User talk:Monami

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE ETERNAL QUESTION??


The evolution of life forms has been a matter for discussion over the centuries. The discussion has been progressed by philosophers, scientists, astro physicists, religious doctorines, politicians, astronomers and astrologers and most other disciplines in society.

As such, one cannot discount or disregard any of these thought processes. Each discipline has its own benchmarks for validation and verification of their doctrines.

These disciplines, even though on the face of it, are mutually exclusive, but one has to accept the possibility of cross integration between them.

The possibility of a supreme being has been given the name of God or Allah or Bhagwan or Jehovah or supreme energy or a superior alien race or the great white light, amongst other nomenclatures.

One thing common amongst all these through civilisations, is the analogy to something which humans have considered a power superior to themselves. Religion has relied on blind faith. Scientists are in a quandary, as the basis of science is the ability to explain something implicitly. This is not possible, when it is knowledge beyond civilisations current understanding at that time.

There was a time when cultures believed in aspects of nature as the Supreme Being. Some still do. However, every time civilisation develops understanding of something, it leads to the question of what created that which is understood. And once again, the debate and discussion resumes where it started.

Scientists believe that they know everything, well almost. But if one considers any point in time in history, the human race thought what they knew then was the ultimate truth. Any other thoughts were suppressed in one for or another. However, it is in the human nature, of SOME (I will return to this later on), to push against the boundaries of current understanding and progress it in some way.

Where would we be without people like Krishna, Buddha, Moses, Mohammed, Jesus, Homer, Socrates, Aristotle, Egyptian pyramid architects, Leonardo D Vinci, Mendelssohn, Christopher Columbus, Darwin, Bach, Mozart, Albert Einstein to name just a few. Each was radical in their doctrines in their lifetime.

The argument I put to people who advocate that human understanding about everything has progressed so much, that there is very little yet to be discovered! If this was the case, would we not still believe that the world was flat? Would we know about the number ZERO? (If that can be classed as a number!!)Would we know how to pasteurise milk? Would we know about space and other galaxies and planets? Would we appreciate that light can bend round corners? Would we understand the speed of light and time? Would we understand that an atom could be split? Would we know that machines as small as a pin head could perform trillions of calculations per second? There are a whole plethora of instances, where knowledge has been undergone a quantum leap. So to discount the possibility of such an event happening again is surely not a defendable argument. It is a comfortable situation to let others do the thinking and exploring for some. Expediency is comforting but rarely moves knowledge further. There has to be a position, a very high one, for radical thought. We have to aim higher than our reach, WHAT ELSE IS A HEAVEN FOR??

Let us start from a view point of not trying to reinvent the wheel. If we assume the statement of various doctrines as true.

If we consider a pyramid structure of gene proliferation. ‘The Selfish Gene’(Dr.Richard Dawkins) principle, though a valid theory, I feel is not complete in itself.

Same is true for natural selection (Charles Darwin) as a representation of evolution.

If we consider, that the real meaning of life is self propagation of the gene pool. The genes are pre-programmed to behave in a certain manner. However, there are different types of genes. Starting from the MASTER genes at the top of the pyramid, with the common genes at the bottom. The shape of the multi dimensional pyramid holds a constant ratio of angles, much akin to the ratios of the ‘magic triangle’. The number of genes at the bottom is proportionately greater than those above it and so on until we reach the top. Natural selection occurs at each level. Thus, at the bottom, natural selection occurs at a larger number than above it, however, the net effect is less apparent.

This also explains why in earlier civilisations and cultures, communication between the bottom and top of the pyramid seems easier. This is because the distance between them is smaller. As civilisations have expanded, the greatest increase has been at the bottom on the pyramid, as a result, increasing the distance to the top.

At any point in time, genes are programmed more directly by the ones immediately above it and so there is a greater dilution from the top.

What about the other side of the coin? DEVIL? SHAITAN? SATAN?

Well this too forms a pyramidical structure.Only; it is a mirror image of the ‘GOOD’ pyramid.

The battlefront is at the interface of the two pyramids at each level. Depending on who wins, dictates which pyramid grows faster than the other.

This also leads to explain the concept of Armageddon, Judgement Day, Kalyug, End of the World scenarios, amongst other similar concepts.

It would be close minded to assume that the top and for that matter, the bottom of the pyramid exist on Earth. There is no reason why we are not just somewhere in the pyramid. The top and for that matter the bottom may be on another battlefront. Earth is simply one part of the whole picture.

However, some estimation can be made. If we look at the population at any given point in time on earth, (one that we can measure), we can interpolate backwards and forwards to gain an insight to a frame of reference and infer a possible scenario for the future.

This aspect of research and debate and discussion can benefit from using the power of the brain.Well, surely two minds is better than one, and so far onwards exponentially.

There are various other ideas to explore. I would very much appreciate input from others on this.

Contents

[edit] welcome, etc

Welcome!

Hello, Monami, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

[edit] NOTE

Wikipedia is not free web hosting. We expect you to contribute someinth to the wiki, not just put your personal philsophy on your talk page. Dunc|☺ 3 July 2005 11:04 (UTC)

[edit] Hello from AlMac

The questions you raise, most of us have struggled with some of them at some points in our lives, and they can be difficult to have a meaningful discussion with anyone without high risk of getting into a fight, because over our lives we develop deep beliefs about who we are, why we are here, the meaning of life, standards of ethics and morality, most of which are somewhat different from people who have come to accept a different mixture of faiths. AlMac 8 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)

For example, most religious people believe that the contents of their holy works are the word of God, not to be questioned about contamination by translators who came from a Patriarchal society, or speculate that when God spoke, that some places he was speaking metaphorically. AlMac 8 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)
Our theories are contaminated by what we have witnessed through instruments invented so far, and the process by which new theories are accepted into a larger community. AlMac 8 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy a science?

I take on board your suggestion that Wikipedia is not free web hosting.However,the implication was that my posting had not added anything and was my own philosophy.I had a question.Is philosophy not a science? Has Philosophy over the ages,not provided insights and clues to most important future discoveries? Surely,a philosophy is the springboard for free thought and kateral thinkinng? A Edward de Bono mentions in his book on lateral thinking, by jumping into an already dug hole and start digging, we will become adept at digging the same hole.It may be a better alternative to start digging another hole.One may find another path to the solution which may be better than the already formulated thought structures.

As such, does my entry not add to the philosophical content of Wikipedia?

I would appreciate your comments and anyone elses on this.

You ssem to misunderstand what a science is. Science is specifically the product of the refinement of natural philosophy, which was a branch of philosophy that conjectured that understanding must rely on experience. As natural philosophy developed, concepts such as the need for reproducable experimentation, peer review, and a number of other elements were added. What we call science, today, is a philosophy of investigative and experimental understanding as well as the body of knowledge derived through the application of its strictures. However. the reverse is most certainly not true: most philosophies have little overlap with science, and do not share its focus on experience, experiment or reproducability.
I think that were people are concerned about your contributions is that you seem to be pushing a general philosophical adjunct to topics which are the product of science, specifically. This would be akin to editing an article on Taoist philosophy and questioning its experimental reproducability. The two approaches are incompatible, and thus the edit would be innapropriate. -Harmil 14:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy & science

I can't quite remember what you did, you may have written a POV essay in the main namespace or posted something irrelevant to an encyclopedia on a talk page editing as an anon IP (I can't remember exactly). The purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopaedia and I for one do not wish to discuss philosophy with you. Now I don't mean to bite you, but if you don't contribute and just try use the wiki as a message board for own original research that's bad form. Dunc|☺ 13:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for comments

Thank you for correcting me. I am a newcomer and it is by advice and constructive criticism I hope to improve.

I look forward to all your support and advice in assisting me to contribute to this project.

A small point on language: It seems that you have a hard time with English, which could make it hard for you to contribute to the English Wikipedia. Have you considered contributing to the Wikipedia of your native language? There, you might find the advice of others easier to understand and apply. Just a thought. Of course, if you want to work on en, then more power to you, but I just want you to know it's an up-hill battle for many non-native speakers. -Harmil 15:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pls clarify Hamil

Hi Hamil.Thks for advice. Pls clarify where my English was below par,so that I know where to improve.