Humans may be Everywhere

Here are some topics that I’ve been exploring, when the Masked Singer was not available. Some will become full essays, some not.

Vanity

All is vanity. Everyone on social media is promoting the next book, the next translation, youtube video, or seeking new followers and new “likes”. But for what purpose? All is vanity.

Metaphysics and Physics

Reality has an inside and an outside. Metaphysics, as the study of being, is concerned with the inside, and physics that of becoming and the outside. Hence, metaphysics is constant while physics changes. As such, metaphysics is certain and absolute, so it cannot be regarded as a “philosophical system” in the contemporary understanding of the term.

The phrase, the transcendental unity of religion, is somewhat misguided, since it fails to recognize the unmistakable differences in religions. What is correct is that the higher traditions share and understand the same metaphysics. The metaphysic is the genus and the species is the exoteric religion.

Evolution and Wings

Darwinian evolution cannot explain, if mutations are random, why and how evolution progresses from simple to complex life forms. Pumpkin Person ponders why Evolution is progressive

Scientists Say There May Be “Humans” All Over the Universe: Humans are Everywhere

The new theory is that evolution is not quite random, but rather that it converges to predictable forms. For example, the wing evolved independently in birds, bats, insects and pterosaurs. That makes no sense unless we presume there is a prototype of a wing that manifests itself in different creatures. Valentin Tomberg explains this based on traditional sources that predate “science” by millennia:

Tentacles, paws, arms, wings —are they not simply diverse forms manifesting a common prototype or principle? They are in so far as they express the desire to bear the sense of touch further, to be able to touch things more removed than those in the immediate neighbourhood of the surface of the body.

The organs of action are simply crystallised will. The “what” of the will engenders the “how” of the action (the organ), and not inversely. It is similar with wings. They are also an exteriorised will — a will become organ. This is the will to go out from the usual orbit not only in the horizontal but also in the vertical, not only to bear touch forward, but also to bear it above. Wings express the will for movement according to a cross, i.e. not only that of expansion on a plane but also that of elevation to another plane.

End time prophecy

Hildegard of Bingen was a Saint and Doctor of the Church from nearly 1000 years ago. In her masterwork Scivias she uses the symbolism of five beasts to explain the stages of the end times: the red dog, the yellow lion, the pale horse, the black pig, and the grey wolf. If you are an animal lover, or just would like to know what to expect next, the blog The Five Beasts attempts to relate Hildegard’s vision to our own times. Regarding the final stage of the Grey Wolf, she writes:

It is interesting that Hildegard goes into far more detail regarding the Grey Wolf than the other eras. Essentially, three main things will define the era:

Civil unrest and revolutions with their cause being economic inequality.

Physical persecution of the Church by a specific group of people.

A powerful spiritual revival in the Church.

She also adds that it is when the Church will be “…replete with the full number of her children.” The Church’s mission to evangelize will have been completed.

Satan’s revelation

I don’t think it is wise to believe anything that Satan says. But if you do, you might be interested in this discussion.

Exorcist says Satan’s Time is running short

Signs of the End of Time

Here is a Muslim perspective on the end of times, which tracks Rene Guenon more or less closely.

Prophecy of Phones
Prophecy of the Talking Shoe
Inanimate Objects would speak
Rulers are the lowest people
No people are left except the dregs
Entertainers, prostitutes — the lowest of people — will be the happiest
The far will become near

Four horsemen of meaning

Jordan Peterson created a fictitious group calling itself the “Dark Enlightenment”. It fractured as one of them was deplatformed and probably no one really got enlightened. Undeterred, Peterson has created a new group calling itself the Four Horsemen of Meaning, including himself and three others he recruited.

It seems to me that the symbol of the Four Horsemen is the worst possible one to use, as it calls to mind the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. I suppose this is fine for men and women who are unable to find meaning in their lives, so they need it regurgitated like a mama bird feeding her brood.

Unfortunately, this is an impossible task. Meaning is never found independently in the object, but only in relation to a Self. Hence, Meaning cannot be inserted into the mind; rather it the Self expresses its meaning through its acts. See this essay on Hermann Keyserling for how to think about meaning.

IQ and ignorance

The topic if intelligence, IQ, and their relationship will be explored soon. So I did a field study of some really high IQ people. Since it is impossible to sustain a serious discussion on social media because not everyone is equal, I thought I would try one devoted to those with IQs in the 99.9 percentile (one in a thousand).

I posted a short video about Schopenhauer, who certainly had a high IQ, whatever your opinion might be of his philosophy. See Why Smart People Don’t Care About Being Social.

I thought it would be appropriate to that group. One fellow ranted about it, proclaiming that Tolstoy’s ethical views were superior to Schopenhauer’s. I gently pointed out that Tolstoy was deeply influenced by Schopenhauer, as documented in Leo Tolstoy: Religious and political beliefs.

The ability to solve puzzles and find patterns does is not the same as understanding the deep meanings of things.

Inanities

Social media is replete with inanities that are regarded as highly motivational and deeply spiritual. But there is nothing in them about bearing wrongs patiently, submission to the will of God, self-knowledge, purification of the mind and will, or the pursuit of a virtuous life.

Neuroscience and free will

A neuroscientist debunks “free will” because he sees some electrical activity in the brain as the subject is making a decision. That means that these weird neurons know in advance whether I will choose pistachio or chocolate gelato while I am on the way to the gelateria. The moderator chooses not to pursue this line of questioning in Patrick Haggard — Is Free Will an Illusion?

I just found this today that debunks that very experiment.

Does science disprove free will? A physicist says no.

Posted

2021-11-24

Musings

Cologero

Tags:

Hildegard of Bingen

Comments

13 responses to “Humans may be Everywhere”

Oswald Spengler

2021-12-19

The concept of humanoids descending from dinosaurs has been dealt with by the Super Mario Brothers film
Balder

2021-12-19

Wolfgang Smith believes that the answer to the problem of free will is in what he calls Vertical Causation (in Physics and Vertical Causation), namely that humans who possess a rational soul have access to the equivalent of a Cosmogenic Act. Sounds plausible to me even if free will exists only as a potential.
Cologero

2021-12-15

The idea of humanoid creatures descended from dinosaurs has been part of the human collective unconscious, and has been part of folklore. Consider, for example:

Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Pellucidar series featured primitive dinosaur-descended humanoids living in the Hollow Earth called the Horibs or snake-men in his 1929–1930 crossover Tarzan at the Earth’s Core.

(Source Reptilian Humanoid

This fits into today’s UFO speculation about their source being the hollow earth. The point is that the possibility of reptilian humanoids may actually be a plausible idea. This post is intended to be a thought experiment for people with an imagination. It is off the mark to interpret it as a debate about Darwinism or as an assertion that such beings actually exist.
Cologero

2021-12-14

Unfortunately, Mr. Konrad, Porphyry has been banned from commenting. He does not understand the text that actually exists and he phantasizes all sorts of things that do not exist; that is an interesting talent, but somewhat useless for engaging and sound discussions.

The post is a thought experiment. Think about how life might have evolved on another planet. Since wings have evolved in different contexts, we would not be surprised to see creatures with wings on that planet. Yet creatures who get about on wheels and axles would indeed be quite surprising.

The other point is that the direction of evolution is to increasing complexity; we do not see complex life forms devolving back to the biomass of single celled creatures.

So if mammals can become rational beings, then why not dinosaurs?

It is something to contemplate once in a while, provided no one gets distracted by minutia.
Porphyry

2021-12-12

@Arthur Konrad
There are branches of study within the field of genetics that are directly related to evolution, like population genetics. The modern theory of evolution has gone past Darwin. Poorly written wikipedia articles are irrelevant.
Modern man doesn’t know what’s good for him because there are malicious freaks shoving propaganda down his throat 24/7. Who is the ‘moral superior’ he should take orders from? You? The woke pope? I knew christians were totalitarian in spirit, but coming from you, it’s especially disturbing.
Arthur Konrad

2021-12-12

@Porphyry

From what I gather this publication is not really right-wing, other than in the context of everything to the right of “My trans-daughter is aborting her gay antifa boyfriend’s baby” being classified as right-wing as a matter of course.

Study of genetics and evolutionary theory are indirectly related. My question is this – what postulates and inferences does Darwin propose in his various theories and what is their explanative power vis-a-vis the problem of the wing.

Opening the wikipedia page for instance, you can find statements that were obviously written by complete goons, like this for instance:

“Darwin’s scientific discovery…” (referring to his paper “On the Origins…”)

The Right is losing because man is an irresponsible jackass who has no idea what’s good for him, and should have his behavior restricted and controlled by moral superiors.
Porphyry

2021-12-12

@Cologero
I don’t think it’s “a sign of deep intelligence” to understand grade school biology. I think it’s a sign of deep stupidity not to. You’ve demonstrated well enough that you’re not worth taking seriously.
Porphyry

2021-12-11

@Colegro Says the man who doesn’t understand high school biology. Your culture is dying, cuck, and your ignorance isn’t winning any battles in the culture wars.
Cologero

2021-12-09

That is one possible explanation, Porphyry. A better one is that there are too many yobs who believe that rehashing high school biology notes is a sign of deep intelligence.
You can go away and hang out with your kin.
Porphyry

2021-12-09

@Arthur Konrad
“There is no proof that wings evolved”
I don’t know what you mean by that. I think all of your questions could be answered by reading the basics.

I get the feeling some people just don’t want to believe it… which is fine, I guess. Not everyone has to be the same. But I do find it embarrassing to be on the same side politically as people who deny genetics. Things like this are the reason the right wing has lost, and is still losing, so much ground.
Arthur Konrad

2021-12-03

@Porphyry

Yes, but there is no proof that wings evolved. The effectiveness and the efficacy of evolution is not well explained either. Sure, eventually, an organism develops a wing. But until the wing is fully developed, isn’t the organism debilitated, given that its organic functions in the meantime have to support what is still a dysfunctional limb? When I say in the meantime, biologists often give amazing figures.

We do have some rather striking examples of evolution in action (if biologists are to be believed) in the Yakutian horse. Apparently, it only took 800 years of living in a cold habitat in what was once a Mongolian domestic horse to develop characteristics necessary to subsist in harsh winter climate, such as dense coat with long hair.

That’s what the books say anyway, but if this is true, then there is still a long way between having a body’s proportions, bone size/density and hair length change, and a species developing a wing out of nowhere. Perhaps the scope of evolutionary hypotheses should be reduced and limited to what seems plausible.
Porphyry

2021-12-03

“Darwinian evolution cannot explain, if mutations are random, why and how evolution progresses from simple to complex life forms.”

But simple organisms still exist. In fact, it’s estimated that bacteria outweigh animals by 35x in total biomass, so you might argue that because evolution is a numbers game, it actually favors simple life forms. But yes, in many species, gene selection favored complex forms because they had advantages over simple life forms. There’s not much mystery there, and I’m not sure what’s so confusing about it.

“…the wing evolved independently in birds, bats, insects and pterosaurs. That makes no sense unless we presume there is a prototype of a wing that manifests itself in different creatures.”

No, that’s wrong. Although there are limitations to the shape and size wings must have in order to be effective, the wings of bats and birds are still very different. They didn’t come from some platonic form in the Pleroma, they evolved independently and function differently. You can see proto-wings in animals like flying squirrels. Again, I’m not sure what’s causing this confusion, other than perhaps an apprehension to accept a theory that directly contradicts your faith, which I suppose is understandable, but you can’t refute something you don’t understand.

Good content on this site, but like most mystics, you seem to know more about spiritual matters than you do about.. matter.
Arthur Konrad

2021-11-24

‘Darwinian evolution cannot explain, if mutations are random, why and how evolution progresses from simple to complex life forms. Pumpkin Person ponders why Evolution is progressive Evolution is progressive’

It is always worth pointing out that the system in which self-propagating entities function does not pass value judgments according to which more complex organisms would at the same time be regarded as more fit or worthy. That an organism ‘progresses’ with organic sophistication, or by having more cells etc. is a strictly human judgment. Just as one organism might become more complex to survive, another might resort to reducing its organic functions (this by no means implies a voluntary, conscious action on the part of the species in question, St. Thomas). Did the latter species therefore ‘regress’? Can survival be regressive?