Selfhood: An Intelligent Design of creative energy?
Selfhood: An Intelligent Design of creative energy?
Posted: March 4th, 2009, 12:10 pm
Hello everyone,
Recently I watched a TV program about a U. S. school board dispute concerning “Intelligent Design” as creationist theory, being taught as part of the curriculum alongside Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
This discussion struck me as formulated from the invisible premise of inherent religiosity as the nexus of all theories of intelligent design. From my point of view, the complicity between Science and Religion in each others self-serving power-over ploys of identifying, naming and deciding the meaning of the concepts of Intelligent Design as a fundamentally religious ideology, should give all of us pause.
Speaker Material’s concepts of self-to-Self reality and its underpinning of intelligent design are not a conceptualization of reality into a fundamentally religious ideology. Such a presumption of religious framework is not within the Self-to-self philosophy. For all of us who believe that human power, as mind-power, is innately intelligent; and further believe that the experiences and concepts of creativity are an intrinsically intelligent form and use of mind-power, the leap to an hypothesis that decides that these ideas ultimately must be a religious belief-system, has missed the point!
Almost 25 years ago, (while at university) I was faced with a similar sort of identity crisis for Self-to-self's reality-philosophy of intelligent design and creation. I found that an assumption of absolute religious definition for our mind-power-origins was as much a chameleon-corrupted concept of our selfhood, as the usurping, exclusive sorts of definitions that Science imposes. There are very many of us who follow a more humanist approach to the questions of consciousness, reality, scientific and psychic-spiritual research, and every brand of discovery; and believe that the human experience of itself is its own proof of intelligent design.
The very point of Speaker Material's reality-philosophy is that neither Science nor Religion holds all of the answers to our human questions about reality and our human world's creation/origin. An article I am currently working on, entitled “The Third Choice”, expresses the Self-to-self thesis that our lack of holistic human progress is driven by the conceptual paradigms of polarity, opposition, and all manner of domination-power identity. It is these very conceptual paradigms that drive the controversy between Scientific and Religious worldviews that continue to prop up and perpetuate the disastrously dichotomous identification of life-reality human nature, and its origin.
Very many human beings (according to much past and current research) are discovering for themselves that there is a “third choice” for their philosophical-psychological, spiritual and pragmatic world-reality views (philosophies). Many of us are making choices to understand life (and formulate world and philosophic conceptual viewpoints)that are not an absolutist’s either-or, black-or-white, picture of self-nature or our compound human existence. To consider that solving our problems, on every front, is within our own power as choices about how we will use our concept-driven mind-power, takes a certain self-faith. Perhaps that is the first conceptual hurdle that humankind must learn how to leap.
Here is to all of us who are looking, as my poem The Listener, remarks, “…out at the world and in at the universe”, http://selftoself.com/poetry/the_listener.htm and innately grasping that our Human Nature and the nature of our reality are not conceptually exclusive. Self-to-self we are each, both sorts of truths as they are literally embodied in our own inclusive existence as the intelligent and creative design of both the Listener and the Speaker of our human existence and origins.
Open minds can open the doors to a different sort of future, for each of us and for all of us. But only by choice.
Regards,
Spinfo
Posted: March 4th, 2009, 12:10 pm
Hello everyone,
Recently I watched a TV program about a U. S. school board dispute concerning “Intelligent Design” as creationist theory, being taught as part of the curriculum alongside Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
This discussion struck me as formulated from the invisible premise of inherent religiosity as the nexus of all theories of intelligent design. From my point of view, the complicity between Science and Religion in each others self-serving power-over ploys of identifying, naming and deciding the meaning of the concepts of Intelligent Design as a fundamentally religious ideology, should give all of us pause.
Speaker Material’s concepts of self-to-Self reality and its underpinning of intelligent design are not a conceptualization of reality into a fundamentally religious ideology. Such a presumption of religious framework is not within the Self-to-self philosophy. For all of us who believe that human power, as mind-power, is innately intelligent; and further believe that the experiences and concepts of creativity are an intrinsically intelligent form and use of mind-power, the leap to an hypothesis that decides that these ideas ultimately must be a religious belief-system, has missed the point!
Almost 25 years ago, (while at university) I was faced with a similar sort of identity crisis for Self-to-self's reality-philosophy of intelligent design and creation. I found that an assumption of absolute religious definition for our mind-power-origins was as much a chameleon-corrupted concept of our selfhood, as the usurping, exclusive sorts of definitions that Science imposes. There are very many of us who follow a more humanist approach to the questions of consciousness, reality, scientific and psychic-spiritual research, and every brand of discovery; and believe that the human experience of itself is its own proof of intelligent design.
The very point of Speaker Material's reality-philosophy is that neither Science nor Religion holds all of the answers to our human questions about reality and our human world's creation/origin. An article I am currently working on, entitled “The Third Choice”, expresses the Self-to-self thesis that our lack of holistic human progress is driven by the conceptual paradigms of polarity, opposition, and all manner of domination-power identity. It is these very conceptual paradigms that drive the controversy between Scientific and Religious worldviews that continue to prop up and perpetuate the disastrously dichotomous identification of life-reality human nature, and its origin.
Very many human beings (according to much past and current research) are discovering for themselves that there is a “third choice” for their philosophical-psychological, spiritual and pragmatic world-reality views (philosophies). Many of us are making choices to understand life (and formulate world and philosophic conceptual viewpoints)that are not an absolutist’s either-or, black-or-white, picture of self-nature or our compound human existence. To consider that solving our problems, on every front, is within our own power as choices about how we will use our concept-driven mind-power, takes a certain self-faith. Perhaps that is the first conceptual hurdle that humankind must learn how to leap.
Here is to all of us who are looking, as my poem The Listener, remarks, “…out at the world and in at the universe”, http://selftoself.com/poetry/the_listener.htm and innately grasping that our Human Nature and the nature of our reality are not conceptually exclusive. Self-to-self we are each, both sorts of truths as they are literally embodied in our own inclusive existence as the intelligent and creative design of both the Listener and the Speaker of our human existence and origins.
Open minds can open the doors to a different sort of future, for each of us and for all of us. But only by choice.
Regards,
Spinfo
posted by What Ruth Writes | 1:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home