Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Superior? To what?

Superior? To what?
August 19, 2013, 05:47:38 AM
Humans assume their superiority over every other living creature.
If they even notice the Earth, they assume they are superior to it.
Most obviously, they feel superior to each other. But most attempt to disguise this.

But what human swims as well as a fish, flies as well as a bird, or burrows as well as a rabbit?
We have machines for that. Tools of all types. But we are the only creatures that need them.
A hare lays down and flattens the grass to the shape of its body. This is all the home it needs.
Crabs grow their own homes. Wasps make theirs from wood and spit.
One thing you can say about humans: they need a lot of stuff.
Nothing else does.

Many religions propose the idea of reincarnation, and this assumes a gradual rise from lesser to greater.
Lesser being slugs and mice. Greater being human.
I wonder. Maybe it's the other way around.

Re: Superior? To what?
August 19, 2013, 06:18:08 AM
Perhaps mankinds higher nature is a pinnacle of creation, versus each individual per se?
Does man actually need a lot of stuff?
What animal creates music? art? poetry?
Maybe that was the trade off?

Re: Superior? To what?
August 19, 2013, 06:29:32 AM
Does an animal need music, art, poetry?
I get the feeling the only thing anything else needs, is to wake up in the morning.
Must be nice.


Re: Superior? To what?
August 20, 2013, 12:17:03 AM
Mankind has the potential to become godlike or lower than how the worst humans perceive animals to be. Spiritual experiences (either philosophical or religious) are the great equalizer, as they show man reality. Show what an animal knows of it being love and fear. The rift between those states produces anxiety which then gives birth to creativity, and thus new ways for humanity to see reality.

Re: Superior? To what?
August 20, 2013, 12:26:50 AM
Art never showed me reality. Reality did.

Re: Superior? To what?
August 20, 2013, 01:31:59 AM
I used to think art tries to replicate reality. Now Iím thinking of it more as a particular viewpoint, of which there are many, and that reality itself can only exist in our human brains as a viewpoint or manifestation. Still very much undecided on this. The ACTUAL greater underlying process of reality can probably only be caught in glimpses throughout human life and eventually by all living creatures at the moment of death.

Re: Superior? To what?
August 20, 2013, 02:19:07 AM
Reality doesn't exist in the brain, at all. The only thing inside our heads is an interpretation of reality, accurate rarely, wildly warped, often.
Which is why not-thinking is so useful: perceive before the mind has a shot at wrecking the perception.
Yes, I am sure that everything sees-it-as-it-is at the moment of death.
For many, the pure shock of how badly they got it wrong kills them for good. They are totally unprepared.
For others, it is the ecstatic release of physical life, for life complete.
Preparation is necessary.

It is possible, if not very possible, to preview this dying moment, while not ending up dead.
This is what I refer to as 'enlightenment'.
But that's another word that means something different to every person that considers it.


Re: Superior? To what?
August 20, 2013, 03:00:43 AM
Like it or not, humans have a drive to absorb, share, catalog, and analyze information. It's as natural a compulsion as exploring and taking mates. It's a curse if you want it to be.

Fortunately, there are enough humans now that you don't really have that obligation; we have the luxury of living our own lives comfortably without the responsibility of constantly indexing.

Don't begrudge other humans when they do this thing though.

Re: Superior? To what?
August 20, 2013, 03:54:19 AM
Well, the more complex something is the better it can be but also the easier it is for it to become monstrous.

Re: Superior? To what?
August 20, 2013, 03:58:48 AM
Well, the more complex something is the better it can be but also the easier it is for it to become monstrous.

Sort of like a man's mind?

Re: Superior? To what?
August 20, 2013, 05:37:27 PM
Well of course, we're talking about human.

Not only the mind I think but the whole organism, if I'm not mistaken we get sick way more than animals and we're the ones who need most care and protection as babies.

Re: Superior? To what?
August 20, 2013, 06:18:57 PM
Good.
Maturity is about uncomplicating oneself.
The less complex one is, the less there is to go wrong.
Amoebas have it easy.


Re: Superior? To what?
August 20, 2013, 06:43:09 PM
Ha! There's a smug-looking amoeba :)

Re: Superior? To what?
August 21, 2013, 12:11:34 AM
Not only the mind I think but the whole organism, if I'm not mistaken we get sick way more than animals and we're the ones who need most care and protection as babies.

Where did you hear this? I would not be surprised hearing that modern, Western man is prone to illness... (though, what specifically is meant by "sick"?) but what of ancient man? Is it our special, social build which enables the proliferation of [viruses]?