Believer or not, your epitome of desire, is to be named the Greatest I am.

[Keith&Co.]

that was in response to "I see it as a shame when someone stops competing to be the greatest at something."
Keep your pity, it's misplaced projection. I was a warrior. There just isn't room for everyone to be the tip of the spear.
The heroes at the pointy end need the shaft, too, or it isn't a spear.
Or, the bullet needs the gun.
The missile requires the silo.
The nozzleman needs the hoseman and the guys operating the pumps...

I do excellent work, i just am not constantly clawing for promotions.
I don't need the company president to know my name to feel validated. I get that when i joke about retiring and watch my supervisor panic.

Work is one challenge.

I was looking at the total picture and joy of life when competing.

I don't enjoy competing, though. I really like cooperative efforts. Teamwork. Cogs in a well oiled machine

 

[Keith&Co.]

Such certainty, in spite of the evidence against.

Did you cite evidence? I missed it.

Show where you see nature not doing it's best when trying to give life, remembering that as a part of nature, your parents likely did not want the best part of you running down your dad's legs.

No, no. You made the claim without evidence. I reject it without evidence.
For nature to have a best, it has to be capabled of directed effort. We cannot grade a spontaneous process by 'best' or 'worst.'
What makes you think nature has direction when it gives life?

What would nature's 'best' look like? How would you tell?

Look at the survival rate of, for example, newly-hatched sea turtles.
If our assembly lines had that kind of success rate, they'd burn the company down and sell the land for unmarked graves....

Did you father any children?

Three.

For theor best possible end or something else?

We never stressed them being best, physically or academically. We pushed competent. Adaptable. Well equipped. And let them figure their own goals.

Gene pools evolve, not individuals. Evolutionary advancements are more along the lines of a slightly better epitome than the greatest possible.

Are you the same I.Q. now as when younger, or did it improve/evolve you?

i don't kniw. Never sweated the IQ.
But i do know whatever my IQ has done, evolve isn't the word.

Epitome is the Greatest/best/fittest, the way I use language.

No, it isn't.

Best EXAMPLE, not best POSSIBLE.
It's the way you misuse the language.

 

[abaddon]

Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?

Neither. There are both good things and ugly things... the whole "world" does not sum up as either. And I can certainly imagine a much better world.

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

The novel, Candide, was Voltaire's criticism of Leibniz's enlightenment optimism. The character, Candide, starts as an optimist in chapter one, but after a number of things go horribly wrong, in the end he rightly loses his optimism. The critique that Voltaire directs at the notion of a perfect world is it glosses over serious problems in the world that badly need fixing, like inequality.

So I'm thinking you quoted a fictional character whom the author meant to present as a naive person who needs to appreciate the facts of reality better (by being less an optimist).

BTW, the optimism that Voltaire satirizes happened because some folk incorrectly assumed God MUST exist. But they couldn't reconcile God's existence with the imperfections of his "creation" so, instead of realizing there's no God, they chose to downplay the world's imperfections instead. So they pushed the stuff about how those people who don't see a perfect world are people with incomplete knowledge.

 

[steve_bank]

Gnostic.

Perfection, good, evil are subjective products of human imagination and self awareness. Reality is what it is regardless of how we think about or imagine ut it.

We are part of the animal kingdom with behavior based in genetics. Moral philosophy and religion have been attempts to put a veneer over our instinctive behavior.

Here is a mnd exercise for you. Sit down, close your eyes, take a few deep breaths, and start saying to yourself 'it is all in my head, it is all in my head...'. Repeat until it sinks in that your perceptions and thoughts are all based in brain chemistry.

The image of the world as ugly is subjective.

What is important to you? Without food and water you die. That is reality that trumps all ideas and philosophies. A constant from mosquitos to grizzly bears to humans. Deprived of it both humans and grizzlies and lions will get aggressive and self centered.

As to issues of Gnostic Christianity, I do not care. All religions and beliefs fall into the same patterns. Folowers of one thing or naoter derive self identity by the beliefs and by defending the beliefs. It gets those natural endorphins going in the brian that give you that good sometimes holy feeling. It is all barin chemistry.

It is related to the placebo effect. The effect is demonstrated experimentally, but it is not fully understood how thought translates to feelings. Give someone an inert pill with some hype to go with it, and he may feel a reduction in pain.

The way I state it i, it does not matter what you believe, it is how you believe it that creates the feelings associated with beiefs.

You have turned out to be just another run of the mill theist type. Indistinguishable form the theists on the forum past nd present.

You fit a form, a profile.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

You look more that than I.

In what way? All I have done is ask you to support your assertion with evidence and reason, because I am not willing to simply take your word for it. How does that make me pompous?

I used "Greatest I am" to show and have it be synonymous in your mind for whatever you want to use as the epitome of fitness and what you should be seeking, given that you are an evolving human.

Every human on the planet is different. We all think differently and are motivated by different things, although we can sometimes be typecast into broad general categories. Second, individuals do not evolve, biologically speaking, but populations of humans do. I was born with the genes I was born with, and those do not change. We do change physiologically as we live, but that is not evolution. Not every human desires to be the "epitome of fitness", whatever that is supposed to mean. Some of us are content to live our lives in the slower lanes, savoring every moment without the drive to become the best at what we do. If fact, the overachievers are the minority. There are very few Michael Jordans and Elon Musks in the world; most of us are just average. Your assertion is demonstrably wrong, else bell-shaped curves and grading/selection based on test scores would not exist.

Now, if you have no internal synonym to that, you are defective.

I have no fucking clue what this means. I am defective because I don't want to be greatest human in the world? Are you fucking kidding me?

It is demonstrable that nature always creates for the best possible end, and your consciousness calls or names that condition something synonymous with your fittest possible self.

So demonstrate it. Instead of just making unsupported assertions.

No, nature does NOT create the best possible end. Evolution has no goal to be perfect or to necessarily optimize the design to the best possible state; it is a mechanism that selects for the fittest among a group of individuals, but that doesn't mean nature creates perfection or even the best possible outcome. A lot of it is driven by blind luck and circumstance. You need to be good enough and lucky enough to survive and reproduce, not to be the best at anything. You clearly do not understand how evolution works.

From your reply, you do not seem to have any Gnosis of what you are and do.

I know exactly who I am and what makes me happy. I am not spiritual in that I do not believe supernatural nonsense, but one can be knowledgeable of the world and their place in it, and lead a fulfilling life without believing such nonsense.

So I ask you again, are you here to preach, or to discuss ideas?

Let's look at your notion.
"No, nature does NOT create the best possible end."

Have you fathered a child?

You are a part of nature.

Did you reproduce for less than the best possible end?

If you did, and you did not want to reproduce the best, what makes you think the rest of nature would follow and not create for the best end?

Regards
DL

 

[steve_bank]

Th epitome of handwaving and misdirection.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If any parents, part of Nature, reproduce while knowing they have a genetic predisposition to a suboptimal condition, which may be passed on to the child, then the answer is: "No. Nature does not consistently reproduce for the best possible end."

So, Gnostic, are there any examples of such people reproducing? Or do they all adopt, or go completely childless?

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

If any parents, part of Nature, reproduce while knowing they have a genetic predisposition to a suboptimal condition, which may be passed on to the child, then the answer is: "No. Nature does not consistently reproduce for the best possible end."

So, Gnostic, are there any examples of such people reproducing? Or do they all adopt, or go completely childless?

If a potential parent lets compassion trumps reproduction, that is also nature taking a course to reproducing the fittest.

If they ignore the warnings, nature will still reproduce for the best possible end.

I see no examples of nature starting life for it's worse possible end.

Even if there is only defective genes, nature will do the best it can with it.

Regards
DL

 

[Keith&Co.]

If a potential parent lets compassion trumps reproduction, that is also nature taking a course to reproducing the fittest.

No. If they know they have a condition they feel is suboptimal, giving it to another is not 'fittest.'

If they ignore the warnings, nature will still reproduce for the best possible end.

Not warnings.
If thery have a vondition they regret having, but rdproduce anyway, the choice they are making is not for the best.

I see no examples of nature starting life for it's worse possible end.

Who said worst? Anything less than best disproves your claim.

Even if there is only defective genes, nature will do the best it can with it.

'Best it can' is not 'the best possible' choice.
If a couple kniws they have a nonzero liklihood of producing a child with genes the parents consider defective, then nature is not aiming for the greatest.


But 'best it can' is consistent with nature being largely undirected, evolution producing 'good enough to get by' rather then aiming for a 'best' result.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

But 'best it can' is consistent with nature being largely undirected, evolution producing 'good enough to get by' rather then aiming for a 'best' result.

I do not think nature can track all the variables in a sentient way and you have a point in you "good enough statement.

That does not negate that nature will always try to get the best results from what she has to work with. The chaos in our environment and various other changes decide if she was correct in doing so or not.

So far, so good.

Your
"Not warnings.
If thery have a vondition they regret having, but rdproduce anyway, the choice they are making is not for the best."

It is the best to them, or they would not be making it, but I do get your point.

Regards
DL

 

[Keith&Co.]

I do not think nature can track all the variables in a sentient way and you have a point in you "good enough statement.

That does not negate that nature will always try to get the best results from what she has to work with.

Except 'she' does not. You include two parents as part of the workings of nature.
They are sentient.
They are aware that their bloodline is suboptimal for at least one variable.
If they choose to reproduce, they are prioritizing something over 'best results.'

It is the best to them, or they would not be making it, but I do get your point.

But best FOR THEM is not the best possible for their kid. Before, you were trying to get other parents to evidence your claim by saying they choose the best for their kid.
Clearly, not every parent does that.

 

[steve_bank]

I can't help it.

A reboot of the old Leave It To Beaver show coud be Leave It To The Believer.

More theology and mysticism by any other name, the idea that nature has an intent.

Reality is what ir t is. From our limited observation a continuous cycle of energy and matter changing form. No beginning and no end. No intent. It just is.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I can't help it.

A reboot of the old Leave It To Beaver show coud be Leave It To The Believer.

More theology and mysticism by any other name, the idea that nature has an intent.

So, instead of Dad summing things up at the end for the moral lesson, they wrap up the episode with a bit of that week's sermon, using explaining the plot as the intentions of...Nature.
"And of course, Mr. Whipple did not intend to ruin the eating contest with the food poisoning, but Nature drives for the Best, which means even the botulism she whips out is the best darn botulism that can devised..."

 

[steve_bank]

I walked to a park today to exercise and there was a young woman talkng an endless stream of of theo-bable, ceasless. She was at at it when I got there and was still at it when I left 20 minutes later.

We are stuck with it. Gnostic is just another version.

I am watching an old Hammer Mummy movie on TV. What I am realizing is that the mysticism portrayed in the movie is not unlike what people today actually believe.

I was thinking more like an Evangelical kind of kid runn8ng around running getting into trouble with preaching nonsense.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I do not think nature can track all the variables in a sentient way and you have a point in you "good enough statement.

That does not negate that nature will always try to get the best results from what she has to work with.

Except 'she' does not. You include two parents as part of the workings of nature.
They are sentient.
They are aware that their bloodline is suboptimal for at least one variable.
If they choose to reproduce, they are prioritizing something over 'best results.'

It is the best to them, or they would not be making it, but I do get your point.

But best FOR THEM is not the best possible for their kid. Before, you were trying to get other parents to evidence your claim by saying they choose the best for their kid.
Clearly, not every parent does that.

Parents as a part of nature, show the spread or range of human thinking and how intelligence might negate the better natural choices.

If parents knowingly do not want the best possible child, that is on them.

Tell us why you think a parent would choose less than the best for their child.

I cannot think of why I would be so silly.

You said "clearly" so must have examples.

Please share.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I can't help it.

A reboot of the old Leave It To Beaver show coud be Leave It To The Believer.

More theology and mysticism by any other name, the idea that nature has an intent.

So, instead of Dad summing things up at the end for the moral lesson, they wrap up the episode with a bit of that week's sermon, using explaining the plot as the intentions of...Nature.
"And of course, Mr. Whipple did not intend to ruin the eating contest with the food poisoning, but Nature drives for the Best, which means even the botulism she whips out is the best darn botulism that can devised..."

Nature fills every possible slot with life.

It does not care any more for human life than any other life.

Do you know of any life that does not have a nemesis to fear?

I do not, even as I do not know of all life.

The pattern of life living off death is clear.

Regards
DL

 

[Keith&Co.]

Tell us why you think a parent would choose less than the best for their child.

Pride. Arrogance. Selfishness.

You said "clearly" so must have examples.

Please share.

I just did.
Having a kid while risking genetic inheritance they think of as undesirable, because they want their bloodline to continue, even at a cost to their offspring.

 

[steve_bank]

Gnostic has a desire maybe an occasion in making a case for his beliefs. Certainly pride.

What were those t7Deadlt Sins?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Gnostic has a desire maybe an occasion in making a case for his beliefs. Certainly pride.

What were those t7Deadlt Sins?

Haught, envy, roofs without parapets,
mixing milk and dairy, lying,
looking back at Sodom,
ingesting knoledge-bearing fruit against the landlord's strict instructions...

 

[steve_bank]

Gnostic has a desire maybe an occasion in making a case for his beliefs. Certainly pride.

What were those t7Deadlt Sins?

Haught, envy, roofs without parapets,
mixing milk and dairy, lying,
looking back at Sodom,
ingesting knoledge-bearing fruit against the landlord's strict instructions...

Pride, envy, sloth, gluttony...