Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Experimenter's Corner | moderated by John Raica

Evolution


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 57 in total
Wed, 26 Jul 2017 #1
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 45 posts in this forum Offline

QOTD 26 July

"It would be foolish - would it not? - to deny evolution."

Okay, how do we approach that rhetorical question?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jul 2017 #2
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 45 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
If not, well...it doesn't represent more than ...a rhetorical question

I am not judging the question, John, but asking how the mind approaches it. The fact that the statement was posed as a rhetorical question is secondary, I think. Let's start with the proposition stated firmly: "It would be foolish to deny evolution."

Why would it be foolish?

John Raica wrote:
biologically speaking the evolution of species is a proven fact

This is a repetition of what K said, which is fine in itself, but doesn't get us any further. I think most people (bar Christian fundamentalists) will have accepted that evolution is a proven fact, but at that same time most of those same people will not have proven the fact for themselves. We simply accept that someone else has proven it, that it has been established elsewhere. And I gasp at how much of our so-called knowledge is actually second hand. Try asking someone why they believe in evolution and see if they can give a coherent answer, other than that it is an accepted fact and it would be 'foolish' to deny it.

For clarification's sake I should add that I am not seeking to disprove anything, let alone evolution. I am just attempting to shed some light with regard our belief systems and how we approach things generally. You see, in the same way, many would see it as proven fact that women are this and men are that, that you need a policemen to keep order, that money makes the world go round etc etc. What I want to know in this case is on what basis we accept evolution as fact.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jul 2017 #3
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 45 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
the physical body is made up of individual cells

Have you seen them?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jul 2017 #4
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 45 posts in this forum Offline

Jess S wrote:
I seem to remember that he gave a justification to say it would be foolish to deny it. Maybe the example he gave as justification can be questioned rather!

Yes, but I am not questioning K's view on evolution Jess. Neither am I questioning the theory of evolution itself. I am inquiring into the relationship of the mind that approves that theory to the theory itself. I am writing of you and I, not K or Darwin. But we could look at what K said and the wider context in which he said it. Here is the passage:

"Krishnamurti: It would be foolish - would it not? - to deny evolution. There is the bullock cart and the jet plane, that is evolution. There is an evolution of the primate to the so-called man. There is evolution from not-knowing to knowing, Evolution implies time; but psychologically, inwardly, is there evolution? Are you following the question? Outwardly one can see how architecture has advanced from the primitive hut to the modern building, mechanics from the two wheel cart to the motor, the jet plane, going to the moon and all the rest of it - it is there, obviously there is no question whether these things have evolved or not. But is there evolution inwardly, at all?"

Okay, what I am asking about is this: If it is foolish to 'deny' evolution, which it may or may not be, is it also foolish to accept evolution? On what basis are we saying it? On what basis are we judging it? I am asking about the movement of our judgement and the quality of our judgement.

But I will take a moment from this to ask about K here. K takes the example of the cart 'evolving' into the jet plane. Is that 'evolution?' Is that what evolution is? Personally I have never seen a cart evolve into a plane.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jul 2017 #5
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

Hello Paul,

If you haven't read any of Richard Dawkins books these are excelent explorations of the theory of evolution. The first book: The Selfish Gene is a very interesting take on these things. Daniel Dennet's writing on evolution is also usefull.

Different subject...I've been reading the things from Mary Zymbalist that John Raica has been posting. K seems to be very gullible and full of superstitions and often quite ordinary in his private life away from his activity as world teacher. None the less as i see it he does correctly see into the existance and nature of another dimension.... of nowness, of the timeless.

There may be something helpfull there.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Wed, 26 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jul 2017 #6
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

If you'd like to know how this writer sees things . There is only one thing one actually knows. (that word know means something that one can be absolutely certain of):

IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THERE IS NOTHING

That is astounding all by itself.

Every thing else that we "know" is assumption only.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jul 2017 #7
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 45 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Every thing else that we "know" is assumption only.

Maybe everything contains assumption, Peter, but some assumptions are more weighty than others. The fact that all knowledge is relative does not dissuade me from the weighty assumption that the elephant is real and the unicorn and the jackolope or not.

So, what makes the difference? Is it not that the seeing is the believing? I have seen plenty of elephants. I have ridden one. I have fed one. I have chased several around a Keralan rice paddy on the elephant festival day. Yest I have never had the pleasure with a unicorn. I don't believe in unicorns. I have every reason to believe they are a fable, like a dragon.

So, in the end, it doesn't signify much to say that all knowledge is assumptive. And to say that all knowledge "is assumption only" is clearly ridiculous because it dismisses entirely the realm of sensory proof.

Getting back to evolution, how do we know it for a fact? Can even one person here explain?

This post was last updated by Paul David son Wed, 26 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jul 2017 #8
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 45 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THERE IS NOTHING

Tell that to Old Mother Hubbard :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jul 2017 #9
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 2 posts in this forum Offline

Have you seen music, art, politics, corporate organization, family organization, fashion, customs, technology, medicine, society, marriage, religion, character, personality, and so on, “evolve”? Not asking what you think of such “evolution” but haven't we seen the transformation of many aspects of human activity in unforeseen ways?

There are those who maintain that - just as the acorn grows into the oak, just as organisms evolve in one sense, and human skills and abilities evolve in another sense - consciousness can and will “eventually”, “some day”, “in time” evolve to match our ideals and so on, and that we are progressing in that direction. Is THAT so?

“Evolution implies time; but psychologically, inwardly, is there evolution?” [Talks with American Students Chapter 12 New School for Social Research New York] Deny or accept the above examples of evolution or evolution itself, isn’t the relevant question, the burning question, to consider here whether consciousness can evolve through time?

Evolution (from the internet)


  1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

  2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jul 2017 #10
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

Paul,

Yes some assumptions are more weighty than others. But biological evolution is very weighty. Of course you will need a lot of education to really see all of the evidance that supports each and every assumption that points to and supports it. And to discover that there has been nothing discovered that invalidates it.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Wed, 26 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jul 2017 #11
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 45 posts in this forum Offline

Jess S wrote:
Change doesn't mean evolution and what I see in those examples is change, not evolution.

That's it. But okay, K's examples may not be the best. He points out that technology develops. He says it 'evolves.' Well, no. What is actually developing (evolving or not) is human thought and knowledge, in other words human consciousness. Technology is an expression of that. But he says that consciousness has not evolved. So, what type of evolution is he talking about?

Whatever K is saying is one thing but I wanted to keep track of the original question: What do you or I know of 'evolution' to say it is a fact and it would be foolish to deny it?

Yes, the cart has been replaced by the modern transportation systems. But carts and cars do not give birth to offspring that carry their mutated genes. If we relate the question to life forms and ask about the theory of evolution which pertains to Darwin, adaptation and survival of the fittest through processes of mutation, would we be foolish to deny it (as the fundamentalists do) AND would we be equally foolish to accept it without having seen it for ourselves?

WE consider the theory accepted and thereby proven, as we do with regard many other things. And in that spirit of acceptance we also accept anything that carries a certain weight of social approval and consensus. This is exactly what K meant when he talked of conditioning.

It may be foolish to deny evolution but it may also be foolish to accept it as fact. How will we know? What criteria are we employing?

I ask again, on what basis to we accept or deny this theory of evolution (of life forms)? Have we ever thought about it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jul 2017 #12
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 45 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
But biological evolution is very weighty. Of course you will need a lot of education to really see all of the evidance

Really? Is it? It may be but if you cannot show me why you accept it or deny it we are not getting anywhere.

I don't want to hear that I need a lot of education. We are largely uneducated yet we have accepted it. I want something simple that I can deal with here and now. Can you provide it? Inquire.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jul 2017 #13
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 45 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Until that psychological transformation

The cart did not mutate into the plane, right? But you want the human mind to mutate?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jul 2017 #14
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 45 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Then the 'successful' specimens ( like for instance the 'trumps') stick together procreating more "winners" - which in turn.... Of course, the process can go both ways- especially for species with larger brains like us- where the 'involution' is perhaps even more visible

Haha, yes. Isn't it incredible when you think about the complexity and sophistication of life: There are forty trillion cells in the human body and each one contains eight million mitochondrial DNA base pairs. That’s over thirty million, trillion base pairs in each one of us. We’re dealing with something so fundamental to life that any sort of mutation could have dramatic consequences for the ability of the body to generate power, either positively or, as in the case of mitochondrial disease (baby Charlie comes to mind), negatively. Each of the thirty-seven trillion cells in your body contains an independent powerhouse, mitochondria, an alien species having its own DNA, accidentally ingested by some ancestral bacteria aeons ago, before endosymbiosising into multicellular life. And after aeons of evolution we finally reach the era of humanity, the apogee of life itself, an animal that can self-reflect, that represents nature's ability to look back at itself, at its own processes and ponder. So, this human being, at the apex of evolution, almost a god, builds himself up, creates immense societies and after ten thousand years creates something called democracy and the greatest society of all, with the most refined forms of all, representing all of history in itself, not just human history bu the path taken by life itself, has its election and lo and behold elects . . . well, you know who. It says something of the absurdity of life, doesn't it? I think, if we are to evolve, now's about the time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jul 2017 #15
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 45 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
just as the acorn grows into the oak

Right now they're working on an acorn that grows directly into a bookcase :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 #16
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 2 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:

just as the acorn grows into the oak

Paul David son wrote:

Right now they're working on an acorn that grows directly into a bookcase :-)

Very funny!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 #17
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

Paul you wrote: "I don't want to hear that I need a lot of education. We are largely uneducated yet we have accepted it. I want something simple that I can deal with here and now. Can you provide it?"

You want something.

We can talk talk things over. We can explore things together. Perhaps i can only tell you how i see things. Can you listen? I see, i actually see, that there is some thing here that is not matter. I can call it the self. Something percieves from this place with these eyes. A seer. It feels things in here. It seems to be localized. It observes thoughts...here. Sorry if K says something different. That seer, though it seems to have a history and it seems full of memories, and though those memories identify as this perticular person, that seer itself is completely empty of any content.... It only sees the content.... It sees what is going on, in the world outside but also in what seems to be inside. Everything that it sees is matterial but it itself is beyond the matterial. However capable one makes a computer a computer never sees anything.

That seer is the self. It is empty. 'My' self, 'your self' both empty. In its emptyness, in their emptyness there is nothing in that one that is there, that distinguishes it from that one that is here. These two are actually the same one.

If you identify as the person, out of that there will be suffering. However fortunate ones life might be with capacity, talent, success, wealth...eventually the person dies.

This 'light' that one is, the empty seer, is of another dimension. As time is beyond space this universal seer without attributes is beyond time. Science is the understanding of things in time/space, matter and energy. Physics and technology, and also biology, including biological evolution, are understandable in that space. But seeing is of another dimension beyond time. Death is matterial, biological, understandable but seeing, nowness, meaning, intelligence, qualia are of another dimension. None of it is 'mine'.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 29 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 #18
Thumb_stringio Jason Temple United Kingdom 1 post in this forum Offline

If K said that we evolved from primates then he was wrong- as far as proven facts go. That may have been an accepted fact whilst he was alive but it has since been proven by conventional science to be incorrect. Currently there is no proof that we evolved from any known living or dead primate, period. Because of this rather unsettling fact, as far as evolutionists are concerned, they have now come up with the "common ancestor" hypothesis which is touted as if it is a fact. This hypothesis claims that primates and man evolved from some, as yet unknown (hence hypothesis), common ancestor. There is no evidence, genetic or other, that currently backs up this hypothesis. Much has been written and claimed for this hypothesis but zilch proof to date.
I'm not a creationist but I like the questions that creationist scientists have posed. Their flip side was necessary to bring some critical thinking to what is, and was, the accepted paradigms on biological evolution.
Occasionally "missing links" turn up and there is a great furore and again it's exclaimed that biological evolution from primates is again proved. Later on it's whispered under the radar that, actually, it was just a primate.
https://youtu.be/wt_WrTyW7_8 Forbidden Science - Shattering the Myths of Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Richard Milton

This post was last updated by Jason Temple Thu, 27 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #19
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 45 posts in this forum Offline

Okay, there has been such an amount of spurious philosophising and supposing that the question seems to have withered on the branch so I will come back to it in a more direct way.

If I am asked how I know the world is round, not flat, I can recount that I have been up in a plane and have observed the curvature. I can describe my experience of time changing when one goes from one side of the planet to the other. I can describe how I have seen a ship disappear over the horizon when viewed from a cliff top or how a suspension bridge over a large stretch of water appears curved though it maintains the same distance above the water along its entire length. These things have I seen. Then I can give some theoretical accounts of the movements of the planets, the rotation of the Earth and so on, but that is all secondary information, valid as it may be. It simply offers a more rigorous explanation for what has been observed in fact. But most people will simply take the theoretical explanation as fact without any type of independent check or effort at refutation. That is the psychological issue I want to apply to the question of evolution.

To say it is 'foolish' to deny evolution misses the fact that it is also foolish to accept as truth something one has no independent verification for. So, is there any way, without wading through the literature and amassing an 'education' and without accepting what others say that we can escape the position of the fool in this regard? Or are we forced to admit that with regard the theory of evolution, we are fools to say a thing?

I think there are simple ways to approach evolution, such as I suggested with the flat earth thesis, ways that are based upon observation. What amazes me is that we accept other people's words without using our own senses and our own brains to check it out. So again, can we find a simple answer to the question as to how we can decide if the theory of evolution has validity or not?

Why, concretely, would we be fools to deny evolution?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #20
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 45 posts in this forum Offline

Jess S wrote:
Can't we just doubt as well?

Yes, we can accept, deny or 'just doubt.' But we can also find out. To 'just doubt' without an effort to find out is quite as bad as acceptance or denial.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Fri, 28 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #21
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 45 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Maybe Paul, you could tell us what you have "found out" regarding the truth or falseness that you came from the monkeys.

That is clearly an inappropriate request since I have nowhere suggested I "came from the monkeys." Maybe if you were serious enough you could pose a relevant question rather than engage in ridicule. The fact is that I came from my parents but I observe that I am neither one of them nor the other, nor some obvious amalgam of the two, though I do bear many similarities. Maybe there is a clue there for you. Start from the observable fact.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Fri, 28 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #22
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

Paul wrote: "There's fact is that I came from my parents but I observe that I am neither one of them nor the other, nor some obvious amalgam of the two, though I do bear many similarities. Maybe there is a clue there for you. Start from the observable fact."

I don't know what you are looking for here Paul. Almost all facts can be questioned. For example there are examples of babies being accidentally switched in the hospital. And there are adopted or stolen children who have never been told the truth of their origin.

We learn a lot from others we hope we can trust. But we can also check out what we think are facts. Scientific discovery works like this. Every thing is subject to verrification. But if you want to just explore evolution without listening to any experts, well this was exactly Darwin's situation. Almost no one had an inkling that wild things evolved so far as to even split into seperate species. Darwin saw that humans had bred domestic animals intentionally or unintentionally and produced types that differed in all kinds of ways from the origional. Dogs are a good example. So starting with no real knowns he studied animals and plants while traveling halfway around world looking for evidence for or against his idea. We could do the same thing to verrify this view that now is the foundation of the study of all of biological science. But there is so much that has been discovered that we would probably be able to explore only a corner of the field, say insects or more likely, say hymenoptra for example how do the varrious species of wasps differ from one another embryologically, behaviourly, genetically. Will thier genetics support evolution or is there evidence there to overthrow it? Biology is a very big field.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 28 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #23
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

There is an nerve in the neck of a giraffe that goes from the brain thru a tangle of arteries and to the muscles of the layranx. No problem for an ancesteral animal with an ordinary neck but when the neck got longer to stay present and functional the nerve had to change by growing longer the nerve now now goes from the brain down the neck through the tangle of arteries and then back up the neck to get to the laryanx The nerve, is unnecesarily 15 feet in length. Not the smartest arangement. We would have to disect a giraffe to get personal proof of this. Which must be considered evidence that the giraffes neck length evolved.

Only one of an almost unlimited collection of facts supporting biological evolution.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 29 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #24
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 45 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
For example there are examples of babies being accidentally switched in the hospital.

I was a home birth.

Peter Kesting wrote:
But if you want to just explore evolution without listening to any experts, well this was exactly Darwin's situation.

I don't want to explore evolution and it has little to do with experts. I have heard what I have heard about evolution. I have accepted it as fact. But now I want to know why I have accepted it. I ask myself if there is anything observable, that does not rely on a secondhand opinion, that will affirm or negate my acceptance. Please don't fob off the inquiry with suggestions that I could have been swapped at birth. That is clearly ridiculous.

I have two children. I saw each being born and I know they were not switched. Okay. Unless all babies are being switched all over the place without their parents even suspecting, your point is non-valid. My children are not copies of their parents. Each has something quite unique. Have you had no experience with birth whatsoever? Do you deny the evidence of your own eyes and depend on what others say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #25
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 45 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
We would have to disect a giraffe to get personal proof of this. Which must be considered evidence that the giraffes neck length evolved.

No, you have not dissected a giraffe and your evidence is again secondhand. And you come nowhere near to answering the question as to why and under what condition it would be foolish to either accept or deny evolution.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #26
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 45 posts in this forum Offline

Jason Temple wrote:
If K said that we evolved from primates then he was wrong- as far as proven facts go.

I think you are mistaken about what science says, Jason. Science says that humans are primates, not that we evolved from primates. But no scientist has ever said that we evolved from monkeys. That was a spurious charge made against Darwin by various religious nuts.

Yes, it is thought that both monkeys and man evolved from common ancestors. It went against the biblical teaching that God made every species unique and they have never changed since. But this is all at the theoretical level. Are there not things we have observed personally, in our own lifetimes, that show evolution in practice? Are we totally reliant on theory?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jul 2017 #27
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

I've corrected my post #26 above.

Apologies

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 29 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jul 2017 #28
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

I still don't get what it is you are looking for Paul. You weren't around to personally observe events prior to your birth. You take other evidence then just your own observation. Were there american presidents prior to 1939? (my birth year)

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 29 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jul 2017 #29
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

Some of what you take to be true does in fact depend upon your own personal experiences with others and your discovery in that experience who it is that can be trusted and who it is that cannot be. Again i'm talking about evidence for example for and against biological evolution.

Why would anyone take the bible as true? Why would anyone take supposed occult occurances documented in thosophy as real? Why would one take mystical events connected with K to be real?

But awareness happening here in this writer is real though no one else can see it. I expect that no one will ever experience the awareness in another, though i see it as in fact the same one.

Something seen here. There is a selfless state. You have to see that for yourself.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 29 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jul 2017 #30
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

On the news tonight. An item about isis chhldren. Brain washing at 5 years old... reading books for learning to read english containing the sentences: I can shoot, I can bomb.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 57 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)