The Joy of Battle

[11011]

btw, i thought you might find this little insight interesting, concerning the socialization of boys and girls.

it is in fact the case that the reason boys' confidence and other 'masculine traits' like perhaps greater propensity to violence is being undermined or stamped out, is to allow for the meaningful participation of girls (and subsequently women) in public life (work, etc.).

this might come as a surprise to you, but if you're acquainted with female psychology, girls and subsequently women instinctively submit to men. that is their nature. but women can't meaningfully compete with men in a mass capitalist society if they are instinctively submitting to them, right? they will have too little confidence in relation to men to perhaps even earn a living. it simply will not work.

knowing this, boys are increasingly not allowed to become men. by keeping boys stuck in boyhood, even as they journey out into the workforce, women can more confidently approach them with the mindset of a woman vs boy, wherein they are more confident and feel it is naturally right for them to act more dominant, rather than the mindset of a woman vs man, wherein they don't feel as confident or right.

understand?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

btw, i thought you might find this little insight interesting, concerning the socialization of boys and girls.

it is in fact the case that the reason boys' confidence and other 'masculine traits' like perhaps greater propensity to violence is being undermined or stamped out, is to allow for the meaningful participation of girls (and subsequently women) in public life (work, etc.).

this might come as a surprise to you, but if you're acquainted with female psychology, girls and subsequently women instinctively submit to men. that is their nature. but women can't meaningfully compete with men in a mass capitalist society if they are instinctively submitting to them, right? they will have too little confidence in relation to men to perhaps even earn a living. it simply will not work.

knowing this, boys are increasingly not allowed to become men. by keeping boys stuck in boyhood, even as they journey out into the workforce, women can more confidently approach them with the mindset of a woman vs boy, wherein they are more confident and feel it is naturally right for them to act more dominant, rather than the mindset of a woman vs man, wherein they don't feel as confident or right.

understand?

This has been happening in schools for decades. The whole Western education system has been steered towards ensuring that girls 'perform' better than boys. I don't know who decides these things, or where these ideas originate (I could take a good guess), but it started here in the early 80s with a 'girls can do anything' campaign and it has snowballed from there. It hasn't 'just happened'. It has been a deliberate and relentless campaign perpetrated by the usual band of self-righteous, social-engineering, 'academic' fuckwits and hypocrites. Part of the same campaign for 'female empowerment' (barf), was the removal of doctors (wretched males) from the birthing process, being replaced by poorly qualified (and poorly paid) midwives, with the result being a sharp rise in mortality of both mothers and babies.

Btw, I have to disagree when you say that women instinctively submit to men. They might be forced to, due to a lack of physical strength, but it's certainly not something that they do willingly (unless they are the kind of woman who get off on appearing all 'dainty and submissive').

[Nick_A]

11011

Are seekers of truth in search of the experience of objective meaning unhappy? I would say yes. Does this make them less than those who are happy and content with life? Are they in need of treatment to make them happy?

“One must not think slightingly of the paradoxical…for the paradox is the source of the thinker's passion, and the thinker without a paradox is like a lover without feeling: a paltry mediocrity.” Kierkegaard

Happy people are not concerned with the paradoxical. They just go with the flow in order to be happy. Those who seek to understand rather than accept may experience a passion the happy people don’t. It is hard to say.

but it all depends on whether that underlying cause or problem can be addressed, but if it can't, then yes, FIGHT! everyone will lose in the end anyway, might as well get something good out of it some of the time, assuming you won't gain more stress relief from opting our of a probable lose. so ya you should only fight if you're going to win, unless you enjoy losing

Does everyone have to lose or can some people awaken to the reality of the human condition and what enslaves it? Then they can consciously struggle with it rather than mechanically react to it.

Simone Weil describes the power of “force” in her essay on the Iliad which enslaves us leaving us as we are without choice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iliad ... m_of_Force

Weil introduces the central theme of her essay in the first three sentences:

"The true hero, the true subject, the centre of the Iliad, is force. Force employed by man, force that enslaves man, force before which man's flesh shrinks away. In this work at all times, the human spirit is shown as modified by its relation to force, as swept away, blinded, by the very force it imagined it could handle, as deformed by the weight of the force it submits to."

She proceeds to define force as that which turns anyone subjected to it into a thing – at worst, into a corpse. Weil discusses the emotional and psychological violence one suffers if forced to submit to force even when not physically hurt, holding up the slave and the supplicant as examples. She goes on to say force is dangerous not just to the victim, but to whoever controls it, as it intoxicates, partly by numbing the senses of reason and pity. Force thus can turn even its possessor into a thing – an unthinking automaton driven by rage or lust. The essay relates how the Iliadsuggests that no one truly controls force; as everyone in the poem, even the mighty Achilles and Agamemnon, suffer at least briefly when the force of events turns against them. Weil says only by using force in moderation can one escape its ill effects, but that the restraint to do this is very rarely found, and is only a means of temporary escape from force's inevitable heft.

The author offers a number of reasons why she considers the Iliad to be a work unsurpassed in the Western canon. She admires its honesty in describing the realities of war. She relates how the poem covers all the different types of human love – the love between parents and children, fraternal love, the love between comrades and erotic love – though the moments when love directly appears in the poem are very brief and act as counter points to the otherwise unrelenting tragedy and violence. Yet in the last few pages of her essay Weil states that the influence of love is always at work in the epic, in the ever present bitter tone that "proceeds from tenderness": "Justice and love, which have hardly any place in this study of extremes and of unjust acts of violence, nevertheless bathe the work in their light without ever becoming noticeable themselves, except as a kind of accent."

At the end of her essay Weil discusses the sense of equity in which the suffering of combatants from both sides, Trojan and Greek, of whatever rank or degree of heroism, are treated in the same bitter and unscornful way. Weil says this degree of equity was never equalled in any other Western work, though to some degree it was transmitted via the Attic tragedies, especially those of Aeschylus and Sophocles, to the Gospels. But since the Gospels Weil finds that very few authors have begun to approach this sense of universal compassion, though she picks out Shakespeare, Villon, Molière, Cervantes and Racine as coming nearer than most in some of their work.

Struggle as a reaction to force is part of animal life. It is nature’s way and reactive animal man is part of nature. Perhaps conscious man is influenced by a higher quality of force which doesn’t originate with the world but essential for Man to become himself rather than continue as a blind creature of reaction in obedience to forces we do not understand. Maybe the joy of understanding acquired from the battle with oneself for a minority is far greater than the happiness of pleasure? Who knows?

[Nick_A]

btw, i thought you might find this little insight interesting, concerning the socialization of boys and girls.

it is in fact the case that the reason boys' confidence and other 'masculine traits' like perhaps greater propensity to violence is being undermined or stamped out, is to allow for the meaningful participation of girls (and subsequently women) in public life (work, etc.).

this might come as a surprise to you, but if you're acquainted with female psychology, girls and subsequently women instinctively submit to men. that is their nature. but women can't meaningfully compete with men in a mass capitalist society if they are instinctively submitting to them, right? they will have too little confidence in relation to men to perhaps even earn a living. it simply will not work.

knowing this, boys are increasingly not allowed to become men. by keeping boys stuck in boyhood, even as they journey out into the workforce, women can more confidently approach them with the mindset of a woman vs boy, wherein they are more confident and feel it is naturally right for them to act more dominant, rather than the mindset of a woman vs man, wherein they don't feel as confident or right.

understand?

Makes sense to me. The dominant progressive agenda will do what it can to promote unnatural beliefs in the psych of humanity in pursuit of the great god of power.

[11011]

Part of the same campaign for 'female empowerment' (barf), was the removal of doctors (wretched males) from the birthing process, being replaced by poorly qualified (and poorly paid) midwives, with the result being a sharp rise in mortality of both mothers and babies.

has mortality actually increased? that's very interesting.

Btw, I have to disagree when you say that women instinctively submit to men. They might be forced to, due to a lack of physical strength, but it's certainly not something that they do willingly (unless they are the kind of woman who get off on appearing all 'dainty and submissive').

i knew that one would be controversial

submission is not the same as powerlessness when you are a woman, any women, of varying attractiveness, physical strength, etc, so long as the societal conditions are supporting. if they are not, then yes it can be a weakness and will be avoided.

just as this is so in woman, in men there is the instinct to protect and cherish woman assuming nothing goes awry, or the instinct isn't thwarted by negative experience, like divorce or what that symbolizes -- women: 'i can't rely on men to protect me'; men: 'it isn't my job to protect women' -- or for example an overabundance of boys vs men in society wherein women can not rely on men to be men, these things will create anxiety around that instinct and become enshrouded in weakness.

i say these things as they relate to happiness potential (the only worthwhile purpose for living imo): expression and satisfaction of the instincts feels good, while thwarting instincts feels bad, BUT, humans being practical, if the conditions of society do not permit these instincts, then they will be suppressed because they will become a source of anxiety or self-hate, etc., better to deny than acknowledge under the circumstances.


anyway, i am just giving you where i am coming from. that bit^^ about instincts (used informally; i don't think humans have true instincts, as bees do for example) and realizing personal and social happiness potential as being the only worthwhile goal in life will color most of my posts as relevance dictates, so i am just putting it here for you guys.

[11011]

Are seekers of truth in search of the experience of objective meaning unhappy? I would say yes. Does this make them less than those who are happy and content with life? Are they in need of treatment to make them happy?

I don't think they are unhappy. if they were truly unhappy, they would not be motivated to such exploration. they are making sacrifices, perhaps, but i would not say they are necessarily unhappy on the whole, because such things satisfy: curiosity, wanting of a greater purpose, and other human appetites. as you said below, it can be a passion, and i understand that.

and no, happiness should not be forced on anyone, but insofar as we are concerned with delightful experiences, i am just stating my personal conclusion that realizing the greatest happiness on earth for individuals and humanity is the only worthwhile goal. this is my personal bias and it will color my subsequent posts. i am aware of it and fully admit to it here, as above.

(however, that does not mean i can't do philosophy! see my thread in this section on philosophy as opinion and belief; fyi, my stance is that, as long as the philosophy being practiced can be reviewed for philosophical significance and soundness by others the motivations of the author make no difference and can not logically serve to discredit them or their ideas)


i will have to respond to the rest of your post maybe a little later. all good stuff. not glossing it.

[Impenitent]

nature v nurture... nature wins

-Imp

[Nick_A]

11011

and no, happiness should not be forced on anyone, but insofar as we are concerned with delightful experiences, i am just stating my personal conclusion that realizing the greatest happiness on earth for individuals and humanity is the only worthwhile goal. this is my personal bias and it will color my subsequent posts. i am aware of it and fully admit to it here, as above.

Now here is where it becomes interesting for me. I am not questioning your belief in the greatest happiness but just in comparing it to a popular quote attributed to Plato: “Man is a being in search of meaning.” He doesn’t say that Man is a being in search of happiness but rather of meaning. What is the difference?

“Happiness is the feeling that power increases - that resistance is being overcome.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ

Happiness is an earthly phenomenon. Now compare this with Simone Weil’s attraction to meaning at the expense of the attraction to what provides happiness.

"To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods. In the first place, we can decide not to believe that the future contains for us an all-sufficient good. The future is made of the same stuff as the present....

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©

If she is right, then a minority will be attracted to experience a quality of understanding greater than what attracts us to happiness. Happiness seems to be a product of what takes place in Plato’s cave. She seems to be saying that seeing it for what it is opens a psychological door to the experience of what the depth of the heart is drawn to.

Can we agree on the distinction between the attraction to objective meaning and the attraction to the temporary feeling of happiness?

[11011]

i think it depends on what each of us really means by our terms.

my notion of happiness isn't as a fleeting emotion, like as one would experience from simple need satisfaction although that's part of it. it is constant and is basically synonymous with the optimal subjective state to be in at every moment in life to get the most out of life as a whole without destroying or undermining the potential of the next moment to deliver equally profound experience.

there is no exact proportion, or specificity of positive vs negative emotional states moment to moment, interest vs disinterest, and so on; nor is it simply akin to being on meth, although drugs aren't out of the question so to speak as enhancers, because until humans and human societies (which serve as structures to support humans in their endeavors) make this their overall goal, this sort of happiness, they won't know what exactly is required, what exactly must then be institutionalized in order to reproduce both the body of knowledge of what is required generation after generation based on wisdom/experience, and the support structures of society, while also retaining flexibility for improvement.

[Nick_A]

11011

my notion of happiness isn't as a fleeting emotion, like as one would experience from simple need satisfaction although that's part of it. it is constant and is basically synonymous with the optimal subjective state to be in at every moment in life to get the most out of life as a whole without destroying or undermining the potential of the next moment to deliver equally profound experience.

You seem to agree with what Nietzsche wrote. Happiness must include the belief that resistance to happiness is being overcome.

“Happiness is the feeling that power increases - that resistance is being overcome.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ

But my question is if happiness is the ultimate goal for human being? Was Simone Weil wrong or just not appreciating happiness as the ultimate goal for human being? Did she become aware of a greater goal: the need to experience meaning?

Friedrich Nietzsche, From The Gay Science. “It is not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages. To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering. Thoughts are the shadows of our feelings - always darker, emptier and simpler.”

Happiness must include less suffering but could conscious suffering reveal meaning?

If thoughts are the shadows of our feelings, we can have more and more knowledge and thoughts but they will become the shadows of our feelings. Is there any way shadows can promote inner growth without dealing with their sources which are – “always darker, emptier and simpler.” We can become happy with these thoughts but can they reveal “meaning" and is there any reason to do so?

[11011]

not wrong, actually weil's seems to have the same understanding of happiness as me, the difference between us being i believe ''an infinite and perfect good'' is obtainable here on earth.

i believe humans can create heaven on earth, even despite mortality of the consciousness and body. basic need satisfaction aside, let us consider the fear of/resistance to death for example, and how this makes humans do all sorts of things that seem contrary to goodness; as one of the key struggles and dampers on human happiness; as one of the things that makes them consider whether they are wasting their time doing something, and from which the experience of regret emerges and other negative states that are based on a recognition of death. where humans expend much effort doing things, or living a certain way, not in a way they really want moment to moment, out of this fear, including the search for meaning.

i believe the search for meaning is strongly tied to this fear, especially so-called objective meaning. becoming famous, building a large building, even just having children, are all attempts by the individual to immortalize themselves, that is to attach themselves to the infinite universe by leaving something behind of themselves in it that may last, or participate in something, become a part of something that will last or is thought to be infinite.

but they struggle with this, because deep-down they know none of this will truly last forever, and it feels like a knockoff of the real thing, bringing temporary relief of their anxieties at best, and so they go back to experiencing various negative states like regret and time obsession, various forms of distraction, etc. it is false. they do not see, or are not willing to see due to present cultural and relationship barriers that influence the meaningful content of their subjective worlds and that do not recognize the legitimacy of this, that is how they are already connected to the infinite and unchanging in a simple and basic way -- through their mere existence.

it requires breaking down the false (social-mental) barrier between the self and the universe, and identifying with the entire universe in its unchanging true form, perceiving everything as a single neutral unchanging substance including the self, which is ultimate reality.

which leads to the great philosophical utility of true happiness - the emotion that is. once one discovers ultimate reality, they will feel true happiness, the emotion, and it is a complete sense of contentment and 'fuzzy goodness' that is, most importantly, not contingent upon anything earthly other than your mere existence. whether conscious or asleep, you will feel it and it never goes away, though it can be undermined by stressors, but insofar as you maintain the conditions of life and environment that encourage/allow for it, it is unconditional perfect happiness, even while sitting and doing absolutely nothing. just existing. and the philosophical utility of this emotion, once felt, once found, reveals to the individual the true nature of the universe, as a single neutral unchanging infinitely existing substance including themselves.

emotions can provide us knowledge where all our other tools have failed, because our emotions are tied to our instincts, and our instincts are tied to the universe since we evolved from it, the substance of the universe. our emotions are the missing link. happiness is the missing link between the world humans live in and ultimate reality/the unchanging universe.

but for this to work en mass, and not just sound like some far out hippy stuff, it really needs to be institutionalized and come to be the dominant worldview. and this is just happiness as it relates to the fear of death, there is so much more.

[Logik]

Dave Grossman - "On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs"

http://www.mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

[Nick_A]

11011

i believe humans can create heaven on earth, even despite mortality of the consciousness and body. basic need satisfaction aside, let us consider the fear of/resistance to death for example, and how this makes humans do all sorts of things that seem contrary to goodness; as one of the key struggles and dampers on human happiness; as one of the things that makes them consider whether they are wasting their time doing something, and from which the experience of regret emerges and other negative states that are based on a recognition of death. where humans expend much effort doing things, or living a certain way, not in a way they really want moment to moment, out of this fear, including the search for meaning.

I don’t see how heaven on earth would be possible if we are indeed victims of the human condition. By the human condition I mean we assume ourselves to be ONE which we call “I” but in reality we are many. Thoughts have their collection of small I’s , emotions have theirs, and our senses have theirs. We call all these reactions I. Then we have these reactions called I which have been artificially created as reactions to life and negative emotions. Only rarely can the seed of the soul attracted to the GOOD become dominant. The World dominates the rest.

For example, I can say “I am angry.” I no longer exists. Only anger exists. However I can also say that anger is within me. This has a completely different meaning and it is the beginning of inner freedom from becoming an inner reaction for the person who can remember it.

i believe the search for meaning is strongly tied to this fear, especially so-called objective meaning. becoming famous, building a large building, even just having children, are all attempts by the individual to immortalize themselves, that is to attach themselves to the infinite universe by leaving something behind of themselves in it that may last, or participate in something, become a part of something that will last or is thought to be infinite.

Is the search for food based on the need for food or the fear of starvation? It is the same for me as it pertains to objective meaning. The need for subjective consolation can be based on fear but the need for objective meaning comes from a depth of the heart with the need for the experience of objective meaning.

Fame is an expression of a subjective need for meaning. The objective need to experience meaning doesn’t come from the subjective richness of our personality but the poor condition of our spirit

When Simone Weil died there were seven outsiders at her funeral. She had no interest in fame or fortune. However those like Albert Camus and T.S. Elliot read her essays and personal letters and felt a quality in them that was extremely rare, brilliant, pure, and very human. So they invested their money to publish them not for profit but because they felt the world needed access to them. Now she is loved around the world not because of her need for fame but for her attraction to the GOOD over self serving fantasy. Since she wrote from the depth of her being, some could open to this depth in themselves. They could experience a quality of communication that is pure and rare.

it requires breaking down the false (social-mental) barrier between the self and the universe, and identifying with the entire universe in its unchanging true form, perceiving everything as a single neutral unchanging substance including the self, which is ultimate reality.

Could you explain this further? As I understand it the only universal constant is change. Only God or the ONE IS. It is ineffable and beyond the limits of time and space.

We are creatures within the universe so are also in constant change. We are either in the process of serving involution or the flow of forces into the universe or the flow of forces returning to their source or evolution.

It seems to me then that once a person has a hypothesis for the purpose of our universe then objective meaning and purpose for Man within itcan be understood. The question is if a person can verify this purpose by becoming able to “know thyself”- have the experience of oneself rather than imagine oneself for the purpose of self justification. Of course the world wants no part of this and must protect its rule by imagination.

which leads to the great philosophical utility of true happiness - the emotion that is. once one discovers ultimate reality, they will feel true happiness, the emotion, and it is a complete sense of contentment and 'fuzzy goodness' that is, most importantly, not contingent upon anything earthly other than your mere existence. whether conscious or asleep, you will feel it and it never goes away, though it can be undermined by stressors, but insofar as you maintain the conditions of life and environment that encourage/allow for it, it is unconditional perfect happiness, even while sitting and doing absolutely nothing. just existing. and the philosophical utility of this emotion, once felt, once found, reveals to the individual the true nature of the universe, as a single neutral unchanging infinitely existing substance including themselves.

I see it slightly different. I distinguish between happiness as it relates to our relationship with the universe and joy which is the result of the inner awareness of our source which transcends the universe. If the purpose of human existence is furthered by simply existing, then happiness is the best that can be expected. If the purpose of human existence s opposed to animal existence is conscious evolution then something more than existence is necessary. It requires the will, need, and ability to struggle with oneself – to consciously participate in the struggle between our higher and lower natures for the sake of becoming “one”. It is a real battle and awakening to reality along the way often promotes the experience of joy.

emotions can provide us knowledge where all our other tools have failed, because our emotions are tied to our instincts, and our instincts are tied to the universe since we evolved from it, the substance of the universe. our emotions are the missing link. happiness is the missing link between the world humans live in and ultimate reality/the unchanging universe.

but for this to work en mass, and not just sound like some far out hippy stuff, it really needs to be institutionalized and come to be the dominant worldview. and this is just happiness as it relates to the fear of death, there is so much more.

In theory yes but practically speaking the human condition makes it impossible on a large scale. The world must oppose it. To accept it means the death of rule by imagination which is intolerable for life in Plato’s Cave.

Take Dr. Nicolescu’s organization CIRET for example. It consists of brilliant and talented intellectuals, artists, and craftsman who have all concluded that they have a piece of the puzzle as to what Man is. Rather than argue which is superior and whose momma sucks, they work together in the common quest to understand who and what we are in relation to a higher whole within which we are a part. Such humility is unwanted by the normal intellectuals so it would bomb out for the majority. However it is good to know there is this minority capable of this quality of humility for the good of our species.

[11011]

it's worth clarifying this now. i was going to mention it earlier but i thought that post was already getting a little dense.

anyway, my position on the purpose of human existence is this, so tell me your thoughts as it is indeed fundamental to the discussion at hand.

i agree that our 'natural' purpose may be more in line what evolution (darwinian evolution) suggests, however consider this reasoning...

if the purpose of our existence is to evolve and survive promoted by what you call 'conscious evolution' which is basically no different than unconscious evolution other than it being suited to humans who are 'conscious' animals, but it is also the in the nature and 'destiny' of species - all species - to go extinct at some point, in other words where the chance of human survival (living) existence indefinitely is slim in the universe - that is to say we will almost definitely die as a species at some point - doesn't it make more sense, using our consciousness, to instead oppose evolution wholesale and just live for our happiness as a species until our inevitable extinction anyway?

also consider this idea, it's a newer idea i came up with. our notion of evolution and the purpose of species, that is what drives their actions, is correct in theory but may not be totally correct in reality. and what i mean by this is, consider that all species, and all living organisms necessarily have defects, and it is these defects that result eventually in their extinctions which allows for evolution to occur. were it not for these defects, species would not evolve and humans would not exist. so defects are an inherent part of nature as well, and in line with 'natural' purpose of evolution.

now, what if the uniquely human defect was to forgo 'conscious evolution' in favour of happiness? what if that is our true natural purpose as a defective species. we might also consider how consciousness itself is a defect in the grand scheme of things, that is how it could lead to our 'downfall'. consider that humans are a very young species. we have a ways to go before we caught up to the crocodiles and the like.

[Nick_A]

11011

if the purpose of our existence is to evolve and survive promoted by what you call 'conscious evolution' which is basically no different than unconscious evolution other than it being suited to humans who are 'conscious' animals, but it is also the in the nature and 'destiny' of species - all species - to go extinct at some point, in other words where the chance of human survival (living) existence indefinitely is slim in the universe - that is to say we will almost definitely die as a species at some point - doesn't it make more sense, using our consciousness, to instead oppose evolution wholesale and just live for our happiness as a species until our inevitable extinction anyway?

We do have certain differences which is fine since we really haven’t verified anything. My ideas serve my need to understand universal purpose and human meaning and purpose within creation.

To begin with I distinguish between evolution and adaptation. Evolution for me refers to the change in objective quality, in accordance with a vertical hierarchical structure of all matter and life known in ancient times as the Great Chain of Being. Objective quality is defined by what a given quality of being includes. For example an animal includes all the qualities of a vegetable and as such is a higher level of being. Evolution than is the change in quality of a lower level of being into a higher.

Adaptation in contrast refers to reactive changes to environment within one level of being. A horse changing in size in reaction to changes in environment has adapted but is still essentially a horse. A smaller horse has the same being as a larger horse

The being of Man is not evolving. Man is in the process of adaptation in response to influences like technology. Man may be adapting but his being, his “isness” is devolving due to increased fragmentation.

The goal of conscious evolution is the change of Man’s being. It can be compared to the mechanical change of a caterpillar into a butterfly. Conscious evolution requires a quality of consciousness making possible inner unity we only have in potential.

As I understand it, Man is dual natured. We are animal man which arose from the earth as did the rest of organic life on earth. In addition we have higher parts which descended from above and what makes conscious evolution or the return to its source possible. The great battle we all face is the battle between our higher and lower natures. The lower usually wins which is normal for the fallen human condition and why modern successful adaptation must lead to collective human devolution. What may happen to animal man is one thing. The result of the inner path leading to conscious Man is another.

Einstein suggests the attitude which can lead to the potential for a person’s conscious evolution. It is a beginning. We know how offensive this is for all those who worship technology and AI. But as long as there are the Simones of the world with the need and will to experience objective meaning, enough may survive to make a difference.

The development from a religion of fear to a moral religion is a great step in peoples lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based purely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on guard. the truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.

Common to all types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he want to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

-- Albert Einstein, Science and Religion, NY Times, November 9, 1930.