For me, and no two people are exactly alike,
nature exists to be seen in the light of my mind with all of my senses. I
experience this as being self evident. The light in my mind is itself a
manifestation of nature. I look around at all I can see that we all
agree is natural, like the sky and sunrises and sunsets in the sea and
over mountains, at the trees and shrubs and flowers and birds and bees,
at all living things of all the kinds there are, and I see a dynamic
composition orchestrated to fill my mind with perceptions and sensations
and all kinds of feelings and emotions, as well as thoughts and ideas
that evolve and dissipate as I try to make as much sense of it all as I
can. For me this purpose for nature is blatantly self evident. 
When I look at a peacock's tail, when I see the magnificent multicolored images of many eyes, I know myself to be looking at something designed to be seen, that reminds me that nature is a mysterious creation looking at itself in innumerably different ways. I see myself the same way. I am a creation looking at myself as a manifestation of nature, in ever more sophisticated and developing ways.
I wonder how anyone can say that nature is not artistically designed to be looked at from the outside of all the kinds of animate and inanimate things there are to be seen, in all the kinds of dynamic relationships that exist between all we can sense.
When I say 'looked at", I mean in the broadest sense of being perceived in the light of a living mind.
All living organisms are governed by abstract principles that define the workings of any kind of mind. If life seeks survival, survival is an abstract principle which is meaningless outside a mind for there is no meaning outside a mind. To say life is a purposeless and meaningless, a mindless phenomenon emanating as a consequence from random chaos that just happens to come together and produce mindful purposeful and meaningful lives, such as the lives lived by the scientists who deny nature has a purpose and meaning, is simply illogical nonsense.
The so called scientific method can only register measurements scientists have a purpose in making. Purpose is part and parcel to every experiment ever made.
The purpose is to make measurements in order "to see' in the light of one's mind how nature brings things together and takes them apart. Purpose is part and parcel to every kind of
measurement made by any kind of mind of any living organism at all, and
perception is always a measurement of contrast, as living things seek out
the environments most conducive to their survival and flourishing through perception of contrast.
How can one who witnesses the phenomena of purpose in themselves, then deny it's existence in nature and call it an accident? Accidents only have meaning because life has a purpose which is inhibited or promoted by "accidents".
To say life is a meaningless and purposeless random accident of nature must be an oxymoron.
How could the coloring of this fish be created without an idea of how
it looks from the outside? Do the chemicals in chromosomes see the whole
creature they produce from the outside of the completed organism?
Of course not.
Chemicals don't see anything at all but they are themselves seen by the creator of their properties. A blueprint doesn't see the tower described in it's design. The architect sees the tower in the light of his own mind.
When we see a painting by even the most untalented and mediocre artist,
when we see any kind of art at all, we all instinctively know it to be
the product of creative purpose.
Creative purpose is demonstrated by children and in the pictures cave men made, it is an attribute of nature demonstrated in the nests birds build, the dams beavers make and in the ornaments men and woman have been adorning themselves with ever since the brain reached any degree of capacity for abstraction and language, even such as possessed by ants and by bees. To deny creative purpose is the essence of nature because that can't be proven in a laboratory, is to ignore the obvious laboratory any human mind must be to survive. It is like saying the light in the mind doesn't exist because you are blind to the electromagnetic spectrum and therefor can't see the light in the mind with which you see you are blind. It is the denial that one has a self because one doesn't see the self outside the self in a way one can measure oneself with a 1 inch ruler in one's hand.
Everything is natural and meant to be sensed in all the exquisite diversity in which life perceives the nature around any of life's manifestations and in itself.
_________________
When I look at a peacock's tail, when I see the magnificent multicolored images of many eyes, I know myself to be looking at something designed to be seen, that reminds me that nature is a mysterious creation looking at itself in innumerably different ways. I see myself the same way. I am a creation looking at myself as a manifestation of nature, in ever more sophisticated and developing ways.
I wonder how anyone can say that nature is not artistically designed to be looked at from the outside of all the kinds of animate and inanimate things there are to be seen, in all the kinds of dynamic relationships that exist between all we can sense.
When I say 'looked at", I mean in the broadest sense of being perceived in the light of a living mind.
All living organisms are governed by abstract principles that define the workings of any kind of mind. If life seeks survival, survival is an abstract principle which is meaningless outside a mind for there is no meaning outside a mind. To say life is a purposeless and meaningless, a mindless phenomenon emanating as a consequence from random chaos that just happens to come together and produce mindful purposeful and meaningful lives, such as the lives lived by the scientists who deny nature has a purpose and meaning, is simply illogical nonsense.
The so called scientific method can only register measurements scientists have a purpose in making. Purpose is part and parcel to every experiment ever made.
How can one who witnesses the phenomena of purpose in themselves, then deny it's existence in nature and call it an accident? Accidents only have meaning because life has a purpose which is inhibited or promoted by "accidents".
To say life is a meaningless and purposeless random accident of nature must be an oxymoron.
How could the coloring of this fish be created without an idea of how
it looks from the outside? Do the chemicals in chromosomes see the whole
creature they produce from the outside of the completed organism?Of course not.
Chemicals don't see anything at all but they are themselves seen by the creator of their properties. A blueprint doesn't see the tower described in it's design. The architect sees the tower in the light of his own mind.
When we see a painting by even the most untalented and mediocre artist,
when we see any kind of art at all, we all instinctively know it to be
the product of creative purpose. Creative purpose is demonstrated by children and in the pictures cave men made, it is an attribute of nature demonstrated in the nests birds build, the dams beavers make and in the ornaments men and woman have been adorning themselves with ever since the brain reached any degree of capacity for abstraction and language, even such as possessed by ants and by bees. To deny creative purpose is the essence of nature because that can't be proven in a laboratory, is to ignore the obvious laboratory any human mind must be to survive. It is like saying the light in the mind doesn't exist because you are blind to the electromagnetic spectrum and therefor can't see the light in the mind with which you see you are blind. It is the denial that one has a self because one doesn't see the self outside the self in a way one can measure oneself with a 1 inch ruler in one's hand.
Everything is natural and meant to be sensed in all the exquisite diversity in which life perceives the nature around any of life's manifestations and in itself.
_________________
No comments:
Post a Comment