I think that whatever your philosophy is, the
most important thing to do on this earth is to be an individual and leave a part
of yourself behind. To quote Ray Bradbury: "Everyone must leave something behind
when he dies. Something your hand touched some way so your soul
has somewhere to go when you die." It is also of an uttermost importance to
create a deeper meaning to your life and to have a purpose of some kind and to
be aware of your transitory nature. To quote the Raven, here: "Nothing is forever, not life, not love, not death, or loss.
Only change is eternal, and only destruction can the seed of creation form.
For only in acceptance of mortality will you learn the secrets of
immortality..." I mean, even when looking at it from a logical point of view,
you'd have to agree with the fact that thinking processes must have a reason and
therefore must bring you to certain conclusions which can be considered as
axioms of reality. So I guess the imbalance is there to bring us to a balance
(in a way that is the less forced upon) - but only to a certain degree - leaving
some space for further "investigation of mind" and providing us with the vital
energy of seeking.
Jumping once again to the "senses"
topic:
Jackson wrote:
> We evolved the senses that
we do have because they were what was
> necessary for our lives, at least
prior to civilization. Additional
> senses and additional realities must
have very little impact on us,
> because otherwise it seems that we would
have evolved to deal much
> more efficiently with such
things.
<<I don't think that the senses fall away
and come about from the need of
them. >>
Not when you consider a lifetime, but in the long
run.. things change. Refer to the theory of evolution. And this is where we
agree (I suppose), because you said: <<I
believe it is more to the fact that the advantage is to the most able to
survive. >> and that's what I think, too.
And this indeed is an
interesting point of view here: <<Maybe those that could not
survive the natural state have more senses than us. Which took away from their
natural survival ability. Maybe thier
development was faster in other
aspects. Which stalled thier physical
development.>> yes, I think this could be possible. But on the other hand saying:
<< -- But contrary to
the survival of the fittest. The strongest species would be one of the stronger
animals of the earth. Not
us humans.>> I don't agree
with you here. Humans being the strongest species on earth (if you define the
word "strongest" as in not only physically strongest, but also intellectually)
are not a contrary to the survival of the fittest (if yet again you define
"fittest" as in physically and intellectually, which I think would be
an appropiate definition, because intelligence is a factor that plays a major
role in the evolution process).................. to be
continued