XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   dagnabit  wrote:   
   > "noname"  wrote in message news:nuq2jj$5ma$8@dont-email.me...   
   >>   
   >>> impermanence is key. nothing survives, not even   
   >>> the universe, according to some. working towards   
   >>> survival is going against the grain of the natural   
   >>> processes in place,   
   >>   
   >> That argues against evolution doesn't it?   
   >   
   > evolution occurs within the temporality of   
   > existence, so it may not have any actual   
   > significance beyond what takes place during   
   > its fleeting process .   
   >   
   >   
      
   So you accept evolution as a process that does exist, as implied there?  I   
   think it's pretty bogus myself, it tries to run water uphill when it's   
   content just sitting in a pond.   
      
   Sure, what needs to live dies, the need itself impels the conclusion.   
      
   Unfortunately the conclusion drawn from the conclusion is that the most-fit   
   survive, when maybe it's the most-fit who most strive, leaving the losers   
   behind them... the more-evolved, so to speak.  I could see that, it seems   
   more-evolved to get a high draft-number than a low draft-number, if you see   
   it that way.   
      
   Otherwise... who cares what happens over twelve zillion years, breakfast is   
   where it's at.  The world is after all a small place that revolves around   
   each of us in a spinning circle fit to dizzy the most evolved of us,   
   breakfast, lunch, dinner, sleep, breakfast, lunch...   
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)