According to the coascious (collective) consciousness (coagulum/world) of the earth, the mental concept of the word “evolve” entails the idea and understanding of connotations like, development, progression, advancement, disclosure, emergence, change (i.e., to make or become different), accommodation, diversities, modification, conversion, mergence and metamorphose (i.e., to remake, reform or remodel). Usually, to “evolve” insists of transformation, transposes and transmutations—it also entails the theory of biological evolution; as if life itself can geologically and biologically evolve into different kinds of species than what it may have originated as in order to adapt to atmospheric environmental changes—in spite of what the theory consists of, no one person has ever seen biological/geological evolution at its best work; that is why perhaps biological and geological evolution is still just a theory—a “subjective reality.” Theories are just a possibility that something “believed” (felt) in might just have the potential to become a fact, or a reality—to think that something might exist as opposed to knowing that something does exist. Can it be that what is always known in the-Mind can also always be known biologically and geologically in the external world? Can the concept/idea of the word “evolve” might just be a mental capacity for humans, mentally actuated with the idea of “The-Self,” to psychologically make or become different in terms of the illusion of The-Ego and The-Subjective-Self? What if the understanding and behavior of “evolving” in anyway, form or manner is really nothing more than just “subjective realities” as opposed to an “objective reality?” In other words, what if “evolvement” it is nothing more but just an “interpreted-reality” (reflective-reality) as opposed to a “translated-reality” (non-reflective-reality).
The coascious (collective) world tends to have the subliminal-automaton mental behavior of integrating almost every different aspect into some form of “wholeness,” or “summation:” of course for a mental actuation that’s actuated with the global illusion of The-Self and its “individuality,” that is. But just because a person may psychologically be mentally individualistic, that doesn’t mean that everything out there in the world is also individualistic: perhaps to The-Self it does appears to be so, but that may be because The-Self itself is trying to make sense of itself with the world and its earth around itself: just the same with time: even though time (i.e., internal three dimensional time: past, present and future) in of itself is an illusion, people still use it to describe the universe—using mental concept of time just to make sense of the universe with everything around them-selves, but that doesn’t mean that time itself, as a thing-in-itself, exists out there within the universe: The same thing with the mental idea of the word “evolvement;” just because The-Self can psychologically experience some form of “evolving” within the-Mind, that doesn’t mean that other things that are noumenally created as biological life forms and geological energy can also “evolve?” That depends upon a person’s understanding of the word “evolve:” for example, the coascious (collective) world has a global understanding that to “evolve” is the same thing as adaptation; however, the etymology of the word “evolve” entails to make or become something different—something changed inside and out (i.e., the theory of evolution insists that the human species evolved from some other different kind of species that are not biologically related; perhaps from something animalistic, but that somehow “evolved” (changed) as the atmosphere of the earth itself has changed—that the human species is a product of some other kind of different species, other than humans, that it itself “evolved” from). The etymology of the word “adaptation” entails a psychological and physical adjustment to adapt to gradual changes in a social environment—but the world’s coagula (collective conscious) somehow think that the concept of adaptation also insists of utter and complete biological life form changes as well. But can the creation of nature itself be capable of completely “evolving” its’ biological and geological makeup just to adapt to the changes of the earth’s atmospheres?
When something, or someone, has been created into a specific lineage of its own kind to then live in a specific bio- and geo-climate, if that “specific” atmosphere of the earth itself changes drastically to the point that it becomes life threatening, then the thing, or creature, created will not gradually “evolve” (utterly change into a different specie) to survive in its new environment; instead, the thing, or person, might just simply die just as it has with the dinosaurs, or maybe “adapt” a few modifications to the changes. Something drastically may have happened to the earth’s atmosphere that the way the dinosaurs were “specifically” created could not have “evolved” its biological makeup at all to survive its new atmosphere. If you were to put a human being to live in mars for most of his/her lifespan, will his/her biological makeup completely “evolve” (utterly made different) to so-called “adapt” in the mars’ thin atmosphere and pressure, and low gravity as well? Will he/she automatically “evolve” to live and breathe and touch the elements of mars’ lethal and deadly earth? If the entire water element of the earth evaporated, life itself would not simply “evolve” to its new waterless environment, instead, life itself will cease to exist in its entirety; thus indicating that life can only exist under certain external conditions because life is created as is, and not to biologically and geologically “evolve” under any other environmental atmospheres: if this was the case, then life would have survived anywhere else under any external conditions, harshly or not. If you only biologically been created as is to survive in a certain external atmosphere, then you cannot possibly physically “evolve” if your existential physical life form is only conditional: Hence, water or not, evolving is not biologically possible; and to “evolve” is not the same thing as to “adapt” (i.e., if the environment of humans would only have available soft and liquidly food, we might gradually, through generations, “develop” teeth that are less in size than what we currently have; nonetheless, if your teeth changes, you’re still a human, you as a specie did not “evolve,” only something a part of you has changed, and therefore, you as a same specie “adapted,” not “evolved,” to certain minor changes in the environment: However, if the environment of the earth becomes like that of the planet mars but with water, you as a specie will not physically “evolve” to survive the new drastic environmental changes, you will still simply “die” as a specie, indefinitely). Life was created conditionally with a capacity to make few minor adaptations; it was not created to evolve in its’ biological and geological entirety (i.e., change itself as a separate different specie; or to utterly change its biological kind/makeup): and so if the external conditions of the earth changes totally, then all life that were created conditionally for “specific” external conditions will simply cease to exist. Creation in of itself, as a thing-in-itself, is not a gradual process or development—biology and geology in of it itself doesn’t have automaton “subjective capacities” to automatically “gradually” determine itself to completely “alter” its biological life form, and its geological energy, in its’ relation to its totally altered environments: Instead, it is something that just is—something that is just created finitely with biological and geological boundaries and very limited automaton “adaptation” capacities—something conditionally to live or to just exist in order to survive and exist in a “conditional” environment. If your biological adaptation capacity is then conditional, then your ability to biologically evolve at all is just an illusion. Some may dispute and argue, “…but why does the idea to “evolve” still exist if it’s not biologically and geologically possible to do so…?”
To “evolve” in any way, form or manner is really purely psychological, and not biological, or geological for that matter—it is an exclusive psychical language to The-Self and its ego—the mental ability and capacity to experience of becoming a “psychical changeling.” In other words, as a psychological being, a-self can literally and utterly change itself completely—in a way, almost like changing “psychological species”—something utterly different: as a matter of fact, the mental capacity of evolving and the existence of the global illusion of The-Self goes hand in hand—The-Self breathes it, and eats it: without this mental capacity, The-Self itself to exist cannot and will not be possible: “Evolving” is a subjective mental actuation, an intentional and willful mental capacity—it is not an automaton biological and geological function: If you are a-self (i.e., a person who is mentally actuated with the global illusion of The-Self / the-Ego) then you, as a person, are a victim to its’ mental capacity of psychologically evolving into different psychological alterations. Even though the mental capacity to “evolve” is only within the-Mind, that doesn’t mean that it is a distinct capacity for all minds either. In my mind (Sabiazoth’s mind), my being has no idea of what is like to even be a “changeling” at all: my mind is utterly devoid of the concept/idea of mental “evolving” actuations—since my being doesn’t have a-self to begin with, It then does not have the need to “psychologically evolve” itself into something entirely psychologically different. My internal mental dimensional being is uniformed and unchanging: The only changes that my being knows of are to externally change my clothes, my shoes, my socks, etc.: but there are no internal changes at all within my dimensional identity/alien/being noumenon. According to the mental experiences of my mind, changes are only possible when you undo something first to then redo something different (i.e., changing clothes: you would first have to take off what you have on in order to then put something different on)—that is what a “change” is to my being: something that It itself is incapable of doing to itself as opposed to what The-Self can do to his/her own-self. My being does, however, experience internal superimpositions to itself; in other words, there are just add-ons but without “undoing” anything to my being: in this way, my internal being just goes on expanding without changing or contracting anything of itself, as It continue to learn and experience many different things internally and externally: My internal psychological being is not then subject to psychological changes and alterations; and certainly, not to psychological evolvements. Just because my soul (animating physical body) changes clothes and shoes, that doesn’t mean that my internal psychological being changes along with it as well—my being just doesn’t understand that whole concept on how can something as clothes and accessories makes up the being of who or what you are: Inside, my being is just being that just goes on being, uniformed, no matter what the social and external environments may be like—my being is purely psychological and not biological as is the case with the illusion of The-Self: My biological soul (animating physical body) has nothing to do with what my internal psychological being is—they’re two different things, separated into their own dimensional noumenon; after all, my form of existence is of a dividual form (the “no-self”) and not of an individual form, as is the case with The-Self: Let’s just say that my internal psychological being, within its own mental dimensional noumenon, is purely immaterial—It has no idea what is like to even be in possession of a material biological being. The only thing that my being can experience as a material-thing is my soul (animating physical body), my dimensional biological/physical/energy/soul noumenon: So even though my biological physical soul may be naked, my internal psychological mental being is not because my internal being cannot be clothed since after all, it is purely mentally internal, within its own separate dimensional-noumenon. So the changes that my mind experiences are something physically external and not psychologically internal—nonetheless, the mental capacity of internally “evolving” psychologically is still real, and therefore, an exclusive mental capacity to the language of The-Self. Hence, to “evolve” is a psychological matter for those who are only mentally actuated with the concept/idea of The-Self (the-Ego / the Subjective-Self), and not a biological and geological automaton function. In all reality, the theory of biological and geological evolution may just purely be a psychological reality after all; an idea/concept that doesn’t exist without human awareness: In other words, maybe it’s just that The-Self itself is trying to somehow “psychologically evolve” itself into some better understanding of itself (i.e., in eastern philosophy in whereas The-Self is gradually recognizing the falseness of the-ego, and eventually one day, will finally do away with it so that The-Self can then become a truer-self) in correlation to its’ natural environments. Perhaps that is why The-Self itself may think that the theory of evolution is biological and geological, because after all, The-Self itself is only trying to make sense with itself in connection with its earth and nature. “Evolution” is then just a mental capacity for psychological evolvements—purely a mental capacity as opposed to a biological and geological automaton function. And why is there the need for such a mental “evolvement” capacity after all?
So that The-Self itself can and will psychologically survive and endure under any kind of social environment as opposed to any kind of geological environment—in this way, The-Self psychologically changes (“evolves”) its’ psychological formations to survive under any kind or form of social setting(s). To “evolve” into something psychically different is a psychological defense for The-Self itself against any world that he/she may have to face up with when he/she must reflect with it, socially; especially during drastic social environmental changes: Hence, in all actuality, to “reflect” with your-selfis to “psychologically evolve” with your-self in connection to the social world—self-reflective is “psychical evolvement” that can mentally enable you, as a-self, to gradually form and change your-self psychologically, as a psychical social specie, in a “social psychological collective conscious connection” with the-World. You, as a-self, should always remember that just because some mental experiences are psychologically possible, that doesn’t mean that it is always also possible for biological and geological automaton functions—the two are different—your psychological internal experiences are different from biological and geological external automaton functions. Some may argue and say, “…But what if my mind has a creative idea, and I substantiate that idea into a material project…isn’t my project in of itself, other than just my mind, is also subject to evolvements…?” A creative idea is just that, an idea; just because you’ve substantiated an idea into a physical project (i.e., computers that “evolves” through lifespans) that you can now touch, feel, see and smell doesn’t mean that it is the same thing as the “creations of life and nature.” The “creations of life and nature” are not the same thing as the “creations of an idea.” Your ideas that are substantiated can become better through gradual developments and alterations as you learn more about them through different ever changing social trends and setting (social environments), but terrestrial life, and nature in of itself, is not an idealistic gradual development, alteration and or improvement; it just is; biologically conditionally created for a specific conditional geological environment. The “creation of life and nature” is just that, a creation, and not an idea. It is then understood in my extroverold alien language that the concept/idea of the word “evolve” is a psychological capacity and actuation, and not a biological and geological automaton-function; however, in my case as an extroverold alien that my being is, with of course much extensive objective instinctual observations and scrutiny, “evolvement” in of itself does exists for a “specific” mental actuation of the concept of “The-Self” and its’ individuality: However, in my form of being as an extroverold alien, without a-self (egoless) as well, “evolvement” doesn’t even exist as a psychological capacity for my mind and being: In either of my four dimensional-noumena, the concept/idea of the word “evolve” simply does not exist at all—it is then an exclusive collective language that is only understood by The-Self itself. Psychologically, my being simply does not “evolve;” hence, in contrast to everybody else in the world, my being is the uniperson of the-Earth.
It is then logical to understand that the concept/idea of the word “evolution/evolvement” is purely a learned psychological mental actuation, and not a biological and geological automaton-function. “Evolution” is purely psychological, exclusive to the global illusion of The-Self; nothing more, nothing less. When it comes to the mental concept and actuation of The-Self, if it can’t “evolve” any longer, then it has ceased from becoming The-Self: “Evolvements” is an exclusive psychological capacity to The-Self itself, like air is to a pair of lungs; without it, The-Self is then no longer a-self. Since my form of being is the “no-self,” the “not-I” (egoless), the then existential mental concept of “evolution/evolvement” is foreign and estranged (unknown) to my extroverold alien being. Hence, “evolution” is only a state-of-mind, for some minds, that is. And remember that “adaptation” is not the same thing as “evolvements:” some evolutionist scientists, if not all, tend to combine the physical automaton-functions of limited minor “adaptations” with the psychological-actuations of profound mental “evolvements” in order to support their theory of biological and geological evolution. Ever since the first world-power of Egypt to the very last seventh world-power of Anglo-America (U.S.A and United Kingdoms), there has been not a single evidence and proof of an actual biological and geological evolution at work: not one person has witnessed a certain species completely changed into another different kind of species (i.e., a canine specie evolving to feline specie); there has only been minor physical “adaptations” in which such “adaptations” has remained its’ species to remain as the same species. “Physical adaption” entails minor physical changes, and not as whole specie changes as it is “believed” (felt) in the theory of biological and geological evolution by only evolutionist scientists; and not by every “scientists” as a whole.
[Article Posted by: Sabiazoth Alonso]
[Writing & Concept, Created & Produced by: Sabiazoth Alonso]
[Aspati/Space: Dispace, Docercycle 11, 7 R.M. E.C. (Solar South)]