Adaptation. It's the revolutionary thought of Charles Darwin that changed a lot of established perspectives on human progression. It went against the dogmas of the church and the creationist ideology. It created the great divide amongst the people as to what is the truth behind their existence. It questioned the infallible and almost imposed pronouncements of the church that God created everything that belongs to nature. But it also made way for people to create compromises. That maybe both phenomenon (creation and evolution) were part of a two-pronged process of human progression. That in the beginning there was creation and in the process was the evolution, the process by which organism tried to adapt to the changing and almost always harsh to harsher environment that these organism are in. These were the occurrences that change bring us. Questioning, doubting, uncertainty and eventually reconstructing. Others choose to reestablish previous constructs, other choose to go beyond the limits and prove for themselves the rightness of the new proposition until finally, up until a detain extent they begin to doubt the revolutionary idea they thought of to be their very core principle.
In change, two pronged-process of adaptation also happen. One is the meat of the evolution process, the adaptation process that organisms engaged in and two the adaptation process in the audience of the ideas, the adaptation that happens when people start to be irritated at how possibly worldviews destroy each other and eventually confuses more and more generation. Even up to now, the disjunct is still the very subject f man's doubts, and long years from now, I doubt if they can ever find a consensus, not just settle to futile attempts of compromise which not only destroy the essence of both, it also destroys that value of absolutes, the universals that a lot of institutions base their existence.
What's with all these that even in the simplest forms of change, the complex process of adaptation has to appear? even more imposing than expected, than attempted?
What's with leaving things behind and moving forward that feet are left weak and unable to pursue?
What's with change that make everything else appear to have been just old things, unworthy of attention?
Or do memory even serves its purpose of making us believe that we experienced a time we call past?
Its annoying at times. No, its pathetic most of the time when people have to leave because of a belief that they have to grow. Trees need not the concept of distance, the horizontal distance to grow. They only need a spot to stay in and every season they experience in the same spot contribute to the process of its growth, either retrogressive or progressive growth.
Human mobility sometimes cause people to think that unless we practice the bipedality of life, we do not fully experience progress. the left and right swings of the feet of possibilities lets us believe that to be stuck in a spot is to be stagnant. But I cannot see the green in every people that trees have. I cannot see the vitality of its limbs in every person who travelled the world and experienced the fulness of life. Sometimes I think that to be stuck is to let the world pass me by but I also think that being stuck is to experience a stable growth, not a terminal type of growth, not the unsustained growth.
I think that for most cases, the idea of mobility skew the people's idea of possibility. That possibility can only be experienced fully when distance and time are dually-experienced. The absence of one will make things all to dull, dragging, boring. But at the need of the day, stability is experienced when the spot that people search in their journeys is finally found and no amount of oversaturation and boringness will make you leave that spot. The spot that people call grave.
No comments:
Post a Comment