Could you expand a little more on what you said about : “If a plant is unable to overcome inherited geological conditions, it simply fails to be its fullest self. “
Is this where new species and varieties come about… a plant inherits its “type”, adapts to geological conditions, and if able to “overcome its inheritance from a plant in specific geological conditions” by responding successfully to its “new” geological conditions (which I suppose are in constant flux so are not the same as what it inherited). It then furnishes a seed that continues that process, constantly changing with a changing environment, and sometimes even to the point of emerging as a new species or at least a variety?
How does this differ from Darwinism? Is it in that Darwinism says the changes are random, those without randomly acquired adaptation dying off and those with randomly acquired adaptation surviving?
By overcoming, I mean the soil itself. If the plant can't overcome the conditions in the soil, it can't thrive or produce flowers because it is weighed down by the geological past. But with each new overcoming, the plant "informs" its spiritual archetype, and it "learns" to live with that particular area in a better way
To an external gaze, one might say that this is adaptation. But adaptation of what? A particular desire to live and be in a particular way. Each particular species loves a particular constellation and wishes to express it in any given space. But this Cosmic image must always be adapted to the local facts on the ground. Moreover, the constellation of stars itself is always drifting. Which is to say, even the archetypes of these different species are evolving in the heavens. What we see as changes here on Earth reflect more fundamental changes above.
It's not just one or the other necessarily. If you imagine a woven brooch, one side may seem disordered but the opposite side shows how everything relates together properly. The biggest error that materialistic evolution makes is assuming that the back side of the brooch is the front. But it's not wrong about many of its observations
Like in the seed, the protein molecule, science sees the new plant as arising from there, but that is just the picture of everything relating together just so, when behind that is chaos?
Thank you. This grows out of a lot of inner connections from Steiner's Theosophy, Jacob Boehme's Aurora, Paramahansa Yogananda's kriya-yoga -- but especially 15 years of gardening and almost 40 years of living.
This is so good.
Could you expand a little more on what you said about : “If a plant is unable to overcome inherited geological conditions, it simply fails to be its fullest self. “
Is this where new species and varieties come about… a plant inherits its “type”, adapts to geological conditions, and if able to “overcome its inheritance from a plant in specific geological conditions” by responding successfully to its “new” geological conditions (which I suppose are in constant flux so are not the same as what it inherited). It then furnishes a seed that continues that process, constantly changing with a changing environment, and sometimes even to the point of emerging as a new species or at least a variety?
How does this differ from Darwinism? Is it in that Darwinism says the changes are random, those without randomly acquired adaptation dying off and those with randomly acquired adaptation surviving?
By overcoming, I mean the soil itself. If the plant can't overcome the conditions in the soil, it can't thrive or produce flowers because it is weighed down by the geological past. But with each new overcoming, the plant "informs" its spiritual archetype, and it "learns" to live with that particular area in a better way
To an external gaze, one might say that this is adaptation. But adaptation of what? A particular desire to live and be in a particular way. Each particular species loves a particular constellation and wishes to express it in any given space. But this Cosmic image must always be adapted to the local facts on the ground. Moreover, the constellation of stars itself is always drifting. Which is to say, even the archetypes of these different species are evolving in the heavens. What we see as changes here on Earth reflect more fundamental changes above.
Aha. So basically everything I theorized is Darwinistic… or materialistic anyway.
It seems what you are speaking of is something much more fluid.
It's not just one or the other necessarily. If you imagine a woven brooch, one side may seem disordered but the opposite side shows how everything relates together properly. The biggest error that materialistic evolution makes is assuming that the back side of the brooch is the front. But it's not wrong about many of its observations
Like in the seed, the protein molecule, science sees the new plant as arising from there, but that is just the picture of everything relating together just so, when behind that is chaos?
Absolutely exactly and precisely that!
Thank you Stuart for this thinking and writing. It flowed for me as simplicity and complexity, and I plan to reread to take in more.
Thank you. This grows out of a lot of inner connections from Steiner's Theosophy, Jacob Boehme's Aurora, Paramahansa Yogananda's kriya-yoga -- but especially 15 years of gardening and almost 40 years of living.
This ties so many seemingly seperate concepts together in a digestible and practical way. Thank you 🙏