one coming first?

I havent been able to view this thread a lot, and post. Because of an eye infection.. = = But, Ty for all the posts, and as steph H said, please relate back to the topic. Ill try to post later. Cant really see much at the moment.

hm..so Henning, or was it Kenneth, we're saying that both the HBeing and SBeing might have very well existed at the same time, none of this 'one before the other' at the nonlocal domain, but we're trying to find out which one came first in the local domain because in here, time, as a local law, IS defined and exists so there should be some order of who came first.
and physically, it seems like humans came later?

@Annie
Annie perhaps what you mean in describing cancer, is "abnormal" rather than "unnatural," cancer occurs naturally in every animal and while it IS abnormal in regards to "normal" cell behaviour, it isn't unnatural, cancer happens through "natural means" ie. DNA coding mistake, viruses, but not because of some kind of black magic or some rip in the universe. I put "normal" in quotes because again, everything is all a matter of perspective, you can only say something is abnormal or unnatural when you have something to compare it to. Here's an example of the flaws in perspective familiar to the the thread, the holocaust, what the humans who caused it did, is abnormal when compared to what normal humans would do, the nature of the deviation from normal human behavior is abnormal, but when we look at this at a higher level the deviation itself is normal, all humans are different to some degree, no human is the average human. Most people would be inclined to think that the holocaust is a horrible thing, but when we shed our sentiments and look at it objectively, it's NORMAL, if it happens in nature, it's normal. Also, by definition, something natural is something that occurs in nature, if that's the case, anything that hasn't happened yet is unnatural and anythign that has happened can be considered natural, in this sense, everything that happens in our world is natural. No such thing as unnatural. There is abnormal and normal when you have something to set the bar and make a comparison to, but there isn't any natural or unnatural.

Also, who says that human beings aren't in harmony with nature? if you consider the way we live now to be out of harmony, would you say that chewing grass or hunting deer with rocks is real harmony? What we do is what we do, we're in harmony with nature no matter what we do, perhaps the "harmony" you're thinking of is living mutually? +/+ right? instead of +/-, well, if we are a parasite to the life here on earth, then we are parasites, but parasites are just as natural as any other type of animal and are just as in harmony with nature as any other animal.

And thank's henning for clearing my clutter of ideas up for annie.

@joyce
well, I'm not really sure about what hennign said, but what I said is that we can't exactly say which came first. Because there is no time where the supreme being resides, you can't explain it's existence in terms of time in our world. But roughly, in terms of our physical world, human beings came later yes.

hrm...in addition to what kenny said about annie's posts...parasites are part of nature, so theyre "natural" (since actually everything is "natural"). they just do what their job is, and that might be harmful to others, but it's what theyre assigned to do. if parasites changed their way of life, they wouldnt be parasites, they'd be something else? or maybe just that they wont be labelled parasites. so because what they do is their purpose, they are in harmony with nature (as a whole) even though they might be hurting individuals.
but i'm kinda iffy about this being applied to humans. (though my thoughts arent too strong and i'm just floating around, throwing some random thoughts out, so sorry if they seem completely off and illogical). the purpose of humans wasnt to be parasites, so it feels like we've deviated from our roles. and we're hurting much more than just a few individuals (but are we hurting the whole nature?) so what happens when our roles shift? we evolve with the spiral dynamics? we've become "abnormal"?

but yes, as eph said, this feels like a huge digression. i dont even remember how we got here. sorry bradley

joyceychen wrote:the purpose of humans wasnt to be parasites

And you would know this because?

so it feels like we've deviated from our roles. and we're hurting much more than just a few individuals (but are we hurting the whole nature?) so what happens when our roles shift? we evolve with the spiral dynamics? we've become "abnormal"?

If our roles shift, then our roles shift, nothing big. And of course we hurt more than just a few individuals, it's the same with any other animal, they hurt other animals too, we are not unique in this sense.

Spiral dynamics is simply one of the many ways humans classify their evolution and existence, spiral dynamics has not been proven to depict the true nature of our evolution, it's merely a plausible theory, it does not define our evolution nor does it justify our existence. We've become abnormal relative to what we were like at the last stage of evolution, but we are normal in regards to the modern human being, again, it's all a matter of perspective, the results of the comparison you make can vary over a vast range of ideas depending on what you choose to compare us to.

hm..so Henning, or was it Kenneth, we're saying that both the HBeing and SBeing might have very well existed at the same time, none of this 'one before the other' at the nonlocal domain, but we're trying to find out which one came first in the local domain because in here, time, as a local law, IS defined and exists so there should be some order of who came first.
and physically, it seems like humans came later?

Would humans and the SBeing have existed at the same time in the non-local domain?

According to Henning's post about the genus > species etc. etc., I'd have to say, don't we all have segments of the SBeing? If the SBeing exists in the nonlocal domain, then wouldn't we be a manifest of the SBeing in the local domain? (If I'm oversimplifying things, please do tell me, lol.) Human beings aren't part of the nonlocal domain - or at least our bodies aren't.

And that introduces the element of time - isn't time only a tool of measurement? Though we are all subjected to the effects of time, it doesn't affect what we are. The SBeing remains untouched by time, and in a way it's alike how nature can regenerate itself to become a different form, to adapt. Nature is just like recycling in that we're still made out of the same materials. Is that SBeing then? Our "material"?

As for the other discussion on whether or not we humans have diverged from nature, we're most like cancer cells now - we destroy along wherever we go by wasting and trashing our planet. So are we a "mutation"? Does that makes us unnatural, or merely abnormal?

Kenny wrote:

joyceychen wrote:the purpose of humans wasnt to be parasites

And you would know this because?

haha, ok maybe i dont

Kenny wrote:We've become abnormal relative to what we were like at the last stage of evolution, but we are normal in regards to the modern human being, again, it's all a matter of perspective, the results of the comparison you make can vary over a vast range of ideas depending on what you choose to compare us to.

I like that, first part especially.

ROAR this is getting all so @_@

According to Henning's post about the genus > species etc. etc., I'd have to say, don't we all have segments of the SBeing? If the SBeing exists in the nonlocal domain, then wouldn't we be a manifest of the SBeing in the local domain? (If I'm oversimplifying things, please do tell me, lol.) Human beings aren't part of the nonlocal domain - or at least our bodies aren't.

so are we defining human beings to be just the physical body? what about our souls?

As for the other discussion on whether or not we humans have diverged from nature, we're most like cancer cells now - we destroy along wherever we go by wasting and trashing our planet. So are we a "mutation"? Does that makes us unnatural, or merely abnormal?

Mutations can simply be "abnormal", as Kenneth says, because theyre a deviation from what we called "normal." But, as we've learned, mutations arent all that bad! some are actually beneficial. SOME.
and I think we've come to the agreement that there is no such thing as "unnatural."

i agree with joanne-- i think it's better to keep things as simple as your explanation. lol it makes complete sense
um. i don't have anything to add at the moment.

joyceychen wrote:

According to Henning's post about the genus > species etc. etc., I'd have to say, don't we all have segments of the SBeing? If the SBeing exists in the nonlocal domain, then wouldn't we be a manifest of the SBeing in the local domain? (If I'm oversimplifying things, please do tell me, lol.) Human beings aren't part of the nonlocal domain - or at least our bodies aren't.

so are we defining human beings to be just the physical body? what about our souls?

I was thinking more on the lines of this: our bodies and our souls are all technically part of the nonlocal domain; the local domain is the components of the non-local domain formed into an ever-changing structure that continues to fluctuate at the mercy of time. However, since the most raw materials of the local domain are just being recycled, over and over again to form new beings that will in time die and be born again (such that energy cannot be created or destroyed,) our bodies and our souls are made out of technically the same things; only that our soul becomes the essence of what makes us a human being. Our body may be physical but we're just a rivet in the stream - we seem like we are continue to become different things but actually, we've always been part of the non-local domain.

I'm confusing myself as well, and sorry if my previous post was a little fuzzy at some parts, haha.

warning to all forum users: do not miss posting for three days or else you will be as confused and as I am right now.


but it's okay i'm reading everyone's posts :]