Hi there,
So I am not doing more than corner "a premise" and seeing if that acts as a success, in relation to your assessment of what it means. The premise is that "sharing is a constructive addition to Evolution" (subtext: the more Evolution shares, the better it is) and I am cornering it, by suggesting that difference, may be impacted (subtext again: Evolution needs a relationship to difference, that it can depend on ("by extension")) - that is: the difference Evolution makes, may be impacted by what it either shares or retains. A simple way to test this, is to question what memetic objects Evolution is able to offer someone who does not yet believe it.
The principle is borne out in Creation, by a series of wise sayings, that you can remember and share, if you want to go in to a life of obedience to God's design. The promise is that you will find remembering those sayings "easy" and "light" - something that will not change, over the life of believing them. The point is that in time, you will become a great communicator, someone who is well able to tell what the changes of the times are and what our obedience should be, to God, who is above all and beyond all, whatever the times may have been. This principle (borne out this way) both encourages multiple tries at the same Evolution and can bring memetic objects back into mind far more simply, when survival is at stake. This in turn can be reinterpreted with more effect, in successive generations that retain the same design.
So what is it? Do we share, scientifically, as though sharing needs to be especially "evolved"? And what good would that do, if that were the case (can't we just share?)? These things may be blown out of the water, by a selection pressure that only allows successive increments, but what selection pressure is that? Even a fool can find a mate, if he keeps his stance ready. To an Evolutionist, that means that stance taken is of especial interest, if not locally then to a wider audience for which there are many more fools than wise? Does the fool that learns to share and keep his stance, a match for the Devil - the greater predator, than even Evolution can ultimately contain? What would ignoring what was shared mean for Evolution - would ignoring bring ignorance; what is the adaptive strength of ignorance?
As you can see, there are more questions than answers, as soon as I introduce the lens of Evolution to interpret "what is shared and what is not" - this is not a mistake: if all you want to do is evolve, you may get away without sharing a great deal, what would stop you? That is what I am asking for: a parity between giving for the sake of it, and sharing for the sake of it - something that adaptation as a singular reference of change cannot predictably welcome, master and justify, if only because the pluralities of interrelationship developing have no great blueprint to bring the "Evolution" back to point. "Evolution" as we understand it, escapes all of us (just about) purely because there is no concept of nearness that changes anything, that would ultimately be "shared".
Is there a place for "shared Evolution"? Who would know? Is that something, we have to adapt? What is the price for forgetting to share, even if Evolution "is" true? I'm looking forward to your answers, and siding by faith with the idea, that there is indeed something to share, if not as Evolution defines it, then as Creation or like it would?
So I am not doing more than corner "a premise" and seeing if that acts as a success, in relation to your assessment of what it means. The premise is that "sharing is a constructive addition to Evolution" (subtext: the more Evolution shares, the better it is) and I am cornering it, by suggesting that difference, may be impacted (subtext again: Evolution needs a relationship to difference, that it can depend on ("by extension")) - that is: the difference Evolution makes, may be impacted by what it either shares or retains. A simple way to test this, is to question what memetic objects Evolution is able to offer someone who does not yet believe it.
The principle is borne out in Creation, by a series of wise sayings, that you can remember and share, if you want to go in to a life of obedience to God's design. The promise is that you will find remembering those sayings "easy" and "light" - something that will not change, over the life of believing them. The point is that in time, you will become a great communicator, someone who is well able to tell what the changes of the times are and what our obedience should be, to God, who is above all and beyond all, whatever the times may have been. This principle (borne out this way) both encourages multiple tries at the same Evolution and can bring memetic objects back into mind far more simply, when survival is at stake. This in turn can be reinterpreted with more effect, in successive generations that retain the same design.
So what is it? Do we share, scientifically, as though sharing needs to be especially "evolved"? And what good would that do, if that were the case (can't we just share?)? These things may be blown out of the water, by a selection pressure that only allows successive increments, but what selection pressure is that? Even a fool can find a mate, if he keeps his stance ready. To an Evolutionist, that means that stance taken is of especial interest, if not locally then to a wider audience for which there are many more fools than wise? Does the fool that learns to share and keep his stance, a match for the Devil - the greater predator, than even Evolution can ultimately contain? What would ignoring what was shared mean for Evolution - would ignoring bring ignorance; what is the adaptive strength of ignorance?
As you can see, there are more questions than answers, as soon as I introduce the lens of Evolution to interpret "what is shared and what is not" - this is not a mistake: if all you want to do is evolve, you may get away without sharing a great deal, what would stop you? That is what I am asking for: a parity between giving for the sake of it, and sharing for the sake of it - something that adaptation as a singular reference of change cannot predictably welcome, master and justify, if only because the pluralities of interrelationship developing have no great blueprint to bring the "Evolution" back to point. "Evolution" as we understand it, escapes all of us (just about) purely because there is no concept of nearness that changes anything, that would ultimately be "shared".
Is there a place for "shared Evolution"? Who would know? Is that something, we have to adapt? What is the price for forgetting to share, even if Evolution "is" true? I'm looking forward to your answers, and siding by faith with the idea, that there is indeed something to share, if not as Evolution defines it, then as Creation or like it would?
