Darwin - a man of Nature, Dawkins - a theoretician

Dawkins gives himself away in an interview where he is surprised at the altruism expressed by Wikipedia contributors. Only an anal self publicist, or a fool, would be surprised that people would want to share and be recognised in the process. The answer given by Dawkins was as revealing as I have heard from this writer, but typically convoluted and obscure - as is his approach to anything that seems to contradict HIS view of nature. The contrast between Dawkins, the academic, and Darwin, the natural historian, could not be greater in this respect. Darwin had his great idea through an intuitive link with Nature itself that arose from thousands of discrete observations. Dawkins, by contrast, is not attached either to Nature or to the religion that he continually attacks. My conclusion is that he sees himself as a messianic redeemer in the process of setting up a new religion of the sciences.

The Dawkins Delusion And Pushing At Open Doors

For Marcus - Imagine a game of chess played backwards...


Evolution is an undisputed fact, but the atheists must stop looking at only the mechanism and start looking at the mechanic.

Adaptation and optimisation through a feedback system is nothing new, either in Nature, or in modern systems management, but whereas a computer program can be rewritten in a relatively short time, to rewrite a program for a natural system according to evolution, it takes a lot, lot longer. Nature itself knows of only one way to do this and it is through the death and reproduction of multiple organisms - with the possibility of mutation and a favourable adaptation in the process.

Imagine therefore, that this (material evolutionary) dynamic - having existed for millennia, masks the existence of another dynamic. A dynamic that has acted upon the other for a similarly long period of time, (using the old familiar feedback system we are so used to), only this time, it is coming from the other direction...

To describe this 'other' system as rational in our accepted sense would be wrong - perhaps pre rational then. Its function is undoubtedly teleological, so to describe it as intelligent, would certainly be right, but this is no more or less than we would describe Nature - it is highly intelligent, but not rational in the accepted sense of material consciousness.

This bridgehead into the material world involves an adaptation to (human) morphology outside of the scope of homo sapient. It involves a substantial optimisation of the organism, to facilitate the process by which it can die (instinctively), yet remain alive as permanent conduit for Mind in a feedback system that involves one individual rather than the many. This adaptation will involve a very much quicker assimilation of material reality, in what one might describe: as a new and conscious creation.

The Mystery Of The Find

8.7.2011

This is something of a diary event. It involves a find, or rather two finds. The first, a red sim card, the second, a pair of twenty pound notes. My first reaction to the find of the money was that providence was paying me for the effort I had made over the last few months to clear up the entrance to the park (where I found the notes) from the discarded rubbish by the discarded generation.


So looking deeper, the numbers and letters will be important, in determining what the two notes symbolise.

DD precedes the numbers on the first note 30 (4151)(39) = 8 - this is a feminine soul and relates to Ann (a shaker) at number eight.

CK precedes the numbers on the second note 80 866251 = 9 - this is a feminine soul, the note also bears the stamp 'no shaking'

The 20 year old would be Jemima

The CK is the father of this 33- 3x3 = 9 year old

In all eventualities this is two maternal entities wrapped up in each other.