Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Biological evolution and Traditionalism

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 16, 2010, 07:31:01 AM
Is it supposed that no genetic mutation at all occurs during reproduction? Or perhaps it is supposed that this mutation will always be intra-species (or some other set) - varying within some pre-defined set of possible characteristics and variations?

Can you at least think of some alternative ways (that don't require an understanding of Traditionalist metaphysics to interpret the meaning of) that new species could be formed at all if not from previous ones?

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 16, 2010, 02:50:17 PM
If evolution is anything, it is the "incarnation" (for want of a better word) of a non-physical phenomenon.  That is to say, it would be no less real than the non-physical, but the opposite is equally true.

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 16, 2010, 06:02:22 PM
Just tell me why your example absolutely proves evolution, and you can easily convert me to your side.

Something you might not understand - a theory can never be absolutely proven. That's why it stays a theory no matter how many times it's validated. Only in mathematics or logic can something be absolutely positively proven. That's why you think you have Absolute truth, you took a series of premises and drew positively-provable logical conclusions from them. But you make the same mistake a liberal academic does - the premises that constitute your worldview are not written in stone. Your premises are invalid, so your conclusions are invalid. You will never convert because you require something unreasonable.

Human intuition has never been a reliable why to understand the natural sciences. If we went on intuition alone, we would think the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. That's the way it looks, right?

In addition, the world is full of examples that make Formal Emanation seem flawed. If species originated as emanations of ideal forms, why are there so many different species that are so similar? Why are there 8000 species of ants? In anticipation of your answer: Even better question - you specifically stated that you don't believe consciousness could have evolved, that means humans couldn't have evolved. But why aren't there any humans from before 300,000 years ago? And why, just before that, were there creatures very similar to humans that were apparently unintelligent?

His example is a good one - watch here to understand why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw
How could that have happened if humans emanated alongside apes? Is the entire universe constructed in a way, almost intentionally, to make it seem it works in a way it does not?

Finally, when one starts to question the function, one is called stupid and dishonest by many evolutionists, and they stop thinking about the matter lest their pseudo-religion were shaken to the core. Personally, I would rather concede that I know nothing than sentimentalize the question in this way.

Many people who accept evolution will call you stupid because they are used to dealing with really stupid questions from creationists regarding evolutionary theory. The series of videos from the youtube user AronRa made this clear to me. Before I witnessed the kind of people he argues with, I didn't understand why anti-creationists would be so coarse. Now I know - (if evolution is true, how come we've never seen a Croca-Duck, half-crocodile, half-duck?). He also clears up many of the misunderstandings regarding evolutionary theory. His Fundamental Falsehoods of Creationism series is something you should watch if you want to understand what evolution theory supporters are taking about. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY).

Not to mention that in addition to refuting evolution, you would also have to refute cosmology. The earth would have to have emanated at the same time as all original species so there would be an environment for them to live. Any other well-supported modern sciences based on actual observed facts that you'll have to disprove with intuited conclusions like "the greater cannot come from the lesser"?

I don't expect you to change your mind though - for this reason: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59VT8FCA66o

And finally - on top of all of that!! - this thread was never necessary. The question of evolution came up when someone stated that anus' ideology relied too heavily on Darwinism, but that doesn't refer to evolution in prozak's writings, it just means the readily-observable and perfectly logical law of natural/artificial selection, which the same poster then agreed he accepts the truth of. (AAAARRGGG!!!) What matters to our ideology is not what happened in the past, but what will happen in the future, no? If you accept the law of natural selection, then I would consider this discussion a detail.

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 18, 2010, 01:15:54 AM
it just means the readily-observable and perfectly logical law of natural/artificial selection

What I perceive Eleison and other proponents of Traditionalism were emphasizing was the difference between an "analog" and a "digital" point of view on the facts. Traditionalism relies on analogy and the intuitive ability of man to discern the truth, while modern science digitally approximates the laws of the material reality. I don't have to go at lengths on the implication, but to put it a bit more clearly: hierarchy in Traditional societies was based on the development stage of a person's Intuition, preventing the proles from occupying the means impossible for them to master. I'd take the flat over cancerous Earth any day. Not that technology is bad in itself, the "digital" point of view reflects itself on every plane, manifesting the proles' collective inclination to bring everyone to the lowest (material) common denominator. You can delve deeply into this motion and develop further, but the prerogative remains proletarian.


Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 18, 2010, 07:39:01 PM

You say it could not be logically explained without evolutionary theory. But I do not see this conflict, at all. I also do not see how genetics were, as you call it, "the one area that opponents of evolution dare not go", because I am asking you about this area specifically. Just tell me why your example absolutely proves evolution, and you can easily convert me to your side.


Sorry pal, but I think that you could easily found this yourself with some googling (otherwise you would already have provided counterarguments). Anyway, here's a video that may help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw


I guess I am a Traditionalist insofar as I think that mankind's ultimate goal should be the goal articulated in Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy.  Maybe this doesn't make me a Traditionalist at all!  But in any event, I approve of religious thinking but must plead ignorance when it comes to some of the specific tenets of Traditionalism, and apparently this "theory of Emanation" is one of them.  I will just say this:  I believe in evolution, but I don't understand how it is some dagger in the heart of God.

You got it right! People like Huxley and Ken Wilber (even when he's a celeb in some new-age circles) are great proponents of Perennial Philosophy, without getting into Emanation Theory or criticizing "modern science" without understanding scientific method. That's the way to understand philosophia perennis as well as natural selection.

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 18, 2010, 10:50:12 PM
lol gais wuts a telomere

dr stoddart at Trad U never told me about it, are you sure its real and not just a shadow on plato's cave

facking sophists

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 19, 2010, 02:04:41 AM
I don't see how the Theory of Emanation goes against the Theory of Evolution.  The Theory of Evolution describes an observable phenomenon; the Theory of Emanation explains the cause of different entities.  They're looking at different aspects of a single truth.

The Theory of Emanation seems more to me to represent a concept of a fundamental pattern from which all things are derived, through mutations and extrapolations of this original, perfect pattern, which is called "God".  This goes against Creationism (which is why it's absolutely bizarre that we're even discussing Creationism, here), which would require that "God" were entirely removed from the creation itself, being an active creator rather than a source of creation.

The one problem I can see existing between Emanationism and Evolutionism is that the former works in the opposite direction to the latter - Emanation is top-down, Evolution is bottom-up.  Here, again, I think this is a misunderstanding of what Emanationism actually entails, which is an entirely non-physical representation of "devolution" from perfection ("God").  For all we know, the process of Emanation has already happened, and already happened in its entirety before physical existence came into being, and that all entities of a spiritual nature already exist, with or without physical form.  The process of evolution is the process by which these higher forms are brought into a physical existence from an entirely non-physical existence.

Anyone who has a more complete understanding of either theory, please correct me if I've made an error somewhere.  As far as I've read, though, claiming that Emanationism and Evolutionism go against each other is like claiming that air is false because things don't float in it like they do in water.  The media are both real, though different.

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 19, 2010, 03:41:30 AM
If physicality is the result of some Cause, that originating actor isn't going to give too much of a damn about the details. This is why all legitimate Gods are either purely physical like us, or entirely unknowable in the physical, because they are causal, harmonic, pattern-based Causes of the physical and not the physical itself.

Also, sodomy

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 20, 2010, 12:26:57 AM

Anyway, I still don't know what "Traditionalism" is, but this thread has certainly not been a great recruiting tool for its ranks, and a quick perusal of its adherents' wisdom has precluded any desire to even investigate its entry at its Wikipedia page, let alone google it. Any intellectual movement that causes its adherents to willfully ignore plain biological evidence, processes that are readily apparent in every second of life, in the name of "truth" surely belongs in the same filing cabinet as Charles Manson, Richard Simmons, and Susan Boyle. This, I think we can agree, is an Absolute Truth!

Discarding an excellent school within Philosophy of Religion for such reason, without studying and discerning its components, is what anti-evolutionists accurately call a pseudo-religious and fanatic approach to evolutionism.

lol gais wuts a telomere

This makes clear that you

dr stoddart at Trad U never told me about it, are you sure its real and not just a shadow on plato's cave

facking sophists

Your nickname is not ironic, it is an actual description of your character in this thread.

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 20, 2010, 11:55:00 AM
"Yo if you don't study some fringe superstitious pseudo philosophical assbabble then you're clearly as bad as a Christian. Evolutionists = Christians"

Why is this garbage tolerated here?

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 20, 2010, 02:11:11 PM
"Yo if you don't study some fringe superstitious pseudo philosophical assbabble then you're clearly as bad as a Christian. Evolutionists = Christians"

Why is this garbage tolerated here?

Because nothing should be accepted for the sake of convention, but instead should only be accepted because one has an actual understanding of the thing.

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 20, 2010, 05:52:15 PM
Discarding an excellent school within Philosophy of Religion

Quote
excellent school within the Philosophy of Religion
lol x infinity

Quote
without studying and discerning its components
Oh, like how our Tradder friends show no knowledge and/or interest in biology or genetics?

Quote
is what anti-evolutionists accurately call a pseudo-religious and fanatic approach to evolutionism.
lol wut, because I laughingly state that I won't google Traditionalism, I have a fanatical approach to evolutionism? So I can't have an informed opinion on a biological subject via study of biology or genetics, but only through wikipediaing schools of thought that still cling to "eternal principles" and other irrelevant Platonic lies?

I repeat:

lol wut

Your nickname is not ironic, it is an actual description of your character.
fixed for truth

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 20, 2010, 06:53:33 PM
So I can't have an informed opinion on a biological subject via study of biology or genetics, but only through wikipediaing schools of thought that still cling to "eternal principles" and other irrelevant Platonic lies?
Isn't investigating those theories opposed to one's own part of the scientific process? How can you decide they're bullshit if you don't even know what constitutes them?

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 20, 2010, 07:54:41 PM
Isn't investigating those theories opposed to one's own part of the scientific process? How can you decide they're bullshit if you don't even know what constitutes them?
lmao, I read "Archetypes are situated not in time but in eternity" and "[evolution] contradicts the metaphysical structure of reality"  and that's all I needed to read on Traditionalism. A clear-cut case of misunderstood cause-and-effect: We have archetypes and metaphysical structures BECAUSE we have interpreted the world around us in a particular way. The world does not exist BECAUSE of a metaphysical structure! Just as some scientists feel they are hot shit and the universe is run by whatever "law" is in vogue at the time, (the law of gravity, or yes, the "law" of natural selection) these laws are just observations and explanations of the universe's behavior. Just as evolution is an explanatory model and not a law, "metaphysical structures" are explanatory models and not causes. It just so happens that evolution is an excellent explanatory model and that metaphysical structures are, well, so "excellent" that they need support from neither science nor reality!

So, after seeing these golden nuggets and having discovered "eternal principles" and "perennia sophia" on the wikipedia page, I figured I had enough good sense and education to tell that I could safely skip over Traditionalism (or, more accurately, had skipped over it long ago) on my long road of intellectual development. For all those still studying at Trad U, I hope you'll graduate one day! Then we can hang out and have fun together!

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 20, 2010, 08:53:15 PM
Isn't investigating those theories opposed to one's own part of the scientific process? How can you decide they're bullshit if you don't even know what constitutes them?
lmao, I read "Archetypes are situated not in time but in eternity" and "[evolution] contradicts the metaphysical structure of reality"  and that's all I needed to read on Traditionalism. A clear-cut case of misunderstood cause-and-effect: We have archetypes and metaphysical structures BECAUSE we have interpreted the world around us in a particular way. The world does not exist BECAUSE of a metaphysical structure! Just as some scientists feel they are hot shit and the universe is run by whatever "law" is in vogue at the time, (the law of gravity, or yes, the "law" of natural selection) these laws are just observations and explanations of the universe's behavior. Just as evolution is an explanatory model and not a law, "metaphysical structures" are explanatory models and not causes. It just so happens that evolution is an excellent explanatory model and that metaphysical structures are, well, so "excellent" that they need support from neither science nor reality!

So, after seeing these golden nuggets and having discovered "eternal principles" and "perennia sophia" on the wikipedia page, I figured I had enough good sense and education to tell that I could safely skip over Traditionalism (or, more accurately, had skipped over it long ago) on my long road of intellectual development. For all those still studying at Trad U, I hope you'll graduate one day! Then we can hang out and have fun together!

You know, I don't consider myself a traditionalist, and had no opinion on this thread, because I found the argument from both sides almost completely inconsequential. I don't see how an evolutionist or creationist perspective really opens up any avenues for foundational and applicable knowledge. However, I'm almost completely certain that just because I implied that you take time to consider the opposing viewpoint that you immediately assumed that I advocated the opposing argument, and I assume this because you insulted me when all I did was recommend something that didn't even take a side. It's obvious that you have a bias, and that you shouldn't be taken seriously in discussion, and no, I'm not saying this because you disagree with traditionalism, because I could care less about that.