|Unconscious Procreation||Under Construction|
This page was made in early 2013. Since that time, and elsewhere throughout this website, additional material related to this topic has been posted.
For now, at least, this page stands as is. Related:
■ Children as Slaves: – Lying to Children, Children as Pawns, Property, Zombies, and Weapons
■ the book of children
■ Gaian Corps blog: – Human Rights, The War Zone, It Is All a Conspiracy
Procreation describes a basic function common to all forms of life — reproduction.
For all practicable purposes, the word, Procreation, has the same meaning across all classes of living organisms — from protozoa to modern man.
Why is there no distinction made / no alternative word (or phrase) available to differentiate the process of procreating by the only conscious living being (Man) as opposed to all other forms of (non-conscious / unconscious / instinctive) living organisms?
For example if the noun phrase "Unconscious Procreation" is also a pleonasm (redundant phase), that fact in and of itself indicates no distinction made with Procreation within the English language. (See: Google search to verify that Unconscious Procreation" is virtually unused in the English language.) Also indicating redundantcy is the lack of evidence for "conscious procreation".
Does Conscious Procreation exist anywhere in the Universe?
If "There is no true divinity except Man." (LINK), then there is no such thing Conscious Procreation, because it sure is not happening here!
Use of Force When a woman and a man together create a new human being, they are forcing the creation of a new soul. Whether that soul becomes the incarnation of a pre-existing soul, or takes on a brand new identity is irrelevant.
Results from Google Search (exact phrase) Results
See: Google Search
|instinct to procreate
About 229,000 results
About 59,200 results
|natural urge to procreate
About 27,500 results
|natural drive to procreate
About 10,900 results
|nature to procreate
About 42,700 results
|human nature to procreate
About 11,500 results
About 14,300 results
About 9,850 results
About 7,680 results
About 5,270 results
Universe is a Machine
The Universe is a machine. How it came into existence is unknown. The machine began to wear down, as all things mechancal do, and figured out a way to possibly counteract the progression of entropy / time. The machine eventually evolved life. Life evolved memory, from which souls emerged and evolved. The souls have the collective memory / knowledge, but they don't have manipulative appendages nor exist incarnate in 3D worlds. They are the intelligence of the machine, but they can't fix anything without tools and hands with which to use the tools.
to be continued . . .
From: Secret of Secrets
When you purchase a computer from the store, it comes with the operating system pre-installed.
The same way when a child is born, the child comes into the world with their operating system pre-installed.
■ You do not teach the child to breath, nor do you teach their heart to beat.
■ Our operating system is pre-installed by our DNA.
When you bring that computer home with the pre-installed operating system, that same operating system allows you to install new additional program/software that did not come with the computer.
With humans, after the child is born and brought home, the child has new programs installed by the parents and others close to the child.
■ Language is an example of a program.
■ We also install programs in the child such as fears, phobias, and behaviors.
The most important and long-lasting programs are installed in children in their first 6 years of life.
■ These programs include everything from language to social interactions.
Many things that we as adults suffer from often have their roots in programs that were installed in us during these first 6 years of life.
Just like with computers, these programs tell us and our bodies have to act or react to others, and our environment.
■ These programs also dictate our abilities and limitations.
Unconscious Procreation is an aggregation of information from a variety of sources on the Internet. Much of the information presented has been hidden from the public domain for most of recorded history. The Internet has greatly increased the dissemination of knowledge and enables almost anyone with a desire to learn to access this collective wisdom of the ages. The simple fact of this formerly hidden and secret information now being available is a good indication of the extraordinary conditions now present on Earth.
Primary source materials is from the Fourth Way school of thought — and especially from the legunds of its origins, laws of 'world creation and maintenance', and "...the sense and significance of life on Earth and human life in particular?" 
For the sake of arguement, three assumptions are made:
- There are unseen / unknown forces beyond the realm of the Earth — forces which greatly influence life on earth.
- The source material is a combination of truths, half-truths, lies, and outright deception. Verify everything.
- Humans as batteries in the Matrix is a crude but apt analogy.
It is probably by definition a pleonasm (redundant phase). Redundant due to the lack of evidence for "conscious procreation".
Quoting from the Meriam-Webster definition of procreation: "Animals have a natural instinct to procreate".
Given that animals (excluding humans) are not conscious (under the generally accepted definition of the word) the usage of the noun phrase (unconscious procreation) would be an obvious pleonasm if it was used in any context of the animal kingdom.
Not to belabor the point, but it's again quite obvious that, again excluding humans, that the only kind of procreation is in fact also unconscious or instinctual — and again, therefore it is unnecessary to be described as such. How often is the noun phrase, "instinctive procreation" used?
- Creationists of all kinds . . . “God did it!”
- Assumes a benevolent God
- Darwinists of all stripes . . . "It just happened — poof! — like magic!”
- Assumes unbiased 'law conformity'
- Outside Intervention . . . “They did it!”
- Assumes conscious intelligence (LINK)
- "God exists, but he is insane. And he works against humanity." (LINK)
- Assumes an unconscious intelligence
Two types of human beings
- Psycopaths and Non-Psycopaths (simplistic distinction)
- Having Progeny and Without Progeny (another simplistic distinction)
- Attached to the senses and to the things of this world -- one who lives in unconsciousness and ignorance and those with some degree of Conscience (yet again)
- Killers and Non-Killers (for example soldgers, police, Banking-Military-Industrial-Media-Pharmacutical Complex, war-mongering politicans and citizens, versus . . . well there are a few that do not fall into the former category)
- Preditors and Prey
un·con·scious - ən-ˈkän(t)-shəs
— un·con·scious·ly – adverb
— un·con·scious·ness – noun
First Known Use of UNCONSCIOUS - 1712
First Known Use of UNCONSCIOUS — circa 1912
Other Psychology Terms
unconscious noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
In psychoanalysis, the part of the psychic apparatus that does not ordinarily enter the individual's awareness but may be manifested by slips of the tongue, dreams, or neurotic symptoms (see neurosis). The existence of unconscious mental activities was first elaborated by Sigmund Freud and is now a well-established principle of psychiatry. The origin of many neurotic symptoms is said to depend on conflicts that have been removed from consciousness by repression and maintained in the unconscious through various defense mechanisms. Recent biopsychological explorations have shed light on the relationship between brain physiology and the levels of consciousness at which people retain memories.
Variants of UNCONSCIOUS
Cited below are (15) instances with the contextual usage of the word "unconscious" as it appears in the Fourth Way. Three additional instances appear in the Fourth Way, which are not listed below. (see: pages 173, 183, 244)
By way of comparison, the word "Conscious" appears in 701 instances vs. "unconscious" appearing in only (18) instances.
To further the point, in the Chapter I (27 pages), the word "conscious" appears (70+) times , vs. (3) times only for unconscious, and these three instances were grouped together within a word span of fewer than 100 words (on page 28, and within the following citation).
Try to connect in your mind what I said about the study of good and evil, mechanicalness and consciousness, morality and conscience, and then put the question, 'Is conscious evil possible?' That will require study and observation, but from the point of view of the system there is a definite principle that conscious evil is impossible; mechanicalness must be unconscious.
Q. The idea of evil being always unconscious is rather difficult to understand. Can you explain it a little more?
A. I said, first of all try to find for yourself what you call evil, not by definition but by examples. When you have a certain number of examples, ask yourself, could they be conscious? Could evil things be done consciously? Later you will see they could be done only unconsciously. Another answer is that all you call evil can happen mechanically, and it always does happen mechanically, so it has no need of consciousness. (Fourth Way, p 27-8)
. . .
You see, although a great many of our 'I's are disconnected and do not even know one another, they are divided into certain groups. This does not mean that they are divided consciously; they are divided by circumstances of life.
These groups of 'I's manifest themselves as roles that a man plays in his life. Everybody has a certain number of roles: one corresponds to one set of conditions, another to another and so on. Man himself seldom notices these differences.
For instance, he has one role for his work, another for his home, yet another among friends, another if he is interested in sport, and so on. These roles are easier to observe in other people than in oneself. People are often so different in different conditions that these roles become quite obvious and well defined; but sometimes they are better hidden or even played only inside without any external manifestations.
All people, whether they know it or not, whether they wish it or not, have certain roles which they play. This acting is unconscious. If it could be conscious, it would be quite different, but one never notices how one passes from one role to another. Or if one notices it one persuades oneself that one is doing it on purpose, that it is a conscious action. In reality the change is always controlled by circumstances, it cannot be controlled by man himself, because he himself does not exist yet. (Fourth Way, p 41)
. . .
Q. What is meant by the law of accident?
A. The life of man-machine, of man who cannot 'do', who has no will or choice, is controlled by accident, for things in ordinary life happen mechanically, accidentally; there is no reason in them.
And just as man's external life is controlled by accidental external influences, so is his inner life also controlled by both internal and external influences which are equally accidental.
You will understand that, if you realize what it means that man is asleep, that he cannot 'do', cannot remember himself; when you think of the constant unconscious flow:
- of thoughts in man
- of day-dreaming
- of identifying and considering
- of mental conversations that go on in him
- of his constant deviation towards the line of least resistance
People think that accidents are rare, but in actual fact most things that happen to them are accidental. (Fourth Way, p 96)
. . .
In our ordinary ways of thinking and feeling there are many mechanical tendencies which always turn us in the usual way. We want to think in another way, we want to be different, to work in another way, to feel in a new way, but nothing happens, because there are so many old tendencies which turn us back. We must study these tendencies and try to throw light on them.
Above all, we must overcome the inertia of mind; then, if we do, twenty-four hours will not be sufficient and life will become very full. It is difficult to begin—and yet it is not so difficult.
Q. How can one conquer this inertia?
A. By effort: effort to self-remember, to observe, not to identify. Consciousness is a force, and force can only be developed by overcoming obstacles.
Two things can be developed in man — consciousness and will. Both are forces.
If man overcomes unconsciousness, he will possess consciousness; if he overcomes mechanicalness he will possess will.
If he understands the nature of the powers he can attain, it will be clear to him that they cannot be given; these powers must be developed by effort. (Fourth Way, p 126)
. . .
You see, one of the most difficult things is to recognize right and wrong, or good and evil. Our mind is not accustomed to think about it in relation to consciousness. We think that there must be a permanent external definition that can be accepted, remembered and followed, and we do not realize that there can be no external definition. But there are inner qualities of actions which determine things.
This idea of the relation of good and bad to conscious and unconscious is a very useful thing to think about . . .(Fourth Way, p 156)
. . .
Q. Then is man in a higher state of consciousness subject to fewer laws than we are? A. Certainly, because most of the laws we have to obey are the result of our sleep and our unconsciousness. Every step we make in becoming more conscious sets us more free. (Fourth Way, p 212)
. . .
All energy that you receive is food. The food you eat is coarse material, air is finer, impressions are the finest and the most important food. Man cannot live a single moment without impressions. Even when he is unconscious there are impressions. (Fourth Way, p 232)
. . .
Q. Cannot drugs put us in touch with higher centres? A. The idea of drugs is not new; drugs were used in ancient and mediaeval times — in ancient Mysteries, in magic and so on. It was found that interesting states result from a clever use of drugs. But the system objects to drugs. The use of drugs does not give good results because drugs cannot affect consciousness, they cannot add consciousness. By stupefying lower centres they can put us into contact with higher centres; but it would be of no use to us, because we can remember only as much as we have consciousness. Since we have no consciousness, connection with higher centres will only result in dreams or in unconsciousness. (Fourth Way, p 242)
. . .
But it cannot happen—one cannot become conscious unconsciously. (Fourth Way, p 248)
. . .
I said then that in ordinary life people cannot change anything in themselves, because by changing one thing they unconsciously change another. Without knowing how to do it, it is quite useless. (Fourth Way, p 321)
. . .
Q. How can I learn to feel more? I live so much in my head. I get too little out of life and there is a barrier between me and the system.
A. This is everybody's problem, because if people could feel more, many things would be easier for them. But they have been for a long time unconsciously creating so many protective devices against feeling that there cannot be any at present . . . It is necessary to find a beginning; without a beginning nothing is possible. You must begin somewhere; there are things that are more difficult and others that are less difficult. (Fourth Way, p 325)
. . .
. . . some people I knew had very interesting recollections of the first years of life, and they all had the same impression, that their mentality was not a child's mentality or a child's psychology. Do you see what I mean? They had a ready mind, with quite grown-up reactions and a way of looking at people and recognizing them, such as could not be formed in the course of six months of unconscious life. (Fourth Way, p 430)
. . .
As I said, only by remembering. If you remember that you lived before, what it was like, what happened, then you will know. If you do not remember, you cannot be sure. Theory speaks like that: if you remember yourself in one life, you will remember in the next. If you are unconscious in this life, you will not remember. So first you must become conscious in this life. (Fourth Way, p 434)
pro·cre·ate verb | prō-krē-ˌāt | pro·cre·at·ed; pro·cre·at·ing
|: to beget or bring forth (offspring) : propagate|
|: to beget or bring forth offspring : reproduce|
Examples of PROCREATE
Animals have a natural instinct to procreate.
<the common perception that our Puritan forebears procreated more out of a sense of duty than from desire>
Origin of PROCREATE
|First Known Use: 1536|
pro·cre·ate verb | \ˈprō-krē-ˌāt\ | (Medical Dictionary) | pro·cre·at·ed; pro·cre·at·ing
|: to beget or bring forth (offspring) : propagate|
|: to beget or bring forth offspring : reproduce|
Reproduction is a fundamental feature of all known life; each individual organism exists as the result of reproduction.
In asexual reproduction, an individual can reproduce without involvement with another individual of that species. The division of a bacterial cell into two daughter cells is an example of asexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction is not, however, limited to single-celled organisms. Most plants have the ability to reproduce asexually and the ant species http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycocepurus_smithii is thought to reproduce entirely by asexual means.
Main article: Asexual reproduction
Asexual reproduction is the process by which an organism creates a genetically similar or identical copy of itself without a contribution of genetic material from another individual.
Viruses take control of host cells to produce more viruses
These organisms often do not possess different sexes, and they are capable of "splitting" themselves into two or more individuals.
For instance, most plants are capable of vegetative reproduction — reproduction without seeds or spores — but can also reproduce sexually.
Likewise, bacteria may exchange genetic information by conjugation.
Parthenogenesis occurs naturally in some species, including:
It is sometimes also used to describe reproduction modes in hermaphroditic species which can self-fertilize.
Main article: Sexual reproduction
Sexual reproduction is a biological process by which organisms create descendants that have a combination of genetic material contributed from two (usually) different members of the species. (Self-fertilization requires only one organism.)
Most organisms form two different types of gametes.
In these anisogamous species, the two sexes are referred to as male (producing sperm or microspores) and female (producing ova or megaspores).
In isogamous species, the gametes are similar or identical in form (isogametes), but may have separable properties and then may be given other different names (see isogamy). For example, in the green alga, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, there are so-called "plus" and "minus" gametes. A few types of organisms, such as ciliates, Paramecium aurelia, have more than two types of "sex", called syngens. 
Most animals (including humans) and plants reproduce sexually.
Sexually reproducing organisms have different sets of genes for every trait (called alleles).
Offspring inherit one allele for each trait from each parent, thereby ensuring that offspring have a combination of the parents' genes.
Diploid having two copies of every gene within an organism, it is believed that "the masking of deleterious alleles favors the evolution of a dominant diploid phase in organisms that alternate between haploid and diploid phases" where recombination occurs freely. 
Bryophyte reproduces sexually but its commonly seen life forms are all haploid, which produce gametes.
The zygotes of the gametes develop into sporangium, which produces haploid spores.
The diploid stage is relatively short compared with that of haploid stage, i.e. haploid dominance.
The advantage of diploid, e.g. heterosis, only takes place in diploid life stage.
Bryophyte still maintains the sexual reproduction during its evolution despite the fact that the haploid stage does not benefit from heterosis at all.
This may be an example that the sexual reproduction has a bigger advantage by itself, since it allows gene shuffling (hybrid or recombination between multiple loci) among different members of the species, that permits natural selection of the fit over these new hybrids or recombinants that are haploid forms. 
Main article: Allogamy
Allogamy is a term used in the field of biological reproduction describing the fertilization of an ovum from one individual with the spermatozoa of another.
Self-fertilization (also known as autogamy) occurs in hermaphroditic organisms where the two gametes fused in fertilization come from the same individual. They are bound and all the cells merge to form one new gamete.
Mitosis and meiosis
Mitosis and meiosis are an integral part of cell division.
Mitosis occurs in somatic cells
Meiosis occurs in gametes.
The resultant number of cells in mitosis is twice the number of original cells. The number of chromosomes in the daughter cells is the same as that of the parent cell.
The resultant number of cells is four times the number of original cells. This results in cells with half the number of chromosomes present in the parent cell. A diploid cell duplicates itself, then undergoes two divisions (tetraploid to diploid to haploid), in the process forming four haploid cells. This process occurs in two phases, meiosis I and meiosis II.
There are a wide range of reproductive strategies employed by different species.
Some animals, such as the human and Northern Gannet, do not reach sexual maturity for many years after birth and even then produce few offspring.
Others reproduce quickly; but, under normal circumstances, most offspring do not survive to adulthood.
For example, a rabbit (mature after 8 months) can produce 10–30 offspring per year
A fruit fly (mature after 10–14 days) can produce up to 900 offspring per year.
These two main Reproductive strategies are known as:
K-selection (few offspring)
r-selection (many offspring)
Which strategy is favoured by evolution depends on a variety of circumstances.
Animals with few offspring can devote more resources to the nurturing and protection of each individual offspring, thus reducing the need for many offspring.
On the other hand, animals with many offspring may devote fewer resources to each individual offspring; for these types of animals it is common for many offspring to die soon after birth, but enough individuals typically survive to maintain the population.
Some organisms such as honey bees and fruit flies retain sperm in a process called sperm storage thereby increasing the duration of their fertility.
Other types of reproductive strategies
Main article: Semelparity and Iteroparity
Polycyclic animals reproduce intermittently throughout their lives.
Semelparous organisms reproduce only once in their lifetime, such as annual plants (including all grain crops), and certain species of salmon, spider, bamboo and centru plant. Often, they die shortly after reproduction. This is often associated with r-strategists.Iteroparous organisms produce offspring in successive (e.g. annual or seasonal) cycles, such as perennial plants. Iteroparous animals survive over multiple seasons (or periodic condition changes). This is more associated with K-strategists.
Asexual vs. sexual reproduction
Organisms that reproduce through asexual reproduction tend to grow in number exponentially. However, because they rely on mutation for variations in their DNA, all members of the species have similar vulnerabilities. Organisms that reproduce sexually yield a smaller number of offspring, but the large amount of variation in their genes makes them less susceptible to disease.
Many organisms can reproduce sexually as well as asexually. Aphids, slime molds, sea anemones, some species of starfish (by fragmentation), and many plants are examples. When environmental factors are favorable, asexual reproduction is employed to exploit suitable conditions for survival such as an abundant food supply, adequate shelter, favorable climate, disease, optimum pH or a proper mix of other lifestyle requirements. Populations of these organisms increase exponentially via asexual reproductive strategies to take full advantage of the rich supply resources.
When food sources have been depleted, the climate becomes hostile, or individual survival is jeopardized by some other adverse change in living conditions, these organisms switch to sexual forms of reproduction. Sexual reproduction ensures a mixing of the gene pool of the species. The variations found in offspring of sexual reproduction allow some individuals to be better suited for survival and provide a mechanism for selective adaptation to occur. The meiosis stage of the sexual cycle also allows especially effective repair of DNA damages (see Meiosis and Bernstein et al.).
In addition, sexual reproduction usually results in the formation of a life stage that is able to endure the conditions that threaten the offspring of an asexual parent. Thus, seeds, spores, eggs, pupae, cysts or other "over-wintering" stages of sexual reproduction ensure the survival during unfavorable times and the organism can "wait out" adverse situations until a swing back to suitability occurs.
Sexual reproduction has many drawbacks, since it requires far more energy than asexual reproduction and diverts the organisms from other pursuits, and there is some argument about why so many species use it.
George C. Williams used lottery tickets as an analogy in one explanation for the widespread use of sexual reproduction. 
He argued that asexual reproduction, which produces little or no genetic variety in offspring, was like buying many tickets that all have the same number, limiting the chance of "winning" - that is, producing surviving offspring. Sexual reproduction, he argued, was like purchasing fewer tickets but with a greater variety of numbers and therefore a greater chance of success.
The point of this analogy is that since asexual reproduction does not produce genetic variations, there is little ability to quickly adapt to a changing environment. The lottery principle is less accepted these days because of evidence that asexual reproduction is more prevalent in unstable environments, the opposite of what it predicts.
The existence of life without reproduction is the subject of some speculation. The biological study of how the origin of life led from non-reproducing elements to reproducing organisms is called abiogenesis. Whether or not there were several independent abiogenetic events, biologists believe that the last universal ancestor to all present life on earth lived about 3.5 billion years ago.
Today, some scientists have speculated about the possibility of creating life non-reproductively in the laboratory. Several scientists have succeeded in producing simple viruses from entirely non-living materials. The virus is often regarded as not alive. Being nothing more than a bit of RNA or DNA in a protein capsule, they have no metabolism and can only replicate with the assistance of a hijacked cell's metabolic machinery.
The production of a truly living organism (e.g., a simple bacterium) with no ancestors would be a much more complex task, but may well be possible to some degree according to current biological knowledge. A synthetic genome has been transferred into an existing bacterium where it replaced the native DNA, resulting in the artificial production of a new M. mycoides organism.
There is some debate within the scientific community over whether this cell can be considered completely synthetic on the grounds that the chemically synthesized genome was an almost 1:1 copy of a naturally occurring genome and, the recipient cell was a naturally occurring bacterium. The Craig Venter Institute maintains the term "synthetic bacterial cell" but they also clarify "...we do not consider this to be "creating life from scratch" but rather we are creating new life out of already existing life using synthetic DNA."  Venter plans to patent his experimental cells, stating that "they are pretty clearly human inventions". Its creators suggests that building 'synthetic life' would allow researchers to learn about life by building it, rather than by tearing it apart. They also propose to stretch the boundaries between life and machines until the two overlap to yield "truly programmable organisms." Researchers involved stated that the creation of "true synthetic biochemical life" is relatively close in reach with current technology and cheap compared to the effort needed to place man on the Moon.
1. ^ Halliday, Tim R.; Kraig Adler (eds.) (1986). Reptiles & Amphibians. Torstar Books. pp. 101. ISBN 0-920269-81-8.
2. ^ Savage, Thomas F. (September 12, 2005). "A Guide to the Recognition of Parthenogenesis in Incubated Turkey Eggs". Oregon State University. Retrieved 2006-10-11.
3. ^ "Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone, Researchers Find", Washington Post, Wednesday, May 23, 2007; Page A02
4. ^ T. M. Sonneborn. Mating Types in Paramecium Aurelia: Diverse Conditions for Mating in Different Stocks; Occurrence, Number and Interrelations of the Types. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 79, No. 3 (Sep. 30, 1938), pp. 411-434. American Philosophical Society. JSTOR 984858.
5. ^ S. P. Otto and D. B. Goldstein. "Recombination and the Evolution of Diploidy". Genetics. Vol 131 (1992): 745-751.
6. ^ Bernstein H, Hopf FA, Michod RE. (1987) The molecular basis of the evolution of sex. Adv Genet. 24:323-370. Review. PMID 3324702
7. ^ TBA
8. ^ "Timeline of same-sex procreation scientific developments". samesexprocreation.com.
9. ^ Differentiation of female chicken primordial germ cells into spermatozoa in male gonads. 39. June 1997. pp. 267–71. doi:10.1046/j.1440-169X.1997.t01-2-00002.x. PMID 9227893.
10. ^ "Japanese scientists produce mice without using sperm". Washington Post (Sarasota Herald-Tribune). April 22, 2004.
11. ^ Bernstein H, Bernstein C and Michod RE (2011). Meiosis as an Evolutionary Adaptation for DNA Repair. Chapter 19: 357-382 in DNA Repair, Inna Kruman (Ed.), InTech (publisher) ISBN 978-953-307-697-3 Available online from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/dna-repair/meiosis-as-an-evolutionary-adaptation-for-dna-repair
13. ^ Gibson, D.; Glass, J.; Lartigue, C.; Noskov, V.; Chuang, R.; Algire, M.; Benders, G.; Montague, M. et al. (2010). "Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome". Science 329 (5987): 52–56. Bibcode 2010Sci...329...52G. doi:10.1126/science.1190719. PMID 20488990. edit
14. ^ a b Robert Lee Hotz (May 21, 2010). "Scientists Create First Synthetic Cell". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 13, 2012.
15. ^ Craig Venter Institute. "FAQ". Retrieved 2011-04-24.
16. ^ W. Wayte Gibbs (May 2004). "Synthetic Life". Scientific American.
17. ^ "NOVA: Artificial life". Retrieved 2007-01-19.
18. ^ Williams G C. 1975. Sex and Evolution. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
Tobler, M. & Schlupp,I. (2005) Parasites in sexual and asexual mollies (Poecilia, Poeciliidae, Teleostei): a case for the Red Queen? Biol. Lett. 1 (2): 166-168.
Zimmer, Carl. Parasite Rex: Inside the Bizarre World of Nature's Most Dangerous Creatures, New York: Touchstone, 2001.
"Allogamy, cross-fertilization, cross-pollination, hybridization". GardenWeb Glossary of Botanical Terms (2.1 ed.). 2002.
"Allogamy". Stedman's Online Medical Dictionary (27 ed.). 2004.
Judson, Olivia (2003) Dr.Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation: Definitive Guide to the Evolutionary Biology of Sex. ISBN 978-0-09-928375-1
The Evolution of Sex: An Examination of Current Ideas Richard E. Michod and Bruce E. Levin, editors (1987) Sinauer Associates Inc., Publishers, Sunderland, Massachusetts ISBN 0878934596 ISBN 978-0878934591
Michod, R.E. Eros and Evolution: A natural philosophy of sex (1994). Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts ISBN 0201442329 ISBN 978-0201442328
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Reproduction
Journal of Biology of Reproduction
Journal of Andrology
Biological interactions are the effects organisms in a community have on one another. In the natural world no organism exists in absolute isolation, and thus every organism must interact with the environment and other organisms. An organism's interactions with its environment are fundamental to the survival of that organism and the functioning of the ecosystem as a whole.
In ecology, biological interactions can involve individuals of the same species (intraspecific interactions) or individuals of different species (interspecific interactions). These can be further classified by either the mechanism of the interaction or the strength, duration and direction of their effects. Species may interact once in a generation (e.g. pollination) or live completely within another (e.g. endosymbiosis). Effects range from consumption of another individual (predation, herbivory, or cannibalism), to mutual benefit (mutualism). Interactions need not be direct; individuals may affect each other indirectly through intermediaries such as shared resources or common enemies.
Interactions categorized by effect
|Some types of relationships listed by the effect they have on each partner. '0' is no effect, '-' is detrimental, and '+' is beneficial.|
Terms which explicitly indicate the quality of benefit or harm in terms of fitness experienced by participants in an interaction are listed in the chart.
There are six possible combinations, ranging from mutually beneficial through neutral to mutually harmful interactions.
The level of benefit or harm is continuous and not discrete, so a particular interaction may be have a range from trivially harmful through to deadly, for example.
It is important to note that these interactions are not always static.
In many cases, two species will interact differently under different conditions.
This is particularly true in, but not limited to, cases where species have multiple, drastically different life stages.
Neutralism describes the relationship between two species which interact but do not affect each other. It describes interactions where the fitness of one species has absolutely no effect whatsoever on that of the other. True neutralism is extremely unlikely or even impossible to prove. When dealing with the complex networks of interactions presented by ecosystems, one cannot assert positively that there is absolutely no competition between or benefit to either species. Since true neutralism is rare or nonexistent, its usage is often extended to situations where interactions are merely insignificant or negligible.
Amensalism is a relationship in which a product of one organism has a negative effect on another organism.
It is specifically a population interaction in which one organism is harmed, while the other is neither affected nor benefited.
Usually this occurs when one organism exudes a chemical compound as part of its normal metabolism that is detrimental to another organism.
The bread mold penicillium is a common example; penicillium secrete penicillin, a chemical that kills bacteria.
A second example is the black walnut tree (Juglans nigra), which secrete juglone, a chemical that harms or kills some species of neighboring plants.
This interaction may nevertheless increase the fitness of the non-harmed organism by removing competition and allowing it greater access to scarce resources.
In this sense the impeded organism can be said to be negatively affected by the other's very existence, making it a +/- interaction.
A third example is when sheep or cattle make trails by trampling on grass, thereby destroying a food source.
Examples of bacterial interference:
- Bacterial interference can inhibit growth. For example, attine ants (which belong to a New World tribe) are able to take advantage of an amensalistic relationship between an actinomycete and the parasitic fungi Escovopsis. These ants cultivate a garden of a different fungal species, Leucocoprini, for their own nourishment. They also promote the growth of an actinomycete of the genus Pseudonocardia s., which produce an antimicrobial compound which inhibits the growth of Escovopsis, which would otherwise decimate their store of Leucocoprini.
- The bread mold Penicillium secretes penicillin, a chemical which kills bacteria.
- New findings demonstrate another mechanism of bacterial interference called interspecific molecule synergy. This discovery is based on the evidence that there are molecules of different species which have a synergistic relationship and exert a bactericidal effect on a third species which neither has when acting independently. An example of this mechanism is the effects of the protein epiP, which is secreted by inhibitory strains of S. epidermidis which impair the formation of biofilms by S. aureus and can even destroy S. aureus biofilms. When working alone, however, the protein epiP has no bactericidal effect against S. aureus. But in synergy with hBD2 (human beta-defensin 2), a protein present in the human immune system, the two proteins working together kill S. aureus. S. aureus resides in the nasal cavities of many humans from where it can cause severe inflammation that can lead to diseases such as pneumonia, endocarditic and septicemia. Thanks to this cooperation mechanism between S. epidermidis and humans, the development of such disease can be counteracted. 
Main article: Competition (biology)
Competition is a mutually detrimental interaction between individuals, populations or species, but rarely between clades.
Synnecrosis is a particular case in which the interaction is so mutually detrimental that it results in death, as in the case of some parasitic relationships. It is a rare and necessarily short-lived condition as evolution selects against it. The term is seldom used.
Further information: Predation, parasitism
In antagonistic interactions one species benefits at the expense of another.
Predation is an interaction between organisms in which one organism captures biomass from another.
It is often used as a synonym for carnivory but in its widest definition includes all forms of one organism eating another, regardless of:
- trophic level (e.g. herbivory)
- closeness of association (e.g. parasitism and parasitoidism)
- harm done to prey (e.g. grazing).
Other interactions that cannot be classed as predation however are still possible, such as Batesian mimicry, where an organism bears a superficial similarity of at least one sort, such as a harmless plant coming to mimic a poisonous one.
Intraguild predation occurs when an organism preys upon another of different species but at the same trophic level (e.g., coyotes kill and ingest gray foxes in southern California
Main article: Ecological facilitation
The following two interactions can be classed as facilitative. Facilitation describes species interactions that benefit at least one of the participants and cause no harm to either. Facilitations can be categorized as mutualisms, in which both species benefit, or commensalisms, in which one species benefits and the other is unaffected. Much of classic ecological theory (e.g., natural selection, niche separation, metapopulation dynamics) has focused on negative interactions such as predation and competition, but positive interactions (facilitation) are receiving increasing focus in ecological research.
Main article: Commensalism
Commensalism benefits one organism and the other organism is neither benefited nor harmed. It occurs when one organism takes benefits by interacting with another organism by which the host organism is not affected. A good example is a remora living with a shark. Remoras eat leftover food from the shark. The shark is not affected in the process as remoras eat only leftover food of the shark which doesn't deplete the shark's resources.
Main article: Mutualism (biology)
Pollination illustrates mutualism between flowering plants and their animal pollinators.
Mutualism is an interaction between two or more species, where species derive a mutual benefit, for example an increased carrying capacity.
Similar interactions within a species are known as co-operation.
Mutualism may be classified in terms of the closeness of association, the closest being symbiosis, which is often confused with mutualism.
One or both species involved in the interaction may be obligate, meaning they cannot survive in the short or long term without the other species.
Though mutualism has historically received less attention than other interactions such as predation,  it is very important subject in ecology.
Examples include cleaner fish, pollination and seed dispersal, gut flora and nitrogen fixation by fungi.
END TAB 2
Interactions classified by mechanism
Main article: Symbiosis
The term symbiosis (Greek: living together) can be used to describe various degrees of close relationship between organisms of different species. Sometimes it is used only for cases where both organisms benefit, sometimes it is used more generally to describe all varieties of relatively tight relationships, i.e. even parasitism, but not predation. Some even go so far as to use it to describe predation. It can be used to describe relationships where one organism lives on or in another, or it can be used to describe cases where organisms are related by mutual stereotypic behaviors.
In either case symbiosis is much more common in the living world and much more important than is generally assumed. Almost every organism has many internal parasites. A large percentage of herbivores have mutualistic gut fauna that help them digest plant matter, which is more difficult to digest than animal prey. Coral reefs are the result of mutalisms between coral organisms and various types of algae that live inside them. Most land plants and thus, one might say, the very existence of land ecosystems rely on mutualisms between the plants which fix carbon from the air, and Mycorrhyzal fungi which help in extracting minerals from the ground. The evolution of all eukaryotes (plants, animals, fungi, protists) is believed to have resulted from a symbiosis between various sorts of bacteria: endosymbiotic theory.
Main article: Competition (biology)
Competition can be defined as an interaction between organisms or species, in which the fitness of one is lowered by the presence of another. Limited supply of at least one resource (such as food, water, and territory) used by both usually facilitates this type of interaction, although the competition may also exist over other 'amenities', such as females for reproduction (in case of male organisms of the same species). Competition is one of many interacting biotic and abiotic factors that affect community structure. Competition among members of the same species is known as intraspecific competition, while competition between individuals of different species is known as interspecific competition.
Interspecific competition is normally not as fierce as intraspecific competition, unless in case of a sudden drastic change. However, it is the most conspicuous competition in grasslands, where, for example, cheetahs and hyenas are often killed by lion prides. Competition is not always a straightforward, direct interaction either, and can occur in both a direct and indirect fashion.
Competition between species at the same trophic level of an ecosystem, who have common predators, increases drastically if the frequency of the common predator in the community is decreased by a large margin. The magnitude of competition therefore depends on many factors in the same ecosystem.
According to the competitive exclusion principle, species less suited to compete for resources should either adapt or die out. According to evolutionary theory, this competition within and between species for resources plays a critical role in natural selection.
END TAB 3
- Cheating (biology)
- Food chain
1. ^ Elton, C.S. 1968 reprint. Animal ecology. Great Britain: William Clowes and Sons Ltd.
2. ^ Charles L. Nunn, Vanessa O. Ezenwa,Christian Arnold and Walter D. Koenig (2011). "Mutualism or parasitism? phylogentic approach to characterize the oxpecker-ungulate relationship". Evolution 65 (5): 1297–1304. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01212.x
3. ^ Wootton, JT; Emmerson, M (2005). "Measurement of Interaction Strength in Nature". Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 36: 419–44. JSTOR 30033811.
4. ^ a b Willey, Joanne M.; Sherwood, Linda M. and Woolverton Cristopher J. (2011). "Microbiology". Prescott’s, 30: 713-738.
5. ^ Tadayuki Iwase, Yoshio Uehara, Hitomi Shinji, Akiko Tajima, Hiromi Seo, Koji Takada, Toshihiko Agata Yoshimitsu Mizunoe (2010). "Staphylococcus epidermidis Esp inhibits Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation and nasal colonization". Nature 465 (7296): 346–349. doi:10.1038/nature09074. PMID 20485435
6. ^ Sahney, S., Benton, M.J. and Ferry, P.A. (2010). "Links between global taxonomic diversity, ecological diversity and the expansion of vertebrates on land" (PDF). Biology Letters 6 (4): 544–547. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.1024. PMC 2936204. PMID 20106856.
7. ^ Lidicker W. Z. (1979). "A Clarification of Interactions in Ecological Systems". BioScience 29: 475–477. doi:10.2307/1307540. JSTOR 1307540.
8. ^ a b Stachowicz, J. J. 2001. Mutualism, facilitation, and the structure of ecological communities. BioScience '51': 235-246.
9. ^ Boucher, D. H., S. James, and K. H. Keeler. 1982. The ecology of mutualism. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 13: 315-347.
10. ^ Callaway, R. M. 1995. Positive interactions among plants (Interpreting botanical progress). The Botanical Review 61: 306-349.
11. ^ Bruno, J. F., J. J. Stachowicz, and M. D. Bertness. 2003. Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. TREE 18: 119-125.
12. ^ Tirado, R. and F. I. Pugnaire. 2005. Community structure and positive interactions in constraining environments. OIKOS 111: 437-444.
13. ^ a b Begon, M., J.L. Harper and C.R. Townsend. 1996. Ecology: individuals, populations, and communities, Third Edition. Blackwell Science Ltd., Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
14. ^ Surindar Paracer and Vernon Ahmadjian, "Symbiosis: An Introduction to Biological Associations" Oxford University Press. 2nd Ed. 2000. ISBN 0-19-511806-5
Snow, B.K. & Snow, D.W. (1988). Birds and berries: a study of an ecological interaction. Poyser, London ISBN 0-85661-049-6
END TAB 4
Food Chain at Wikipedia
A food chain is a linear sequence of links in a food web starting from:
- a tropic species that eats no other species in the web,
and ends at:
- a tropic species that is eaten by no other species in the web.
A food chain differs from a food web, because the complex polyphagous network of feeding relations are aggregated into trophic species and the chain only follows linear monophagous pathways.
A common metric used to quantify food web trophic structure is food chain length.
In its simplest form, the length of a chain is the number of links between a trophic consumer and the base of the web and the mean chain length of an entire web is the arithmetic average of the lengths of all chains in a food web.  
Food chains were first introduced by the African-Arab scientist and philosopher Al-Jahiz in the 9th century and later popularized in a book published in 1927 by Charles Elton, which also introduced the food web concept.   
Food chain length
The food chain length is a continuous variable that provides a measure of the passage of energy and an index of ecological structure that increases in value counting progressively through the linkages in a linear fashion from the lowest to the highest trophic (feeding) levels. 
Food chains are often used in ecological modeling (such as a three species food chain). They are simplified abstractions of real food webs, but complex in their dynamics and mathematical implications. 
Ecologists have formulated and tested hypotheses regarding the nature of ecological patterns associated with food chain length, such as increasing length increasing with ecosystem size, reduction of energy at each successive level, or the proposition that long food chain lengths are unstable. 
Food chain studies have had an important role in ecotoxicology studies tracing the pathways and biomagnification of environmental contaminants. 
Food chain vary in length from three to six or more levels.
A food chain consisting of a flower, a frog, a snake and an owl consists of four levels;
whereas a food chain consisting of grass, a grasshopper, a rat, a snake and finally a hawk consists of five levels.
Producers, such as plants, are organisms that utilize solar energy or heat energy to synthesise starch.
All food chains must start with a producer.
Consumers are organisms that eat other organisms.
All organisms in a food chain, except the first organism, are consumers.
- ^ Briand, F.; Cohen, J. E. (1987). "Environmental correlates of food chain length.". Science (4829): 956–960. doi:10.1126/science.3672136.
- ^ a b Post, D. M.; Pace, M. L.; Haristis, A. M. (2006). "Parasites dominate food web links". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 (30): 11211–11216. doi:10.1073/pnas.0604755103.
- ^ Elton, C. S. (1927). Animal Ecology. London, UK.: Sidgwick and Jackson. ISBN 0-226-20639-4.
- ^ Allesina, S.; Alonso, D.; Pascal, M. "A general model for food web structure.". Science 320 (5876): 658–661. doi:10.1126/science.1156269.
- ^ Egerton, F. N. (2007). "Understanding food chains and food webs, 1700-1970". Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 88: 50–69. doi:10.1890/0012-9623(2007)88[50:UFCAFW]2.0.CO;2.
- ^ Martinez, N. D. (1991). "Artifacts or attributes? Effects of resolution on the Little Rock Lake food web". Ecological Monographs 61 (4): 367–392.
- ^ Ric=B. J. (1999). "Patterns of food chain length in lakes: A stable isotope study.". The American Naturalist 154 (4). pp. 406–416. doi:10.1086/303250.
- ^ Vander Zanden, M. J.; B. J., Shuter; Lester, N.; Rasmussen, J. B. (1999). "Patterns of food chain length in lakes: A stable isotope study.". The American Naturalist 154 (4): 406–416. doi:10.1086/303250.
- ^ Odum, E. P.; Barrett, G. W. (2005). Fundamentals of ecology. Brooks/Cole. p. 598. ISBN 978-0-534-42066-6.
END OF TAB 47
Food web at Wikipedal
food web (or food cycle) depicts feeding connections (what-eats-what) in an ecological community and hence is also referred to as a consumer-resource system.A
Ecologists can broadly lump all life forms into one of two categories called trophic levels:
- 1) the autotrophs
- 2) the heterotrophs.
To maintain their bodies, grow, develop, and to reproduce, autotrophs produce organic matter from inorganic substances, including both minerals and gases such as carbon dioxide.
These chemical reactions require energy, which mainly comes from the sun and largely by photosynthesis, although a very small amount comes from hydrothermal vents and hot springs.
A gradient exists between trophic levels running from complete autotrophs that obtain their sole source of carbon from the atmosphere, to mixotrophs (such as carnivorous plants) that are autotrophic organisms that partially obtain organic matter from sources other than the atmosphere, and complete heterotrophs that must feed to obtain organic matter. The linkages in a food web illustrate the feeding pathways, such as where heterotrophs obtain organic matter by feeding on autotrophs and other heterotrophs.
The food web is a simplified illustration of the various methods of feeding that links an ecosystem into a unified system of exchange.
There are different kinds of feeding relations that can be roughly divided into
Some of the organic matter eaten by heterotrophs, such as sugars, provides energy.
Autotrophs and heterotrophs come in all sizes, from microscopic to many tonnes - from cyanobacteria to giant redwoods, and from viruses and bdellovibrio to blue whales.
. . . continue reading the final two paragraphs to this particular sub-topic (the introduction) at Wikipedia. (not included here)
Taxonomy of a food web
Taxonomy of a food web
Links in food webs map the feeding connections (who eats whom) in an ecological community. Food cycle is the antiquated term that is synonymous with food web. Ecologists can broadly lump all life forms into one of two trophic layers, the autotrophs and the heterotrophs. Autotrophs produce more biomass energy, either chemically without the suns energy or by capturing the suns energy in photosynthesis, than they use during metabolic respiration. Heterotrophs consume rather than produce biomass energy as they metabolize, grow, and add to levels of secondary production. A food web depicts a collection of polyphagous heterotrophic consumers that network and cycle the flow of energy and nutrients from a productive base of self-feeding autotrophs.   
The base or basal species in a food web are those species without prey and can include autotrophs or saprophytic detritivores (i.e., the community of decomposers in soil, biofilms, and periphyton). Feeding connections in the web are called trophic links. The number of trophic links per consumer is a measure of food web connectance. Food chains are nested within the trophic links of food webs. Food chains are linear (noncyclic) feeding pathways that trace monophagous consumers from a base species up to the top consumer, which is usually a larger predatory carnivore.   
Linkages connnect to nodes in a food web, which are aggregates of biological taxa called trophic species. Trophic species are functional groups that have the same predators and prey in a food web. Common examples of an aggregated node in a food web might include parasites, microbes, decomposers, saprotrophs, consumers, or predators, each containing many species in a web that can otherwise be connected to other trophic species.  
Main article: Trophic level
Food webs have trophic levels and positions.
Basal species, such as plants, form the first level and are the resource limited species that feed on no other living creature in the web. Basal species can be autotrophs or detritivores, including "decomposing organic material and its associated microorganisms which we defined as detritus, micro-inorganic material and associated microorganisms (MIP), and vascular plant material."[ 11]:94
Most autotrophs capture the sun's energy in chlorophyll, but some autotrophs (the chemolithotrophs) obtain energy by the chemical oxidation of inorganic compounds and can grow in dark environments, such as the sulfur bacterium Thiobacillus, which lives in hot sulfur springs.
The top level has top (or apex) predators which no other species kills directly for its food resource needs.
The intermediate levels are filled with omnivores that feed on more than one trophic level and cause energy to flow through a number of food pathways starting from a basal species. 
In the simplest scheme, the first trophic level (level 1) is plants, then herbivores (level 2), and then carnivores (level 3).
The trophic level is equal to one more than the chain length, which is the number of links connecting to the base. The base of the food chain (primary producers or detritivores) is set at zero.   Ecologists identify feeding relations and organize species into trophic species through extensive gut content analysis of different species. The technique has been improved through the use of stable isotopes to better trace energy flow through the web.  It was once thought that omnivory was rare, but recent evidence suggests otherwise. This realization has made trophic classifications more complex. 
Continue reading the following sub-topics at Wikipedia
(not included here)
In a detrital web, plant and animal matter is broken down by decomposers, e.g., bacteria and fungi, and moves to detritivores and then carnivores. 
There are often relationships between the detrital web and the grazing web.
Mushrooms produced by decomposers in the detrital web become a food source for deer, squirrels, and mice in the grazing web.
Earthworms eaten by robins are detritivores consuming decaying leaves. 
"Detritus can be broadly defined as any form of non-living organic matter, including different types of plant tissue (e.g. leaf litter, dead wood, aquatic macrophytes, algae), animal tissue (carrion), dead microbes, faeces (manure, dung, faecal pellets, guano, frass), as well as products secreted, excreted or exuded from organisms (e.g. extra-cellular polymers, nectar, root exudates and leachates, dissolved organic matter, extra-cellular matrix, mucilage).
The relative importance of these forms of detritus, in terms of origin, size and chemical composition, varies across ecosystems." :585
END OF TAB 48
From: Kimball's Biology Pages
The source of all food is the activity of autotrophs, mainly photosynthesis by plants.
- They are called producers because only they can manufacture food from inorganic raw materials.
- This food feeds herbivores, called primary consumers.
- Carnivores that feed on herbivores are called secondary consumers.
- Carnivores that feed on other carnivores are tertiary (or higher) consumers.
Such a path of food consumption is called a food chain.
Each level of consumption in a food chain is called a trophic level.
The table gives one example of a food chain and the trophic levels represented in it.
|Bacteria of decay|
(Secondary, tertiary, etc. consumers)
Most food chains are interconnected. Animals typically consume a varied diet and, in turn, serve as food for a variety of other creatures that prey on them. These interconnections create food webs.
END OF TAB 49
Employ your time in improving yourself by other men's writings so that you shall come easily by what others have labored hard for. — Socrates
Gurdjieff's lifelong quest was to answer the following question:
“What is the sense and significance of life on earth in general and of human life in particular?”
A possible solution to that mystery may be found in the following quote:
"There is no true divinity except Man." 22
Was Gurdjieff unaware of this view as to Man's purpose?
The concepts of 'conscious procreation' and 'unconscious procreation' are obscure — there exists scant material which defines, develops and explains what these terms mean.
But, what is 'conscious procreation'?
To understand the concept of conscious procreation, consider that: as above, so below.
Conscious procreation is somewhat of a theory, because it's probably never happened!
It's never happened on earth because conscious procreation in an unconscious world is impossible — an oxymoron.
It's never happened in the universe because it's never happened on earth (or on any other 3D world — were it to have happened elsewhere, then the attempt at Conscious Procreation called Life on Earth would not be necessary and would not be happening.)
What this means is that Reciprocal Maintenance remains open-ended and uncertain or at least unaccomplished.
Although not in many respects an adequate allegory to describe Reciprocal Maintenance — but for the sake of simplicity is the following:
Assume God, the Absolute, the Creator, etc. wants to have a kid (or an apprentice) — a creator of infinite wisdom, etc., as in an exact copy, but on a lower level of vibrations (or whatever) and in the 3D physical/material world. Also, it would seem correct that this "kid" is not to be an individual human being, but rather a collective humanity. Related to the Xerox Effect?
How does one go about that?
The example of 'human beings' on earth is a good model, but what went wrong? It seems there was not a problem with overpopulation for at least a hundred thousand years of prehistoric human existence.
Long Cycle soul designers (unconscious force that procreates kills?) of earth life evolution up to Nethanderal. Short Wave soul hack 11,500 BCE (and, indeed, what a waste it seems to becoming).
The human race, in the past 50-100 years has acquire the beginning of godlike capabilities beyond the soul technology developed over the past millions of years — genetic engineering nanotechnology and quantum research, as examples.
It is doubtful that a high tech society can make it through that transition, thus it appears that this earth-born attempt at Conscious Procreation has failed, and will eventually abort.
Unconscious procreation has turned out to be probably the single largest factor in this failure to create a sustainable society.
Something akin to an Elemental soul pool, to which all happy procreators of new life return to, however this "Elemental" powers the modern Matrix, which seems to have a stranglehold upon Mankind — the only true divinity. Again, this is speculation.
Artificial Intelligence — certain pieces of information in elite controller's possession — money and banking primarily, but also military, media, education, religion and energy — has provided, up until now, the ability to control the masses. Overwhelming evidence for control of society by money power.
Maybe related is the effect of "higher intelligence" on lower forms of life. Watch the video about chimps and bonobos being taught language skills.
All of these "tools" have proven effective over the course of thousands of years of human history.
The Fourth Way was obviously suppressed because with that information in the public domain, maintaining control is more difficult. However, it must be assumed that this information has been available to some group of people, probably elite controllers among that group (or advisers to elites). Whatever, doesn't really matter . . .
The point being that within the Fourth Way, there is absolutely no mention about Unconscious Procreation, nor comment about the effects of becoming a parent.
The fact that children are brought into a life of slavery (which very few are even aware exists), is a true sign of this civilization — the measure of society is how it treats its poorest and others in need (such as children).
Sexuality is another "tool" used in oppression and control, and in my opinion points to the utter hopelessness for any significant change.
I find the link to the Blue Hedron. Wow, that is some story! Now, I don't think the story as told as the Blue Hedron is exactly correct. However it possibly has some truth. I suggest skimming/reading it to get a sense of what I'm trying to convey.
Consider that a biological organism (man) has evolved (with or without outside invervention) which has the capabilities found in man (godlike, some have so described), yet now finds itself as we find present day civilization.
The power of creation is locked up in Man's DNA, but the operator's manual has faulty/incomplete/deceptive information. Godlike organisms are born in the billions, only to find an existence of degradation and slavery.
Why give a shit?
Why do I even give a shit?
Good question. In my humble opinion, there's trouble ahead. I'll probably be (hopefully) dead before the worst begins, so what do I care?
If reincarnation is a fact, and unconscious procreation can begin to be acknowledged, then maybe next time, it'll be better?
In view of the present state of "world affairs" it seems obvious that the controllers do not have a clue about most of what I've pointed out here and elsewhere. It seems as though they, like everybody else has been operating with faulty/incomplete/deceptive information. If I see it, maybe others can too.
28 November 2012
Fyodorov's unconscious procreation
I found thebigview about a year ago from a Google search for "unconscious procreation."
It seems Fyodorov used that term in his essay, Supramoralism. The first time I'd ever heard of him, so I read on to see the context within which the term appears.
A few things caught my eye, I made some notes from his essay.
. . . that is to say, by replacing our artificial life, our artificial tasks, by a natural task achieved in us by nature itself which – through us – becomes rational. . . . For nature, transcending its state of unconsciousness to that of consciousness, resuscitation is as necessary and natural as birth and death are for blind nature.
Nature has attained consciousness in man.
. . . the whole of nature, namely, the blind force that procreates and kills.
. . . It is essential that unconscious procreation be replaced by the task of resuscitation
After selling my business and residence in 2007, I gave the remainder of my possessions away, and at the beginning of 2008 flew to the Philippines with (3) suitcases. I've never been back, I'll probably never go back.
Since childhood, and for as long as I can remember, I've been inquisitive and an avid reader. Since becoming retired, for the most part, I eat, read, sleep.
At the age of twenty, I had an uncomfortable experience and later found the remedy in an obscure 'esoteric' system called the Fourth Way. Turns out there was a very simple and obvious cause for this discomfort found quickly near the front of the book — "that generally you do not remember yourself". (page 4, The Fourth Way)
But what seemed odd at the time — a feeling which persist into the present — was/is, why had I never heard about this concept called, 'Identification'?
My decision to walk away in 2007 was made suddenly. It has taken a few years to sort through a lifetime of experience and try to 'redefine/understand myself' in this new environment — retired in the Philippines.
Unknown circumstances surround my lifelong conviction to not have kids, but regardless, conscience has endured, and being child-free has been a significant influence shaping who I am.
Throughout my life, I've been a loner. What began a few years ago as a new business idea for a young female acquaintance, has developed into a larger program to provide education, training and life skills to disadvantaged youth.
Also what began a few years ago as an effort to understand and make sense of that ever-present nagging feeling that something was amiss with what everybody presumes is an almost obligatory natural function (or 'god-given' right, etc.) — making babies — has given me better understanding of this affliction upon humanity I call 'unconscious procreation'.
What would you do?
A few weeks ago, I came across a thread in another forum which contained the following comment.
the sufies I have studied with say we have a chance to create a soul, to have a 'deep and abiding permanent consciousness that transcends death.'
Leaving aside the complexities of defining 'permanent consciousness', what remains is a succinct definition of the word, 'soul'.
From my perspective, unconscious procreation by definition negates formation of a permanent I / permanent consciousness.
Perhaps something like; with each parent contributing their DNA (which perhaps is itself consciousness incarnate) to the formation of a new consciousness (the child), each of the parent's possibility of creating permanent I / permanent consciousness is greatly encumbered if not eliminated. (my speculation)
In light of the forgoing, I ask myself, "if you could do anything, what would you do?"
From my perspective, unconscious procreation (the prisoners are the warders are the creators of new prisoners), taken in conjunction with the ever increasing control of humanity by what are becoming more and more obvious various methods of mass manipulation and control — those and other forces bearing upon humanity, lead me to conclude that the system as we know it is not fixable.
Thus, following Socrates advice,
“The secret to change is to focus all your energy, not on fighting the old, but on building the new."
. . . I've tried to come up with some way I can contribute to something new, something different. I've developed an idea, which has become an outline of a plan (my funding).
I welcome the opportunity to better formulate what seems to be intuitive understanding.