tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45162438798987731152024-03-08T08:10:36.171-08:00Future FocusBeatrix Murrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11311101719106506471noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516243879898773115.post-69661254436229539402013-06-07T11:19:00.000-07:002013-06-07T11:19:59.452-07:00(12) Multidisciplinary, Multidimensional<br />
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
For quite awhile governments, corporations, as well as academics</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
have pursued their interests via a multidisciplinary approach. This</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
approach has superseded looking at an interest or topic just from the </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
viewpoint of a single discipline.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
This does *not* mean that analysts or scholars are now all generalists.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Rather it implies that they have to be more expansive in not only their</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
training but also in their outlook.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Probably, at least for some, there's also the multidimensional approach </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
as well. This applies engaging all our human capacities, not just logic</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
for example. There's our intelligence, but also our intuition and insight.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
There's that "gut feeling." Smart people, past and present, have </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
employed a multidimensional approach, even if they didn't know what</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
this might entail.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
As for "seeking God," or at least questing after the "contours of God'</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
spiritually or scientifically, the multidisciplinary approach is more and</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
more being employed by serious scholars--specifically by theologians </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
and religious studies academics. </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
For example in the field of Biblical Studies, scholars examine ancient</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
scripture not only from the perspectives of their religion, but also via</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
cross-cultural studies and archaeology. More insight and understanding</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
seem to follow. Theologians, also, are now more inclined to look at </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
not only the Book of Scripture but also the Book of Nature. Some are</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
writing tomes combining Science and Religion, blending Natural</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Theology with what once was considered Orthodox Theology.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
There's "modeling" as well. Systems Philosophy introduced the idea</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
of evolving second-order models out of the synthesis of first-order</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
models. This kind of modeling is not only multidisciplinary in its</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
approach, but multidimensional in its tasking.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Overall, these new second-order models can make for far more</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
insightful--and sometimes more adventurous --studies when it comes</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
to the God quest. Already employed here and now, there's little doubt </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
these multidisciplinary and multidimensional approaches will be</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
employed in far more imaginative ways with hopefully far better results </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
in the future.</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline" />Beatrix Murrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11311101719106506471noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516243879898773115.post-40860075386327614302013-04-07T13:55:00.000-07:002013-04-07T13:55:50.881-07:00(11) Consciousness<br />
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
The study of Consciousness is a "hot" topic today and is likely going to be</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
even more of cutting edge effort of study in the future. Over the past few</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
years scholars and scientists representing a variety of specialties have</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
met annually at the University of Arizona discussing, presenting papers,</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
on the topic of Consciousness. Nonetheless, the difficulty remains that</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Consciousness is still very much an unknown. Put plainly, we still have</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
little understanding as to the how and why we humans are actually</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
conscious sentient beings.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
However, there has been no lack of effort trying to figure the nature of</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Consciousness. Three major scientists have been in the forefront when</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
it comes to the study and theoretics of Consciousness. There's Henry</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Stapp, a particle physicist who has carried out research on the foundations</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
of quantum mechanics--with a particular focus on the role and nature</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
of Consciousness at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory at the University</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
of California.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
There's also Sir Roger Penrose, a mathematical physicist, who is the</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford,</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
as well as Stuart Hameroff, a M.D., currently the Director of the Center </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona (Tucson).</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Together. Penrose and Hameroff speculate that Consciousness is the</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
result of quantum gravity effects in microtubles, which they dub</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
ORCH-OR (orchestrated objective reduction). Microtubles are part of</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
a structural network (the cytoskeleton) with the cells cytoplasm.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Even more esoteric thinking regarding Consciousness can be found</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
in considering the topic of non-local consciousness. Basically this</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
refers to morphogenetic (or mental) fields, about telepathy, even about</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
prayer. Non-local consciousness extends from one individual's</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
consciousness outward to other conscious persons!</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
In a sense Consciousness remains a "shapeshifter," in that in recent</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
years there has been so many perspectives. The philosopher and</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
transpersonal psychologist Ken Wilber provided a useful list of these</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
perspectives:</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
" *Cognitive Science* tends to view consciousness as anchored</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
in functional schemas of the brain/mind, either in a simple </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
representational fashion...or in the more complex emergent/</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
connectionist models, which view consciousness as an emergent</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
of hierarchically integrated networks...</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
" *Introspectionism* maintains that consciousness is best</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
understood in terms of intentionality, anchored in first-person</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
accounts...</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
" *Neuropsychology* views consciousness as anchored in</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
neural systems, neurotransmitters, and organic brain mechanisms...</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
" *Individual psychotherapy*...tends to view consciousness as</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
primarily anchored in an individual organism's adaptive capacities...</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
" *Social psychology* views consciousness as embedded in</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
networks of cultural meaning, or, alternatively, as being largely</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
a byproduct of the social system itself...</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
" *Clinical psychiatry* focuses on the relation of psychopathology,</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
behavioural patterns, and psychopharmacology...</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
" *Developmental psychology* views consciousness not as a single</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
entity but as a developmentally unfolding process with a substantially</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
different architecture at each of its stages of growth...</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
" *Psychosomatic medicine* views consciousness as strongly and</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
intrinsically inter-active with organic bodily processes...</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
" *Nonordinary states of consciousness,* from dreams to psychedelics,</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
constitutes a field of study that, its advocates believe, is crucial</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
to a grasp of consciousness in general...</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
" *Eastern and contemplative traditions* maintain that ordinary</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
consciousness is but a narrow and restricted version of deeper and </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
higher modes of awareness...</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
" *Quantum consciousness* approaches...consciousness as being</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
intrinsically capable of interacting with, and altering, the physical</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
world, generally through quantum interactions...</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
" *Subtle energies* research has postulated that there exist subtler</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
types of bio-energies beyond the four recognized forces of physics </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
(strong and weak nuclear, electromagnetic, gravitational) and that</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
these subtler energies play an intrinsic role in consciousness..."</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
[Ken Wilber, an article entitled "Integral Theory of Consciousness.]</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
It's obvious the tremendous challenge that the topic of Consciousness</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
poses, now and in the future. But it's important.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline" />Beatrix Murrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11311101719106506471noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516243879898773115.post-84445801802212326112012-12-18T10:23:00.000-08:002012-12-18T10:25:26.620-08:00(10) MEME of all Memes<br />
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
One of the thoughts that has lingered in the back of my mind</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
for a long time is that of God as a meme that has been playing</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
back and forth for millennia--probably going back at least to the</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Neanderthals, a kindred hominid that likely preceded Homo</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Sapians. </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
The word "meme" is now fairly familiar in our vocabulary, but</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
it's still a fairly recent word. The meme was coined by the </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins back in 1976. </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Interesting, too, another great scientist E.O. Wilson also</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
stumbled upon the meme about the same time, only he</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
coined it the "culturgen." </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
So what is a meme? According to recent dictionary accounts it</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
is an "idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
within a culture." The meme is a unit that involves ideas, symbols,</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
rituals, writing that can be transmitted not only from culture to</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
culture, but from age to age.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
This leads me back to my idea of God as a meme, or put more</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
poetically the "MEME of all Memes." One can trace this God Meme</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
from pre-cultural times to the earliest city states, to civilizations.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
This meme, of course, has taken on many different forms. Hence</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
we have different religious imagery in different cultures. </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Nonetheless this God Meme has been persistent. It sticks with</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
us, even as it changes or evolves.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
What I find fascinating is the thought that the God Meme does</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
indeed seem to evolve, albeit seemingly cropping forth from an</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
earlier rendition. It's like this God Meme keeps growing in our</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
minds, taking us along for a long fascinating ride. </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Just my own thought about this, but just maybe the God Meme</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
is purposeful--in that as it evolves, it evolves us. This meme</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
would seem a two-way street. The God Meme seemingly</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
affects how we interpret God, how we "grow" God as our minds</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
continue to mature. And perhaps we mature because of how</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
we tend or try to understand God from ever new perspectives.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Today we are on the brink of understanding the universe in far</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
more perceptive ways than ever before, via science and </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
technology. So it's surely understandable that our interpretation(s)</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
of God evolves, as we view Creation (our surroundings) in ever new </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
ways. So, it's not surprising that God seems to be changing right before </div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
our eyes. The "MEME of all Memes" has constantly been changing</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
over Time, as we constantly change. It's not something unexpected.</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline" />Beatrix Murrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11311101719106506471noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516243879898773115.post-59811316412655036832012-05-23T09:15:00.000-07:002012-05-24T15:42:49.124-07:00(9) NeurotheologyNeurotheology is a new field, wherein neuroscientists are<br />
considering the possibility that the human brain is "wired"<br />
to ponder upon "God." It's a new field that involves scientific<br />
examination of subjective religious experiences. One such<br />
example that might be considered is as follows.<br />
<br />
A number of years ago the Dalai Lama invited biological<br />
psychologist Richard Davidson to come to India to test one<br />
of his Tibetan monks--a Frenchman, actually--by applying<br />
electrodes on his cranium while the monk was meditating on<br />
"unconditional loving-kindness and compassion." This<br />
particular Buddhist monk had already accrued more than<br />
10,000 hours of meditation, so he surely had to be a seasoned<br />
contemplative. Davidson's team, from the University of Wisconsin,<br />
nearly immediately noticed powerful gamma brain wave activity. <br />
Later more Buddhist monks were tested by Davidson, and he<br />
found similar results.<br />
<br />
Gamma brain waves essentially are considered the brain's<br />
optimal frequency of functioning and associated with a<br />
conscious awareness of reality and increased mental abilities. <br />
The reported benefits of gamma brain waves are as follows:<br />
Boosted Memory, Enhanced Perception of Reality, Building<br />
of Senses, Increased Compassion, High-Level Information<br />
Processing, Natural Antidepressant, Advanced Learning<br />
Ability, IQ Increase, High Level of Focus, and Improved<br />
Perception/Consciousness.<br />
<br />
These reports about these monks and their brain waves <br />
caught my interest when it comes to how the Universal Spirit <br />
might be working through us, perhaps upon us by enhancing <br />
our brain's capabilities.<br />
<br />
Meditation more than often has been in Religion's bailiwick, <br />
though nowadays this kind of mental focus has also rapidly<br />
moved out into the world: i.e., Transcendental Meditation<br />
and Biofeedback.<br />
<br />
Regardless the specific milieu for meditation, it's an interesting<br />
phenomenon when the study of such has come under the<br />
scrutiny of neuroscientists. It would seem our brain is far more<br />
activated. As to "why," well that's a question that will have to<br />
wait for another day to be answered. As for "what" might stand<br />
behind all this, well that's open to speculation.<br />
<br />
Just maybe there really *is* a Higher Reality acting upon us, <br />
an Universal Spirit, that might actually be evolving us. Could <br />
be our brains have finally reached the level where some of us <br />
humans, like the French Buddhist meditator, seem to have <br />
become an open channel for the reconfiguring of our brain <br />
processes.<br />
------------<br />
[Some of this text was originally posted in my "Seeker's Sojourn"<br />
essay site, post 18.]Beatrix Murrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11311101719106506471noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516243879898773115.post-40520947945933880862012-02-13T11:08:00.000-08:002012-02-13T11:13:44.183-08:00(8) Evolutionary TheologyThe ideas about Evolutionary Theology are nestled in the <br />unfolding of Creation. Quoting the theologian John F. Haught,<br />as put by Diamuird O'Murchu, this particular theological approach <br />actually does "not search for definitive footprints of the divine in <br />nature" but rather "seeks to show how our new awareness of<br />cosmic and biological evolution can enhance and enrich <br />traditional teachings about God and about God's way of acting <br />in the world. " <br />[Diamuird O'Murchu, EVOLUTIONARY FAITH, pp. 33-34.]<br /><br />Evolutionary Theology focuses on the creative process that we<br />observe in the universe, especially as we discover its ability for<br />self-organization (autopoesis). This theology also forces us to <br />look at the "big picture," in that we are dealing over time with<br />billions upon billions of years. As we now have come to under-<br />stand, our universe is some 13.7 billion years old. All through <br />this theology proposes that God has been at work. It's about what<br />some refer to as "Divine Action in the World."<br /><br />So basically it's about God working in the universe. Perhaps here <br />we are broaching a panentheistic point-of-view. Interestingly, too, <br />Evolutionary Theology doesn't wage war with Darwin--rather it considers <br />that Evolution helps those in the field of Theology perhaps eventually <br />to see more clearly God in an "emergent universe" that remains unfinished.<br /><br />[Also see John F. Haught's book, CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE.]Beatrix Murrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11311101719106506471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516243879898773115.post-75931887568266907192011-09-04T13:19:00.000-07:002011-09-04T13:36:30.824-07:00(7) Natural TheologyAn inquiry about God without referring to divine revelation, Natural
<br />Theology actually has ancient roots--going back to the ancient Greek
<br />philosophers. Even more specific, Natural Theology can be traced
<br />back to the pre-Socratics, who quested after the "first principle of
<br />things." Like today, these early philosophers were trying (or hoping)
<br />to understand Ultimate Reality. the Source of all things.
<br />
<br />Unlike us moderns, these ancient philosophers did not have the
<br />advantage of contemporary Science or its adjunct Technology.
<br />Mainly their effort relied on being "purely rational." And in their
<br />way, working with their minds, these early questers actually can
<br />be proved scientifically correct in some of their calculations
<br />about their circumstance, even about their observations about
<br />the Cosmos.
<br />
<br />In our own time Natural Theology perhaps takes another course,
<br />not necessarily trying to explain a First Principle, if you will. Today
<br />this theological approach is not necessarily one that tries to prove
<br />that God exists--though, for some, Natural Theology does pursue
<br />a transcendent reality in which we humans exist. It's about the
<br />universe in which we live and have our being. Basically its approach
<br />is philosophically familiar, in that it is both cosmologically
<br />and ontologically oriented.
<br />
<br />Still, for those who do believe in God this approach by Natural
<br />Theology can point to a Creator. It's also about a synthesis of
<br />human knowledge that can cover a myriad of disciplines, not only
<br />from Science, but also from Religion and Spirituality, the Arts, and
<br />Philosophy. Natural Theology involves an integrative approach
<br />and, most importantly, employs our modern knowledge-base!
<br />Beatrix Murrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11311101719106506471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516243879898773115.post-48996400647605491852011-07-04T10:02:00.000-07:002011-07-04T10:22:39.518-07:00(6) PanentheismThere's a book I recently read about "Panentheism" and just<br />the Content section, itself, provides the long history of this<br />concept. It's a concept that goes back to the roots of Western<br />Civilization, beginning with the early Greek philosophers. It flows <br />on into Christian Neoplatonism, eventually into the Renaissance <br />Period and Romanticism. And waiting their turn to address <br />modern Panentheism, there's the great German philosophers<br />Schelling and Hegel.<br /><br />Closer to our own time there's Teilhard de Chardin's Christocentric <br />Panentheism, followed by Alfred North Whitehead and other<br />leaders of Process Theology. The theologian Paul Tillich also took <br />up the banner of Panentheism. And, more specifically, in our own <br />day this concept is playing into what is deemed Ecological Theology<br />and Theological Cosmology. This persistent historical flow of the <br />concept can leave one nearly breathless. So the question begs to <br />be answered--*what* is Panentheism?<br /><br />Dictionaries provide detail in the early Greek language, in that<br />Panentheism is described as "pan" , which means "all," as "en"<br />which means "in", to "theos," which means "God." Basically <br />Panentheism means "all in God."<br /><br />It is a belief system that posits that God interpenetrates every part<br />of Nature, but yet extends beyond such. To differentiate between<br />Pantheism and Panentheism--Pantheism declares that "God is the<br />Whole," whereas Panentheism declares that "the whole is in God."<br />For some even more religiously disposed, the panentheistic<br />concept allows the idea of a Creator Spirit that dwells within the<br />"heart of the natural world," holding all creatures, drawing them<br />forward towards an unimaginable future, even through the throes of <br />their finitude and death. Further, there's the thought of a Creator <br />Spirit empowering the cosmic process from within, allowing the <br />universe a wonderful freedom continuously to self-organize itself, <br />eventually to transcend itself.<br /><br />However, Panentheism is most related to Process Theology--initially<br />a 20th century movement generated by the great scientist and<br />philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, who stressed that God has <br />two natures: primordial and consequent. God contains All within<br />every given moment, somehow allowing freedom to will, freedom to<br />be within this continuous flux. Beyond even this the thinking is that<br />God is not a stagnant being. Rather within this continuous flux God<br />also continues to evolve. So it would seem with this, there's not only<br />God with us, but there's a definite inner-relationship between God, <br />Creation, and creatures. In other words, we humans not only exist<br />in a living, moving, universe, we somehow are also connected with<br />and serve as co-evolvers with the Creator Spirit.Beatrix Murrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11311101719106506471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516243879898773115.post-86814866725081362742011-05-26T12:00:00.000-07:002011-05-26T12:08:56.102-07:00(5) Vitalism, Panpsychism, EmergentismAlbeit boasting ancient philosophical sources, these three<br />above "isms" remain speculative right into our own modern<br />day. Academic philosophers have written reams about these<br />particular positions about Mind, pro and con. And mostly<br />they tend to separate these three concepts, one from the<br />other. And beyond separation, sometimes there's contrast<br />and competition between the three, even denial of one <br />over the other.<br /><br />So I can only dare to tiptoe into these categories about Mind.<br />Starting out, we should at least give a minimal definition to <br />these categories--though I have no wish to delve deep in <br />such. Otherwise we would be writing tomes!<br /><br />• Vitalism: In its simplest form, vitalism holds that living<br />organisms differ from non-living forms, in that there is an<br />energy--or "elan vital"--that sparks their "soul" or living spirit.<br />This vital energy is a substance that infuses and gives life<br />to more sophisticated forms.<br /><br />• Panpsychism: Basically panpsychism is a doctrine that<br />maintains that Mind is suffused throughout the universe.<br />Mind is everywhere!<br /><br />• Emergentism: Here we move into "complex systems" that<br />are not reducible "to those of their constituent elements."<br />And emergentism--as it involves Consciousness and Mind--<br />relates to a complex system that is more then the sum of the <br />"properties" of its parts.<br /><br />Perhaps odd on my part, but I don't in the least feel the<br />need to pit any one of these three categories over against<br />the other. Rather I tend to see the possibility of a <br />fascinating *connection* linking all three of these "isms."<br /><br />I tend to think that there must be a Creator of this particular<br />universe in which we live. Scientists talk about Natural Laws<br />incorporated into our universe. Theologians talk of God, or<br />more specifically the Spirit that gives us the universe, its<br />power to move, to exist. Hence the "elan vital." One can<br />look at this from a more natural perspective, or assume<br />the theological perspective. Could be that our presumed<br />Natural Laws serve as the inputted pulse of the Spirit.<br /><br />In turn, this special energy, this vital pulse, quickens Mind<br />that could have been embedded in the universe since its<br />creation. It's perhaps an Intelligible Force spread throughout,<br />waiting to be awakened.<br /><br />And possibly this is where emergent minds come into the<br />picture. Underlying everything, everywhere, is Potential<br />Mind, slowly evolving, cropping forth in those complex<br />life forms (or systems).<br /><br />[A selection from Item 42 in my "Seeker's Sojourn" site.]Beatrix Murrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11311101719106506471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516243879898773115.post-6581552281569358692011-04-28T13:24:00.000-07:002011-04-28T13:41:01.619-07:00(4) Cosmic PlenumThe idea of a "Cosmic Plenum"-- an Intelligence or Godhead that <br />supports and sustains the universe--has probably been around <br />for millennia, mainly nestled in religions and philosophies. In <br />Hinduism there's Brahmin, the Ultimate Reality of all phenomena. <br />And in ancient Greek philosophy there's the Logos, deemed the <br />Reason that underlies the universe. Also, later the Christian Fathers <br />borrowed the concept of the Logos, declaring Jesus as the <br />"Incarnation of the Logos." And out of this declaration, the iconic <br />Pantocrator--the Cosmic Christ, the Lord of the Universe--emerged,<br /><br />Eventually more contemporary philosophies began to think of the<br />Cosmic Plenum in terms of Energy. There's the "elan vital" expressed<br />in Vitalism. In its simplest form vitalism holds that living organisms<br />differ from non-living forms, in that there is an energy that sparks their<br />soul or living spirit. This vital energy is a substance that infuses and<br />gives life to more sophisticated life forms.<br /><br />And when considering the Cosmic Christ, the paleontologist-priest<br />Pierre Teilhard de Chardin oft referred to energy. Teilhard declared<br />that "all energy is psychic in nature." He believed that energy is <br />"divided into two distinct components--a tangential energy, which <br />links the element with all others of the same order...and radial energy <br />which draws it towards ever great complexity and centricity..."<br /><br />Basically Teilhard believed that a Within underlined the Without of<br />the universe. Essentially he was thinking of the Cosmic Plenum. But,<br />like so many others, he had moved into the realm of speculation.<br /><br />On the other hand, modern physicists have also dared to speculate<br />about a Cosmic Plenum.<br /><br />Known as the "Father of Quantum Mechanics," the late David Bohm<br />was a protege of both Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer ( the Father<br />of the Atom Bomb) when he was at the Institute of Advanced Study<br />in Princeton. Eventually he assumed the Chair of the Physics<br />Department at the University of London.<br /><br />But it was what Bohm did *after* he retired as a physicist. Essentially <br />he became a philosopher, espousing an incredibly interesting theory<br />about what he called the "Implicate Order." What Bohm suggested<br />strongly is that there is an Inner Aspect of the universe as well as an<br />Outer Aspect that we normally study.<br /><br />He based his theory on his knowledge as a physicist. Bohm's <br />universal system was a "Whole," if you will, seamless, with the Inner<br />playing into the Outer. As he stressed, our's is a *holistic universe* <br />and its process is holistic. Bohm believed that there was a Cosmic<br />Plenum, which he called the "Holomovement."<br /><br />Continuing, another contemporary philosopher, Ervin Laszlo--a<br />systems analyst and founder of Systems Philosophy--developed a<br />theory of the Cosmic Plenum that involves what is called the Quantum<br />Vacuum. ( In quantum field theory, the vacuum state is the quantum<br />state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical<br />particles. *Zero-point field* is sometimes used as a synonym for the<br />vacuum state of an individual quantized field.)<br /><br />Perhaps difficult to understand, but Laszlo considers the quantum vacuum <br />that cosmic substratum which becomes unstable in universe-creating<br />explosions. His theory is about a recycling, recreating universe. As put <br />by Laszlo, the quantum vacuum is both "the cradle and the deathbed of <br />universes." However, he notes that this "vacuum is Akasha and Prana<br />rolled into one: the dynamic virtual-energy substratum that endures <br />through all of time and fills all of space."<br /><br />Laszlo's theory broadens when he talks of the quantum vacuum as an<br />"information field underlying all of reality." Continuing, he notes that <br />"there is a feedback loop in which information is conserved and transferred <br />from the virtual cosmic plenum to manifest reality and back." Laszlo <br />further relates this occurring "in a holographic nature--think of Bohm's <br />implicate order."<br /><br />So, this idea of a feedback loop can not only be traced back to Bohm's<br />idea of information conveyed between his concept of an implicate<br />order and an explicate order of the universe, but also back to Teilhard's<br />idea of an information exchange between the Within and the Without<br />of the universe.<br /><br />Again, even in our own modern time, we are back to religious and<br />philosophical speculations when it comes to the Cosmic Plenum.<br />Still we seem very much drawn to the idea of such a Plenum or<br />Cosmic Mind/Spirit that somehow provides our surface world with<br />Information that we are mandated to make Intelligible.<br /><br />So, who is to say what the Future might hold when it comes to<br />such wonderful imaginings about the Cosmic Plenum! Perhaps<br />one day we might hit upon the Reality of Such.Beatrix Murrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11311101719106506471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516243879898773115.post-795988665227312302011-04-23T11:16:00.000-07:002011-04-23T11:30:12.360-07:00(3) Deep Ecology"Deep Ecology" is a philosophy for here and now as well as for<br />the future. The Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess developed <br />this special ecological philosophy in the early 1970s, Simply<br />put, Deep Ecology is a holistic paradigm that not only recognizes<br />the importance of the eco-system and natural processes, but<br />recognizes the rights of other living forms. Basically Deep Ecology <br />stresses the interdependent nature of human and non-human life.<br /><br />Another way of looking at Deep Ecology is to compare it with what<br />philosophers call "Shallow Ecology" that is essentially human-<br />centered (anthropocentric). Shallow Ecology is still a major force<br />throughout our own times, in that it views nature only for human use.<br />Nature, bluntly put, is seen only as an utility. <br /><br />Human beings are considered *separate* from Nature according<br />to the scenario provided by Shallow Ecology; whereas, Deep <br />Ecology--as already put--stresses an interconnected as well as<br />an interdependent world. Consequently, proponents of Deep<br />Ecology do not consider the world simply as a resource for human<br />use. Rather it values the well-being of both human and non-human<br />life who share our planet.<br /><br />Deep Ecology values the diversity of the Earth's biosphere, and<br />humans have no right to impoverish this special diversity. On the<br />other hand, Deep Ecology most certainly takes in account vital<br />human needs. For example,within Native American cultures, <br />hunters may have had the need to kill animals for food--but they <br />also thanked that animal for its sacrifice. However, on our <br />larger socio-cultural scale of modern times, this outlook may<br />prove challenging.<br /><br />Politically Deep Ecology has already played into the thinking of<br />contemporary environmental, ecological, and green movements<br />as well as consideration for animal rights. And culturally it can be <br />inter-weaved into various religious and spiritual worldviews. Also, <br />philosophers are contrasting Deep Ecology in relation to other <br />modern movements such as social ecology, ecofeminism, and <br />biocentric egalitarianism. And some ethicists are considering Deep <br />Ecology when it comes to forging new moral approaches towards <br />engaging Nature.<br /><br />However, personally, it would seem that our level of consciousness <br />will need be considerably tweaked sharply in future when it comes <br />to the socio-cultural expression of Deep Ecology.Beatrix Murrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11311101719106506471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516243879898773115.post-10984386014825738442011-04-11T12:36:00.000-07:002011-04-11T12:58:20.987-07:00(2) NeurocosmologyI have to admit that one of the most complex books that I have<br />ever read is Todd Siler's BREAKING THE MIND BARRIER: THE<br />ARTSCIENCE OF NEUROCOSMOLOGY, published by Simon and <br />Schuster in 1990.<br /><br />At the time of writing Siler was working as a visual artist <br />at M.I.T's Computer-Aided Design Laboratory in the Department <br />of Mechanical Engineering. He had already delved deep into <br />what he calls "Neurocosmology," having published such items <br />as Metaphorms: Forms of Metaphor; Architectonics of Thought; <br />A Symbolic Model of Neuropsychological Processes; and The<br />Biomirror.<br /><br />And as an artist Siler's artworks have been exhibited inter-<br />nationally and are in numerous collections, including the <br />Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Museum of Modern Art, and the <br />Pushkin Fine Arts Museum in Moscow.<br /><br />But now to the hard part...we need better to understand what <br />Siler means by *neurocosmology* and *metaphorms." <br /><br />As put in his book, "A metaphorm is an object, image, concept, <br />or process that we compare to something else...Metaphorms invoke<br />the idea of forming, connecting, shaping *some thing* (or <br />information) in our mind's eyes and hands." (pp.30-31)<br /><br />However, when it comes to neurocosmology, the going becomes<br />a little more complicated. Siler notes that his "book presents <br />a vision of nature as a world of what [he calls]--*processmorphs*--<br />things that are alike in process but not necessarily alike in form: <br />from heavenly bodies to human brains." (p. 18)<br /><br />Continuing, Siler lists three principles of neurocosmology:<br />(1) Through metaphorms, relate everything you do, see, feel,<br />create or experience in terms of brain processes.<br />(2) Through metaphorms, relate everything you do, see, feel,<br />create or experience in terms of the universe's processes.<br />(3) Interrelate the results and experiences from 1 and 2. <br />Then question what these interrelations mean or suggest to you. <br />(pp.41-42)<br /><br />One reviewer noted that Siler's blueprint for neurocosmology <br />might be a new science that links the microcosm to the Macrocosm. <br />Of course philosophers since Ancient Greece have toyed with this<br />kind of linkage. But Siler believes that by "decoding the brain, <br />we decode the universe."<br /><br />But we need move on, getting into the nitty-gritty of Siler's <br />hypothesis about *processmorphs," things that differ in outward <br />form but are alike in process. He cites examples such as humans, <br />earthquakes, windstorms, and stars as sharing similar patterns of <br />energy phenomena.<br /><br />In his book, Siler provides illustrations that somehow link our <br />brain's processes with natural processes. For example, he gives<br />examples of what he calls "Cerebral Fusion: Intuition" and "Cerebral <br />Fusion: Reason" by displaying metaphorms of the brain in action. <br />He also discusses processes vis-a-vis processors. For example, he <br />relates the brain's Neocortex with Time-Space and Information-Related<br />Systems (such as analog/digital processes of computers.) He also<br />relates our Limbic System with Energy-Matter and Energy-Related<br />Systems (such as with fusion/fission nuclear reactors), and our<br />Brain Stem with Momentum and Offense/Defense Related Systems.<br /><br />One of my favorite Siler illustrations is a view of the brain's<br />Hipppocampus, a section of neural tissue from the Temporal Lobe,<br />that actually corresponds with the layout of a spiral galaxy.<br /><br />Anyway, we have moved into Nature big time, in the Cosmic! These<br />accounts are but a small dip into Siler's vast respository of <br />illustrations that connect both the layout and processes of our <br />brain with Nature's processes.<br /><br />Almost as an end note, Siler asks the question: "Couldn't it just <br />be possible that our theories of the universe are theories about <br />ourselves? That we have to study everything about ourselves and <br />our creations--*in conjuction* with studying everything about the <br />cosmos--to actually see ourselves? The idea implies that *all <br />theories,* to various degrees, describe aspects of human brain <br />processes." (pp. 236-237)Beatrix Murrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11311101719106506471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516243879898773115.post-4041190892483762042011-04-05T11:09:00.000-07:002011-04-23T13:43:32.204-07:00(1) New CosmologyThe New Cosmology about our universe starts out with the <br />"Big Bang, originally labeled by antagonist Fred Hoyle. He <br />actually didn't accept the Big Bang theory and used the term <br />in a derisive way. However, in 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert <br />Wilson accidentally discovered the cosmic background radiation <br />of the Big Bang At the time they were in charge of a new Bell <br />Laboratories microwave receiver, and this receiver kept <br />picking-up signals--from everywhere! They thought there were <br />kinks in the receiver, no, then they figured it must be some sort <br />of outside interference, like birds defecating on the receiver, <br />again no. So it had to be cosmic radiation residue from the <br />Big Bang!<br /><br />At the same time, in nearby Princeton University, scientists<br />were intent looking for this cosmic background radiation. Word<br />got around, and they knew that Wilson and Penzias' microwave<br />receiver had done it. And 25 years later, in 1989, the Cosmic<br />Background Explorer satellite (COBE) was launched--and its<br />findings were consistent regarding the cosmic microwave<br />background of the Big Bang.<br /><br />As to what this means is yet another story. The theoretics for the <br />Big Bang were already in place, years before its background<br />radiation was picked-up by Penzias and Wilson. In 1927 <br />Georges Lemaitre, a physicist and a Roman Catholic priest<br />from Belgium, had presented his theory of what was to become <br />known as the Big Bang. He believed that the universe began as <br />a single point, a form no larger than a cell, and it "exploded." <br />In a few seconds the universe began to expand into what is now <br />considered a dense, hot "primordial soup." Later elements evolved <br />that allowed for the formation of galaxies, millions upon millions, <br />with billions of suns and presumably solar systems. Hence the <br />possibility of finding planets, eventually, that might sustain Life. <br />We have only begun the search, and someday we might be <br />surprised.<br /><br />Using special astrophysical technology, the latest estimate is<br />that our universe is some 13.7 billion years old. Scientists<br />believe that it's an expanding universe, with the galaxies moving<br />farther away from one another. And here it begins to get strange. <br />Astronomers today figure that our present universe is composed <br />of Dark Energy (74%), Dark Matter (22%), and Normal Matter (4%)--<br />and out of that 4%, most is gas and only a minute percentage <br />accounts for stars and their systems.<br /><br />And whatever might be Dark Matter and Dark Energy? They are<br />hypothetical terms that cosmologists use. They believe that<br />Dark Matter can be inferred by its gravitational effects on normal<br />matter. As for Dark Energy, it is believed that it permeates all<br />space and is behind the increasing expansion rate of the universe,<br /><br />As for the surface of the universe, geometrists are continuously<br />challenged. The geometry of the universe considers two<br />possibilities, either the universe is curved or it is flat. And recently,<br />NASA announced that their WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave<br />Anisotropy Probe) spacecraft has pretty much confirmed that <br />our universe is flat--with only a 2% margin of error.<br /><br />So whatever does this mean? Well a flat universe involves<br />accelerative expansion. As cosmologists put, absent<br />Dark Energy a flat universe will expand forever with an<br />eventual fixed rate. But with the presence of Dark Energy--<br />all 74% of it--the acceleration of the universe slows down, <br />but in time eventually increases. <br /><br />Alas, an uncomfortable topic--the ultimate fate of the universe!<br />The candidates have been as follows: Heat Death, the Big <br />Freeze, the Big Crunch, and more recently the Big Rip. If the<br />WMAP is definitely correct about ours being a flat universe, and<br />the measurement of Dark Energy is on the mark, well than the <br />leading candidate is the Big Rip. If so, all normal matter will <br />disintegrate into unbound elementary particles as the rest of <br />the universe continues to expand infinitely. But cosmologists <br />tell us that sad event is a long, long way off. Still it's not a <br />comfortable thought.<br /><br />Overall, however, our fledgling empirical observations of our<br />universe are leading into a Mystery. If we continue to increase<br />our knowledge, who is to say what Wonder we might discover.<br />But for now it's just strangely weird. <br /><br />There's Black Holes, for example. Cosmologists speculate that<br />they are usual in the centers of galaxies. Our contemporary<br />astrophysical technology helps us feel around the conclusion<br />that there is such a thing as a Black Hole. However, one does<br />not want to get close to such a cosmic beast. According to<br />general relativity, a Black Hole possesses a gravitational field<br />so powerful that nothing, but nothing can escape its pull. This <br />includes matter and even light. Nothing escapes--maybe.<br /><br />Some theorists believe that a Black Hole might actually be<br />a wormhole. Thus it is a kind of an inner tunnel where one<br />might travel from one point to another point in the universe.<br />Hard to figure, however, if everything that enters such a hole<br />is destroyed. On the other hand, maybe matter seemingly<br />dumped into a Black Hole arrives at the other end of the tunnel.<br /><br />Regardless, cosmic theories are fascinating There's the String<br />Theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics<br />into a quantum theory of gravity. This theory also involves<br />additional dimensions to our usual three spatial dimensions<br />plus our one dimension of time. And further developed String<br />Theory moves into what is deemed the Holographic Principle.<br />More on that as we get into Quantum Theory.<br /><br />The basis of Quantum Theory can be summarized in three<br />propositions: (1) In the subatomic world, few things can be<br />predicted with 100 % precision; however, accurate predictions<br />can be made about the probability of any particular outcome;<br />(2) One has to work with the probabilities rather than certainties,<br />because it is impossible--for an observer--to describe all<br />aspects of a particle at once as to its speed and location; and<br />(3) Electromagnetic energy, such as light or heat, does not<br />always behave like a continuous wave--rather it is grainy<br />because energy can be transferred only in quantum packages,<br />and thus light has a dual character, sometimes displaying<br />wavelike aspects and in other circumstances as particles.<br /><br />And the magic component in this cosmic story, whether it's about<br />us or whether about the whole universe, is Energy!<br /><br />In 1900 Max Planck had originated the theory of Quantum <br />Mechanics, which is a theory of energy as emanated in discrete<br />packages. Soon Albert Einstein took Planck's idea one step<br />further, assuming that light was quantized. And later David<br />Bohm, a premier physicist, known as the "Father of Quantum<br />Mechanics," believed that this underlying background of Energy<br />to be the plenum of the universe. Bohm likened this plenum,<br />this immense background of Energy. to be one whole and<br />unbroken movement that he called the "holomovement."<br /><br />At least some major cosmological theorists say out-loud<br />that there is a Plenum of the Universe. But hold on! There just <br />might be a problem. Could be that our universe is *not* the one <br />and only universe!<br /><br />Maybe the theories are getting out-of-hand. There's the<br />theory that there is a multi-universe derived from the many-<br />worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. In quantum<br />mechanics, there is this paradoxical situation in which an <br />object often seems to exist in two or more different states at<br />the same time. (Remember the dual character of light, or<br />electron, sometimes appearing as a wave, sometimes a particle.)<br /><br />The many-worlds interpretation deals with this, theorizing that<br />if an electron seems to exist in two states, then that at every <br />quantum mechanical event, the universe splits into two, This <br />could go on infinitum, it you will. And ultimately this could lead <br />to incredibly huge numbers of branching universes.<br /><br />And there is yet another theory that really is boggling--especially <br />if true. That there is a Parent Universe that spawns universes, <br />including ours. This idea is interesting, because the Big Bang <br />seems almost like a "birthing." Maybe this theory of a Parent <br />Universe isn't so way out after all.<br /><br />[The above information is an extract from one of my earlier<br />works, the "Sol Scientia." ]Beatrix Murrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11311101719106506471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4516243879898773115.post-84083707122145603962011-04-05T11:06:00.000-07:002013-08-09T14:25:08.356-07:00IntroductionMany current concepts that connect Science amd Spirituality could <br />
serve as a spiritual foundation for the Future. In this essay site <br />
it is my intent to provide descriptions of selected topics as well <br />
as commentary regarding how I see how this selection might evolve <br />
in the Future.<br />
<br />
Though certainly not all that I might select, some of the topics<br />
I will discuss are as follows:<br />
<br />
COSMOLOGY<br />
• The New Cosmology<br />
• NeuroCosmology<br />
• Deep Ecology<br />
• The Cosmic Plenum<br />
• Vitalism, Panpsychism, Emergentism<br />
<br />
ONTOLOGY<br />
• Panentheism<br />
• Natural Theology<br />
• Evolutionary Theology<br />
• NeuroTheology<br />
• Memetics and God<br />
• Consciousness <br />
• Multidisciplinary, Multidimensional<br />
• Noosphere Extended<br />
• Intuition<br />
• Meditation<br />
• God Imagery<br />
• Archetypal Psychology<br />
• Gestalt Psychology <br />
• Transpersonal Psychology<br />
• Enactivism<br />
• (Psi) Non-Local Prayer<br />
• (Psi) Peak Exprience<br />
• (Psi) Near Death Experience <br />
• (Psi) Reincarnation<br />
• Transhumanism<br />
<br />
SPIRITUALITY<br />
• Wisdom Traditions<br />
• Creation Spirituality<br />
• Eco-Spirituality<br />
• Personal Entelechy<br />
• Us & the Universe<br />
<br />
SUMMATIONBeatrix Murrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11311101719106506471noreply@blogger.com