The Laws of Nature are regulated by balance; the Laws of Humanity are regulated by the conscience of free will, which by consequence interprets the imbalance of our World today.
I am not a scholar or religious activist; just a person who seeks the truth through observation of the past and present, evaluating and discerning both sides of the coin. You don't have to be a political or rocket scientist, economist, philosopher or theologian to see through the fog of deception. One only has to look at the Laws of Nature verses Laws of Humanity for the answer.
The Laws of Nature provide a good balance of life that allows for predominance and survival of the fittest over the weakest, thus strengthening all species through natural selection/elimination. Laws of Nature are perceived as evil according to the Laws of Humanity because the human’s laws do not permit unauthorized killing and allows for predominance by a caste system of privilege, based on wealth or knowledge. Laws of Humanity can provide good intention with liberal compassion which allows the weak to live at the expense of the fittest and at the same time can commit evil acts of genocide or ethnic cleansing that slaughters millions of innocent people. The Laws of Nature provide a good balance between extinction and substance for survival; the Laws of Humanity provide an artificial balance between the right to kill and the right to live.
So in closing, I wish to point out that the true issue that confronts the future of Humankind is not a circumstance with containing and sustaining biological matter; it is the spiritual consequence of individual Human conscience in the arena of 'good' verses 'evil'. However, even if the intellect of humankind can evolve to this point of realization, they will still be trapped in a dilemma because even though the deeds of 'good' and 'evil' are opposites, reality and circumstance are the factors that will define what is right and wrong in the eyes of the beholder.
Such is life on Planet Earth, and the consequences of Human free will.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think the dichotomy of 'good v evil' is a false construct of the human mind, sir - when viewed in the context of exigent circumstances determing which is right and which is wrong.
With regard to any of the higher sentient beings, the additional thought processes infer greater responsibility to your fellow. The laws of nature certainly apply, but the survival of the fittest, cannot be among them, in a civilized society. Good writing. I look forward to reading more.
You may enjoy the article on nobody's page 'Darwin and the Bowerbird'.
www.churchofnobody.blogspot.com
Thank you for your kind and thought provoking comments. You denoted the unique ‘construct of the human mind’ and refer to humanity as ‘higher sentient beings’ or beings portraying and possessing an exceptional intelligent consciousness. I would agree that our advanced technologies and intelligence surely places us in a higher realm on the scale of our Planet’s animal kingdom. However, this statement would also appear to be an oxymoron when you consider that the technologies derived through human intelligence have evolved to the point, where we can now destroy our Planet and everything on it with the single push of a button.
I would also agree with your statement that ‘the additional thought processes infer greater responsibility to your fellow’. But as I stated in my blog posting, our responsibilities are individually determined by what we consciously perceive to be right or wrong, or within our duties to change or maintain. Or per the quote of Karl Barth's quote: “Conscience is the perfect interpreter of life”.
Our conscious state exists in an artificially contrived environment, which is manipulated through religion, fear, and our basic animal instincts to survive. I read the blog by Nobody, and “Darwin and the Bowerbird”. This is a very interesting article with regard to the axiom of “Survival of the Fittest”. But please note that I agree with ‘Nobody’ in that Darwin never stated anything regarding survival of the fittest, especially within the context of Human intelligence. But even Darwin had doubts with his hypothesis because one of his greatest failures was providing an explanation of how Homo sapiens came into existence, and why there is a missing link of over 2 million years or more, which would explain the evolution of our “unique” species. Out of all the recorded and unsolved mysteries that humanity has encountered, our own origins remain at the top of this list of unknowns.
Furthermore, if the fragile, fine-line of human civilization was to be erased, we would surely disregard our responsibilities to our fellows, neighbors, and the lower life forms, which co-exist on our Planet. Which would survive in times of anarchy; the intelligence class or the warrior class? I hope that I don’t live to witness that day when it arrives.
hi retro,
first visit, nice digs.
'Which would survive in times of anarchy; the intelligence class or the warrior class?'
well, cyclically it's all gone down b4. and at least some of the intelligence class always seem to somehow survive. progress is intermittent & slow, measured by the standard of human lifetimes.
if we are on the cusp of another dark age, guess i'll see ya 'by' the fire....hopefully not in it.
Yes I agree, and I have posted my comments on this "cusp" you mentioned, on the Smoke & Mirrors blog this morning.
Sorry for taking so long to respond.
Post a Comment