ON NATURAL KINGDOMS THAT WE MAY NOT PERCEIVE
It seems rather a natural law that every kingdom in nature should be able to perceive only those kingdoms placed evolutively below, while being absolutely oblivious of those above.
Minerals do not seem to be fit for any kind of perception, nor show any signs of being perceptive of their environment at all. Plants, on the other hand, show hydrotropism and heliotropism which hints at their capacity of perceiving certain minerals and chemicals somehow. And regarding animals, we obviously perceive both minerals and plants. Hence, if we were to follow this logic, we would naturally come across the idea that, if there were kingdoms above the human indeed, we, by mere natural law, would be as oblivious of their existence as a rosebush is of the existence of a fox. Be it helped in its pollination by a bee, or dug and uprooted by a fox, the rosebush stays equally oblivious of the cause of its fertilisation, as it stays oblivious of the cause of its demise.
ON NATURAL KINGDOMS THAT WE MAY NOT PERCEIVE
It seems rather a natural law that every kingdom in nature should be able to perceive only those kingdoms placed evolutively below, while being absolutely oblivious of those above.
Minerals do not seem to be fit for any kind of perception, nor show any signs of being perceptive of their environment at all. Plants, on the other hand, show hydrotropism and heliotropism which hints at their capacity of perceiving certain minerals and chemicals somehow. And regarding animals, we obviously perceive both minerals and plants. Hence, if we were to follow this logic, we would naturally come across the idea that, if there were kingdoms above the human indeed, we, by mere natural law, would be as oblivious of their existence as a rosebush is of the existence of a fox. Be it helped in its pollination by a bee, or dug and uprooted by a fox, the rosebush stays equally oblivious of the cause of its fertilisation, as it stays oblivious of the cause of its demise.