Evolution at Play

Though during my spare time I've been quite engrossed in working what next step I want to take with A Simple Indulgence, I've managed to find time to comment on not one, but two of Deepak Chopra's posts on the Intent Blog recently.

It struck me how relevant one of my comments was to where I intend to go with A Simple Indulgence, in terms of describing A Universal Evolutionary Principle.

So even though it may be slightly out of context, and slightly out of sequence, I thought I would quote it here.

This was specifically in response to a comment that churches of essentially any religion or denomination are political machines of control and manipulation; my (slightly edited) reply follows:

I agree that "Churches" of any religion end up being less interested in spreading the Message of their respective Faiths, and more in their own
self-preservation, self-endorsement, and the growth of their own power and
sphere of influence.

And they do so first by making themselves self-appointed guardians of the integrity of the Message, and then perverting the Message to support their own agendas.

[TWC: On re-reading the above, I realise how similar this is to the behaviour of
Conspiracy Theorists that I posted in The Truth is Out There.... Anyway, back to the reply...]

I am not sure they all start that way intentionally, as you imply Richard, or whether it is simply a fact of any organisation: the drive for self-preservation.

Which applies equally to man-made socio-political organisations, and to organisations of cells, organs etc into species and individuals within that species.

It is part of the natural evolution of things, first to seek their own survival, and then when that is secure, to expand that survival instinct to include other individuals, species, social organisations etc.

The problem comes when the survival instinct persists longer than it needs to, and turns into xenophobia (in its broadest sense), or simply a disregard for the rights of anything other than "self".

And in this case I don't just mean "self" in terms of an individual, but in terms of the "self" of the tribe, species, social/political group etc

And that leads to a perception that the "self" is in some way distinct from the whole.

So I agree that it is a fiction to believe that there is any separation of "self" from God / The Divine Whole, and that the truth is that we are all one and connected.

I am not sure that I agree with the implication that this distinction is motivated by Evil powers. I think it is part of the process of evolution and enlightment that we go through this, and that any "Evil" we see is more the act of the un-enlightened.

And that to me answers the question as to why God created Satan: because it is through Satan and his acts, and the understanding of both how harmful but ultimately futile they are, that we evolve and reach the enlightment that shows us the Truth.

[TWC: Richard had mentioned a "Masters' intention", which I took to mean a Divine Plan, but adopted his terminology for what follows...]

I do not think we are straying from the Masters' intention. I think we are simply going through the process of achieving it: i.e. we are evolving away from the instinct of self-preservation, towards a more enlightened future.

However that can only happen once a species' survival is no longer under constant and immediate threat, and the intense need for self-preservation as the number one priority passes.

Until that point however, the self-preservation instinct is vital, to ensure the continuity of evolution and spiritual sophistication of that species, to a point where it can reach enlightment.

Oh, and I am not entirely convinced humanity is necessarily the vehicle by which the Masters' plan will be achieved.

I think it is arrogant to believe that the Masters play favourites with species, or that we are "favoured" by them.

However I do think we are currently the best bet of all the species we know (and therefore may receive extra attention and assistance from the Masters), but I think we have yet to prove that we are capable of rising to the challenge.

That does not mean the Masters' plan is either flawed or will fail.

It simply means that if WE fail to achieve it, then following our demise as a species, eventually some other species will evolve to a similar degree of spiritual sophistication to achieve their plan. Either on this planet, in this solar system, or in another one.

I kind of touched on this in a posting on my own blog.

A Simple Indulgence

We all know that there is an alluring elegance in simplicity, hence the saying "less is more".

However sometimes we can overlook the power of simple ideas, especially when trying to understand or explain the very complex: we become fixated on the minute detail, and fail to see the blatantly obvious. Not seeing the wood for the trees I guess. Or as Bruce Lee said in one of his famous quotes:

It is like a finger pointing toward the moon. Don't concentrate on the
finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.

With that in mind, I request your indulgence to explore the following simple idea:

All things stay in a state of flux and change until a stable configuration
emerges.
Any stable configuration survives for as long as it can withstand internal and external influences, before loosing stability and changing into a state of flux and change.

Put more succintly, it says: "unstable things remain unstable until something stable emerges, and stable things remain stable until they decay into something unstable."

Seems obvious doesn't it? Hardly rocket science. So why am I mentioning this? What is so special about this particular idea?

Well, put simply, it is the basis of all that we observe in the Universe, including our own existence, and has some very profound implications for the future.

That is quite a bold statement to make, and I will be expanding on that in future posts.

However I would like to make a couple of things clear first:

The idea itself does not talk about the mechanism by which stable things emerge, and ultimately decay; just that they do. Or rather that they can, it does not even mandate a transition between stability and instability, it just allows the possibility of emergence and decay in any system. The specific mechanism(s) are dependant on the system in question.

It also makes no specific claims about what constitutes stability and instability: the common English definitions are assumed (as per links).

As such it is a universal principle that can be applied to anything and everything at any and every level of existence.

I believe it can be easily proved, and will attempt to do so in a future post.

Also in future installments I shall further expand on why I believe it to be the basis of all that we observe in the Universe, what it tells us about the future, and why I believe this idea is so important for us.