Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

I think you have already violated your own advice about "a small number of points" so maybe you might want to rethink it.

There's a small distinction here. There's a huge difference between talking to the people here and talking to random people outside of here. People here are already informed about a lot of things, they're interested in knowledge, they're already reading a thread on the topic I'm talking about, etc. So I can say a lot and know it will all get digested appropriately. That's what the thread is about.

But with random people outside, I still back up my point. If you give them too much, they can't digest it and refuse the whole thing. Even the points I made aren't supposed to be given all at once. It was just available choices. So it's more like, start with the simplest ones and see how people react. If you can convince someone about only one point, it's better, imo, than if you give them 5, they manage to "disprove" 2 (in their mind, at least, but that's enough for them), and by association consider the other 3 "wrong" too.

Of course anyone can use any strategy, but from what I've seen so far, the reactions were mostly people freaking out about ID and completely ignoring the solid science against DW.

 

[goyacobol]

There's a small distinction here. There's a huge difference between talking to the people here and talking to random people outside of here. People here are already informed about a lot of things, they're interested in knowledge, they're already reading a thread on the topic I'm talking about, etc. So I can say a lot and know it will all get digested appropriately. That's what the thread is about.

I was just not so sure luc would see it as caution for the "random people outside of here". His posts were for this forum. I am not saying your points are not good but they might appear to be a bit condescending even if you might not mean them to be. I think luc's posts were posted with the same knowledge that they would "get digested appropriately" too.

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

His posts were for this forum.

I was referring to his Sott article (and the intended future ones). His posts for the forum were, of course, perfect. I thought I made that clear, but I guess not. Let's hope this clears it up then.

 

[goyacobol]

I was referring to his Sott article (and the intended future ones). His posts for the forum were, of course, perfect. I thought I made that clear, but I guess not. Let's hope this clears it up then.

Sorry, Mandatory Intellectomy. You did specify the SOTT articles. I missed it. And your ideas sound logical for trying get to the heart of where to start countering Darwinistic errors. As I tell others "The devil is in the details".

 

[Laura]

Sorry, Mandatory Intellectomy. You did specify the SOTT articles. I missed it. And your ideas sound logical for trying get to the heart of where to start countering Darwinistic errors. As I tell others "The devil is in the details".

It's a common problem that we face when trying to write about really advanced understanding that is based on a lot of knowledge input. How the heck do you boil it down? You see why The Wave is so darned long??? There were just so many concepts and pieces of information that had to be conveyed to get the main point across and that point was that we, in 3D, obviously live in a reality that is controlled in some way by a very different, hyperdimensional reality that goes way beyond any ideas of ghosts or whatnot.

And now, this forum is carrying this knowledge burden and how the heck do you share it? Almost impossible.

 

[Joe]

But with random people outside, I still back up my point. If you give them too much, they can't digest it and refuse the whole thing. Even the points I made aren't supposed to be given all at once. It was just available choices. So it's more like, start with the simplest ones and see how people react. If you can convince someone about only one point, it's better, imo, than if you give them 5, they manage to "disprove" 2 (in their mind, at least, but that's enough for them), and by association consider the other 3 "wrong" too.

Personally, I don't see any real point in trying to 'convince' anyone. I take the approach that either people have the drive to know in them, or they don't. So by all means we can put information 'out there', but the idea of trying to convince any one person or a number of people, i.e. being invested in 'convincing this one' or 'this group', is pointless. I'm reminded of Gurdjieff's comments on the 3 'circles' of humanity, and in relation to your comments, especially the "outer circle".

"The humanity to which we belong, namely, the whole of historic and prehistoric humanity known to science and civilization, in reality constitutes only the outer circle of humanity, within which there are several other circles.

"So that we can imagine the whole of humanity, known as well as unknown to us, as consisting so to speak of several concentric circles.

"The inner circle is called the 'esoteric'; this circle consists of people who have attained the highest development possible for man, each one of whom possesses individuality in the fullest degree, that is to say, an indivisible 'I,' all forms of consciousness possible for man, full control over these states of consciousness, the whole of knowledge possible for man, and a free and independent will. They cannot perform actions opposed to their understanding or have an understanding which is not expressed by actions. At the same time there can be no discords among them, no differences of understanding. Therefore their activity is entirely co-ordinated and leads to one common aim without any kind of compulsion because it is based upon a common and identical understanding.

"The next circle is called the 'mesoteric,' that is to say, the middle. People who belong to this circle possess all the qualities possessed by the members of the esoteric circle with the sole difference that their knowledge is of a more theoretical character.' This refers, of course, to knowledge of a cosmic character. They know and understand many things which have not yet found expression in their actions. They know more than they do. But their understanding is precisely as exact as, and therefore precisely identical with, the understanding of the people of the esoteric circle. Between them there can be, no discord, there can be no misunderstanding. One understands in the way they all understand, and all understand in the way one understands. But as was said before, this understanding compared with the understanding of the esoteric circle is somewhat more theoretical.

"The third circle is called the 'exoteric,' that is, the outer, because it is the outer circle of the inner part of humanity. The people who belong to this circle possess much of that which belongs to people of the esoteric and mesoteric circles but their cosmic knowledge is of a more philosophical character, that is to say, it is more abstract than the knowledge of the mesoteric circle. A member of the mesoteric circle calculates, a member of the exoteric circle contemplates. Their understanding may not be expressed in actions. But there cannot be differences in understanding between them. What one understands all the others understand.

"In literature which acknowledges the existence of esotericism humanity is usually divided into two circles only and the 'exoteric circle' as opposed to the 'esoteric,' is called ordinary life. In reality, as we see, the 'exoteric circle' is something very far from us and very high. For ordinary man this is already 'esotericism.'

"The outer circle' is the circle of mechanical humanity to which we belong and which alone we know. The first sign of this circle is that among people who belong to it there is not and there cannot be a common understanding. Everybody understands in his own way and all differently. This circle is sometimes called the circle of the 'confusion of tongues,' that is, the circle in which each one speaks in his own particular language, where no one understands another and takes no trouble to be understood. In this circle mutual understanding between people is impossible excepting in rare exceptional moments or in matters having no great significance, and which are confined to the limits of the given being. If people belonging to this circle become conscious of this general lack of understanding and acquire a desire to understand and to be understood, then it means they have an unconscious tendency towards the inner circle because mutual understanding begins only in the exoteric circle and is possible only there. But the consciousness of the lack of understanding usually comes to people in an altogether different form.

"So that the possibility for people to understand depends on the possibility of penetrating into the exoteric circle where understanding begins."

As for polar bears, applying occam's razor, I'm pretty sure they were designed specifically for snowy landscapes.

 

[anka]

Nice exchange here, really. To my understanding, Mandatory Intellectomy has realized a great opportunity in this topic to turn it into an eye-opener for open-minded readers who, for various reasons, might not be able to take the leap in one go. From time to time, science comes with a shift-inducing discoveries that have a potential to bring understanding of things to a higher level which is definitely the case here so writing about it might take this potential into account and perhaps make use of it, without any desire to try converting anyone. It might just help to demolish the wall of nonscientific doctrines if the public response gains a momentum.

I am looking forward to the article's follow-ups. It is certainly a tall order to condense the amount of available information into a few pieces of text but luc has started really well. Great job.

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

Personally, I don't see any real point in trying to 'convince' anyone. I take the approach that either people have the drive to know in them, or they don't. So by all means we can put information 'out there', but the idea of trying to convince any one person or a number of people, i.e. being invested in 'convincing this one' or 'this group', is pointless.

Well, yes, "actively convincing" people doesn't really work anyway, but maybe this is just semantics and I didn't use the right word. Maybe instead of "convince / not convince" it should be "how to put the information out there" so that people can understand/digest it. Along the lines of what Laura posted just before you.

I think we've basically come to the conclusion here that Darwinism is bad for humanity and it's so widespread and deeply rooted that it poisons everything around it, and that we want to try to change that situation, because as long as people believe in DW, it prevents them from making any progress in other areas. Of course we can only offer information and not really "convince" anyone, but at the same time, we do want people to "get it". Otherwise, what would be the point? And whether people get it or not depends on, among other things, on how you present the information.

So I think that's the gist of what I was trying to get across. Maybe I tend to be a bit too analytical and technical, so things may come out sounding a little off. My point was largely about the difference between presenting arguments sort of mindlessly and having a strategy. I think there's a kind of target audience of people who could get it if it's explained to them the right way, maybe in the right order, and so on, even if they don't posses a particularly strong drive for knowledge. On one hand, the facts are fairly clear, but on the other, the programming is deep, so I feel like the approach might matter quite a bit. (Of course there are also other audiences that are hopeless.)

 

[luc]

I think we've basically come to the conclusion here that Darwinism is bad for humanity and it's so widespread and deeply rooted that it poisons everything around it, and that we want to try to change that situation, because as long as people believe in DW, it prevents them from making any progress in other areas. Of course we can only offer information and not really "convince" anyone, but at the same time, we do want people to "get it". Otherwise, what would be the point? And whether people get it or not depends on, among other things, on how you present the information.

So I think that's the gist of what I was trying to get across. Maybe I tend to be a bit too analytical and technical, so things may come out sounding a little off. My point was largely about the difference between presenting arguments sort of mindlessly and having a strategy. I think there's a kind of target audience of people who could get it if it's explained to them the right way, maybe in the right order, and so on, even if they don't posses a particularly strong drive for knowledge. On one hand, the facts are fairly clear, but on the other, the programming is deep, so I feel like the approach might matter quite a bit. (Of course there are also other audiences that are hopeless.)

I do get your point, I really do. How do you break through to people entrenched in materialism/Darwinism? I tried to keep that in mind with the article, in the sense that I made it clear that it has nothing to do with "God" per se and that rejecting Darwinism doesn't mean the religious folks are right, that you should embrace Jesus or that you need to believe in the bible etc.

But at the end of the day, there are many people out there who freak out if they just "smell" anything remotely implying higher intelligences. You can witness that in the comments sections: insults, zero understanding, zero thinking... They didn't even read the article for the most part, and if they did, they just filtered everything out that would have threatened their world view. No chance with these guys.

Could the article have been written better? Certainly! But I think you also need to go in-depth so that people who are actually interested understand that this isn't a matter of opinion or different worldviews, but that no rational, thinking being could possibly reject the design conclusion.

Also, you said that you found this thread here more convincing than the article - so maybe the article just wasn't in-depth enough?

 

[Scottie]

I do get your point, I really do. How do you break through to people entrenched in materialism/Darwinism?

This has been the Eternal Problem since Day 1 of Cass, SOTT, etc.

If you go too deep, many people switch off. If you don't go deep enough, others switch off. There really is no simple solution to that particular problem.

Just look at Ponerology. For many years, we planned a Ponerology for Dummies. It never quite happened. Yet the original book has been read far and wide, and is still a top seller.

Despite the depth and complexity of the material, it still had an impact in the longer term.

Another example: RT. They won't touch certain things that SOTT will talk about. They also have lots of wonderful articles about how Conor McGregor's Daddy Threatened to Beat Up Your Daddy and stuff like that.

That kind of thing serves their larger purpose, but it doesn't serve ours.

I guess a good way of looking at it would be China vs the USA in the current political climate. Naturally, we'd love to be "popular" and powerful, but that's not the point. We're more of a "still waters run deep" kind of approach as opposed to the Lady Gaga Smartbomb / Invasion / Spreading Freedom and Democracy approach.

I also have to add that I find it thoroughly interesting that in terms of certain crazes, like gluten-free or keto, we are generally ahead of the curve. The same could be said about psychopathy and other political views and approaches to things. It just usually takes the rest of the world 5-10 years to catch up.

It seems that maybe our role is to just try to set an example, and then let the chips fall where they may. At least according to the C's, so far, so good! Although you wouldn't think so by taking a surface-level look at the state of the world today...

 

[luc]

I also have to add that I find it thoroughly interesting that in terms of certain crazes, like gluten-free or keto, we are generally ahead of the curve. The same could be said about psychopathy and other political views and approaches to things. It just usually takes the rest of the world 5-10 years to catch up.

Indeed! I also thought about the Darwinism/ID work here and the fact that Stephen Meyer went on Ben Shapiro, and Ben Shapiro himself coming out as in favor of ID. Another example is the long-hour podcast format that Sott does for years now, long before it became so popular. Climate Change might be another example - criticism has gone from "crazy right-wing fringe" to Jordan Peterson-level skepticism. There are probably more examples.

In a sense, the world kind of seems to follow suit - or maybe if this group illuminates a certain aspect of reality, it's easier for the rest of the world to see it. And given that we now know for certain that materialism is nonsense, why shouldn't it work that way? Ruppert Sheldrake's morphic fields predict that the more people engage in certain thought patterns, the easier it gets to have these thoughts... And writing articles or here on the forum is like "thinking on steroids". But even if that's just wishful thinking, strengthening the right thought patterns seems still like the right thing to do, no matter what. But it also means that many people won't like it.

As for writing, one thing I noticed is that oftentimes, when I get in the flow, interesting things happen - stuff seems to almost write itself! I wouldn't call it "channeling" or anything like that, but many people who write have noticed this phenomenon; it's more like if done in the right spirit of truth and honest exploration, you make yourself available as a tool for the information field or something like that and get "in tune". Stephen Pressfield has talked about this in "The War of Art", too. Obviously, you can still screw up, so it's not a straight-forward process and depends a lot on how you go about it.

So in a sense, Sott and the forum are kind of trailblazers I think, and what's happening here matters a lot. But it's done in a STO spirit - no expectations, no superstardom, no fame... Just trying to do the right thing for its own sake, and learning and growing in understanding and self-awareness. Maybe we can "anchor the frequency" that way, who knows. Besides, what else should we do? I love what the Cs once said in a different context, if I remember correctly: it's both the best and the only option! I'm beginning to understand why they would say that.

 

[Harmony99]

I also have to add that I find it thoroughly interesting that in terms of certain crazes, like gluten-free or keto, we are generally ahead of the curve. The same could be said about psychopathy and other political views and approaches to things. It just usually takes the rest of the world 5-10 years to catch up.

I fully support your statement Scottie. I have experience this myself where i have seen persons who were in the outer circle gradually progressing towards the exoteric circle. We have to be patient at time with some persons. I don't think we should look at them as being stupid because we are a little further along the road.

 

[Harmony99]

As for writing, one thing I noticed is that oftentimes, when I get in the flow, interesting things happen - stuff seems to almost write itself! I wouldn't call it "channeling" or anything like that, but many people who write have noticed this phenomenon; it's more like if done in the right spirit of truth and honest exploration, you make yourself available as a tool for the information field or something like that and get "in tune". Stephen Pressfield has talked about this in "The War of Art", too. Obviously, you can still screw up, so it's not a straight-forward process and depends a lot on how you go about it.

So in a sense, Sott and the forum are kind of trailblazers I think, and what's happening here matters a lot. But it's done in a STO spirit - no expectations, no superstardom, no fame... Just trying to do the right thing for its own sake, and learning and growing in understanding and self-awareness. Maybe we can "anchor the frequency" that way, who knows. Besides, what else should we do? I love what the Cs once said in a different context, if I remember correctly: it's both the best and the only option! I'm beginning to understand why they would say that

Luc i think i can speak for most readers of this thread that you are an inspiration for us to explore further in Darwin myth of evolution. I always look forward for post here. So i was thinking similar thoughts to myself about your the cutting edge writing style on this thread. Keep up the good work its fully appropriated.

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

@luc:
Yeah, I get your points, just as you get mine. It's tough to find some kind of balance in this, if there even is such a thing. And as Scottie said, no matter how you go about it, some people will always revolt against it.

Maybe ultimately we just have to take any and all approaches and kind of spread the nets wide.

I can also relate to "stuff writing itself". I've noticed it many times, not just with writing text, but also with writing music. And I think there's something to the morphic fields comment you made. Even just putting the information out is probably doing something on an unseen level.

Looking forward to the future articles!

 

[Wandering Star]

Ra (Law of One) says:

Questioner: Then each of the Wanderers here acts as a function of the
biases he has developed in any way he sees fit to communicate or simply be
in his polarity to aid the total consciousness of the planet. Is there any
physical way in which he aids, perhaps by his vibrations somehow just
adding to the planet just as electrical polarity or charging a battery? Does
that also aid the planet, just the physical presence of the Wanderers?


Ra: I am Ra. This is correct and the mechanism is precisely as you state. We
intended this meaning in the second portion of our previous answer.
You may, at this time, note that as with any entities, each Wanderer has its
unique abilities, biases, and specialities so that from each portion of each
density represented among the Wanderers come an array of preincarnative
talents which then may be expressed upon this plane which you now
experience so that each Wanderer, in offering itself before incarnation, has
some special service to offer in addition to the doubling effect of planetary
love and light and the basic function of serving as beacon or shepherd.

Thus there are those of fifth-density whose abilities to express wisdom are
great. There are fourth and sixth-density Wanderers whose ability to serve
as, shall we say, passive radiators or broadcasters of love and love/light are
immense. There are many others whose talents brought into this density are
quite varied.

Thus Wanderers have three basic functions once the forgetting is
penetrated, the first two being basic, the tertiary one being unique to that
particular mind/body/spirit complex.

We may note at this point while you ponder the possibility/probability
vortices that although you have many, many items which cause distress and
thus offer seeking and service opportunities, there is always one container in
that store of peace, love, light, and joy. This vortex may be very small, but
to turn one’s back upon it is to forget the infinite possibilities of the present
moment. Could your planet polarize towards harmony in one fine, strong,
moment of inspiration? Yes, my friends. It is not probable; but it is ever
possible.
........................................................................

We are trying to align ourselves as much as possible with the "relief of the constriction" of the universe and the "no anticipation" is fundamental according to the C's.

We will do what we will do.

Each person in our environment is in his "moment" and will be permeable to what he needs.

I believe that a flexible approach is necessary in the interactions of daily life and perhaps "something helps us subtly".

If you force something, it tends to break.

A beautiful thread.