Call me crazy...

Why hasn’t anybody, no scientists, no philosophers, thought of investigating the simple and logical theory that life in itself isn’t a dumb process, but an ever expanding intelligent process, looking to survive? Let me explain myself…

Now we know that life has been evolving for probably billions of years, more specific, around 3.5 billion years, when you look around you in nature, you stand in awe of the creatures life creates, always adapting to the environment with some of the craziest and most beautiful inventions. We know it started out on microscopic scale, but over the millions of years it, with erratic intervals, evolved into the most complex of creatures, all connected with each other in a complex maze of feeding, fighting, fornicating and fleeing. The immediate conclusion you make when you’re confronted with this web of life is that it all points to survival by all means necessary. Of the individual itself, then the offspring it produces. This is what kept life going on till today, but not without some big potholes on the way, that’s where we come in.

If this life, this process we’re part of isn’t blind or random, but trying, failing and succeeding (much like our own human evolution) then why would we’ve become an indispensable item for life to survive? We’ve already answered this question many, many times since 1974, when we first found that in the long history of life major catastrophe’s befell her. In 1974 we connected the extinction of the dinosaur with a meteorite hitting our planet. There you have it, there is our so-called God, being vengeful and creating an end-time for life. The end always rings in a new beginning…

So that’s what I’m going to try to do over the next 30 or so pages. I’m going to delve in to the idea that we’re purposely created, not by a almighty God, but by life itself. That we’re part of a strategy that will eventually create the necessary and far more complete beings who will be able to survive this planet and the relative vulnerable place we occupy in space.

Between 200 and 400AC Christian Gnostic writings described it like this:

"We, humanity, are existing in this realm because a member of the transcendent godhead, Sophia (Wisdom), desired to actualize her innate potential for creativity without the approval of her partner or divine consort. Her hubris, in this regard, stood forth as raw materiality, and her desire, which was for the mysterious ineffable Father, manifested itself as Ialdabaoth, the Demiurge, that renegade principle of generation and corruption which, by its unalterable necessity, brings all beings to life, for a brief moment, and then to death for eternity. However, since even the Pleroma itself is not, according to the Gnostics, exempt from desire or passion, there must come into play a salvific event or savior.. (cf. Apocryphon of John [Codex II] 9:25-25:14 ff.).

Desire is only one half of the Life Force. Desire, or lust, has been named as primary throughout history.

Sartre: In order to ground itself, the self needs projects, which can be viewed as aspects of an individual’s fundamental project and motivated by a desire for “being” lying within the individual’s consciousness

Epicurus: He taught that the point of all one’s actions was to attain pleasure (conceived of as tranquility) for oneself, and that this could be done by limiting one’s desires and by banishing the fear of the gods and of death

Freud: Thus his theory of the instincts or drives is essentially that the human being is energized or driven from birth by the desire to acquire and enhance bodily pleasure.

C.G. Jung: The error of Sophia, which is usually identified as a reckless desire to know the transcendent God, leads to the hypostatization of her desire in the form of a semi-divine and essentially ignorant creature known as the Demiurge

I can go on and on, but my point is; We never defined the second half of the life force.

The Buddha: The second noble truth, or reality of the origin of suffering, calls for the practice of renunciation to all mental states that generate suffering for oneself and others. The mental state that appears in the second noble truth is taṇhā, literally “thirst.” It was customary in the first Western translations of Buddhist texts (Burnouf, Fausboll, Muller, Oldenberg, Warren) to translate taṇhā by desire. This translation has misled many to think that the ultimate goal of Buddhists is the cessation of all desires. However, as Damien Keown puts it, “it is an oversimplification of the Buddhist position to assume that it seeks an end to all desire.” (1992: 222).

The first two Noble Truths of Buddhism are: Suffering & Desire.

The actual reason life created us are the mass extinctions of aeons past. Even though we sometimes think we are more likely to destroy our planet than save it, we're actually saving it. We're in no way able to destroy all life, let alone the planet. And don't worry, we're not even in control.

The major problem with the answer of the question; why are we (human-kind) here, are the sheer logical answers to the most sought after questions in ‘man’s history. For example; We'll define the life force or life forces so that it fit's almost all descriptions given to it over the last 5 millennia or so. But you won’t like it.

You won't be able to deny it’s innate properties and the significant similarities to major religious and philosophic definitions of it, you can’t even deny experiencing it, but you probably won't accept it.

But if and when you do, even just as an experiment, you’ll find that all peoples, cultures, religions, philosophies ask and try to answer the same questions, when they’re given the time an space to reflect. And that we are purposefully ignorant of our mission as to create as much uniqueness in human endeavours as possible, but always having to struggle with… authority.

God does exist as an experience life tries to define for us (and we for her...) as an abstract, unknowable, before we learned and her consciousness developed into our own. He, God, nearly killed us by creating an inferno on earth, lasting for aeons (multiple times!). We now know that earth has been hit many times, if God is doing this, He’s been visiting the Kuiper Belt ( But we (life) always survived and adapted.

So think, how do you adapt to unpredictable and unbelievable danger from, what we now call, deep space? Or, even worse, how do you adapt to a violent planet, that has threatened our global chances of survival even more in the past?

Well, you'll need something like us humans to learn and do all that's possible. And when knowledge and wisdom are sufficient you'll discard the bad and keep the good. I believe we know enough to be wise, but desperately try to hold on to our foolishness.

Nothing in this story is illogical or even needs a so-called leap of faith. I’m fully convinced that this is the reality of our existence and we will eventually all agree on that. Of course… this probably won’t be your opinion. No major new insight in who or what we are ever was accepted in the messengers life-time. So feel free to, no I urge you, to point out my misinterpretations, false statements and general ignorant assumptions. I’m perfectly willing to abdicate my conviction if proven wrong.

I used to be, pretty much, a Darwinian evolutionist. I never ever believed in a almighty God up in the heavens, and I never ever abdicated my firm believe that we’re the result of an evolving process, over many, many years and only recently ‘arrived at the scene’. A few things kept nagging me.

Why do we define nature as being 'a struggle to survive' based on competition, when I can see and feel clearly that nature is an intricate balancing act where everything depends on everything else.

Why is it that I feel 'me' as somehow separate from nature, even when I know I'm not. That must mean something. Even though I experience life as being at the centre of it, I rationally know that I'm part of this process of living nature. I sprung from nature and completely depend on nature's abundance. All I can conclude, reasoning from my ego point of view, that my, our, 'mission' must have something to do with learning. Learning through experience.

To counter the 'competition dogma' I'd like to quote Charles Eisenstein:
“In fact, the competition that we see as the driving force of life and evolution is very much a projection of our own cultural beliefs. Just as we project our own anxiety onto primitive peoples, so we project the relentless competitiveness of modern human life onto nature. Competition is an important part of nature, of course, but not the prime mover, the defining feature, nor the engine of progress." - Charles Eisenstein, "The Ascent of Humanity" page 183.

We're going to define this 'engine of progress'. The engine is also known as the trinity, it defines the building blocks of our consciousness and metaphorizes the Holy Trinity.

I start my story as if you never read the words above, and visited this blog for the first time, and remember...

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer.

No comments: