The Evolutionary Development of Mutuality in Hubris of Fundamentalist Christian Creationist & Naive Darwinian Evolutionary Dice Players

I feel obliged to write. I have already blogged about the consistency of evolutionary theory and intelligent design. In my view they are totally compatible with each other despite the rabid positions taken on this debate by both sides.

That the universe was created complete in "six days" can hardly be a reason for dispute. The "big bang" people probably think that 6 days is too long but as a day had no meaning before their was an earth to go round the sun and spin on its axis that is hardly a big issue.

It was indeed seen as "Good". All the evidence is that the system that came into being in this very short space of time came with the complete blueprint for stars, galaxies, the milkyway, the solar system and all "goods" creatures including the, rose, horse and man as well as that slowly manifesting being Gaia of which we are a small but integral part. As Teilhard du Chardin, the great Belgium priest and scholar of divinity and philosophy maintained we are manifested in this universe as part of the goods "global consciousness"

Those who say the PROCESS that came into being at the creation of the universe as entirely random are mathematically and scientifically wrong headed, no evidence supporting their view is sustainable on the evidence. The very short timescales observable for speciation are far too short for their theories of randomness to be sustainable. Anyway it is well documented that randomness is a manifestation of our perceptual ignorance not some universal truth about reality. It is true we are unable to identify the patterns in the 'good'. Generallywe try to see it on time scales where the unfolding blueprint of the 'good' is not immediately manifest in observable outcomes.

Those who take the design position choose at one level to ignore the 'good's' PROCESS and see it as complete at its point of manifestation. In doing so they inconsistently chose to ignore the history of the ongoing PROCESS so integral to their beliefs.

Christ they argue was born and died to help us right the wrong of "original sin" and our casting out from access to the bounty naturally provided complete to us by the"good's" PROCESS on this planet - "look at the lilies of the field" etc.

The process of evolutionary development as set out in the Old Testament illustrate the dangers of humanity's huge capacity to indulge in hubris. We not only left the Garden of Eden we set out to systematically and ruthlessly destroy every manifestation of it with the ultimate hubris of the "peaceful" farmers who with their tools and weapons turned most of the "goods" plants into weeds to be eradicated, its creatures into vermin to be destroyed and our own kind into enemies to be killed. The Old Testament makes manifest the consequences of all this.

Christ in the New Testament provided a means for us to begin to undo "original" sin, seek the 'goods' forgiveness and forgive others their perceived transgressions against us, "judge not that ye be judged" Of course Christ did not dispel hubris he only gave as a means to seek the "goods" forgiveness for our wanton destruction of its bounty. In doing so our hubris took this as a license to start a new period of human evolution which is only to end with a Day of Judgment to be meted out by the good.

In this modern period our hubris knew no evident bounds. manifest to its worse degree in the deep, black and evil hypocrisy of so called 'believers' in the Good and Christ. They choose to use the Good and Christ's New Testament as grounds to destroy and or kill others sure in their belief that their actions will be forgiven by the Good at the Day of the Good's Judgement which we acknowledge will surely come but will it end in tears or joy and for whom?

Such unbound hubris produced the enlightenment and the modern age. In this we have not just been content to eliminate the good's living plants and creatures but in this modern age to systematically exhume the dead of the goods PROCESS and burn and consume its dead in such huge and unsustainable quantities that this is accelerating our approach to the Good's Day of Judgment.

We are just beginning to be able to see this reality. Some are truly preparing for that day. The only danger remaining comes from the hypocritical hubris of farmers and modernists, i. e. creationist believers and evolutionary dice playing non-believers. One can only hope that the good, with Christ's help, may still save us from the dangerous hubris of both. Their self indulgent sustained efforts at maintaining there respective manifest ignorance of the 'good's' creation may unfortunately result in us becoming redundant to the achievement of the evolutionary ends it created. Instead of being forgiven at the Day of Judgment we may instead be confined in Toto to the pit. Lets hope and pray not.

The Falicy of Organizational Heirarchy: the Evolution of Self Organization

I think there is a fatal flaw in the argument that some make that organizational heirarchy is needed or that it even exists.

These arguments often start with a presumption that the human corpus is centrally controlled. This is simply inaccurate. Stafford Beer many years ago in “The Brain of the Firm” used the human brain as an analogy appropriate in considering the “managerial cybernetics”, the organization, of enterprise.

The whole point of his credo and his analysis is that the human or nay brain is very very far from being a centralized directive and controlling system. In a very real and practical sense 70% plus of its operations are entirely decentralized to autonomous systems that keep our heart beating, our lungs working, our food being digested or rejected and our bodies repaired with no reference whatsoever to any central authority.

Even at the level of the cerebral cortex and the other “higher levels” of our central nervous system’s behaviour decision making is NEVER centrally directed or controlled. It emerges as a consequence of a self organizing process. In it “good and evil” in a myriad shades of gray fight for dominance over every minute outcome we seek or need to achieve. Most of the activity involved is sublimible. It is located in our unconscious not our conscious mind - we are lazy, energetic, sexually aroused or positive about things not as a result of rationale logical decisive cetnrally directeed thought but as a result of stuff welling up from a heaving morass of unconscious neural activity guided by past experience and fearful of irrational expectatios as to possible outcomes unrelated to the immediate stimuluses we have constructed a belief that we are reacting to - behaviour is the result of learning and is not not enacted inthe moment.

To top all of this our central nervous system is emmersed in a chemical bath, our body and the things it senses which have a continuous but unseen impact on what we like to call our state of mind. This chemical matrix has a huge impact on our choices. Hormones determine huge ammounts of our behaviour as do other less evident factors such as the amount of oxygen and many other chemicals in our blood.

This is an organization it is true and organization that is necessary but it is anything but centrally directed or even really heiracrchical. It is a self organizing network of semi-autonomous but interconnected systems that embraces external social institutions and societies as wella s our bodies and none of which has any truly evident part in directing the actions of the whole.

Lao Tze in the Tao de Ching saw the best leaders as those we were not aware of because they empower as so effectively that we believe in our own capacity to act and decided effectively using our mind and the institutions and societies we can effect. The search for the myth of leadership and or the necessity for central direction is surely that a myth an other philosopher's stone.