LIFE – THE COSMIC FLOWER
Design or coincidence ?
If artists are awed by the human form and philosophers by human life, the third member of the trio has yet to make up its mind. The hapless scientist taunted by daily discoveries swings from right to left and up and down, scanning the heavens for that little fleck of rationality that will forever determine where reason lies. Life for all that has been written about it, is not only far removed from the realms of man´s comprehension, but seems to drift further away from the gaze of the international networks urging it to give up its secrets.
Is it something governed by a blueprint drawn out by a superior intelligence ? Or is it something that happened to get itself organised bit by bit? Something that by virtue of the properties of some inert materials (and given a few hundred million years to get on with), would result in a human being.? That human being, ironically, would then be able to pick up or send those basic materials to all those parts of the cosmos where he could propel himself to. Despite the enormous strides taken by investigators, however, from across every faculty remotely associated with it or its properties, nothing, absolutely nothing, betrays an indication of a possible coming to terms with these mind boggling questions. Life defies and smiles enigmatically back just when the crude hand of machinations and intensive analysis, assumes it has it cornered. With the electrodes flashing green or red or not at all, or the stimulus mocking the physics of the lonely body invaded by curiousity, the eyes have it. The eyes that look back beyond the dice of modern science and castigates with its sorrow at the attempt on its very existance. It bears no more thought than a glimpse of the real nature – not of life, but of man himself. The despotic and obscene creature, even now, continues to extinguish the aspirations and right to life, of the helpless bundles of life it gradually brings to an end in his quest for so called knowledge. The desperation of the trusting, living, jewels of nature which he subjects to the horrors of invasive investigation which threaten their very existance, is evident. The very situation, sends quivers of alarm and despair, if not abolsute sadness, into the hearts of most of the sensitive majority of humankind. If there was a guardian of life present, it would, without doubt, throw his repulsive instruments back at him with every incandescent spark of indignation following its trail Yet despite this instinctive repulsion and anger in many of us, the vulnerability of most at the hands of the few is a damning indication of the perversity of Man. Conversely, the fragility of those forced to give up their precious spark, so sadly, make the heavens weep with despair. It is the field of the bully, the psychopath (it has to be!) and the mentally infirm who can go past the gaze of those who lives are no more than spent rags ready for the final blow. “There, but for the grace of God go I”, cuold never be more aptly applied. Yet this and thousands of other acts of life abuse cover the world scenery and fill our screens with increasing gore. The laboratory monkeys – the Canadian seals about to receive the second blow in mid flight – the innocent cachelots torn apart by Faroe Island cowards – the pet owners who abandon the only creatures who have faith in them. Nothing, causes such disgust, despair and anger in evolved humans than the extinguishing or abuse of life. Nothing seems to be more evil except the prolonged and painful process of deliberate harm. But bolts do not get hurled from the sky and Man is never more alone than when a witness to this gruesome act. Can an instinctive sense of revulsion, fear and guilt be a necessary part of lifekind without it meaning something ? Can it have more meaning than life itself ? Is this the real message – the right to exist ? This sense of awe, of wrongness and of helplessness in the presence of the violation of the sacred must come from somewhere if it is part of the process of being alive. Even the anger at the lack of some divine intervention when it is perpertrated mercilessly must underline this instinctive sense of the ultimate evil essence of the taking of live ? Does something as crucial and basic as the denial of life, speak for itself ? In other words, if man, like everything in the animal kingdom is geared to survive and natural selection an important part of the process of preserving that life, then the strong range of emotions that protect life must mean something other than pure survival. Can Darwinian theory or the so called mechanistic process be anymore than the bio chemical engine to accommodate the driver ? Killing in whatever form must diminish everything else in multiples as can be seen by the grief that has little to do with survival. Grieving animals can be targets. Unless of course it means that the sensitive and the sorrowful deserve to waste away and the psycopath earn the earth. Maybe that is what may be happeneing ? Looking at it carefully, experiencing the loss of life of others could increase awareness and sharpen survival but it also interferes with the will to live and prepares the subject for submission, This is, of course, what the tyrants hope to achieve. But then, none of this can have much to do with the concept of survival. In fact most of life experiences within emotions of self awareness have little to do with survival. That is the mystery of it all. If awareness is the flower of the tree of life,then it must by definition be capable of programming its own survival. In short, surely it must consolidate its own identity or risk becoming meaningless? This aspect of human aspiration (and perhaps common to most living creatures in ways that we cannot see), is perhaps what should be looked at to determine exactly what we are. The rabid evolutionists who put everything down to change and adaptation, are quite obviously correct from a purely mechanistic point of view, but is it not possible that we could miss the forest for the trees?
A threat to survival ?
What it all seems to imply is that even survival itself in this context somehow glorifies the nature of life. A force that stands apart as consciousness and which would be meaningless in the context of mere mechanical survival. No living creature would kill unnecessarily unless perhaps its consciousness was of a level of twisted delusion that we commonly call madness. Higher level of consciousness such as we find in sensitive creatures, would be unneccessary as a mere survival ingredient. Why think and lose out ? One of my own dogs, trained hard in secluded corners away from the others to make fearful faces at his puppy nephews who were horrified and delighted at the scary experiences. The little creatures were half believing, half hoping it was not real (video archives on file). Was the dog training the lads to survive attacks or to place faith in their attacker ? We could consider this a human trait and far removed from the context of genuine survival, but where does all this human behaviour evolve towards and for what reason? Ultimately, is this something that a robot could develop once it achieves a sense of humour ? Perhaps, but it would require a programme all of its own to do something that interfered with the essential business of mere function and survival. Left with its own sensory perceptions, it is doubtful that it would even remotely consider to go the way of frivolity or banter. Or would it ? Such behaviour for a mechanical instrument would be tantamount to letting a knife be influenced by a random chip. In other words, a folly. And is that what consciousness is all about – a folly? Despite the very strong argument for chance in all evolution including consciousness itself, the nagging thought that there is a vehicle and a driver of an essence that justifies all that equipment, tickles nervously in the background.
The uniqueness of a life – any life..
It is, after all, what life is all about. It is, after all, about the right to own and enjoy it, once enkindled. It is, after all, the right of nature itself to bring it to an apparent end and not the living to dismiss it. Such are the words of romantics and sensitives who believe that there is sanctity in its meaning and very existance. No cultured, sensitive person with a balanced mind, would cause pain to others willingly. None would invoke the fear and sorrow in the eyes of any living thing in the presence of its potential killer. The expression in the eyes of those who face their end, tells all. It says, “why” ? Why me ?” It questions the very right of anybody to take it away – and there lies the very mystery of something that is being analysed for its parts to determine what it is. What a hope ! It is true that very simple surgery will extinguish the life force that invades the body occupied, but the apparent simplicity of execution explains absolutely nothing. It is the concept – the idea of the extermination that denies the very existance of all. The agony of dying belongs to consciousness and if it were all that simple, why the pain ? Whoever or whatever does not want to go. It suffers without hope of survival – Why ? Yet there are many today who think that this pyramid of cosmic proportions can be put together – that it is not far away and the science fiction nurtured minds, actually believe it. It smacks of the twisted notions of time travel and the denial of matter as some are determined to point out, but who accept the black eye when that imaginary matter flies through the air ? Today, the moving parts are generally understood and copied mechanically, but putting them together to create that balance called living, even from organic material, produces no Frankenstein. This, after all, is a very small portion of the formula – the ability to move around in search of chemical input – the ability to avoid the matter when it is heading your way – the ability to keep vital organs at the right temperature so that the blood can make it all grow and feed every part including the brain and nervous system, All that effort and coordination so that the being it all adds up to can start to plan unnecessary moves or even make inconsequential faces in the mirror ? But there is more, much more, as we all know, and which keeps the very best of our thinkers perpetually engaged in circular monologues. Even worse, getting down to basics and creating a living cell, would be like asking our PC to get off the stand and do our housework. It is simply not designed for it and if it did have a couple of legs or rollers to move away it might not even do that. Unless the whole heap had been specifically built for the purpose and trained to do the basic work, it would simply flail around like a raving lunatic, achieving no more than the attention an uncoordinated, flurry of expression would produce. That is therefore where the whole concept of design comes in. Are living creatures, including man, designed and programmed to get on with something beyond our understanding ? I say this because, without design, meaningfullness cannot be taken for granted especially if we were but educational toys haphazardly put together by higher intelligences. Coincidental meaninglessness could be understood in so far as any growth, like a tumour can be understood especially when it threatens the whole which feeds it, but neither does it prove that what it kills is meaningless of itself. In fact we could go on about what is real and what is fake or what is intended to be and what is an accident of time or cosmic, waste materials. One could, like many others, defeated by the argumets go in for that, but the baby smiles and all theories of humanoids and computer based life, melt before this basic critical act. Even if robots smiled to get their bearings greased, it would probably do the same when it hit the wall if it had not developed the expression of its own accord in serch of sympathy. In humans, it more than likely managed to find its way in for exactly the same purpose, but hardly for suvival in the broad concept of hundreds of other things that would have served the purpose better. Why the lips in any case ? Why not the hair? Why an instrument of aggression in teeth baring, like most animals would interpret it ? True, that perhaps by some sort of natural coincidence, the evolved smiling child could have guaranteed its survival, among thousands of other tactics it could have utilized, like suddenly standing on its head, but what about the recipient ? What about the one who is moved by the smile ? Is that about evolution too ? Or did the smile happen to coincide with the need of the other human system to be needed or desired or simply smiled at ? By such analysis, the age of man has to extend into hundreds of millions of years of survival evolution and have been present well before the supposed age of the dinosaurs. By that stage he should have been well on his human way to have become so complex – and apparently he was not ! So much therefore for the possibilities of an evolutionary smile. Or was it what my dog did and the others tried to copy to get the same attention ? Never have millions of years sounded so close in this respect ! The apes do not smile in the same way that we do. They express alarm and fear, but they fail in our smile, even if some say they do in their own way. It could have evolved for whatever reason and incidental purpose, and all smiling people may have reproduced quicker and better by virtue of the timely gesture, but in the early stages of this game, it is hardly likely that those that came in to reproduce from behind, fared any worse. Besides, the very protagonists of our species, the primates, even now, find things like the widening of our eyes in amazement or banter, the fearful threat it means to them. All very confusing…if that is where we come from.
The fabric not the wearer.
Scientists have come very close to finding out how textures are made and how all living organs get together to protect the body and feed the mind. It even tells us what parts of the brain are being provoked to turn on what part of the mechanism that guards and feeds it, but none of it explains how it all got together or what it is supposed to do in the end. Does it eventually, given the time, light up or be taught how to light up by some unrecognizable, ever present maker or agent? We could, after all, be some sort of earthly beacon which forgot how to switch on, but then it might just be a question of primitive instruments designed to find out how to get earthly things back to some unknown galactical place of origin ? Above all, despite an apparent lack of singular purpose, other than reproduction, the whole thing fails to convince with a blatant lack of mere reason for being. But is the human experience of living, loving and enjoying not enough in itself ?
Modern humans as opposed to apes, carry the unmistakeable “genetic history” of a mere hundred thousand years of evolution. All behaviour patterns however complex and of whatever the culture have been created, in the main, druing that time. This development was also aggravated by short life spans that did not allow for a great accumulation of knowledge. Much could have happened during that period in evolutionary terms but if it did, it does not show. If Jordanians look like Jordanians, Bedouins like Bedouins and North American Indians like their ancestral Mongols, then where did all those different features come from in the first place unless there was some sort of giant mix to start off with, which appears not to be the case. While this sounds a little ingenuous and the sort of readers digest stuff that could be expected of a mere journalist, perhaps we should ponder on things that look obvious but which on second thought are not so clear. If we start off as apes and go through a whole scale of ugly and better looking ones, it is more than likely that the mating process will take place between each other indiscriminately except perhaps that build and aggression may have contributed. In which case, the descendants would have become bigger and tougher and any mere humanlike sibling with pansy features would have soon ended up childless and probably pounded into the ground. The human development therefore with its particularly distinctive features which were not going to change much in those 150,000 years, is somewhat of a mystery. The awkward homo sapiens level could also have also had good looking and not so attractive ones – some hairier than others – some clumsy and others determined and aggressive so how would things go in this case ? Sex not dependent on animal heat periods, could have altered things a bit, but jealousy and leadership based on scarce resources could have entered the game. It is highly unlikely however, that there would have been much of a free selection whilst the primitive man (or woman) aggressive behaviour influenced the sexual drive, as it does with domestic pets today. Where do we move from there as homo sapiens breaks away from his primitive ancestors ? Does it start off as a pregnant female and a human father getting out of the circuit to start their own lives ? It is difficult to see or even follow from the fossil records. Similar groups were beginning to form in different places and from these all the races of modern man came about within such a very short period. It does not make sense, especially when we find that a parallel species called Neanderthal disappears at the expense of the more aggressive African man. It is apparently going to take only sixty thousand years of so before the emerging different clans start to make a nomadic and settlement stake (if only temporarily) and start to create their own family features. The origins of races appears to start there and again, it needs a lot of spare imagination to work it all out. Outsiders will have very little chance of making an impact within these tight circles and giving each family unit a chance to develop babies with different looks, as happens today, is a fairly recent social concession. One of the clan girls may have been taken captive by one of the males from another group on the prowl and perhaps even, although unlikely, given a chance to escape and return with her child to her own group. This could have brought in a different nose or distinctive creatures, but would lend little to the formation of inbred racial characteristics that we see today. In most rural human communities even today, outsiders are not allowed to marry their eligible children. This has weakened many a country with the rise in cretinism and continued incest. The process therefore of largescale family features or emerging races and sub races, is a long one and whilst identifiable identities are easily achieved within a few thousand years, the business of colour and selective features like hooded eyes are of an entirely different order of things What caused the changes in family features, was the breakaway gene – the one male or female that chanced to get out and stay out with another from a different family group. This difficult situation, fraught with dangers, eould have forced them to grow their own family within themselves as of ten happened and later created their own community, but the origins of racial differences do not sit comfortably in a period of a hundred thousand years. The genetic pools of family units that had to develop during this period start to look a little different but the built in constraining process and incestuous relationships will ensure that the combined features are spread out and easily recognizable. The Smiths and the Pattersons will leave their mark in any of their babies, whomever they marry, but it is highly unlikely that they will create mongols or negroids. Many cultures today, are the products of just one male and one female, judging by the curious characteristics that they share from their ancestors. Syrians are very Syrian and Egyptians the same in a general context of course, but the Chinese, the black Africans and the Aborigines are a product of a little understood processes which may or may not have had anything to do with the survival factor. What then appeares to have marked their characteristic traits ? Did this differentiation start of long before humans emerged ? It is this that places the question mark on the origins of races within such a very short time as one hundred thousand years.
The evolution span does not fit.
But where does this take us ? Assuming that Darwin´s natural selection process is now applicable in the development of the conscious and even the physical aspect of modern man – changes other than minor issues can be very dangerous indeed. These would be mutations and short of the refinement of the immune system with exposure and survival to lethal agents, they do not appear to be entering the present equation. This is significant in itself. We know about the beaks that help to procure new foods and the colour changes that camouflage and protect. We also know that any change could very well make it more difficult for some to obtain support and we know of the fact that black African albinos are often ritually sacrificed even today. So where do we go from there ? What must be clearly understood, before design comes in, is that evolution in Darwinian mode, means millions of years if we take lizards to birds and cat fish to lizards. Assuming that it all led to the variety of animals and one headed, two armed, two legged men with the same inclination to procreate in the same way, we have to understand that we can only look back some three to four million years. Lucy (our apparent genetic Eve from Ethiopia) could probably not smile and she could most definitely not talk. The accidents of evolution that led to walking relatively properly and arrive at what we call modern man from Cro Magnon, suggests that the genetic pool from which our ancestors derived was basically quite small and enjoyed relatively similar features. Unless design was already there (by which I mean intervention from an outside agency) it is highly unlikely that they would have created such different races of Man. The differentiating human species, may have looped back, not to their own immediate families, (which would have endoresed their features) but to other groups of slightly different features who would have provided new characteristics but again, the limitations of numbers and restrictive entries are already there. What we are seeing now is a very slow process of generational change since eventual tribal rulings would have tended to cage the genes even more. The present four – Negroid, Australoid – Caucasian and Mongoloid tax the brain to work out how they emerged in such a short time. Obviously, during millions of years, as single groups they could have developed into what they are today, but not after the the emergence of homo sapiens. Within those racial mixes, like primary colours, the characteristic features of each “national” or tribal family, would emerge but it is more likely that the original four races had a founder apiece with these features rather than their emergence from territorial and climatic conditions later. The Cro Magnons may have come from different racial types of early man, or perhaps they, the races, all came from Cro Magnon, but they are not easy assumtions to take. Darwin cannot even enter this stage. Once homo sapiens sapiens emerged, evolution had little else to offer in such a short time. Once the cross breeding started through war and isolated attacks, the family groupings and features would start. It would take hundreds of thousands of years to create the tapestry of individual characteristics that we see today. Natural disasters may have also occurred in the past and exterminated vast numbers of humans as also through plagues and inadequate nutrition.This would have also further delayed the humanising process and there is no doubt that they did take place. In fact, it is more than likely that very large percentages of the human race perished at regular intervals, which would make the ape to modern man an unsustainable theory within the periods allowed. It would in fact, make the early, modern, ape man far too primitive to arrive at what we have today.
So where did the smiles and the grins and the fraternity and the buddiness come from ? Certainly not from Darwinian formulas and maybe, from the insertion of a higher level of evolution at some stage of the game or from a genetic blueprint which contained these planned changes for reasons to do with a purpose. We therefore enter the realm of possibilities and pure speculation, but what is considered and spurned as the “creationist” approach to evolution, sometimes appears to make more sense than attempting to prove it all with Darwinian concepts. Why should an outside agent not use a basic matrix like a self replicating system to instill something capable of consciousness and civilisation for some hidden purpose ? Ancient writings, including the Bible, mention such possibilities but they remain mere suggestions and there is no scientific evidence to prove it. The Australian Aborigine, even more so than the New Guinean tribesmen may take a sophisticated, leggy Scandinavian into the bush for a bit of fun. The issue that could ensue, would probably keep everyone agog in suspense since it could go in all sorts of different ways, but the change would be there and it would be endorsed and consolidated if a few more Scandinavians took to the sport. Their own kaleidoscopic issues would turn on each other over a period of a few thousand years to produce an identifiable new race, but it would have nothing to do with selection and the eventual issue would all look very much the same and very different to either parent. The results would be quite impressive as the Caymanians have shown, but all that would change would be features and general statistics. When and if Britt came along and both already smiled and did all the things all humans do, the new cross version would have establised itself quite clearly as the Caymanian ginger haired negroids established their Morgan ancestry. So where did the differences of races come from and when ? Was it to do with sudden genetic exchanges along these lines or did pockets of homo sapiens of different origins with very different featres interbreed to produce definite racial traits ? It is all very puzzling. Intermingling or forced sex in conquest by warrior groups could have established new traits within the invaded group, but then we could be talking about hundreds of races not just four. For negroid hair to change in outdoor living, hot or cold, or skin colour to do the same with migration, we need hundreds of thousands of years which means that it all happened long before Cro Magnon came along and unless there were all sorts of Cro Magnons already there, with distinctive racial differences, there must be another force at play which rivals the work of natural selection. Either the time scale is wrong or we are looking at the latest version of surviving civilisations long before ours came into play. The probability is that the sums are wrong and the strange thing is why all those evolutionists out there barely address this fascinating aspects which make better reading than some of the lengthy drum beatings on the birds and the bees. Perhaps Noah was a bit too old to get it all down properly for us to make sense of it.
Forefathers in faces.
The transfer of intelligent liquids from one person to another, produce more bodies and independant life but they also apparently perpetuate aspects of the organised mind with characteristic gestures of ancestors which scientists call mimetic genes. In fact, we all inherit personal characteristics of our ancestors and also appear to be consciously tied to them. National and family characteristics tell us that our forefathers are still there and the mathematics of facial statistics tell us how many of them are still present including living likenesses that would startle the ancients if their original counterparts were still alive. Yet all the races act and behave in exactly the same way bar minor cultural differences. The gap between them and the ape man is not that wide – two million to practical ape and only about one hundred thousand to obvious human in modern terms. It is at that stage that things start looking more like design than casual evolution and Noah with his three racial types, Shem Sham and Japeth may have been able to explain it all a bit better if he had left a few essays behind.
The origins of man or races for that matte, do not even tell us whether we were born here on earth or whether the answer lies in some obscure or highly significant cosmic order of things many millions of light years away. It does not tell us even then, if it was the very beginning of the blocks of life or whether it was inherited in one of many trillions of steps that eventually brought us close to what we think are our arboreal ancestors. I would like to believe all of that and more, but I realize that whether we were born outside our world or universe that however far back our genes go if there were not created here, that our scientists have not even started to come to grips with the questions, never mind the answers. Such is the mystery of life. Such is the mystery of how a mere question of time can produce that little step from chemical to living organised matter capable of developing not just a grim faced ape, but a scintillating happy go lucky hippie grinning his way in and out of the marijuana clouds. When we bear in mind that the Chinese civilisation goes back at least some five to ten thousand years, and that other less successful ones could easily go back to twenty, modern man seems too close to the neanderthal and cro magnon to have been able to evolve such sophistication. Natural selection in this period appears to have disappeared in general terms despite the odd deformity although immunity from certain diseases through minor mutations have taken over the task. Man may now be caged and self modelled, but it does not deny the awesome of his life force and the increasing sense of separate identity of the evolving consciousness within the physical framework. Is this the cosmic flower set to propagate itself like all others ?
The giant step that defies understanding.
One specific problem arises when we talk about creating life in a laboratory. First, we have elements like iron, lead, gold etc and then we have atoms which vary in size and electrons in accordance with the so called periodic table. We think we know that these substances are dead. They cannot reproduce themselves in a process called life or as basic substances. Not reproducing however, does not mean that given the right sort of combination of atoms, that things cannot move on from there. In chemistry things do and then fizzle out except when things like radioactive substances break up very slowly and appear to cause things to happen – destructive things, if not chanelled like electricity. But none of this comes close to the complexities of life and its forever changing creations. The so called laboratory life, is no more than a soup which when electrified under certain conditions caused things a little more complex, like amino acids to form. These primitive combinations of matter have been called life steps, but in reality, getting to a point when it becomes gene with its enormous complexity, is not only a very long way ahead, but probably never. The gene is like a blueprint full of instructions for other complex materials to do what it says it should but unless there is something like a domino effect which simply pushes the one in front of it because it loses balance, it is hard to explain what appears to be something with its own will.
If we do manage to get a gene or even a primitive one celled organism like an Amoeba together which would be half the battle and which is millions of miles away from the simple amino acid, we still have the same problem. It might even have the capacity to automatically absorb the energy from the sunlight towards which it always drifts, but it can only reproduce itself and will keep on going until stopped, but where does the differentiation process come in and when, to produce a living creature with eyes, brain etc. Something is missing and evolution on its own cannot be the answer. Will the laboratory created amino acid tell other chemicals accidentally nearby to form other amino acids and what are the chances of getting the chemicals to start thinking for themselves and start being something different? If it did, we would have the beginning of the chain of evolutionary creation, but somehow it is all like expecting a n atom of iron or carbon or hydrogen to have a built in sense of basic consciousness instead of simply being able to attract other chemicals it needs to do something different like rusting for example which it does by attracting oxygen. I would call this a roller coaster event – the push gets it up there and the slide brings it down to driving up again by its own momentum,but slowly it would come to a halt if there is no outside force to fill in the gaps. The will of a needy living creature driven with the desire to live means consciousness and somehow this seems like the same outside programme that the inventor or designer would have to put into into the mechanical vehicle. Again, the bacteria reproduces without thought or drive – simply absorbing and somehow going through a series of changes that lead to becoming more and more of itself – but that is all it is. Maybe it can become a slightly different type of bacteria but it is difficult to try and see this as life – yet it seems to be. I could also be a mechanical action – a form of absorption like water in a sponge which has been depressed and released. The dead rubbery tissue wants to get back to its original form because that is the way it was designed and by so doing creates vacuum which in turn asborbs to be filled. That is perhaps what the bacteria do – they want to be in a sort of symmetry which its individual structures demand and to do that it pulls in the chemical atoms around it but perhaps there is design in that too? If so, is the hand behind the design there after all ?
Getting from a basic one celled creature developed from inert chemicals into organic modules, to where the monstruously complex, awesome and aware living being which turns on its back to have its belly tickled, is a long drive indeed, if at all. No multiplying bacteria would appear to be conscious enough to organise itself (even to the first amoeba) without some sort of outside, manipulative blueprint which could shunt around, break up and reunite it in different forms to bring about another more complex self aware process. It is much more logical I would have thought, to suggest that we are products of some strangely distant designer rather than a syndicate style of sterile moves gradually falling into the right places. Life could have started indpendently beyond the big bang and even then with some sort of helping hand or other and moved into the medium of atomic matter like a virus. The nature of the two – life and biochemical material – consciousness and infrastructure – appears to be different even if complimentary.
The mystery of awareness
Life from the ant to the elephant has something called awareness. This makes hackles rise when it is challenged. The very first signs of resistance and perhaps fear, gather the forces around it for the challenge and the protection of whatever is present there. It may protect its mechanism or its weak points, but is it not simpler to think that it is instinctively protecting its life force, like the treasure and valuable cargo it is ? The very essence of its vital role is to protect that awareness created by its life – that life that makes it feel it is where it should be. That is what makes any thinking and sensitive person feel that it is something as precious as the first embers of fire to the primitive tribesmen. It makes millions cry out instinctively with horror and shame when they see it devalued and extinguished. What they see in those haunted eyes, – when they signal that they cannot survive – that life is threatened, is, that they are instruments of communication and that the life force itself is using them as a means to protect the abode being challenged. What else can it mean ? When every protective tool as been levered and brandhished and the life force is at risk or leaving the robotic body, it simply goes away, (very painfully one imagines as the final recepient). The evolutionists (and particularly Dawkins, the arch Druid of the school) would simply say “ and that is that”, but it cannot be because we are talking baoiut two totlaly different things. Give Ceaser what belongs to Caeser….. The design may not be in the physical part of the living unit, but the conscious aspect of the life force belongs to a different order of things, that could perhaps be explained and created one day in some dingy laboratory, but an echo of the thing – not life – certainly not the life that makes everything else irrevelant by comparison.
Michael Mifsud was a Parliamentary correspondentat at the age of 15. Royal touring writer. Agency Commonwealth writer Publisher of Britain’s first trade journal for drivers. Millionaire businessman, hotelier, restauranteur and airline operator. Contributor to Holy Blood and Holy Grail. Messianic Legacy. Sword and the Grail. TV presenter in Marbella and a very notable presence on the web.Freeman of the City of London and holder of aordes of merit of Poland, Afghanistan and Serbia. Member of the Council of Elders of the modern Order of Knights Templar (Versailles 1705) Author of Al Andalus – a trail of discovery. Amazon.
Posted by
admin
Tags:
COSMIC,
Flower,
Life.
Categories:
Uncategorized
