Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00065)

Michael,

[Liesel]
>Since I read a book on chaos theory, I don't believe anymore that survival
>of the fittest is the only valid mode by means of which organisms survive.
>Sometimes rivals adapt to each other, sometimes they learn to live in
>different spheres, like one in air and one underground, sometimes they
>learn to cooperate with each other to reach a common goal.

[Michael]
I am also fascinated by the Chaos theory which may give us new clues.
Yes, whether survival of the fittest is the real drive behind evolution
remains to be seen. It is an upward surge filled with suffering and delight.

[Murray in response]
Following on with my themes of connectedness and holism, I'd say that
survival of the fittest plays a part, but is only one of the levels of
influence on physical lifeforms and is likely to be embedded in a matrix of
factors such as emotional states of the creature and their effect on
physical health, and the development of cooperative ways, not to mention
subtle interactions with the environment. It would be circular too, eg
physical states affecting the feeling level and vice-versa.

Science has made so much of survival of the fittest because for a long time,
that's about all it had to work with. Things are a-changing indeed.

I think your "upward surge" idea is pointing the right way towards a general
causation and empowering from within outwards.

On a more homely level, what about plain ol' fun too? Kittens and lambs and
the young of just about any species have fun, yet has there much written
about the effects of fun on physical health in creatures other than humans?
Whether it's effect or cause - again, I believe there are cross-plane
influences, going both ways, but certainly the hormones of fun are kinder to
the body than those of fear and anger.

Even oldies can have fun  - if they believe they can. In fact, in some ways,
oldies are freer to have fun than youngsters.

Fun is probably a sub-octave of the intense note of joy that is said to
permeate the universe in the realms of unbounded consciousness.


[Liesel]
>You'd like to know my definition of sin as opposed to erring. Sin, to me
>is unforgiveable. The sinner lands in hell.

[Michael]
Here we enter again into pure speculation. A so-called sinner may be the
victim of inherited family traits. To conguer them might also be inborn. A
sinner might be considered a sick person. Hell may be a cozy place to some
minds.

[Murray]
I turn to the original meaning of sin - a falling short of the mark. I
suppose there can be huge misses, by a mile, as well as little ones. :-)
Certainly, some minds carry their hell around with them all the time.


[Michael]
To learn is also inherited. Some will never learn and it remains to be seen
whether they are entirely responsible or victims of "fate". It looks like
the Christian pre-ordination dogma is to be dusted of.

[Murray]
I believe there is joint responsibility, in due proportion, so that while a
person has a primary reponsibility for what they do, nobody is an island,
and as we are all co-creators, we create influences and circumstances that
affect other people, and so share responsibility for the outcomes.

But pre-ordination has a natural meaning in the sense that karma is a
*condition* of things or energies, like momentum, rather than a strange and
separate energy or action-at-a-distance that people so often seem to think
it is.

Pre-ordainment is then the *momentum* of things set in motion before, that
will tend to continue in their direction unless other energy is expended to
change the direction and strength of that movement or dissolve it
altogether, as healing or forgiveness might do in some cases.

The momentum is so strong and specific sometimes, that an event is virtually
pre-ordained, and IMO could be reliably forseen by a suitably sensitive
person. When less strong, it is just a tendency and while a sensitive might
pick up the outcome that would follow as an extrapolaton from the situation
as it is, that perceived outcome could be quite readily changed before it
precipitates into physical reality.

[Michael]
I have seen this example occur many times with people I know/knew, yet
wonder whether it is psychology or karma.

[Murray]
Why not both? The psychological aspect of karma and the karmic aspect of
psychology. Very balanced and Zen-like, I know! :-)

Murray