This article will begin a 47-part series on human nature, human life and health.
We will begin with a four-part series on the idea of evolution as that will help explain the foundations of human nature and human behavior. In this four-part series we will examine the traditional view of Darwinian evolution and point out its accuracies, flaws and shortcomings, then we will examine the fascinating idea of multidimensional evolution which fits in with our broad thesis project on Cosmic Core and the ideas we encourage each person to examine.
Those are: that we are multidimensional beings living in an infinite multidimensional reality.
Time is simultaneous.
We live many lives as we learn to spiritually evolve gaining more wisdom and compassion, our consciousnesses expanding from mineral consciousness to plant to animal to normal human consciousness, then to a planetary, solar, galactic, and finally to a universal or Cosmic consciousness where our consciousness expands so much that we become one with the universe and all that is in it, able to understand all in the Universe with wisdom, compassion and unimaginable expansiveness and unity.
It is common knowledge that there is a great debate between evolution and creationism, as if there can be only one: black or white. This is ridiculous. Our discussion of evolution falls neatly within the bounds of creationism. Yet we are speaking of a continual multidimensional creation instead of a limited one-time only dogmatic Biblical creation.
In Cosmic Core we stress the idea that evolution and creation are both important aspects of reality, life and growth.
With tweaks to both Darwinian evolution and Biblical creation, we can find a nice balance point between religion and science which makes sense and does not alienate any particular group. Of course those who refuse to let go or modify fanatical dogmas may disagree, and they are certainly welcome to, however Cosmic Core is for those willing to explore new concepts and attempt to learn how to unify their minds and emotions; unifying concepts of religion and science, intuition and rational thinking and ancient wisdom with modern understanding.
We teach the esoteric stream of knowledge and the Perennial Philosophy, not traditional Biblical studies nor traditional mainstream science. There are more than enough places to find those mainstream teachings if one is so inclined.
In this article we will start with a brief examination of multidimensional evolution and probable realities, then finish this article with a rousing discussion of Darwinian evolution.
In the next three articles we will discuss early humanity on this planet and their gradual separation into individualized consciousness as the veil between the conscious and unconscious portions of the mind was put up and free will was introduced. Then we will explore the fascinating and stereo-type shattering information regarding early humanity on this planet around the time most people usually think of ‘cavemen’ as being present.
The last article in this 4-part series will discuss the birth of free will in the evolution of the galaxy. This birth of free will acknowledges the questions many have as why there is so much suffering in the world and why do so many people choose to do “bad” things, and why “bad” things are even allowed in a Universe supposedly created by a loving benevolent God.
As we will see, free will was absolutely necessary for spiritual evolution. Rather than living in a perpetual paradise, free will was introduced so individuals could choose to evolve, and to evolve in their own way and their own time, discovering who they truly were along the way. Of course, things seemed to have spiraled out of control with so many choosing the negative. There are many reasons as to why it seems that way, but a discussion of those reasons will be left for another time.
Our focus now is on evolution.
Evolution of the Species:
Simultaneous Time & Multidimensional Evolution
“All possible entities that can ever be actualized always exist.
They [have] always existed and they always will exist.
All That Is must, by its characteristics, be all that it can ever be, and so there can be no end to existence—and, in those terms, no beginning.
As a species, you think of yourselves as the “pinnacle” end of an evolutionary scale, as if all other entities from the first cell onward somehow existed in a steady line of progression, culminating with animals, and finally with man the reasoning animal (with all of that progress occurring of course by chance, incidentally.)
Development is considered in a one-line direction only.
Seldom, for example is it thought of in horizontal terms.
The idea of evolution in its popular meaning promulgated this theory, as through gradual progression in a one-line direction, man emerged from the ape.
Time as you know it does not exist, basically, and all creations are simultaneous.
All the ages of Earth, in your terms both past and present, exist, as do future ages.
Now, some life forms are being developed in what you think of as present time. They will not appear physically until you reach your future time. They exist now, however, as certainly as do, say, the dinosaurs.
You only choose to focus your attention upon a highly specific field of space-time coordinates, accepting these as present reality, and closing yourselves off from all others.
Specifically, complicated physical forms are not the result of previous simpler ones. They all exist in larger terms at once.
On the other hand, more complicated organizations of consciousness are necessary to form, enter, and vitalize the more complicated physical structures.
All structure is formed by consciousness.
Since you do not perceive the future and do not understand that life goes out in all directions, then it seems only logical to suppose that present forms must be based upon past ones.
You do close your eyes to evidence that does not support this theory.
There is no single-line development. There was never any straight line of development as, say, from reptiles to mammal, ape, and man.
Instead there were great, still-continuing, infinitely rich parallel explosions of life forms and patterns in as many directions as possible.”1
Evolution & Probable Realities
“History, as you think of it, represents but one thin line of probabilities, in which you are presently immersed. It does not represent the entire lifetime of your species or the catalog of physical activities, or begin to tell the story of physical creatures, their civilizations, wars, joys, technologies, or triumphs.
Reality is far more diverse, far richer and unutterable than you can presently suppose or comprehend.
Evolution, as you think of it and as it is categorized by your scientists, represents but one probable line of evolution, the one in which, again, you are presently immersed.
There are, therefore, many other equally valid, equally real evolutionary developments that have occurred and are occurring and will occur, all within other probable systems of physical reality.
The diverse, endless possibilities of development could never appear within one slender framework of reality.”2
Precognitive Evolution
“Evolution does not march form the past into the future. Instead, the species is precognitively aware of those changes it wants to make, and from the “future” it alters the “present” state of the chromosomes and genes to bring about in the probable future the specific changes it desires.”3
Darwinism & Naïve Realism
“Biologists faithful to Darwin’s theories don’t want to hear anything about the precognitive abilities of a species, nor do they see any evidence of it in their work in evolutionary theory. Such attributes violate not only the operation of chance mutation and the struggle for existence, but our idea of consecutive time (which is associated with “naïve realism” – the belief that things are really as we perceive them to be).
Not that scientifically the concept of a far more flexible time – even a backward flow of time – is all that new. In atomic physics, for example, no special meaning or place is given to any particular moment, and fundamentally the past and future all but merge in the interactions of elementary particles.
Simply put, naïve realism teaches that our visual and bodily senses reveal to us an external world as it really is – that we “see” actual physical objects, for instance.
Disbelievers say that neurological evidence contradicts this theory; that from the neurological standpoint the events in our lives and within our bodies depend upon interpretation by the brain; that we can know nothing directly, but only experience reality transmitted through – and so “colored” by – the central nervous system.
The perceptual time lag, caused by the limited speed of light, is also involved in objections to naïve realism.”4
Scientific Evolution vs. Religious Creation
“Darwin’s theory of evolution and the Biblical story of creation are the two poles of the controversy over origins in our modern Western societies: the strictly Darwinist, mechanistic view of evolution, in which the weakest of any species are ruthlessly eliminated through natural, predatory selection, and the views of the creationists, who hold that God made the earth and all of its creatures just as derived in the Bible.
Many creationists believe that the Bible is literally true.
The Bible certainly advocates at least a relative immutability of species, rather than a common ancestry in which a single cell evolved into a variety of ever more complex and divergent forms.
In between these opposites there range all shades of meaning and interpretation on evolution.
Theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists, for example, try to bring the two extremes closer together through postulating various methods by which God created the world and then, while remaining hidden, either helped it to evolve to its present state in the Darwinist tradition, or, through a series of creative acts, brought forth each succeeding “higher’ form of life.
Concerning Darwinian evolution and Biblical creation – the members of each “pressure group,” want to see things their way – very human performances, I’m afraid.
Once it’s created, each school of thought takes upon itself, and often with great intellectual and emotional arrogance, the right to advance its own belief systems in the world at the expense of its rivals.
Before Darwinism, man at least felt that God had put him on earth for certain purposes, no matter how much man distorted those purposes through ignorance and war.
According to Judaism and Christianity, among many religions, man could see forgiveness and salvation; he had a soul.
After Darwin, he learned that even his physical presence on earth was an accident of nature.
He was taught – he taught himself – that ideas of souls and gods were ridiculous.
Either way this very fallible creature found himself vulnerable to forces that consciously he couldn’t understand – even though down through the millennia man had chosen all of his religious and anti-religious experiences.
Science seems to pay very little attention to any philosophical questions about why we’re here, even while most definitely telling us what’s true and not true.
And while postulating that life is basically meaningless or goal-less science fights awfully hard to convince everyone that it’s right – thus attaching the most rigid kind of meaning or direction to its professional views!”5
All arrogance should be transcended as we become more and more aware of the limitless beauty, complexity, and mystery that surrounds us, and of which we are a part.
Darwin’s Theory
“We must remember that through Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism science tells us that life has no creative design, or any purpose, behind it; and that, moreover, this ineffable quality called “life” originated (more than 3.4 billion years ago) in a single fortuitous chance combination of certain atoms and molecules in a tidal pool, say, somewhere on the face of the planet…
I ended up shocked to discover how little real evidence there is to back up the idea of evolution, and fascinated by the limits of scientific thinking. I realized that our ruling intellectual establishments were advancing notions about evolution that were not proven in scientific terms – then teaching these “facts” to succeeding generations.
As some have very clearly noted, in the biological and earth sciences especially, circular reasoning often predominates: The theory of evolution is used to prove the theory of evolution.”6
Robert Lawlor elucidates this theory for us: “These modern theories of beginnings – Darwinism & the Big Bang – provide only the most empty and superficial mechanistic response to the quest and the questioning of our often tragic, violent and uncertain condition. These theories of beginnings seem actually to contribute to the attitudes and drives by which we enact and instigate our own demise.
It is the harmonic principles found throughout the cosmic order which are responsible for the emergence of intelligent life in humanity as well as in the entire natural world. These principles also indicate why it is not the tooth-and-claw survivalism of 19th century Darwinism that rules the forces of Nature.
The theory of “intelligent design” tells us that we live in an intelligent universe and that this intelligence permeates the entire cosmos and natural world. The theme of evolution as metaphysical creation and transformation is primary to a universe considered as a vast organism, and fosters a mytho-scientific-symbolic structure which integrates psychological and spiritual viewpoints to a great degree than can the more mechanical Darwinian view of adaptation.
We first saw the amputation of the soul from the collective psyche. This was followed centuries later by a scientific, materialist fabrication called Darwinian evolution. The first conceptualization of Darwinian Evolution was in fact put forth by Erasmus Darwin, leader of the Lunar Society, an extension of Illuminated Free Masonry, two generations prior to the celebrated works of his grandson, Charles.
Presently Darwinism is a theory in tatters, with some of the world’s most outstanding biologists in open dissent. In ancient thought, humankind does not result from a long, random, evolutionary process but rather is a central motivation in the original plan or thought of creation. We as a species are not primarily involved in a Darwinian random style of evolving physical characteristics, but rather are carried through the cycles of time by an inner development of our collective and individual consciousness.
There is no scientific confirmation whatsoever that complex organisms could have emerged from single cells in a “slimy green pond”. There is no confirming evidence that complex organisms, through or by means of transitional types, ever evolved into more advanced or more complex organisms. The types and species seem to appear and proliferate, and remain the same in the fossil record, sometimes not changing for millions of years. Some of these species persisted; others disappeared from the fossil record. Often, the fossils of more complex organisms can pre-date simpler variations of the same species in the same geologic levels.
The geological record shows that living cells appeared immediately after the Earth’s crust cooled which allowed insufficient time for the Soup to have come into existence. Furthermore, many of the chemistries of life cannot occur in nature the way that they were produced in the laboratory. Those synthesized chemicals would be subject to almost immediate reactions and disintegration once outside laboratory conditions. Thus far, all the prominent microbiologists have admitted that there is no “experimental support for either the atmospheric or mineral organization for the origins of life.” There is no “…experimental data, only confessions of ignorance and high levels of frustration.”
Sir Fred Hoyle stated that “The idea that chance and random factors could have produced intelligent life, dependent as it is on the precise integration of billions of neurons, is simply a mathematic impossibility – to make this assumption is like saying a tornado can blow through a junkyard and assemble a Boeing 747.”
As the renowned macro-biologist Lynn Margulis states emphatically, “Darwinism is based on outdated reductionist concepts…It is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong.”
19th century Darwin tried to explain all of the mystery of life with the most embarrassing exhibition of reductionist doctrinaire ever put forth. Darwinism claims that life, from beginning to end, is a product of evolution and the indispensable element is “Natural Selection”. “Natural Selection” implies that the sole drive and purpose of a living thing is to survive and to compete.
Darwin’s theory has become the prevailing doctrine in an era when human society desperately requires the guidance of a purposeful, metaphysical principle to help chart its future direction. The major components of Darwinism: competitiveness and natural selection of “superior traits” marks it as an erroneous, outdated and ultimately destructive paradigm.
Darwinism coupled with the Big Bang theory depict a universe that first appeared from absolutely “nothing”. This vast universe of billions of galaxies then produces intensely complex, intelligent, chemical and biological forms from “blind”, “dumb”, geological, physical, environmental conditions. Next (surprise!!) a selective mechanism arises, capable of determining the “fitness to survive,” amongst all the created life forms. One might ask, “Fitness to what?” Well, fitness to the blind, dumb natural environment which, by its own natural laws, created itself along with all its “self-made” inhabitants. Obviously, beneath this speculative circularity is situated an old fashioned atheist conviction: there is nothing beyond the physical laws of the material world. All of this occurs, supposedly, in a universe that is innately devoid of intelligence, since according to Darwin, “Intelligence is an accidental by-product of evolution.” How in this process, does intelligence arise from a non-intelligent cosmos and natural world?
Ian Taylor writes “Of course, in such a world, ongoing conflict, violence and bloodshed are central to progress. Thus, Darwin’s theory gave credence to the Hegelian notion that human culture had ascended from brutal beginnings.”
Jonathan Tennenbaum, scientific journalist, stated: “Now it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin’s so-called “Theory of Evolution” is based on absurdly irrational propositions which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons.”
Bertrand Russell pointed out in his book The Impact of Science on Society that these sorts of ‘scientific’ constructs such as Darwinism are part of a politically determined method, perpetuated by an elite sector of society for shaping the “psychology of the masses.” He claims the methods of propagating the pseudo-scientific “mass-psychological paradigms will become the most influential for social control during the formation of a global scientific dictatorship.” This method will be called “education” and it will play a much bigger role than the grip that religious beliefs have held. Mass media will offer, “much more powerful persuasion than the pulpit.” Under a scientific dictatorship: “It is to be expected that these advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality.”
There is an existence of a vast and long history of the conscious and covert manipulation of both scientific and religious doctrine for the purpose of shaping and directing the collective course of development. One finds that Darwinists invariably polarize any disagreement in the duality of “science vs. religion”, although in fact “a creed” aptly describes evolutionary Darwinism itself. Edmund Cohen writes, “It is of little value to the advancement of public awareness to replace a false totalitarian religious doctrine with a falsified scientific theory, such as Darwinism. The surrender of one’s psyche, or the control of one’s life, thought and discernment to the ‘word of God’ or ‘to Jesus’ is no more problematic than to surrender to the materialistic goals of Darwinian competitive survival. Nor is it dissimilar to the surrender of will and intellectual and experiential inquiry to Eastern pop-psychology gurus.”
The fact that this 19th century dogma has been imposed upon our collective imagination, despite such distinguished and vehement contradiction, constitutes a form of broad-spectrum mind control. This fact demands that the exploration of the perennial philosophy of the Yuga cycles be accompanied by a deconstructive examination of these prevailing doctrines and their probable motivations and perpetrators.
In the book, Not in Our Genes the authors Lewontin, Rose and Kamin state that: “We are in danger of forgetting that sometimes the claims of those who speak in the name of “science” are rubbish. Why then, are they given such serious attention? It is because, in contemporary Western society, science as an institution has come to be accorded the authority that once went to the Church. When “science speaks – or rather when its spokesmen (and they generally are men), speak in the name of science- let no dog bark. “Science” is the ultimate legitimator of bourgeois ideology. To oppose “science”, to prefer values to facts, is to transgress not merely against a human law but against a law of nature.”
By the end of the 19th century, the scientific method was enshrined as a religiously absolute scientific objectivity, free of all social parameters and relativities. Marx and Engels borrowed their fascistic social concepts from 19th century scientific materialism and mechanistic dictates.
The phantasm of absolute scientific objectivity secured its grip on Western social values during the second half of the 19th century in concordance with the shift toward mercantilism, materialism, and advances in machinery. The mask of objectivity continues to conceal the extensive interpenetration of scientific values and objectives by political and corporate commercial concerns.
The promoters of the popular dogmas of modern science such as Darwinism and the Big Bang are once again amplifying the propagation of these mechanistic doctrines. This strategy is perhaps prompted by fear that the loss of these pseudoscientific and psycho-social control devices will weaken the grip of rational atheism. These sorts of materialistic paradigms are essential for the maintenance of ideologies supporting the spread of Western European commercial and military empires. With the impending Yuga crisis it is especially essential for mankind to see through this sterile gauze and to regain a vision that includes an enspirited, metaphysical understanding.
If self-organization and spontaneous generation and intelligence exist at the very basis of life, they must also exist throughout the entire natural world and throughout the universe. Paradoxically, the acceptance of these ideas actually eliminates the necessity of, and the scientific value of, Darwin’s evolutionary doctrine. A movement into a new paradigm of origins therefore should be imminent and this movement should be one that is dependent neither on religious dogma nor Darwinism’s 19th century imaginary mechanisms.”
Survival of the Fittest
The term ‘survival of the fittest’ was not coined by Darwin but by British philosopher Herbert Spencer who wrote, “This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called ‘natural selection’, or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.”
This statement from 1864 stinks to high heaven of white supremacy which was quite popular among western peoples then, as now. White supremacy was extremely popular among all western countries in Europe as well as throughout the entire United States (north, south, east and west). It was also forcefully propounded by leading intelligentsia of the time. To think that this powerful psychological concept of white supremacy would not color scientific theories at the time would be a mistake.
Even though modern scientists assert that “fittest” does not refer to ‘physical fitness’ but to ‘the rate of reproductive output among a class of genetic variants’ and that “survival” is only one aspect of selection; the moral, psychological, emotional and spiritual consequences of such a statement as “survival of the fittest” has had profound negative effects in the beliefs of the minds of humanity.
The average person associates this statement (whether the original scientists meant for it to or not) with a sanction of cut-throat economic and military competition, dishonesty and corruption in the marketplace and an undermining of moral standards by letting the strong set standards of justice to the detriment of the weak.
The point is that scientific beliefs do not live in a vacuum. They color every other arena of life such as economy, morality, ethics, religion, education, military, government, family dynamics and racial issues as well as emotional, psychological and spiritual reactions.
It is therefore easy to see how Darwin’s natural selection, ‘the survival of the fittest,’ allows for all sorts of pain and suffering in the process – the same unhappy facts of life, in Darwin’s view, that finally turned him into an agnostic, away from a God who could allow such things to exist!
Darwin didn’t deny the existence of a god of some kind, but he wanted one that would abolish what he saw as the “upward” struggle for existence.
According to the geological/fossil record, this conflict had resulted in the deaths of entire species.
Darwin came to believe that he asked the impossible of God.
Instead, he assigned the pain and suffering in the world to the impersonal working of a natural selection and chance variation (or genetic mutation).
“For Darwin and his followers – even those of today, then – nature’s effects gave the appearance of design or plan in the universe without necessitating a belief in a designer or a god; although from the scientific standpoint this belief leaves untouched the question of design in nonliving matter, which is vastly more abundant in the “objective” universe than is living matter, and had to precede that living matter.”7
Francis Galton, Darwinism & Eugenics
Robert Lawlor tells us: “Francis Galton (1822-1911), younger cousin of Charles Darwin was a firm believer in the survival of the fittest and that this principle could be scientifically applied in a breeding program to shape the future direction of mankind. Galton also argued for these selective breeding activities to be exclusively under the control of elite groups. Galton’s book Hereditary Genius effectively established hereditarianism as a scientific fact. Galton, in effect, pronounced to the world that the heads of the British Empire were entitled to inherit the mantle of world rulers or Archons.
At this point, the genetic theory was also saddled with Galton’s idea that, “certain races were inherently superior and their superiority was fixed forever in the past as well as into the future.” For the next step, Galton coined the word eugenic, and with it we entered the foyer of the darkest application of the genetic phantasm.
Galton proposed that a judicious program of marriages among the superior stock must be undertaken in order to produce within a few generations, “a gifted higher race of men” just as Plato proposed breeding archonic characteristics. Methods of controlled breeding would include IQ testing and sterilization and a eugenics university program flourished with financial assistance from powerful elitist factions.
It’s only one short step from Darwin and Galton to the dream of a super race that propelled the phantasmic adhesion with German Nazism. German Nazis were involved in various operations and amputations. Internal and open-wound infections were undertaken and the resulting conditions were observed and treated with experimental pharmaceuticals. Many of these medical executions were followed by the extraction and careful preservation of organs, tissue types, neuron brain centers, cells and so on, forming an unparalleled scientific anatomical collection.
Oddly enough a very similar program of human genetic and medical experiments was happening in Japan almost at the same time Japan also had a super-race fetish. But in the 1930s, it discovered the psychoactive compound methamphetamine, which subdued human appetite for food and bathing and exaggerated aggression, anger and sexual hunger. A daily dietary supplement of methamphetamines was supplied to all Japanese soldiers. During WWII the British and American military also distributed methamphetamines.”
Charles Darwin, the Theory of Evolution & Consciousness
“[Darwin] spent his last years proving his theory of evolution, and yet it has no real validity. It has a validity within very limited perspectives only; for consciousness does, indeed, evolve form.
Form does not evolve consciousness. All consciousness does, indeed, exist at once, and therefore it did not evolve in those terms. It is according to when you come into the picture, and what you choose to observe, and what part of the play you decide to observe. It is more the other way around, in that evolved consciousness forms itself into many different patterns and rains down on reality.
Consciousness did not come from atoms and molecules scattered by chance through the universe, or scattered by chance through many universes. Consciousness did not arrive because inert matter suddenly soared into activity and song. The consciousness existed first, and evolved the form into which it then began to manifest itself.
The theory of evolution is as beautiful a tale as the theory of biblical creation.
Both are quite handy, and both are methods of telling stories, and both might seem to agree within their own systems, and yet, in larger respects they cannot be realities…No – no form of matter; however potent, will be self-evolved into consciousness, no matter what other bits of matter are added to it.
Without the consciousness, the matter would not be there in the universe, floating around, waiting for another component to give it reality, consciousness, existence, or song.”8
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: Competition and Cooperation
“The theory of evolution, as it is conventionally held, has caused unfortunate beliefs. For how can you look at yourselves with self-respect, with dignity or with joy, if you believe that you are the end product of forces in which the fittest survive?
Being the fittest implies those given most to what would appear to be murderous intent – for you must survive at the expense of your fellows, be you leaf, frog, plant, or animal. You do not survive through cooperation, according to that theory, and nature is not given a kind or creative intent, but a murderous one.
And if you see yourselves as the end result of such a species, then how can you expect goodness or merit or creativity from yourselves, or from others? How can you believe that you live in a safe universe when each species exists because it survives through claw, if it must hunt and kill out of murderous intent, as implied in the theories of evolution and of reality itself?
So when you think of your beliefs and who you are, you must also think of your species, and how you are told your species came to be.
It is seldom that you really question your biological origins, what they mean, and how you interpret them.
Are you physically composed of murderous cells then, each spontaneously out to get the others?
Because consciousness creates form with joy, there is no murder that you have not projected out of misunderstanding and ignorance of the nature of that consciousness.
Roots do not struggle to exist. One species does not fight against the others to live.
Instead creativity emerges, and cooperatively the environment of the world is known and planned by all the species.
What appears to be struggle and death to you at those levels is not, for the experience of consciousness itself is different there, as is the experience of your own cellular composition.
There is a design and a designer, but they are so combined, the one within the other, the one within and the one without, that it is impossible to separate them.
The creator is within its creations, and the creations themselves are gifted with creativity.
The world comes to know itself, to discover itself, for the planner left room for divine surprise, and the plan was nowhere foreordained.
Nor is there anywhere within it anything that corresponds to your “survival of the fittest” theories.
Far from the claw-and-dagger universe, you have one whose very foundation is based upon the loving cooperation of all of its parts.
If it were not for this most basic, initial loving cooperation, that is a given quality in life itself, life would not have continued.”9
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: Survival vs. Quality of Life
“There has been great discussion in past years about the survival of the fittest, in Darwinian terms, but little emphasis is placed upon the quality of life, or of survival itself; or in human terms, [there has been] little probing into the question of what makes life worthwhile.
Quite simply, if life is not worthwhile, no species will have a reason to continue.
Civilizations are literally social species.
They die when they see no reason to live, yet they seed other civilizations.
Your private mental states en masse bring about the mass cultural stance of your civilization.
To some extent, then, the survival of your civilization is quite literally dependent upon the condition of each individual; and that condition is initially a spiritual, psychic state that gives birth to the physical organism.
That organism is intimately connected to the natural biological state of each other person, and to each other living thing, or entity, however minute.
Despite all “realistic” pragmatic tales to the contrary, the natural state of life itself is one of joyful acquiescence with itself— a state in which action is effective, and the power to act is a natural right.
You would see this quite clearly with plants, animals, and all other life if you were not so blinded by beliefs to the contrary.
You would feel it in the activity of your bodies, in which the vital individual affirmation of your cells brings about the mass, immensely complicated achievement of your physical being.
That activity naturally promotes health and vitality.
I am not speaking of some romanticized, “passive,” floppy, spiritual world, but of a clear reality without impediments, in which the opposite of despair and apathy reigns.”10
Conclusion
In this article we have begun to discuss the deeper and wider implications and meanings of ‘evolution’ that far transcend the limited viewpoints and understanding of Darwinian evolution.
In the esoteric belief system of a multidimensional reality, evolution and creation both have an important role to play. They are inextricably intertwined and they are both formed and controlled by consciousness.
Evolution and creation are not rock-solid processes with no room for creativity, change, experimentation and surprise. They are living processes that come from consciousness and they are constantly changing and altering depending on the circumstances surrounding them.
Without this flexibility, creativity and freedom to experiment, life could not have evolved to the point it is at today.
The processes of transformation are always at work, and this transformation occurs on a personal level as well as a societal, planetary and galactic level.
- Roberts, Jane, The “Unknown” Reality Vol II, Amber-Allen Publishing, 1979
- Roberts, Jane, Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul, Amber-Allen Publishing, 1972
- Roberts, Jane, The “Unknown” Reality Vol I, Amber-Allen Publishing, 1977
- Butts, Robert, Roberts, Jane, The “Unknown” Reality Vol II, Amber-Allen Publishing, 1979
- Butts, Robert, Roberts, Jane, Dreams, Evolution and Value Fulfillment, Amber-Allen Publishing, 1986
- Butts, Robert, Roberts, Jane, The “Unknown” Reality Vol II, Amber-Allen Publishing, 1979
- ibid.
- Roberts, Jane, Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul, Amber-Allen Publishing, 1972
- Roberts, Jane, The “Unknown” Reality Vol II, Amber-Allen Publishing, 1979
- Roberts, Jane, The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, Amber-Allen Publishing, 1981
Recent Comments