Hi there,
So I actually had the idea for making Evolution "interesting", earlier - but I wanted to talk about an extension of it. Before we get into it thought, let's just be clear what I mean by "making Evolution interesting"! I think it means: taking a concept that has less said about it, and saying more, in a way that does not just waste words. So you could make a cat interesting, by emphasizing how ferocious its teeth are, that sort of thing. The point being, that you can't just appeal to the whole of the theory, as if no one part of it, is any less interesting than other parts.
The extension to this I wanted to talk about, is that "if Evolution is selected more, if it is interesting" (in principle - let's not forget our foundation here), then making Evolution "interesting" will in turn select for something that makes sustaining interest more achievable. A "distraction" is just such a novelty - the more strategically you are able to create a distraction, from the central fact of "Evolution", the more boredom with the self-same 'Evolution' can be averted. It's just straight forward pegging interest with the problem of monotony.
The success with which a member of the species can do this, the more likely they will not only win a mate, but will be able to sustain a relationship with that mate. Moreover, it will mean that the creature that can do this successfully, will more likely be compelled to revisit. Revisiting means, that a creature with a number of fortuitous traits that dies, but has a good chance of surviving in future (in principle, with a variation of its design being a strength), that self-same creature may be sent to the species a second time, even third or fourth, to secure what was in favour of the creature (as opposed to what was just plain bad luck, in a given situation). The more a creature revisits a species, the more it comes to be identified with that species' success.
The point being that where a number of a species members all share something (in some fashion productively), what is interesting about 'Evolution' will be shared amongst the members of that species universally. This is neither a loss nor a gain, depending on how it is done. Essentially, this means that there are both creatures and adaptations in a given bloodline that could succeed, despite selection pressure being against their being 'revisited', through one or other of the remembered kind. This is as is reflected in the statements "he has your eyes" "she has your nose", the expectation being that the young will adopt the instinct of the parents that caused them most to survive. The simplicity of this, is that potential itself can prefigure in a species, long before the adaptation can be tested.
If the potential can be prefigured in a species, long before the adaptation can be tested, faith can guide the life force of a creature to more fully express that adaptation or any like it - which is not survival, but flourishing - such that there is an abundance of characteristics of the species that can be defended with a number of revisitations. And that is where the populations of the world are, at this very moment, waiting for that juxtaposition between what was and is and is to come! This is a stance taken for mateship that justifies defending the young, protecting the old and distributing wealth. How a species interprets or senses flourishing in respect of these things being within reach, is down to what they were born with, who were they born to and how filial their desire to be a mate really was.
This is not a paradox, but the outworking of one, that the more talent a species has, before the adaptation's working out can be predicted or the revisitation at last found, the more pre-figured the potential, the greater the reason to stay faithful to the productivity already defined. Productivity defined as design or evolution, depending on the creature or alternately a path between them, that pleases (in principle) the species. If a species can unite around the prestage (revisit, flourishing adaptation, pre-figured adaptation - being "prestage" hard) it is able to defend the utility of its cultural accoutrements one way and another, until the fullest expression of them, is achieved across the species lifetime.
Power to express culture across a lifetime, promises familiarity not becoming vulnerable. This defends both the gatherer and the hunter, while they clash to define the more preferable mate, in their own seasons. But know this, if the hunter ever gave up his place on the hunt, he would go hungry - for life is more zealous for life, than it is for anything this world can merely threaten (with). Jesus came that we might have hope in the revisitation, in part, that we flourish in part and that our prefigured hopes not be lost (part and part again), to ideals that are uncircumspect of the intent we truly have love overinto (in the sense of overcoming, but also union).
These are the two points I want to make about Evolution as a whole:
These are the three points I want you to get, in the effort to justify the previous two points:
So I actually had the idea for making Evolution "interesting", earlier - but I wanted to talk about an extension of it. Before we get into it thought, let's just be clear what I mean by "making Evolution interesting"! I think it means: taking a concept that has less said about it, and saying more, in a way that does not just waste words. So you could make a cat interesting, by emphasizing how ferocious its teeth are, that sort of thing. The point being, that you can't just appeal to the whole of the theory, as if no one part of it, is any less interesting than other parts.
The extension to this I wanted to talk about, is that "if Evolution is selected more, if it is interesting" (in principle - let's not forget our foundation here), then making Evolution "interesting" will in turn select for something that makes sustaining interest more achievable. A "distraction" is just such a novelty - the more strategically you are able to create a distraction, from the central fact of "Evolution", the more boredom with the self-same 'Evolution' can be averted. It's just straight forward pegging interest with the problem of monotony.
The success with which a member of the species can do this, the more likely they will not only win a mate, but will be able to sustain a relationship with that mate. Moreover, it will mean that the creature that can do this successfully, will more likely be compelled to revisit. Revisiting means, that a creature with a number of fortuitous traits that dies, but has a good chance of surviving in future (in principle, with a variation of its design being a strength), that self-same creature may be sent to the species a second time, even third or fourth, to secure what was in favour of the creature (as opposed to what was just plain bad luck, in a given situation). The more a creature revisits a species, the more it comes to be identified with that species' success.
The point being that where a number of a species members all share something (in some fashion productively), what is interesting about 'Evolution' will be shared amongst the members of that species universally. This is neither a loss nor a gain, depending on how it is done. Essentially, this means that there are both creatures and adaptations in a given bloodline that could succeed, despite selection pressure being against their being 'revisited', through one or other of the remembered kind. This is as is reflected in the statements "he has your eyes" "she has your nose", the expectation being that the young will adopt the instinct of the parents that caused them most to survive. The simplicity of this, is that potential itself can prefigure in a species, long before the adaptation can be tested.
If the potential can be prefigured in a species, long before the adaptation can be tested, faith can guide the life force of a creature to more fully express that adaptation or any like it - which is not survival, but flourishing - such that there is an abundance of characteristics of the species that can be defended with a number of revisitations. And that is where the populations of the world are, at this very moment, waiting for that juxtaposition between what was and is and is to come! This is a stance taken for mateship that justifies defending the young, protecting the old and distributing wealth. How a species interprets or senses flourishing in respect of these things being within reach, is down to what they were born with, who were they born to and how filial their desire to be a mate really was.
This is not a paradox, but the outworking of one, that the more talent a species has, before the adaptation's working out can be predicted or the revisitation at last found, the more pre-figured the potential, the greater the reason to stay faithful to the productivity already defined. Productivity defined as design or evolution, depending on the creature or alternately a path between them, that pleases (in principle) the species. If a species can unite around the prestage (revisit, flourishing adaptation, pre-figured adaptation - being "prestage" hard) it is able to defend the utility of its cultural accoutrements one way and another, until the fullest expression of them, is achieved across the species lifetime.
Power to express culture across a lifetime, promises familiarity not becoming vulnerable. This defends both the gatherer and the hunter, while they clash to define the more preferable mate, in their own seasons. But know this, if the hunter ever gave up his place on the hunt, he would go hungry - for life is more zealous for life, than it is for anything this world can merely threaten (with). Jesus came that we might have hope in the revisitation, in part, that we flourish in part and that our prefigured hopes not be lost (part and part again), to ideals that are uncircumspect of the intent we truly have love overinto (in the sense of overcoming, but also union).
These are the two points I want to make about Evolution as a whole:
These are the three points I want you to get, in the effort to justify the previous two points:
