NCR: The imbalance issue
senses 2

From: "fmn" <fmniganmu@ALPHA.LINKSERVE.COM>
To: <CREED-DISCUSS@WINDUPLIST.COM>
Date: Tue
29 May 2001 15:00:33 -0700

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