Reading this tutorial reminded me of the 1960's movie "Fantastic Voyage"...I'll never forget the scene when the leukocytes attacked the scientist's ship, dealing with them as they would any other foreign body. It's just amazing to me all the microscopic lifeforms, having their own experiences, that we are oblivious to...like bacteria and viruses.
The Archaea are really interesting in that they are single-celled, and genetically distinct from bacteria, while thriving in extreme environmental conditions. That's incredible to me. Like the lifeforms that live under the ocean in the thermal vents. How they tolerate the extreme heat is beyond me.
When I was reading about the Eukaryotes (which includes animals, plants and fungi) with all their specialized bio membranes and organelles, it seemed weird to me that the prevailing theory about their mitochondria and chloroplasts are believed to have originated as captured bacterium?! What a strange concept to consider. Here is an amazing organism, with complicated internal structures, their own genes and DNA, complete with a nucleus. Why, then, do we think that they wouldn't by design have a structure for energy production such as the mitochondria and one for photosynthesis, such as the chloroplasts. That would seem to be pretty core functionality...that bit of hypothesis was a disconnect for me.
The other thing that struck me was the Graph of Infectious Disease Killers in 1995...when I looked at it, I was struck by a couple of things...TB claimed 3.1 million lives. I know that there are multiple, drug-resistant strains of TB out there. Mainly, it's because the treatment centers around this multiple drug cocktail that someone suffering with the disease has to take for a year of more! As a matter of fact, the CDC office in Berkeley has some incurable strains in deep freeze for research purposes. I worked on a video project in 2000 for the World Health Organization and had the chance to work with a number of Microbiologists, who told me all sorts of unsettling information such as that.
And another 3.1 million died from Diarrhea...I guess that must have to do with unsanitary living conditions in third world countries suffering behind war and conflict (think: Africa and South America). It's really tragic because it is probably easily avoidable and curable...if only they had the proper public health and medical services.
Another thing my Microbiologist friends told me was that the range of Malaria is increasing due to global pollution and temperature changes. Such that the range of the mosquitoes that carry Malaria has increased and they are now seeing cases of the disease at elevations previously immune to the problem. These are some of the hidden problems caused by global warming.
And, as far as the 4.4 million cases of Respiratory Infections, again, I can't help think that the global pollution situation is easily contributing to these numbers.
So, if we were to consider species dominance based on sheer numbers, it's obvious that the bacteria and viruses are winning...and it looks like they just might come out on top in the end...by our own hand.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Homo = Chimps & Humans?
How do our genes really work? How does DNA know when to duplicate itself? It's amazing enough just to contemplate such things; but, oh, how humbling to realize that our 'superior' human species is not so very different genetically than chimps? Less than a .6% difference at that!
While I am very happy to know that at least this awareness will possibly "raise the chimps profile and potentially improve their conservation", helping to protect their species - it's not- a given. It's just too bad that we are so anthropocentric that it takes something like this to make us conscious enough to even consider that this species should be protected from extinction. Meanwhile, in 1998, "nearly seven out of 10 of the biologists polled said they believed a "mass extinction" was underway, and an equal number predicted that up to one-fifth of all living species could disappear within 30 years. Nearly all attributed the losses to human activity, especially the destruction of plant and animal habitats". http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html It's a mind-boggling consideration, if that prediction is true, what life will be like on this planet in 20 more short years.
So, while we ponder the implication of whether humans and chimps sit on the same branch of the family tree, and what ramifications that has genetically; we best also consider changing our ecological habits in order to sustain the earth that the tree is planted in, or there will be nothing left to consider.
While I am very happy to know that at least this awareness will possibly "raise the chimps profile and potentially improve their conservation", helping to protect their species - it's not- a given. It's just too bad that we are so anthropocentric that it takes something like this to make us conscious enough to even consider that this species should be protected from extinction. Meanwhile, in 1998, "nearly seven out of 10 of the biologists polled said they believed a "mass extinction" was underway, and an equal number predicted that up to one-fifth of all living species could disappear within 30 years. Nearly all attributed the losses to human activity, especially the destruction of plant and animal habitats". http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html It's a mind-boggling consideration, if that prediction is true, what life will be like on this planet in 20 more short years.
So, while we ponder the implication of whether humans and chimps sit on the same branch of the family tree, and what ramifications that has genetically; we best also consider changing our ecological habits in order to sustain the earth that the tree is planted in, or there will be nothing left to consider.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Why Darwinism Matters
It's just amazing to me the rationale that people will use to justify their behavior and paychecks. Please don't ask me to even seriously consider that "rape is not a pathology" but rather an "evolutionary adaptation, and strategy for maximizing reproductive success" as proposed in "The Natural History of Rape". I can't even believe that this topic has been seriously debated in the hallowed halls of academia for years! Seriously speaking, I want to know who funded such 'research' and paid for the publication of such a book. I think that these men need to spend a lifetime as a woman in Africa where rape is used by the guerrillas as a terrorist method to keep the people down and female genital mutilation is routinely practiced...then, we can have the conversation about rape once again and see if their opinions have changed.
And as far as author Thornhill's comment about "evolutionary background...not (being) a debatable matter", perhaps no one has told him that it's a working theory (which means it has and will continue to change) -not- cold, hard fact as he implies. In my estimation, Thornhill is simply co-opting evolutionary theory to justify his perspective and make his point.
In my estimation, Thornbill's approach is totally left-brained. As neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor writes in her illuminating book, My Stroke Of Insight: "one of the most prominent characteristics of our left brain is its ability to weave stories...it thrives on details, details, and more details; using words to describe, define, categorize and communicate about everything...our left brain is brilliant in its ability to make stuff up...and quite the genius in its ability to manufacture alternative scenarios...either good or awful, it's particularly effective about hooking into those circuits of emotion and exhausting the 'what-if' possibilities". Similarly, the "left brain language center defines our self by saying 'I am'...it is the home of our ego center...excels at academics...and manifests a sense of authority over the details it masters". In addition, our left brains "...understand everything using deductive reasoning... and manifests the concept of time by stringing the complex moments of experience in timely succession of past, present and future". In short, the left brain analyses the details of our experience by breaking them down into component parts and creating "loops of thought patterns" which it compares to previous sensory memories, using "pattern recognition", based on past experience.
By comparison, the right brain, "functions like a parallel processor" which "thinks in pictures and perceives the big picture of the present moment" where "no time exists other than the present...vibrant with sensations, thoughts, emotions and physiological responses...it thinks intuitively outside the box...it is spontaneous, carefree, and imaginative without inhibition or judgement..perceives how everything is related, how we all join together to make up the whole..contains our ability to be empathetic, to walk in the shoes of others and feel their feelings...interprets nonverbal communication and evaluates subtle cues of language, tone of voice, facial expression, and body language...it is biologically designed to readily tune in to our physiology." Jill's stroke of insight was that our right brains are "directly connected to our deep feelings of inner peace, love, joy and compassion" and their expression in the world.
So, why this treatise on the brain and how it works? Because, as Jill says, "the two halves of our brains don't just perceive and think in different ways at a neurological level, but they demonstrate very different values based on the types of information they perceive, and thus exhibit very different personalities"...which is why we need to use them in concert with one another...which Thornbill definitely is not doing. Were he and the other authors to be using both sides of their brains, they would also by extension connect to their hearts and souls...and very probably reach very different conclusions than those presented in their book.
I also take issue with Churchland's comments about the "human mind evolving to enhance the organisms chances of survival"; I see our evolution as a process striving towards knowing our own essentially divine nature. The capacity for which is determined by our level of consciousness and awareness -or- not.
And when Darwin argues that the "human mind cannot give us any real truth", I would say it would be more accurate to say the physiological left brain sans the incorporation of the right brain and the mind/consciousness/soul which strives through divine inspiration to seek knowledge of it's ultimate reality at the quantum level of spirit/God/divinity.
As to whether or not "naturalism is the new paganism", I don't think we need a new paradigm; rather, we need to honor the old ones. Deva Premal writes in the liner notes of her CD Moola Mantra, "unity in diversity is the only way for humanity to live in harmony", and I quite agree.
And as Deepak Chopra so eloquently states in his book How to Know God, our understanding of God, and I would dare say the very nature of our existence and evolution (on all levels),
evolves depending on our soul level and spiritual development. Thus, our comprehension of what God means to us is a direct reflection of physiological reactions in the brain itself which shape consciousness. And "free will" allows us to make choices both desirable and undesirable, which is how we grow and learn, ultimately moving toward the shared goal of self-realization.
So, our thinking and ideology, theories and beliefs (be they personal or institutionalized) are all a reflection of and projection of our individual belief systems; and as such create a 'snap-shot' in time of where any one of us is in our personal evolutionary process.
And as far as author Thornhill's comment about "evolutionary background...not (being) a debatable matter", perhaps no one has told him that it's a working theory (which means it has and will continue to change) -not- cold, hard fact as he implies. In my estimation, Thornhill is simply co-opting evolutionary theory to justify his perspective and make his point.
In my estimation, Thornbill's approach is totally left-brained. As neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor writes in her illuminating book, My Stroke Of Insight: "one of the most prominent characteristics of our left brain is its ability to weave stories...it thrives on details, details, and more details; using words to describe, define, categorize and communicate about everything...our left brain is brilliant in its ability to make stuff up...and quite the genius in its ability to manufacture alternative scenarios...either good or awful, it's particularly effective about hooking into those circuits of emotion and exhausting the 'what-if' possibilities". Similarly, the "left brain language center defines our self by saying 'I am'...it is the home of our ego center...excels at academics...and manifests a sense of authority over the details it masters". In addition, our left brains "...understand everything using deductive reasoning... and manifests the concept of time by stringing the complex moments of experience in timely succession of past, present and future". In short, the left brain analyses the details of our experience by breaking them down into component parts and creating "loops of thought patterns" which it compares to previous sensory memories, using "pattern recognition", based on past experience.
By comparison, the right brain, "functions like a parallel processor" which "thinks in pictures and perceives the big picture of the present moment" where "no time exists other than the present...vibrant with sensations, thoughts, emotions and physiological responses...it thinks intuitively outside the box...it is spontaneous, carefree, and imaginative without inhibition or judgement..perceives how everything is related, how we all join together to make up the whole..contains our ability to be empathetic, to walk in the shoes of others and feel their feelings...interprets nonverbal communication and evaluates subtle cues of language, tone of voice, facial expression, and body language...it is biologically designed to readily tune in to our physiology." Jill's stroke of insight was that our right brains are "directly connected to our deep feelings of inner peace, love, joy and compassion" and their expression in the world.
So, why this treatise on the brain and how it works? Because, as Jill says, "the two halves of our brains don't just perceive and think in different ways at a neurological level, but they demonstrate very different values based on the types of information they perceive, and thus exhibit very different personalities"...which is why we need to use them in concert with one another...which Thornbill definitely is not doing. Were he and the other authors to be using both sides of their brains, they would also by extension connect to their hearts and souls...and very probably reach very different conclusions than those presented in their book.
I also take issue with Churchland's comments about the "human mind evolving to enhance the organisms chances of survival"; I see our evolution as a process striving towards knowing our own essentially divine nature. The capacity for which is determined by our level of consciousness and awareness -or- not.
And when Darwin argues that the "human mind cannot give us any real truth", I would say it would be more accurate to say the physiological left brain sans the incorporation of the right brain and the mind/consciousness/soul which strives through divine inspiration to seek knowledge of it's ultimate reality at the quantum level of spirit/God/divinity.
As to whether or not "naturalism is the new paganism", I don't think we need a new paradigm; rather, we need to honor the old ones. Deva Premal writes in the liner notes of her CD Moola Mantra, "unity in diversity is the only way for humanity to live in harmony", and I quite agree.
And as Deepak Chopra so eloquently states in his book How to Know God, our understanding of God, and I would dare say the very nature of our existence and evolution (on all levels),
evolves depending on our soul level and spiritual development. Thus, our comprehension of what God means to us is a direct reflection of physiological reactions in the brain itself which shape consciousness. And "free will" allows us to make choices both desirable and undesirable, which is how we grow and learn, ultimately moving toward the shared goal of self-realization.
So, our thinking and ideology, theories and beliefs (be they personal or institutionalized) are all a reflection of and projection of our individual belief systems; and as such create a 'snap-shot' in time of where any one of us is in our personal evolutionary process.
Evo Devo
I think it is simply amazing that Lewis and others have been as dedicated and passionate about their study and research; and undoubtedly their efforts have yielded detailed information for the scientific world, cracking open the DNA code about genetics and species development, which has benefited us all. Imagine working 3 decades with millions of fruit flies to find this out! Who could have imaged that outcome?
And yet, I am also ethically and morally unsettled by Lewis et al, Bosch and Goldberg's efforts as well. What specifically has me squirming are their methods of the purposeful "design of mutated flies", with "legs where the mouth or antennae should be, mouth parts where legs belong, and other structural calamities". OK, maybe they are just fruit flies and perhaps lesser forms of life than mice or rats; but, I can't help but imagine if the roles were reversed...what would we as humans think of another life-form doing the same to us? From the perspective of the fly, it must be a horrible experience to be created as a non-functional monster of your species for the sole purpose of experimentation and science of another species. Imagine what that life form must experience. Thank goodness their life expectancy is mercifully short!
Certainly, we as human beings have benefited from such experiments; yet I can't help wondering if we couldn't have learned such information by less invasive, unkind, barbaric means. I think of the various tribes of the Amazon, which Darby speaks to in his book "The Cosmic Serpent" who have worked with teacher plants for millenia and as such been taught about molecular biological information, on the DNA level, about the flora and fauna of their environment, without such experimentation on other species.
And if you think I'm going off the deep-end on this one, let me explain...as part of my spiritual path, I endeavor to practice 'ahimsa' -or- as Mahatma Gandhi proposed: non-violence towards others. Which means certainly the non-killing of other life-forms -but- I bet it also means the non-torture or creation of beings for the sole purpose of 'scientific investigation' and experimentation. As a species we condemn the Nazis for doing this very thing with people, yet we find nothing wrong with using these tactics with fruit flies, mice, rats, dogs, cats, monkeys, because they are supposedly lower on the evolutionary scale. Oh, really? And guess who created that scale...those who are at the 'top' no doubt. In other words: us humans.
When we consider that so many creatures have "similar-sized genomes, composed of virtually identical genes"...with not much difference between the genomes of humans, chimps and mice, it makes me wonder just who the mutant monsters really are. Perhaps we should call it: devolution. Food for thought.
And yet, I am also ethically and morally unsettled by Lewis et al, Bosch and Goldberg's efforts as well. What specifically has me squirming are their methods of the purposeful "design of mutated flies", with "legs where the mouth or antennae should be, mouth parts where legs belong, and other structural calamities". OK, maybe they are just fruit flies and perhaps lesser forms of life than mice or rats; but, I can't help but imagine if the roles were reversed...what would we as humans think of another life-form doing the same to us? From the perspective of the fly, it must be a horrible experience to be created as a non-functional monster of your species for the sole purpose of experimentation and science of another species. Imagine what that life form must experience. Thank goodness their life expectancy is mercifully short!
Certainly, we as human beings have benefited from such experiments; yet I can't help wondering if we couldn't have learned such information by less invasive, unkind, barbaric means. I think of the various tribes of the Amazon, which Darby speaks to in his book "The Cosmic Serpent" who have worked with teacher plants for millenia and as such been taught about molecular biological information, on the DNA level, about the flora and fauna of their environment, without such experimentation on other species.
And if you think I'm going off the deep-end on this one, let me explain...as part of my spiritual path, I endeavor to practice 'ahimsa' -or- as Mahatma Gandhi proposed: non-violence towards others. Which means certainly the non-killing of other life-forms -but- I bet it also means the non-torture or creation of beings for the sole purpose of 'scientific investigation' and experimentation. As a species we condemn the Nazis for doing this very thing with people, yet we find nothing wrong with using these tactics with fruit flies, mice, rats, dogs, cats, monkeys, because they are supposedly lower on the evolutionary scale. Oh, really? And guess who created that scale...those who are at the 'top' no doubt. In other words: us humans.
When we consider that so many creatures have "similar-sized genomes, composed of virtually identical genes"...with not much difference between the genomes of humans, chimps and mice, it makes me wonder just who the mutant monsters really are. Perhaps we should call it: devolution. Food for thought.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Answers in Genesis
If there is one thing I have learned from my time on this earth it is that truth and reality are all relative to the POV and perspective that one is coming from. I come from a family of born-again Christians...except for me. I'm the shamanic, animistic, vedantic, Taoist, lesbian hedonist of the bunch. But, seriously, just as my sibling's viewpoints are formed by their faith and beliefs, so is mine...it's just that what we have faith and belief in is different. Please don't get me wrong, I think that every individuals experience of 'reality' is informed by their experience and as such each one is valid in it's own way, for that person; but, that's part of my perspective on reality. And, similarly, I think whatever we believe also informs our experience as well...hence 'believing is seeing'.
Just like in this article, my born-again family members use the Bible as the foundation of their faith and belief, and God's word informs their perspective on creation. And, I imagine their beliefs would be very much in line with what this website promotes. As a matter of fact, I also agree when they say things like "...we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present. Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present. Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions." It's just that we have different presuppositions, which lead to different interpretations and conclusions about creation/evolution.
My perspective and belief system is informed by my shamanic experiences and training (Plant Spirit Medicine, shamanic drum journeys, healing rituals with Shipibo shaman and their teacher plants), Vedic Astrology and Vedanta studies (including karma and reincarnation) as well as my training in TCM and Taoism that inform and shape my world view. From those and personal mystical experiences, I have come to believe that reality is a projection of our belief systems and thus very malleable; it changes over time as our perceptions grow and develop. At least that has been my personal experience.
I would also agree with the ideas on this website that there are divine underpinnings to reality and a divine genesis to the world and universe as we know it; however, that's where the similarity stops. Because, where as these folks take a specifically Christian perspective to creation and genesis, I believe that all of creation is a reflection of its inherent divinity. And as such everything reflects that divinity. In other words: all paths are one. Whatever your religious or spiritual belief system, understanding of God/Spirit/Creator is true for you and ultimately will lead you home to the same place we are all travelling toward: self-knowledge...or understanding our selves as children and creations of the same divine creator/goddess/spirit.
Just like in this article, my born-again family members use the Bible as the foundation of their faith and belief, and God's word informs their perspective on creation. And, I imagine their beliefs would be very much in line with what this website promotes. As a matter of fact, I also agree when they say things like "...we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present. Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present. Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions." It's just that we have different presuppositions, which lead to different interpretations and conclusions about creation/evolution.
My perspective and belief system is informed by my shamanic experiences and training (Plant Spirit Medicine, shamanic drum journeys, healing rituals with Shipibo shaman and their teacher plants), Vedic Astrology and Vedanta studies (including karma and reincarnation) as well as my training in TCM and Taoism that inform and shape my world view. From those and personal mystical experiences, I have come to believe that reality is a projection of our belief systems and thus very malleable; it changes over time as our perceptions grow and develop. At least that has been my personal experience.
I would also agree with the ideas on this website that there are divine underpinnings to reality and a divine genesis to the world and universe as we know it; however, that's where the similarity stops. Because, where as these folks take a specifically Christian perspective to creation and genesis, I believe that all of creation is a reflection of its inherent divinity. And as such everything reflects that divinity. In other words: all paths are one. Whatever your religious or spiritual belief system, understanding of God/Spirit/Creator is true for you and ultimately will lead you home to the same place we are all travelling toward: self-knowledge...or understanding our selves as children and creations of the same divine creator/goddess/spirit.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Blue Brain Project
I have to say that I think this project is a huge waste of time and money. The brain is more than it's physical component; indeed it's the awareness of the mind and the consciousness that informs it that makes the brain function in the amazing way that it does. Without that it would be as useless as a car without a driver.
It would serve these scientists more to do research, testing and modeling of the brain using truly enlightened minds of Yogis or Tibetan Lamas, and the new neurological equipment for mapping the brain that has been developed recently.
So, unfortunately regarding research such as what is promoted in this article, I just don't think it's worth the effort and funding.
It would serve these scientists more to do research, testing and modeling of the brain using truly enlightened minds of Yogis or Tibetan Lamas, and the new neurological equipment for mapping the brain that has been developed recently.
So, unfortunately regarding research such as what is promoted in this article, I just don't think it's worth the effort and funding.
"Understanding Evolution" UC Berkeley
This website is very well produced, has a great deal of depth to it and is very intereactive and holds the attention. That being said, some of the content I read reflects the dominant corporate, AMA based paradigm and as such makes me wonder about the rest of the content that I may not be aware of.
For example, when talking about evolution and agriculture it totally speaks to the corporate farming model regarding using pesticides against pests. There is no discussion of organic standards what so ever. No comparison of practices and results between the different approaches. Similarly, when talking about medicine it takes the usual AMA approach. There is no discussion about herbs, alternative modalities and food (that would be organic) as potential solutions to health issues. Nor is there any discussion of the evolutionary effects of pesticides on the human population (stay tuned and find out...we're human guinnea pigs!). However, there are others who are making that connection (Marin Endocrinologist Dr. Richard Shames).
So, while the pretty straight forward information on family trees and phylogeny is correct, I question the POV that the overall application is promoting.
For example, when talking about evolution and agriculture it totally speaks to the corporate farming model regarding using pesticides against pests. There is no discussion of organic standards what so ever. No comparison of practices and results between the different approaches. Similarly, when talking about medicine it takes the usual AMA approach. There is no discussion about herbs, alternative modalities and food (that would be organic) as potential solutions to health issues. Nor is there any discussion of the evolutionary effects of pesticides on the human population (stay tuned and find out...we're human guinnea pigs!). However, there are others who are making that connection (Marin Endocrinologist Dr. Richard Shames).
So, while the pretty straight forward information on family trees and phylogeny is correct, I question the POV that the overall application is promoting.
PBS Evolution Program
These video programs that I watched under the "for students" tab, were well produced and once again reminded me of what a good teaching tool video can be. The medium can be very powerful and effective for educational purposes, especially with today's media savvy audiences who are used to visual imagery. Personally, I learn best this way as well.
The first show, discussed whether evolution was just a 'theory' -or- not. We learn that what 'theory' means in science (basically a working postulate, based on rigorous scientific inquiry) is different from the common way the we use the word. However, I felt that this whole discussion excluded the point about how the perspective of the observer effects the outcome of a given experiment and I would also think a given postulate. All in all, it explained how the accepted scientific approach makes certain assumptions based on the information that is available at the time...which can and does change over time whenever new data becomes available. It seemed to present the process as very intellectually driven/left brain dominant, devoid of intuition and somewhat stilted.
The Darwin piece I found very interesting. It's fascinating to watch how someone's thought processes develop and to observe the path they travel during their process of inquiry and discovery. Imagine having 5 years of your life, in that day and age, to travel the seas and experience new territories and specires. Also, you could very clearly see how intuition and hunches played a role in developing his ideas for Darwin. I was most impressed that he spent 23 years researching, thinking about and developing his ideas before he published! Talk about commitment to your process and ideals. I realize that there were professional concerns as well, since Darwin didn't want to be ridiculed by his peers, or be outcast from society by challenging the biblically based, genesis of the species held as truth at the time. In any case, compared to 23 years, it makes the number of years we have to spend studying Acupuncture, sound more feasible.
The last video I watched had to do with how we know that evolution actually happened by examining ancient skeletons of the land-based ancestors of whales. I thought that it's amazing that people are able to do this kind of work. To find the skeletons and then gently remove them for posterity and carbon-date them is like trying to put together an amazing evolutionary jig-saw puzzle! At the same time, I'm not sure the I agree with some of the links they make between species. Seems like there are alot of liberties taken in the process.
The first show, discussed whether evolution was just a 'theory' -or- not. We learn that what 'theory' means in science (basically a working postulate, based on rigorous scientific inquiry) is different from the common way the we use the word. However, I felt that this whole discussion excluded the point about how the perspective of the observer effects the outcome of a given experiment and I would also think a given postulate. All in all, it explained how the accepted scientific approach makes certain assumptions based on the information that is available at the time...which can and does change over time whenever new data becomes available. It seemed to present the process as very intellectually driven/left brain dominant, devoid of intuition and somewhat stilted.
The Darwin piece I found very interesting. It's fascinating to watch how someone's thought processes develop and to observe the path they travel during their process of inquiry and discovery. Imagine having 5 years of your life, in that day and age, to travel the seas and experience new territories and specires. Also, you could very clearly see how intuition and hunches played a role in developing his ideas for Darwin. I was most impressed that he spent 23 years researching, thinking about and developing his ideas before he published! Talk about commitment to your process and ideals. I realize that there were professional concerns as well, since Darwin didn't want to be ridiculed by his peers, or be outcast from society by challenging the biblically based, genesis of the species held as truth at the time. In any case, compared to 23 years, it makes the number of years we have to spend studying Acupuncture, sound more feasible.
The last video I watched had to do with how we know that evolution actually happened by examining ancient skeletons of the land-based ancestors of whales. I thought that it's amazing that people are able to do this kind of work. To find the skeletons and then gently remove them for posterity and carbon-date them is like trying to put together an amazing evolutionary jig-saw puzzle! At the same time, I'm not sure the I agree with some of the links they make between species. Seems like there are alot of liberties taken in the process.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Darwinism
I found this article interesting for a couple of reasons. I realized that Darwinism, as a term, has changed over time depending on who was using it, what they were using it to mean, and whether that use was for positive -or- pejorative means. Darwinism didn't even have to reflect the literal ideas of Darwin himself and the term is really not necessarily synonymous with "Evolution" - as- I had thought. I also hadn't realized the effects Darwin's work had, in stirring-up society and the ideas people held about themselves biologically and socially at that time. In a desirable context this gave rise to new paradigms and thoughts about our genesis as a species and challenged some of the old beliefs; yet it was also used by some (such as Hitler and the Nazis) as justification for undesirable actions such as ethnic cleansing.
Most importantly for me, this article made me think about what I personally held to be true of our evolution as a species. I realized that I do believe in the generally held ideas of evolution, including concepts that previously I had attributed to Darwin, such as natural selection and genetic drift. However, some of the life experiences that I have had have also expanded my understanding of how we have come to be...
For example, my training and experiences from a Vedic perspective put Spirit in the driver's seat, and make all matter and manifestations of such (ie: creation) flow from that omnipotent, unmanifested source. Not to mention the ideas of karma, and past lives and the effect that has on all of the physically manifested universe. So, technically, that could even put me in the 'creationist' camp based on this element of my belief system...though, not of a Christian flavor.
In addition, the experiences with my shamanic teachers and the Shipibo shamans in the Amazon have opened my mind to new possibilities and the nature of 'reality'. Which is not necessary as it seems to be -or- how we have been entrained to believe. "Believing is seeing", as many sage individuals have said. And what we believe about our worlds affects how they manifest and present themselves to us. There is so much to know about the nature of consciousness and spirit and the interplay between them as they express themselves in seemingly 'solid' forms.
This segways us into the "Biology of Belief" perspective, and the effects that our belief systems have on all levels of ourselves, even to the extent of geneology...which, it seems, is also not a fixed characteristic. And just think of the changes our belief systems may go through in a given lifetime (I know mine has!), and what effect that has on our development as species.
And lastly, though I am not one to believe in the UFO/Alien theories, I do think it would be very small minded of us as a species to think that life on earth might not have been at least 'influenced', at some point, by other lifeforms in the universe...if not purposefully, then perhaps, accidentally. In the time that the earth has been around, with all the interstellar bodies that have collided with our planet; not to mention potential interaction with other dimensions beyond our awareness, it would be hard to imagine that our biological development has not been affected in some way. And, then there are all those world myths to account for...
In any case, it brings me back to the "universe is sloppy" perspective we were discussing in class. And who knows what other influences there may have been on our development as a species.
Most importantly for me, this article made me think about what I personally held to be true of our evolution as a species. I realized that I do believe in the generally held ideas of evolution, including concepts that previously I had attributed to Darwin, such as natural selection and genetic drift. However, some of the life experiences that I have had have also expanded my understanding of how we have come to be...
For example, my training and experiences from a Vedic perspective put Spirit in the driver's seat, and make all matter and manifestations of such (ie: creation) flow from that omnipotent, unmanifested source. Not to mention the ideas of karma, and past lives and the effect that has on all of the physically manifested universe. So, technically, that could even put me in the 'creationist' camp based on this element of my belief system...though, not of a Christian flavor.
In addition, the experiences with my shamanic teachers and the Shipibo shamans in the Amazon have opened my mind to new possibilities and the nature of 'reality'. Which is not necessary as it seems to be -or- how we have been entrained to believe. "Believing is seeing", as many sage individuals have said. And what we believe about our worlds affects how they manifest and present themselves to us. There is so much to know about the nature of consciousness and spirit and the interplay between them as they express themselves in seemingly 'solid' forms.
This segways us into the "Biology of Belief" perspective, and the effects that our belief systems have on all levels of ourselves, even to the extent of geneology...which, it seems, is also not a fixed characteristic. And just think of the changes our belief systems may go through in a given lifetime (I know mine has!), and what effect that has on our development as species.
And lastly, though I am not one to believe in the UFO/Alien theories, I do think it would be very small minded of us as a species to think that life on earth might not have been at least 'influenced', at some point, by other lifeforms in the universe...if not purposefully, then perhaps, accidentally. In the time that the earth has been around, with all the interstellar bodies that have collided with our planet; not to mention potential interaction with other dimensions beyond our awareness, it would be hard to imagine that our biological development has not been affected in some way. And, then there are all those world myths to account for...
In any case, it brings me back to the "universe is sloppy" perspective we were discussing in class. And who knows what other influences there may have been on our development as a species.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
