Theos-Talk Archives (June 1997 Message tl00423)

In a message dated 97-06-17 01:33:54 EDT, Alan wrote:

> I am not at all sure that humanity "evolves" at all.  ndividuals
>  *develop* and may improve on what they were before developing, but
>  humanity? that's another story altogether.  If we were to go into all
>  the root-race stuff (about which I am sceptical) we might have to
>  consider that throughout human history there have been a number of
>  Humanities, some quite different from others. Different, not necessarily
>  more (or less) "advanced."  As Ogden Nash said (I think):
>
>  "Progress was alright once, but it's gone on far too long."

ROFL over that last line. ;-D

It may be that I *need* to believe that humanity itself evolves. (For me, it
justifies personal spiritual development as part of serving humanity.) That
whole root-race thing is not a concept that resonates with me either, maybe
because the scope of it is too cosmic for me to intuit. However, your
position makes sense in view of the Kabalistic (your favorite flavor ;-D)
view of only a physical vehicle and a Briatic consciousness which may not be
subject to karma. An "evolving" humanity makes sense only from a viewpoint
where there are multiple vehicles in the planes affected by karma and that
development of a particular individual stimulates the vehicles of other
individuals into a higher state of vibration so to speak. At least that's how
I see it.

Just a sort of weird aside... This happened to come up right as I am in the
middle of indexing a chapter discussing evolution in an anthropology text
book. Biologists and anthropologists do not see evolution as being
goal-directed as laypeople often do with one species being "superior" or more
"evolved" than another. Your remark about different, but not necessarily more
advanced, humanities has an interesting correspondence to that. ;-D

Lynn
<speaking of indexing... I better get to work instead of writing email
messages all day>