Back Theoretics

This, That, or Both?

People struggle to prove the validity of their viewpoints because of the strength of their emotional attachments to ideas. Force of will, force of intellect, force of emotion and, finally, physical force are used as techniques in the battle of ideas. The real issue is the glorification of the self, achieved through the domination of others. It's very Luciferian. Sincere conviction is often the artifice used to avoid recognition of the ugly truth of our own emotional motivations.

There are many notable examples where the reality of the need to dominate is acted out in an either/or venue. I'll point out three. Evolution vs. creation is one of these major fields of contention. That anyone should deny the reality of evolution seems ludicrous to me. It's a principal readily observable in our own lives. The spiritual, mental, emotional and physical aspects of our beings continuously evolve. You can deny that fact only to retard the process.

On the other hand, if one experiments with spiritual growth it leads to an obvious conclusion. There must be a Creator. Folks who deny that are limited to their own material horizons. For them, a physical definition of reality must be the answer. I've been alternatively amused and annoyed by the shortsightedness of both sides. The simple idea that the evolutionary process is part of the creation is seldom suggested. It seems obvious to me. It isn't either/or, this or that. It's both. Intensity of belief is no benchmark of validity. While your reality may be dependent on a particular set of beliefs, the Universe is not.

When the heated 'this-or-thatters' take the battle for personal domination into the educational system, it is time for limits to be suggested. Science is science. There are discreet techniques and rational values such as repeatability that must be followed. Beliefs are not science ... even when they are true. I don't mean to suggest that scientists can't have a belief system to enrich their lives. Care needs to be taken so belief doesn't skew results if it is factored in as an absolute given in scientific inquiry. Manipulating observations to support belief is fraud.

Another area of contention is in the nature or nurture, environment vs. heredity discourse. Fortunately the virulence of this discussion has subsided a bit. Here again, it seems obvious that both are co-equally valid. We each have discreet limitations place upon us by our heredity. Evolution occurs as a response to our environment through the filter of our capacities. The two are inseparable unless you are trying to force your opinionated dominance through an either/or conflict.

In the realm of human creation, invention versus discovery may seem to be in conflict. Edison sneered at those who were recognized as discoverers. Invention, action by intent, was the root of his self-image. Any true creative endeavor will include both intent and discovery. The proportions of each will vary in every new undertaking. Perhaps the most notable difference is that invention yields self-satisfaction while discovery yields wonder. The joy of creation is a composite of both.