|
That Ooze Doesn't Stick
A sincere reflection on the subjects in this series, will ponder the questions asked in a manner, that seeks
an overall unity of relationships. 'Nature' as we have come to understand it through Science, has lead our modern culture
to conclude that mankind is able to perceive and understand the universe, and that which makes it up. The departure of this
mindset, from former times, is most evident in the kind of society that has evolved over the last few hundred years. Those
within this 'Community' of empirical inquiry, contend that all valid knowledge must be observable and verified through the
rigors of the Scientific Method. How strange it has become that the modern culture has accepted the claims of 'Darwin' as
Scientific fact, when at best; can be accepted, only as a theory. Those who have followed his lead has 'defied' that man's
origin rose out of the ooze of a swamp, millions of countless years ago, and evolved into the being we now have become. The
data from observable evidence can't establish this position as a scientific truth, but only a theory to consider. With this
in mind, how can a reasonable, critically thinking person accept all the conclusions that follow from such a premise?
It would seem that the probability for life to have originated from a visit from alien beings from another
solar system would be more likely, than the developments under the inclusive Darwinian Theory. It would seem more reasonable
to accept the design and construction of the Great Pyramid, as a result of the efforts of an alien race, than to conclude
that evolution theory is the entire truth of understanding on our origin. Would it not be more likely that the knowledge within
the 'Torah', comes from a source outside the knowledge that has been achieved by mankind, than to accept the implications
that flow from the doctrine of Darwin?
And what about the recent claims by Science that the speed of light has been broken, by some accounts; by
three hundred times? The next link present implications that are profound.
http://www.socorro.demon.co.uk/gunter.htm
Could it be that Newton and Einstein is not the last word on understanding, and that new additional discoveries
may well change our current view of 'Cosmology'? So is there any prohibition or contradiction within 'Nature', that prevents
our 'Human Nature' from coming to understand knowledge, that is outside the realm of our own rational inquiry? Is it possible
that the 'Mystic', and the knowledge that he receives can come from a source outside our worldly environment? I submit that
it is quite possible, and is actually much more probable that the 'Darwinian Theory'. Therefore, I would submit that all the
cumulative knowledge of our human experience, is pale in comparison of what is left to discover or what can be revealed. Whether
or not man can achieve 'all that is to known', through his own efforts and capacities, is one of the important questions of
this series. I state, that he cannot; solely through his own abilities of his 'Human Nature'.
If one accepts the 'Darwinian Theory' as TRUTH, life as well as the universe, must be considered an accident.
'Values' become the judgment of the current era, as to right or wrong. And 'Civilization' does not require that the wisdom
of the past be incorporated into the society of today, or the future. 'Human Nature', would then be viewed as a process that
can be altered by Science and 'Community' will become the 'PC' policy of the social organizations that rule and manage mankind.
The 'Individual' will not have any natural rights, private property cannot be possessed by the 'Individual', the concept of
democratic principles are irrelevant and the notion of justice is, moot.
If one truly wishes to seek 'Community', he must look for it, where it is possible to find it. 'Community'
can only be achieved if the extension and outreach of your own 'Self', is based upon a firm foundation of 'Values'. Moral
and ethical behavior separates mankind from the Apes. It lies within that 1.2% difference in the DNA. But it is not reducible
to merely adding the needed missing gene profiles. The dimension of conscious inquiry can be known through the understanding
of the 'Mystic' connection. Science will only lead to unanswered questions. 'Nature' will always be in harmony with correct
scientific principles, but cannot be explained fully; and solely, by it's methods. 'Civilization' represents the true achievement
of man's search for understanding. Within it, the genius of all the ages, is shared with those who are alive. To turn one's
back on this collection of trials and suffering, will prevent one from learning the lessons where man, can rise above his
inherent 'Human Nature'. Yes, that nature is flawed. But it can attain a level of unity of 'Self' and 'Nature' that will allow
a glance into the mystery of life. However, our capacity to reach this quest, requires assistance from outside ourselves.
The 'Similarity' of this common nature, means that each 'Individual' must face the same reality of existence,
alone. It is a road no wider than one. Others will pass you by, but no other will be able to walk in your shoes. 'Community'
becomes the highest connection that any two pilgrims can achieve between themselves, or in the company of others. In order
to realize this goal, each 'Individual' must retain the dignity of their own worth, that stems from his 'Natural Rights'.
'Civilization' to become the reflection of this respect and manifestation within the society, must recognize this 'Human Nature'
and protect each 'Individual' and his 'Natural Rights'. The 'Values' that this 'Civilization' promotes and preserves, must
be founded upon the sovereignty of the 'Individual', and his 'Human Nature'; which is in harmony and balance with 'Nature',
that is NOT an accident, but a part of an orderly force, by which the universe exists.
'Secular Humanism' rejects this 'Cosmology'. 'Situations Ethics' requires that morality is relative. Any 'Collectivist'
social and governmental system, ignores the sovereignty of the 'Individual', and his 'Natural Rights'. 'Darwinian Theory'
and the 'Human Manifesto' demands the denial of a 'First Cause'. Is 'Community' possible in such a system? It would seem that
chaos or totalitarian control will be the only results. The ability for 'Freedom' is absent, even through the spirit, for
it, prevails. 'Evil', becomes the 'Value' of the society and despair the prospect for the future. So I pose the question:
"Are you as an 'Individual' capable of choosing between the two systems?" If so, you acknowledge your 'Free Will'. If you
accept that your 'Human Nature' possesses 'Free Will', are you not in endowed with 'Natural Rights'? If you agree, how could
one adopt 'Secular Humanism' as a 'Value' system? 'Community' requires that 'Situations Ethics' be rejected.
Is there any more clear example of the method to reach 'Community' than the message of the Sermon on the Mount.
The last Beattitude point the way: "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the Kingdom
of Heaven." By respecting the dignity of each 'Individual', one will find that heaven on earth; in 'Community'. For those
who demonstrate this respect, will; undoubtedly, be subjected to ridicule and torment by the culture of 'Secular Humanism'.
The fundamental question of God's existence, is certainly routed in a universe of an accident or a balanced
order. Logic and 'Common Sense' points to answer this query that our mere consciousness of the moment, requires that a pattern
of harmony and balance is 'REAL', and is at the core of the universe. To answer in the negative, dictates that all is but
an illusion that is a random occurrence. But even in that reply, is an intrinsic absurdity of self contradiction; for how
could an accident be known, if consciousness requires an order in 'Nature'?
I will conclude with the challenge that the risk to believe is sensible to take, even without the complete
rational verification of certitude. The prospect for your desired 'Community' is a message of hope, in a world of tragic anguish
and cruelty. Without the leap of your 'Free Will', you will only condemn yourself to a fate of lonely isolation. The two paths
seem to pose an invitation to meaning or a ticket to a gulag. If you still have any doubts as to which it should be, just
ask Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn . . .
SARTRE
|
