• MICRODECISIONS-Mini-Forum November 22 - 01:09 am
• Truth August 9 - 04:08 pm

HABEAS MENTEM INVERSUM: On the right to being who we are.
A short treatise.


One. Unity. Infinity. The greatest number, the least number. A single digit that represents the beginning, and the end, which calls for a totality where all is understood within itself. This is the formula of all philosophy, to formulate the greatest dimensions in terms of relations that offer the least resistance. It is to bring simplicity to chaos, order where there is a multitude of disorder. When this is done, the world we live in, the universe that so totally envelopes us, begins to make sense. Each one of us is the single digit at the center of an infinity, a mind and being and body, who seeks to find meaning in terms of ourselves. This understanding, this search for our identity is a fight for life. We search for who we are, and when we find it, it is as if we can breathe again. It is great.

I am. That is the beginning of any search. But like a storm tossed ship lost in a deleterious fog, I am is battered constantly by forces we can hardly understand, much less dominate. Our known history is a continuous string of violence and abuses we survived with intermittent moments of calm and creative successes that have laboriously elevated our civilization to heights never dreamed of by our ancestors. Witness the cellular phone, or the ability to travel to all parts of the globe in a matter of hours. Think of space, and how we will soon launch ourselves into the planets of our solar system from the space station we as a world had just begun building. How do we reconcile war with space travel? They seem an oxymoron. We cannot face the intricate and immense demands of cooperation and technical perfection if launched from a world of distrust, violence, and outright intolerance of our fellow human beings. To achieve greatness, we need peace. And peace cannot come to us without an understanding of ourselves, each other, and respect for all the inherent differences of each human being on this planet. Like the strands of DNA that twist together, we must learn to respect each other even if we cannot understand each other. From the blistering dysfunctions of our social worlds on Earth, we must come to that resting place on the periphery from which we can step forth into a new future, one that is rich in all the beauty and promise which I believe is our common goal. I am is what can do it.

We are held together as a planet by a worldwide organization. We have a network of power, military, governmental, bureaucratic, organizational, a near infinity of laws, commercial exchange, and religious beliefs. These define for us the limits of our behavior, our public and private conduct, how we are allowed to be in society and the world. Power defines for us our boundaries, and thus also define for us, in allowing us what we may or may not do, who we may or may not be. It is a complex and cumbersome system within which we have adapted and learned to live with, power balanced against power at all levels of command, which demands our full obedience. But the inverse is also true. We have, each one of us, within ourselves an already predefined structure of power to which we are only now awakening. We are subjects of another chain of command, one that is balanced in terms of what we may or may not do. It is called reality, our being, our universe. We live within the embodiment of an organizational structure which has allowed us to manifest within it a body, a life, and a conscious mind. This other power is as close to us as the air we breath, the oxygen that flows through our blood. And now it is a power we can become aware of. In our mind, we can now become aware of it as intimately as our need for food, or water, or sex. It is a universal force buried in us at the most microscopic level, while simultaneously converging on us from the most macroscopic dimensions. We live and breath and are within a universe that lives with us, and within which in the end we must die. This power is in effect far greater than any Earthly man made power. And to this power, with a conscious mind, we now turn our attention, and awaken.


In fact, we are little aware of this greater organization, and thus live in a state of universal confusion which keeps us tied to a lesser world. By contrast, some things have become so innate to us that we have ceased to marvel at them. We all have the power of language. Every human being throughout the planet can smile, or laugh. We think nothing of our ability to use tools, or even to read and write, or to think. Yet, how wonderful these are. Then why is it so difficult to trust, to agree, to cooperate, and to not live in fear? Why do we not trust in our being to carry us through life, to deliver us from hardships, to hear our prayers in times of need? We survive, we live, we procreate, we create beautiful things. Surely these do not come from a vacuum. Yet we struggle with our ability to believe, and turn away from our natural mysticism in the name of science. Or is this too part of the plan, to keep us grounded to a lesser world? But our vision can now rise to a higher level. Imagine if we suddenly were confronted with beings from a civilization far advanced from ours. Would they respect our world order organization, or would they respect us first as individual human beings? Would they worship our military might and cower before it? Or would they worship the man and woman who could speak the truth, and keep to his or her word? Really, which is more powerful? But to us this is a strange question, because we can easily see the power of force, having been forced to obey and abused all through history, and prehistory. This is all we know. If we failed to obey, we were punished, forced into slavery, or killed. Coercion is the essence of life we had always known. But now rise, and think of life not through coercion but through agreement, where each one of us is respected, and in turn it is now demanded of us that we respect the other. How strange, and yet how wonderful, how powerful. Speak the truth and respect your fellow beings, and you are powerful in ways only the universe can make you powerful. This is Habeas Mentem.

I am is the essence of our being. We know this in our hearts, each and every one of us knows this. Now, dare to say no. Resist coercion. You are more than subjects to a master, to anyone who would force you from being who you are. Be true. Your universe has made you powerful by giving you a conscious mind that can choose this. Choose to be true to who you are. Of the multitudes of laws that force you into submission, there is only one that is really true to who you are: Do not coerce another. This is the law that stands behind all laws. Do not lie, do not cheat, do not steal, do not confuse reality. And if you err in this, then make amends, be humble, tolerant, and accept that none of us are perfect. We do not define ourselves in competition with each other, but rather through how we can work together in a spirit of agreement and goodwill. Learn to forgive. We need this for the right to be who we are. Then we have something much bigger working with us, though we are but dimly aware of it. Believe, and you will find a universe that works with you. Dream of a better world, and it will happen. Same as we no longer cower before our ancient gods, we need not cower before those forces that have kept us in ignorance through all time. Who in truth cowers today before Amen-Ra of ancient Egypt? Those gods are forgotten as ancient superstitions. Now we can drop the superstitions of modern times. We do not need to kill one another. We do not need war. We do not need to hate one another, nor distrust because someone is different in appearance, thinks differently, or does not agree with us. Let them be who they are. There is only one rule that they must obey, as we, and that is to let you be who you are, and respect you as a human being. You are a very great being and, in I am, you are the most wonderful thing that life, the universe, has created thus far. We do not know of other worlds, and perhaps life has manifested beings far greater than us. But that does not negate the rule. Be true. This we all must obey.

The universe is true with itself. It cannot work otherwise. All the laws of physics, all the forces of our physical reality, are intricately interrelated to give us the manifested reality we perceive as existence. Everything works together constantly at every moment of time. Push on any part of existence, and all the rest of it responds. There is margin for error, and existence does not collapse because we are unconscious of our actions. But pushed hard enough, it does begin to fail. Think of the abuses we have heaped on our planet, and how life is being extinguished throughout the globe in a chain reaction of extinction. We can destroy ourselves, and all living things with us. And yet, this is the beauty of our world, that we are so intricately tied into existence that we must obey. Our minds already know this, though we still cannot feel this in our soul. It has not yet entered into the I am of our awareness. We still do not know at that deeper level that all things are totally tied to each other, completely. There is no gap between what we do, and what the universe does with us, or to us. Though we know it at the level of reason, this knowledge has not yet entered into the intimacy of our being: I am as I do. Now we must enter it at a deeper level, where all of being is tied together as one. We are an intricate piece of our existence, and because we have the power to change this existence, with it comes the responsibility to be conscious of it. The universe works totally with existence, and so must we. Each one of us is as intimately interrelated into the existence of who we are as the universe is intimately interrelated to itself. This is an infinite force which is true to itself, and so must we be. It cannot be otherwise, though we scarcely know it. This is the awareness we must reach for, and to know it in I am is to earn the right to be who we are.

Why is this so? Where is the proof? It is because we have a mind. But it can work only if we are conscious of it. An unconscious mind is like a ship without a rudder. It strays, it believes, and then forgets, goes forwards in its evolution, and then regresses back into confusion. We are beings who help the universe know itself through us. But if we become confused, then this knowledge is of little value. The universe from which we spring is true to itself, and so must we be to ourselves. If we wander in our consciousness and fail in this, then we fail in the knowledge we communicate back into our reality. Reality falters around us, and our existence manifests our confusion. So we must have a mind, and then grasp that mind to keep it from running away from itself, from who we are, and from the order that is our existence. Through the evolution of our being, we had been connected to the totality of the interrelationship of all the forces of existence for a very long time. This connection has given us the time to evolve a mind that can approximate the mind of the existence around us. Even without our awareness, we had been interacting with reality for a very long time, since first life. Now this interaction has given us the power to look back upon itself, and wonder. We have a mind. We can think, we can feel, we can believe, we can love. Truly it is a wonderful gift. But what is the good of this gift if we squander it on trivial pursuits, on personal gain at the expense of being true to ourselves, and undo who we are? Where is the gain, then? If our world crashes around us as we pursue it unconsciously, then what is the good? Again, if we are presented with an opportunity to travel into the cosmos and encounter more advanced beings, who do we wish to present to them? If we are to command respect in the community of higher civilizations, to be arbiters and arbitered in a higher world, then we need the foundation on which we can stand and be recognized. Only as free and conscious human beings can this happen. To be taken seriously, we must become serious ourselves. We must show a conscious mind.

I believe there is a community, a unity of worlds, to which we had not been invited, yet. It is not so much our technical lack, as it is our lack as an advanced species. We can think, we can reason and grasp order from disorder. We can see a universe that stretches beyond our mind's comprehension, and call it infinity, or God, and understand its components down to the sub atomic level. We can reason how three elements can interrelate themselves into an infinity. And we can take that infinity to redefine itself within itself, and call it life. We can define the identity of our being, the who of our existence, in terms of space and time. We can take all of our understanding and interrelate it into One. We are now on the threshold of becoming conscious human beings. But just as we are about to step into a new reality, we keep breaking down. It is not yet germane for us to believe what we know. We forget, and then struggle to remember. We are not perfect, and so may be forgiven, but not forgotten. It is a painful step in our species' evolution, to falter, unless we catch ourselves in those first steps we had taken to being called human beings. Our world is almost there, and it is exciting to watch our progress. But it would be regrettable if those who forget succeed in convincing all the rest that it is better to not remember. Habeas Mentem was written for this, to remember. And when we do, we will walk erect and proudly with a unity this world had never yet seen. It will be then that the community of the universe will know us as Earth, or Terra or Gaia, home to the new human beings, who are welcome into the unity of worlds.

In the end, we need to love ourselves, so that we can love those around us, and let them love us. In truth, this is the beginning.


HABEAS MENTEM

REALIZED BEING

Know Who you Are, and you will live Forever. Who
you were, who you are, who you will be, are all
the same. You Are. Immortal when you know this,
Who You Are, through All Lifetimes. Realized
Being, Your Soul will Never Die.

http://www.poetry.com/ecardsearch.asp

KOESTENBAUM'S WEEKLY LEADERSHIP THOUGHT

The Two Worlds of Leadership

Seven Steps to Apply Philosophic Insight to the
Real World

1. There is an inner universe as much as there is
an outer universe. Space and time are not only
characteristics of the external world, they are in
every way also traits of the inner world. The door
connecting the two worlds is what we call my-body,
the body-as-me, the body-as-mine, and the
bodymind, the complete mind and body
interpenetrating connection. That happens to be
the nature of every "I Am"! So we theorize.

2. But in my actual experience that combination
occurs only in me. I am the only interface between
the inner and the outside worlds that I know. You
are to me part of the outer world. My thoughts and
feelings are inner objects of my existence, and
not part of you. Curiously enough, I think of all
other persons as being the same, i.e., being like
me, even though I experience only my feelings as
my own, and my perceptions as my own. It1s a
holographic image: each person is the center of
the universe. But I am not each person, I am me,
period. There can be only one center. How
paradoxical!

3. Leadership is to take the insights from the
inner world and make them work as the "outsights"
of the external world. Deep inside me I discover
free will. I make that work far out in the
external world. That is leadership. But I cannot
make use of this truth if I do not respect to the
utmost the reality of the inner world.

4. Freedom, guilt, anxiety, creativity,
reflection, initiative, awareness, all of these
virtues, all of these tools, all of the power
ingredients in a leadership existence, are
literally resources drawn from the cornucopia of
inner space-time.  Leaders take the whole package
and, like dynamite or atomic energy, make it work
explosively to transform the world outside, the
consensual world, the world of external space and
time, of matter and energy.

5. We use these leadership empowering words
interchangeably, so that space has both an inner
and an outer referent, and so does time. But
perhaps, even more interestingly, so do energy,
force, power, light and illumination, darkness,
infinity, laws, and meaning have application in
both of these fundamental realms -- the outer
world and the inner truth.

6. In which world we live, and which world we
consider real, these are  deeply embedded cultural
biases. The authentic leader does not live in the
inner world, nor does the authentic leader live on
the outside. The authentic leader lives in both
worlds! Do you?

7. Here is a to me a great illustration of this
cultural diversity. I flew on a low-cost airline,
ATA, from Chicago to Los Angeles. I sat in a crowd
(don1t we all?), squeezed into the middle seat in
a row of three. Joe, sat on my right: a slick
young know-it-all aspiring American businessman,
and, on my left, Manuel, a shy Mexican farm
laborer, speaking no English. Both asked me what I
was writing. I ended up telling them I worked in
philosophy. Joe reacted quickly,  "Oh!" he said,
"phailosophy is too abstract. It's no concern of
mine!"

I panic when anyone says "phailosophy," as I do
when they ask a friend of mine if he is
"Aitalian"!  Or when people talk about the
political situation in "Airan"!

"Phailosophy has nothing to do with me," continued
Joe. "I am real. I am a pragmatist. And I play
golf!" So much for revealing his metaphysical
position!

Manuel also responded: "Isn't philosophy when you
close your eyes," he said as he placed his hands
over his closed eyes, "and you look inside and you
pay attention to what you see?"  He went on, "And
then you use what you find and bring it into your
life to live better?" And he said it all in
Spanish, for he spoke no English.

Frankly, I was stunned.  Either he had secretly
read Plato -- or both Plato and Jung were right
that we are born with a collective unconscious, a
body of philosophical knowledge, and learning is
but a remembering. While Joe was blinded by a
contemporary materialistic view of the world,
Manuel could see the necessity for and the
sanctity of the "I-Am" experience.
 

                                                  
 May 4, 2001

**********************************************
E-mail us at info@pib.net if
you would like to be
notified when future workshop dates are scheduled.
Dates will also be announced on Koestenbaum's
Weekly Leadership Thought e-mail and on the
http://www.pib.net home page.

ON RELATIVITY IN UNIVERSE

"Giordano Bruno ,The Forgotten Philosopher"

by John J. Kessler, Ph.D., Ch.E.

In his book De la Causa, Principio, et Uno, On
Cause, Principle, and Unity we find prophetic
phrases:

"This entire globe, this star, not being subject
to death, and dissolution and annihilation being
impossible anywhere in Nature, from time
to time renews itself by changing and altering all
its parts. There is no absolute up or down, as
Aristotle taught; no absolute position in space;
but the position of a body is relative to that of
other bodies. Everywhere there is incessant
relative change in position throughout the
universe, and the observer is always at the center
of things."

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/bruno.htm

POSSIBLE PROOF OF UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS?

Assuming existence, a priori, is the final arbiter
of what is reality in the universe, can we also
assume that this existence is infinite? If Yes,
then is this infinite reality a closed system,
totally self contained; or is it an open system,
where it is subject to continuous change? If it
is a closed system, then it is what it is and it
may be possible to construct a proof of a
universal consciousness within it. If it is an
open system, with a potential for growth or
change, then any proof would be voided by future
change, since it would then be a
non-self-contained, or non-static, system subject
to variables, as chaos theory suggests, which
would invalidate such proof. Finally, infinity
that changes is different from an infinity that is
static. In my opinion, however, infinity by
definition cannot be static, for then it would be
a closed circle and no longer infinity. At the
margin, for it to be infinity, it must be open
ended. So given this, then it is unlikely a
viable proof of any consequence can be designed
within it, since that would imply a closed
universe. Thus, unless one designs a system that
validates itself by its own dynamics, a proof is
not viable, since we live in an open ended,
probabilistic universe subject to risk, and one in
which the certainty of proof, philosophical
guarantees if you will, is not realistic.

Now, how does this affect a proof of a possible
Universal Consciousness, one that is outside the
human mind? Can there be proof of consciousness
as defined by the concept of interrelationship
defining its internal parts? (1) The thesis of
interrelationship says that the interconnectedness
of all things, of necessity connected to all
things to infinity, makes each thing within this
totality exactly as the pressure of everything
else allows it to be. Hence, this
interrelationship totality, as it is in this
totality, is its definition in terms of the whole.
(2) This system describes human existence as well,
and thus defines our being in our body. We are
how we are in relation to where we are within this
infinite existence. (Note, this is not a
definition I ascribe, but one that is ascribed by
the system of interrelationship.) What
distinguishes our human existence from that of
other living species is that we have a conscious
mind that is aware of itself, and we can say this,
both to ourselves and to others. (3) Given the
thesis above, this also implies that the
consciousness we possess is exactly, being inside
the body we possess, as the totality image of our
existence has allowed it to be. (We are connected
to existence both spatially and in time, being
born of our parents, who were born of their
parents, to the beginning of the bacteria or amino
acids who preceded us.) (4) If this is so, it
still being subject to much debate, then the fact
that such an existence has created a conscious
mind means that our reality is structured in such
a way that this consciousness is possible within
it. Is this, then, the proof we seek, that there
is a univeral consciousness beyond that of our
human brain? No, not yet. There is one more
important step. Because we live in an infinity,
which is an open system, any proof would be
suspect. Instead, (5) we can reason that either
we live in a conscious reality, or we live in a
probabilistic universe, given to chaos, that at
the margins of infinity can produce a
consciousness on some of its individual entities.
Either way, the system of interrelationship is
such that it tracks each and everyone one of its
components, and defines each, gives it identity,
in relation to where it is within the whole. (6)
The fact that humans possess consciousness,
therefore, means that the totality definition for
each human being, being where he or she is in the
body, has a definition at infinity that is
conscious. (That is the rule of interrelationship
as described in this thesis. One could move
around, have different thoughts, but the rule
holds. Infinity tracks us completely, and it is a
very big universe.) Therefore, (7) as we are
conscious in our everyday existence, the universe
is conscious with us, for us only at the point of
our being, as it relates only to ourselves, at any
moment of time. This is not to say that this
consciousness exists outside of us, say around us,
like in the rocks or soil we walk on. Rather,
this consciousness exists only for the living
entities that are endowed with it. (8) So this
universal consciousness is conditional:
Consciousness exists only for those entities that
are capable of it. But, (9) because we are
conscious, for us the universal consciousness
exists; for those things that are inanimate, say
pebbles on the beach, then the definition from
infinity is different, for they are not conscious,
and merely exist. This concept is neither
Aristotelian nor Platonic, but may be viewed more
as a symbiosis of the two. A is still A, not
because we say so, but rather because existence,
or an infinite interrelationship, says so; we are
merely observers. (10) To me, the fact that A is
A is already consciousness, because if defines a
system of order, an existence, that is far greater
than anything my mind can conceive, of an order of
magnitude far higher than that of my conscious
brain. So which is it? Is human consciousness
supreme? Or is this "universal consciousness"
supreme? Because we live in an open ended
universe, there is no simple answer, only
possibilities. Remember we have mobility and
freedom of thought not afforded to non conscious
beings. So, we are conscious, and existence is
conscious with us. If it is truly an infinite,
open ended universe, there is still room for more
than this, with very exciting possibilities
(beyond the scope of this thesis). But because
existence is not static, it is also why we as
conscious human beings have a free will. And it
is because of this free will that we can either
accept or reject this thesis as proof of a
universal consciousness. Is this a proof is a
universal consciousness? Our choice. Universal
consciousness will continue with or without our
approval. However, in final analysis, our
consciousness will be greater if we accept it as
such.

Ivan A.

I AM I

In between "it is it" and "is it is" is Mind:
"I am I".

Thinking of infinity...



(Photo by Celsia)

ETHICS FOR A NEW SECULAR MIND

By Ivan Alexander


1. TOP-DOWN ETHICS

In "Burden of Dreams", the documentary film about the making of "Fitzcarraldo" in the Amazon jungle, filmmaker Werner Herzog says that the jungle is not full of joy and goodness, that this is an illusion. Instead, the beautiful sounds one hears are sounds of pain, of desperation, the screams only of survival, of eating and being eaten. There is no peace there, only constant war and killing. This is the reality of Life, or to paraphrase Herzog, there is no goodness in the wilderness, no paradise, and 'ethics' and the 'good' are human inventions which do not translate into nature. Nature is not good; it only 'is', to survive pain and death.

This caught my attention because I think it captures the reality of our human existence in a universe that merely 'is', in one that life merely 'survives', and that our human struggle to find meaning in an existence that stingily offers us some inner hope is born only of a desperation to survive death. Where is the 'joy' in this, the beauty? Is this not a fatalistic existence from which none of us will escape alive? What is this 'good' we strive for? If the function of life is merely to survive, how can there be an Ethics for moral action?

This is the Subjective question that went through my mind, watching Herzog struggle in the Amazonian jungle, where some of his native crew died: Where is the Good in this world? Why do we struggle so to realize our Dreams?

This question is of necessity a product of an advanced mind. There is something in the frontal lobes of my brain that requires I address this, and will not let me rest without an answer. I doubt our animal neighbors of the planet are much troubled by this, though they too may have good and bad dreams of their own. But their inner programming seems to have adapted well to the cruel existence of eating and being eaten which propels the living things of this world. They do not seem to display any moral judgements in their actions. They kill without remorse, and maybe die without regret, but selfless actions like sacrifice seem foreign to them. Existence as displayed by the surviving living species is inherently selfish; ethics is of no concern to them; moral ethics is a manmade thing.

Amongst the human species, however, Ethics has been a subject of debate for a very long time, possibly predating the written word. In our known recorded history, it already occupied the minds of ancient Egyptians, where in the presence of Osiris, after confessions of sins, the heart of the deceased was weighed against the weight of a feather; if it proved heavy with sin, it was eaten by a monster, thus destroying the dead man's soul so it could not enjoy paradise in the beauty of the gods. Though this was a fanciful and naive approach to Ethics, it persisted in various forms to this day in the ideas of heaven and hell. All religions of the world have some such version of what is closer to God, hence Ethical, or further from the Good, from God, and thus Evil. The ancient Greek thinkers further formalized these questions into philosophical ideas of Ethics in their search for 'what is the Good'. We have carried on this tradition to modern times, so the thinking of early Greeks, Anaximander, Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, were later carried by the Church via St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Abelard, and are now still with us into the modern thoughts of Kant, Buber, De Chardin, Kung, Levinas, amongst many others; debates that have been faithfully recorded and carried on through the university systems, and their publications; and now this debate is carried still further into academia's most modern and democratic offspring as it continues on the internet. So we actively debate this still. But is it not strange, that after so many centuries of debate, millennia, we are still no closer to the truth of what is Ethics? What is the Good? Why has it proven to be so difficult, so illusive?

One possibility is that it simply is not true. There is no Good. If so, then all Ethics are a human invention with no reference to the reality of the universe as it is. This is what Herzog implied, that there is no God to which we can turn to. Nature is an evil place, not the embodiment of the good. The idea of nature as Good is a clever lie. Of course, a cleverly structured lie can never be deciphered and will leave the thinker perpetually off balance trying to understand truth where none exists. But this answer does not satisfy us and, except for die hard pragmatists or existentialists, it is quickly rejected as a philosophical dead end. Another possibility is that we are still wrestling with a template of reality we inherited from the ancient Egyptians, Chaldeans, Zoroastrians, Hebrews, and even Greeks, whereby the universe is an imperfect, corrupt version of the perfection of God. And we are the imperfect and corrupt creations within it. Laboring under this moral template, we are then forced to build progressively greater and more complex systems of thought and structured embodiments of ethical behavior, rules of moral laws, that then dictate to us what is moral behavior, and what is not. This body of moral ethics is then embodied in our Holy Books and Scriptures. Man can never aspire, however, to approach the perfection of God, never get close enough to form that perfect union with the infinite which would allow him to become like God, and thus remain forever banished into the nether world of imperfection. Thus damned, man is forced to be punished by the morally correct laws representing our ideas of what is God's perfection, whenever we stray from this. So under this template, the one handed down to us from ancient times, we are never good enough to be Good, and never moral in our own right because we are damned with original sin, being imperfect-corrupt images of God. The only salvation, if we should accept this, is to be redeemed of this sin through some form of baptism of the holy spirit and accept our saviour, whether it be Christ or Mohammed, or Baha'u'allah, as our redeemer. This is the heavy 'top-down' structure of morality that fundamentally underlies much of the general and common thinking of the world today, that man is an impure creature that needs to be cleansed, or at least kept in check because he is wicked. For this structure of morality, great religions had been created to enforce the moral code, to reward or punish as the need may be, and to offer and even guarantee salvation for those who obey, or further damnation to hell for those who disobey. Interesting ideas, but they are fundamentally flawed themselves as self negating, since non can ever really interpret the perfection of God for us, and thus leave us no closer to understanding whether or not we are closer to the Good or not. This is a debate without end. It is not a dead end as in the prior case, but it is a debate without resolution since none can ever identify with certainty what is the Good. In the end, man does wicked and evil things, which is an historical fact, and a morality of Ethics does not seem to sway him to correct his ways. Man stays rebellious and refuses redemption, which is regrettable; or worse, he revels in his evil deeds. Why is this so? Why is this heavy moral 'top-down' structure so difficult to apply to the world?

In part, the answer to this question, it is because a super-structure of morality does not work. The Good, morally ethical behavior, is not something that can be imposed from above. Human beings are extremely complex creatures with a will, a mind, a soul, and even a little wickedness. We cannot help what we inherited from our lesser brethren. Ever watch monkeys steal? They grab and run, knowing full well they should not be doing this. I have seen monkeys do this from the rooftops of Agra, India. Would you believe I was 'mugged' by a baboon in Malaysia, who with bared teeth against my leg took my two oranges from my pocket? I have also seen it in my wolf-dogs, who habitually steal from each other, given the chance. Only I can 'morally' intervene to make sure that each gets a fair share, and not more. Does this make me their moral equivalent of a 'priest', I wonder, as I point my finger at them: "thou shalt not!..'? They slink away embarrassed with tail between legs when caught, and immediately beg for forgiveness. Sounds almost human? I suspect we are not yet so far removed, that we will not still deceive, steal, cleverly force where we can, and generally act in ways that we would judge to be amoral. There is a lack of awareness when it is convenient for us to forget what is morally good. This is our human nature with which we had been wrestling for these thousands of years. Yet, this is also our strength, the force that makes us be 'who we are' and who came to dominate the whole globe. Being morally good has not always been an asset, since we then are often destroyed; being morally bad has had its rewards in this world, but has not been an asset either, since in the end things fall apart. So where does salvation lie? How do we resolve the paradox that we cannot be totally good, nor totally bad?

* * *

2. ETHICS AS AGREEMENT VS. COERCION

The human reality is that men have been predators to one another, and thus we have ample historical evidence that man can do damage to others. A mild case of damage is infidelity, where trust is broken. An agreement of trust had existed, and now it is broken so the agreement that had existed no longer applies, and thus one or both parties are damaged and suffer. A more serious case of damage is entrapment or enslavement. Here a person is forced against their will, against their agreement, to become property, or subject to satisfying the needs of another. Again, if done through trickery, without ones agreement, then trust was broken, and now enslavement ensues. A still greater damage is violence, where a person is forced against their will with physical assault. Here, not only is trust and agreement broken, but the physical space occupied by the person is violated as well, since the fists, or whip or tire iron, used to beat the other is entering the victim's personal physical existence, his or her body. Of course, the ultimate damage is death, where all the agreements are broken, all the covenants of life disconnected, and the victim is killed. In each case, the operative word was 'broken agreement', where a person was forced against his or her will to serve the needs or passions of another. Implied in each broken agreement, by definition, was a 'coercion', whereby the perpetrator of this coercion was overstepping the boundaries of the person who was being victimized against their agreement. When a person forces another against their agreement, a coercion results. Why is this important? Is this 'agreement versus coercion' a valid Ethics question?

Each human being who is conscious and has a mind can form agreements. We naturally seek what is good for us, pleasing, pleasurable, fun, funny, satisfying, lovely, comforting, reassuring, exciting, safe, necessary, correct, dutiful, beautiful, etc. We are extremely complex as conscious human beings, and our agreements reflect that complexity. There is no simple formula for what is a 'good agreement'. It may be for mere survival, or it may be for pleasure, or esthetic beauty, or to satisfy a childhood wish, or some philosophical dream. We cannot define this, since it is as complex as the being who is seeking or accepting this agreement. But we can say that each agreement is how it is perceived as desirable by the person accepting the things agreed upon. So 'agreement' is a totally Subjective thing. For another to step into this and try to analyze it, or judge its merits, is to trespass onto that person, unless that person had first invited them to do so. So agreement is also voluntary, it is an expression of our free will. For better or worse, whether the agreements we make are smart or stupid, functional or dysfunctional, they reflect the 'who we are', our subjective selves. If this is a given, and our subjective selves are allowed to be who we are, then an agreement is always a good, since it reaches over into both our lives as we agree, and into the life of another, as the other agrees. "Are we in agreement over this?" -- just testing-- The point is that an agreement between two people is a 'good' for them.

Now what happens when this agreement is violated? Above and beyond the examples of violations given above, there is also the violation of third parties. For example, I make an agreement with another to go into someone's house and steal. The agreement between us exists and satisfies 'our' needs, but it violates the agreement of another, the owner of the house who is to be robbed. Another example is that in joining my fraternity, I must submit to the agreement that I will 'haze' the initiates on hazing night. I must agree with this, if I am to remain a fraternity brother, and I must use the paddle on the rear ends of the pledges, since that is my agreement to be part of the fraternity. On the other end, the pledges agree to bare their bottoms and be slapped with the wooden paddles. All this abuse is agreed upon, which certainly is an abuse as observed by outsiders, but not at all an abuse by the participants who are part of the ritual. This template can be translated to families, companies, governments, social clubs, religious practices, etc. We can agree even to be abused; but it is 'our' agreement, and thus is valid. The only agreement that is not valid is where we agree to coerce another; then it is a coercion and devoid of this principle of agreement. So where is the good? The good exists wherever this network of agreements functions such that it does not trespass or coerce on another third party, and meets the needs of satisfying the persons who had entered into their mutually beneficial agreement. Then, there is no judgement, no morality involved. They do onto themselves as they agree, and what they then gain or lose is up to them, as it is assessed by their individual minds. It is not then for some greater structure to pass judgment on them, but rather they pass judgment on themselves. Either the agreement works, and they are happy with the results; or the agreement is a bust, and they end it unhappily. But what if one wants to end the agreement, and the other does not? That depends on how the agreement was drawn up in the first place: If I buy a house without contingencies, and find that termites had eaten all the interior walls, then I am stuck with a bad agreement; had I had contingencies, then the agreement would have become null and void. The point is that we control our agreements, and the more aware we are of that control, the more conscious we are of what the potential results of such agreement may be, the better is the agreement formed. But to refuse to release another from agreement, when it is not justifiable, not in the agreement that they may not do so, then that constitutes a coercion. So the balance is always between agreement and coercion. For the conscious mind, this is a very simple thing. For an unconscious mind, the agreement versus coercion function is difficult but not impossible to learn. The judgement then always rests with the persons who are in agreement, as to whether this agreement is a good or not, and the resolution of conflict, or forced disagreement, in effect of coercion, then falls on the moral equivalent of the social agreement, the Law.

Agreements exist all around us, all the time. We are creatures who find agreements instinctively. But because the Ethics of the past never clarified this for us, we had been living in a state of confusion that did not allow us to see clearly when we were being coerced. That is not to say that all agreements are Good; only that all agreements are the good we seek in making them. Whether they are then manifest into a good or not is not up to us, once the choices are made, but up to the reality which forms around those agreements. What manifests as a result of these agreements, the context within which they exist and materialize in reality, is then a judgment from reality. How we then respond to that reality based judgment then will lead us to conclude whether we have materialized a good or not. On the other hand, if coercion is forced upon us, we immediately know it is not a good, even if he who coerces may imagine that this coercions is 'for our own good'. When it is not something we voluntarily accepted, so what manifests around us from this coercion will be other than what we had chosen. Through coercion our free will is suspended, our ability to make conscious agreements is thrown into jeopardy, and when we finally break free and make agreements, they may already exist in a damaged state due to the prior coercions. In other words, whereas agreements manifest for us a reality condition for who we are, coercion manifests for us a reality condition for who we are not, or worse, they damage us. In the paternalistic relationships of Ethics based on ancient philosophy, none of this was made clear to us, so we lived in a perpetual state of confusion devoid of knowing when we were manifesting reality in relation to who we are, and when we were manifesting a reality in relation to who we are not. The two are radically different from one another. Agreements with reality exist all the time since we survive; but the Good of these agreements is when they are made in the image of 'who we are'.

Agreements also exist by extension. When a social order had been validated by public voting in a fair and democratic process, then the resulting decision of the vote is a binding agreement on that population who participated in this democracy. That does not negate the protection of our individuals rights from coercion, but participants in this democratic process agree to abide but it. The same can be said of children as wards of their parents, legal guardians, responsible elders, social and educational institutions, etc. Because children are not yet of an age, in many cases, where agreements can be sought and abided by, then the responsibility falls on those who are responsible for them. This does not give them the right to abuse the children, or handicapped persons, or mentally challenged wards (or even pets, or wild animals, or animal husbandry); rather it puts the responsibility of agreement on those whose minds are mature enough, and evolved enough, to be able to make binding agreements. Even if the agreements are not formalized by contract, rather informal as no more than a 'given word' or 'hand shake' or merely an understanding; it is an agreement if both parties understood it this way. To then violate that agreement is a coercion, which then throws confusion into the agreement, and manifests the unhappiness of beings forced against their will. So this is always so, a balance between choices made in agreement as opposed to choices resulting from failed agreement, or forced dis-agreement, namely coercion. By extension, this principle then applies to members of groups, corporations, fraternities, clubs, educational institutions, military service, condominiums, etc. where the original agreement to join and abide by the rules of the organization then subjects the members to the agreements and rules of the group. So, unless someone disagrees with the group so strongly as to quit the group, their agreement is to abide by the laws and bylaws of the organization. Of course, under no circumstances can a group activate agreements that force others against their agreement, that coerce, except in the event to stop coercion. The police, military, legal and tax systems, all have the power to coerce; however, in a just and legal system, they may coerce only to enforce agreement or to prevent or stop coercion.

Why is all this important? It is important because it dispenses with the heavy 'top-down' moral structure of prior thinking on Ethics. The moral equivalent of the Good is reduced simply to Agreement; the philosophical enforcement of that Good is then no more than the enforcement of allowing the freedom to find agreement and being protected from coercion. Rather than a top-down morality, instead we have here a democratic process where each individual finds his or her right course of action in agreement with others, and is both free from coercion and is forbidden from coercing. Then each person is free to find their own happiness as it agrees with them to do so, and as it is found in agreement with others who are happy to share in this. This is a very uncomplicated Ethics for the new modern mind of man. But it comes with a 'caveat': this 'bottom-up' Ethics of Agreement works only for conscious minds.

* * *

3. ETHICS AS CONSCIOUSNESS

So here is the fundamental question of Ethics: If an agreement is freely made by conscious minds that satisfies all parties who are in agreement, are they happy with it, is it a Good? If not, then where does it fail as a good? If it is not a good, then what in reality will manifest for it as an error? And if so, then who is to judge?

Nature has proven to be brutal, and coercion is a chronic state of affairs. However, even in nature there is reprieve where in between attacks and suffering there are moments of comfort and joy. When the kill is being eaten, when there is sleep afterwards to aid in digestion, when there is sex, nursing offsprings, or play with others for its own sake; these are all moments of an animal's time to enjoy its existence. Within the totality of experiences that define the animal's existence, these are moments of happiness. So instead of the apparent coercions that haunt an animal life, there is agreement; but then it is not between conscious minds, but rather between a subjective mind, the animal's, and its totality existence within which it survives. When these are in agreement, life goes on and procreates; when in disagreement, life perishes.

In human society, a similar principle is at work. We appear to be coercing one another all the time, with little agreement sought and, when asked for, rarely found. But that is the surface of appearances; underneath all manners of agreements are being formed, often unconsciously, tacitly, that make our society work. Same as in the animal world, agreement exacts a high price: either we survive, or we perish. For example, to disagree with the captain of a vessel tossed at sea in a storm is a peril to all aboard, there is no room for disagreement, and thus all fall-in tacitly to survive. In general, this is how unconscious agreements work, we fall into agreement to survive. However, in the new mind, there is a level of consciousness that questions and demands the freedom to pursue its own way. This is a function of awareness, so not all will share in this need equally, and rather than tacitly accepting an agreement given to us, conscious minds seek out agreement in advance. This requires forethought and a level of awareness to make this forethought possible. A more conscious mind is aware of its actions, of its agreements, and is usually aware of what to expect as a result of these actions and agreements. Where the question of Ethics fails here is that a conscious mind will use forethought not to seek agreement, but rather it will use its conscious choices to cleverly coerce others. And this is the ethical dilemma here: How do we prevent conscious minds from using their skills of awareness to 'not coerce', but to seek agreement instead.

The answer to this ethical dilemma lies, I believe, in the level of consciousness of the person who is to seek or break agreement. A simple mind, childlike, even animal like, can see the quick gain to be had from a coercions: Why ask when you can take? A more conscious mind will see that to ask but not force is a path to agreement, and then can bind that agreement formally so that both parties can be secure in their trust of one another. But a most advance mind, one that has an awareness which surpasses these, sees an agreement as still more: Not only do not force the reality of another, but serve and forgive when the other fails to do the same. This is a tremendous leap forward in human consciousness: to love one another, or do onto others as you would have done onto you. Because there is no perfection in the Earthly totality of human existence, to seek agreement without force, and then forgive in a spirit of service where that failed is to heal; and that is the mark of a very advanced mind. Thus, such a level of consciousness is most well suited, even necessary, to manifest our social reality into the Good. It is this third level of consciousness, still so illusive for us, that I call the 'new Mind'. And it is this new mind that best understands this statement:

The best defense against coercions for humankind is the awareness that it exists, and then convert coercion into an agreement instead.

Alas, this is still in the future, for we have not yet completely evolved above the first step: We must first ask and not force. This is not a judgment, and I believe that humankind can and will rise above this ethical dilemma. All it takes is consciousness.

* * *

4. IS ETHICS MANMADE?

Therefore, we come to the final question of Ethics regarding finding agreement as a primary principle of the Good: Is Ethics a manmade thing? Is it the function of man's total body of thought, or is it the function of a body of thought greater than that? How big is the totality that guides our human actions and consciousness into achieving a planetwide 'social agreement' that validates the 'law of agreements'?

We can understand totality at various levels, such as of force, where great pressure is applied on a given point. We can also understand totality of understanding, where all ideas are assembled into a cohesive whole that makes sense as that whole, as in philosophy. We can also understand the totality of humankind's understanding, all the philosophies and sciences as knowledge and principles that guide our lives, our belief systems, even if we are but dimly aware of them. And finally, we can understand the totality of human activity, what is our social order, our planetwide human reality. From each totality is some guiding principle that is identifiable to us. For example, the totality of force is a sum-total; the totality of understanding is a synthesis-total; the totality of human social interaction is a guiding principle of Ethics-total. All contribute to man's existence totality. But the final totality, the one that defines for us our human condition on this world is one that transcends human understanding, since it jumps over the total knowledge and understanding of human awareness and off into the cosmos of the reality that had assembled into what we call Existence. That totality is beyond the human mind, beyond our consciousness, and yet it is still in "agreement' with us because we survive, do not perish, and even thrive within it. This is the totality that has assembled within itself the greatest dimensions we can imagine, what we will call the Infinity-total.

Why should this be important? It is important because we are still left the question asked earlier:

"If an agreement is freely made by conscious minds that satisfies all parties who are in agreement, are they happy with it, is it a Good? If not, then where does it fail as a good? If it is not a good, then what in reality will manifest for it as an error? And if so, then who is to judge?"

Until we can resolve this question, then the validity of an 'Ethics of Agreements' is still in doubt. If Ethics is a thing only manmade, then from what can it hope to gain validation as a Truth? From what source of divine knowledge or principle-totality can it draw its strength as a law for humankind?

Humanity has labored under these Totality-Principles for a long time now. We have had the totality of law, which guides us in what we may or may not do as social beings. We have the totality of religious teachings and scriptures which, through example and metaphor, act as an interpretation of what is God for humankind. And in the spirit of philosophy, we have had the totality of human thought assembled into a total body-philosophic from which we gain reason and understanding of the human condition. All these encompass totalities that comprise our sense of the ethical. Now, if we fail to comply within any such totality, whereby individually we break the rules or laws or spirit of ethical behavior, then from each such totality comes a judgment, and even a punishment. However, in each case, this is a manmade thing, where some human authority will condemn the unethical behavior and seek to correct it. But if each of these totalities is a lesser totality, in terms of the 'Infinity-totality mentioned', and they have the power to punish or coerce, then what should we expect from the greatest totality, the universal-infinity-totality as a corrective action?

The answer lies in what manifests from our actions. If reality 'accepts' our action, in effect the infinity-totality 'agrees' with what it is we do, then what will materialize within the vicinity of our being, our personal reality within which we exist, will match that what we had expected from our agreement. For example, at a very simple level, let us say we agree to move a large boulder and put our collective backs into it. If the boulder moves as expected, then reality has validated that agreement; if it fails to move, then the validation for the agreement is not there. On a more sophisticated level, taking it to the most complex human interactions, if we agree to barter and exchange and from this is created a successful economic reality, then reality accepts these agreements; if the economic reality is failing or crashes, then reality has failed to endorse these agreements as they are. The interrelationships that manifest from human activity as they relate to one another are immeasurable; the interrelationships that result from how our human activities thus affect reality, both the universal reality of matter within which we exist and the human reality of being within which we are conscious; all these are a function of the interrelated-totality from which materializes results. The results of each of our agreements, or coercions, are a function of the greatest possible reality-totality: Existence. For each action we do, or agree to do, manifests a response from the Infinity-totality as to how it will manifest a response within the vicinity of our being. Then, whether or not we are conscious of this, whether or not the mind wants to accept of reject the outcome, the result 'is' as reality has made it. This is not a 'judgement' but merely a 'reality' of what manifests in response to human action.

In conclusion, the final arbiter of reality is the universe within which we exist; it is the ultimate Totality to which we answer. We do not answer with fear of 'punishment', rather with awareness of what we can expect to have manifested in our personal existence from this Totality. If all lesser manmade totalities are interrelated into bodies of thought and conscious understanding, then what is this interrelated Totality? Is it a conscious Thought? Is an Infinite-Totality God? The answer I give is that: it does not matter. What matters is whether or not what we do through agreement, as opposed to coercion, manifests for us a desired reality in response. If so, then our agreements of human action are validated by that Infinity-Totality. And if it is validated by the greatest possible totality of existence, then is this not a Good? It would seem that there is not need to judge it as good or evil, for what manifests merely is. However, as in the Amazon jungle where Herzog lamented the absence of goodness in the wilderness, there is no guarantee that all of our actions will yield joy and desired rewards. Life can be brutal and filled with pain, injustices at levels over which we have no control; yet, this is the human condition that calls upon us to find agreements to correct the pain, the injustice. We are the creatures of the wild endowed with conscious minds, and on our shoulders falls the responsibility to improve our condition. And when we do this, when we can overcome nature's pain and killing, and instead replace it with joy and kindness, with love and beauty, are we not achieving a Good?

I say that human interaction by agreement is the ultimate Good.

In the end, I propose that the Ethics as described above is an infinitely designed Good, not manmade but of its own 'interrelated' construction, and that for humankind to build upon the foundations of a social contract validating agreements, and opposed to coercions, will introduce into the human reality a new level of justice, goodwill, and happiness, of a Good and a new Mind, which we had yet never experienced. This is the 'burden of our dreams', to bring a new reality resulting from this new Ethics. Is this Truth? Future will tell.


END

The Rule of Interconnectivity: Logic

By Ivan D. Alexander

There is an inherent ability of the human mind to connect the dots. This is child's play, but which one of us did not look at stars and see patterns in them, or gaze at clouds to find images? The ancients saw constellations in stars, and we still draw schematics where all the parts are connected into a whole. This is an innate mental logic for us, for we seem to have the ability and desire to assign connections where they seem to fit. We are opportunistic as a species, and if something fits, we find a way to use it.

One such use of our innate ability is our use of reason. What follows what from what? We string along things into groups, compare like with like, seek out cause and effect. This is a natural function for which we pay little attention as to how we did that, so that we are sometimes not aware of the mental process that went into the conclusion. From premises we naturally form meaningful wholes. When I speak a sentence, the grammar that I use to express what I mean to say is a logical arrangement of subject to express what it is I am talking about, a verb to express how this subject will be acted upon or modified, and then the object of what it is that completes my thought. For example: "The cat is on the roof", is a very natural construction any child can do without much thought of the rules employed to express the idea. Only later did we recognize that we were stringing individual ideas together into a whole, logically, so that they would make sense to someone hearing our words. Reason was employed almost unconsciously, though to a thinking person this becomes an object of interest and discovery, that we can think of our thinking. When this is done in an orderly manner, we call it logic. So now if we say "the cat is on the roof and cannot get down", we have taken it to another level, since implied is a logical sequence where the understanding is that the height of the roof is a problem that must be solved, either by the cat or its caretaker. Thus, a natural connection has been made between the cat's dilemma and the height of the roof, though at the time the words were spoken, logic was not on anyone's mind.

The point is that logic is automatic, it is how we see things connected in the world. Once we become aware of this we then become intrigued with what it is we had just done, and it enters into our reasoning consciousness. If something is like something else, is it the same? Or if an event follows from the result of another event, are they the reason why this happened? The sun rises, and night disappears. Wind blows and the sail fills. What are the connections that make things happen? Such and all our thinking seek out the logical sequences of what happens in reality. To say that if a plant is green is to conclude, from prior observation of living and dead plants, that it is alive, is thus an act of logic. To then say that everything that is green is not to say that it is not green, is logic taken to another level, into itself. Now we are looking at logic as it applies to itself, rather than as it applies to our reasoning in the natural world. So we can go from what is an automatic ability of the mind, to see logical connections, to then go into the connections of logic within itself. However, that is a logic game, not to be confused with what the mind does of its own when it reasons logically, which formally is called 'inference'. This inference can be defined as the study of valid inferences to give rules for distinguishing the valid from the invalid. This is what matters in logic, that we can identify a conclusion from premises that are valid, or that have value to us. When this rule is not violated, then things make sense, and we are comfortable with what is concluded. However, when it is violated, such as happens in a magic trick, then we are either amused or puzzled, since the outcome of what were the connections to lead to it were not logical. They did not connect correctly, which is often either a case of where we did not perceive the connections, or they simply were not there. Then, it is automatically illogical, and even a child will know that it is a trick.

So why does this happen? How does the mind know when the connections do not fit? In the formal language of logic, there are conjunctives used to make a statement of logic: 'if' and 'then', 'either or', are tools used to express logical connections: "If the cat is on the roof, then he is unable to get down. Either he is afraid, or he does not want to. Then let us get a ladder to help him." All these are logically connected, since from the fact of the cat being on the roof, we then infer that there may be difficulties involved. But if we were to say instead "if the cat is on the roof, then the ladder is either the reason he cannot or why he does not want to come down", then we would immediately know that something is illogical here. It would take some rather strange mental calisthenics to figure that one out, because the connections would be all wrong, since the ladder is not responsible for the cat not coming down. The mechanics have to fit in a sequence that is logical to us, or it becomes nonsense. If instead we were to say "that there is a cat on the roof and (if) for every cat there is a roof, then all cats are on the roof", we would once again be thrown into confusion. This may be true, but not because of the way it was stated. The reason all cats are on the roof would have to be from some other cause, some set of connections that would make it meaningful to us. Perhaps there are birds on all the roofs, and all the cats climbed up to catch them, for example. What this points to is that for logic to be meaningful the connections have to be such that reason can identify the thought with the reality or, as it may be said, the truth is the all important mark of success as it applies to logic.

As it pertains to logic, this is what is of value to us, that we can identify a truth through its use, though logic may not always succeed. For example, the famous liar paradox, where someone states that all he says is a lie. Does one believe him? So logic can also be self negating, where it trips over itself and is foiled, as is the case in all paradoxes. However, as it applies to reality, most paradoxes can be dismissed as being a mental game, nonsense. Why should I believe a liar in the first place? Self negations are still negations, and only a leap of faith can make them true. This, it seems, is also the puzzle behind most religious beliefs, that it takes a leap of faith to accept a tenet of the religion, even if it is illogical. However, human nature being what it is, there seems to be room for that. Or, as Walt Whitman said: "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." Is this a variation of the liar paradox, or do we accept his largess on faith? The connections to accept Whitman's statement have to go beyond the conventional and into a category that may be called illogical. Still, one may accept it as truth, though not for reasons of logic. This can be said of God, or the Resurrection, paradoxes in the scriptures, or the manifestation of jewels out of thin air by Sai Baba. In effect, a paradox is a closed loop within logic, since there is no connection between the thought and reality, only a connection between thought and thought. For logic to have value, it has to connect into the world.

Bertrand Russell believed that mathematics is merely logic in another guise. Logic as it applies to natural language is different from logic as it applies to mathematics. Sets, or classes of relationships, can be constructed using mathematical functions to express a language of logical sequences. However, to be meaningful in real terms, this language must have a counterpart in physical reality. There must be a point of contact where the logic of mathematics touches what happens in real life, or it is then only a mental game. We may employ logic in our speech, but that is only expressing our ideas; for those ideas to be real, they must correspond with the reality we are addressing. It is the same with logic, or mathematics. And when they do coincide, when the logical or mathematical model corresponds with reality, then we have something of value, for then we can make a contact, a connection with that reality. Any model we build must have a real application, for if it is to be useful, it must show the connections of how things are. If reality is a vast complex of interconnected parts that interact with each other, then a language that can interpret these connections, or even forecast their outcomes, is of high value. All that we can think of in our minds is nevertheless only valuable if it can be implemented to either understand or manipulate reality. Further, if we take reality as being made up of sets of mathematical operations, logical connections and their respective functions, then to express these functions in a language that is also logical is how we connect with that reality through our minds. This gives us a powerful lever, since then we can manipulate reality around us through the use of that logical expression. In fact, though we may not know all there is to know of gravity, or of energy, or of quantum physics, we can place a probe on course to connect with the planet Mars, 150 million miles away, and then receive back on Earth scientific information from that probe. That is testimony of the power of logic when it touches reality.

The rules that apply to logic may also apply to reality, but not always. Reality is a phenomenon of energy converted into matter that connects with itself at all levels of contact. This may be at the contact of gravitational force, of through electrical and electromagnetic forces, or spatially where two things cannot occupy the same space in time, of through the force of physical contact. Reality may even be connected at levels we have not yet discovered, such as evidenced in quantum physics where we can only estimate where electrons will be at any given time, since we cannot fathom the ways the electrons 'know' where they should be, and thus are relegated to the shortcut of using probabilities instead. According to David Bohm, the electron 'knows' where it is to be in relation to all the other forces that are already present around it. It is only that we cannot yet identify them, since our knowledge is as yet incomplete. And there are even speculations that we may be connected at the subtle levels of mental forces, waves of energy that emanate from our minds. The universe releases its secrets grudgingly, and we are forever challenged to see how those macro and micro connections work within its reality. Surprisingly, we may even be wrong about what we think and have modeled what reality is, and still work with it. I suspect that we are in fact ignorant of what causes gravitational forces, that it may have more to do with the mechanics of planetary bodies right down to their molecular level than with mass. But, like probability, we have invented a shortcut to make up for our lack of understanding and have been able to theorize how gravity works. Yet, even with our erroneous understanding, even if we have all the connections of how gravity works all wrong, we can still measure and manipulate mass within gravitational fields to our purpose. In the end, it is the rules of interconnections, of how reality is interconnected with itself, that define for us reality, and we are then left to either guess right as to what those rules are and use them, or we remain powerless. Logic, and its mathematical language, may nevertheless prove right even if for the wrong reasons.

The rules of interconnectivity are those dots in space that our mind strives to connect. With each new level of understanding, we approach more closely in our minds the logical system that defines reality as it really is. As each new item of knowledge is worked together with its preexisting predecessor which had proven of value, we approach more closely what is true. From these bodies of knowledge we then assemble how they interconnect into a logical whole which we can tap into for understanding of how things are. That is the beauty of our ability to reason with logic. Look at what computers have helped us achieve. However, like Narcissus, we have fallen in love with our own reflection and come to believe that it is our logic that defines the interconnections of physical existence, and not the other way around. In fact, it is illogical to think so. It is not we who have made order of the universe, rather it is the universe that is ordered, and we are its fortunate spectators. That we can then use our minds to find those connections is a gift for which logic can find no answer, except to say that it is inherent in us to do so. The cat is on the roof, that is the reality, and it is up to us, with our logic, to get it down.

Once we can see reality as an interconnectivity of itself, it is a very small jump to seeing all of existence as an interrelationship of itself. This includes us, for we are in our being totally interconnected into how the universe works within itself. All of life, all living things, are interconnected in this way, into a universe that works such that life can under certain circumstances exist and replicate itself. It may not appear to be logical to think of the interrelationships that span reality like a vast infinite web as the origin of life. Yet, think of this web as being so close to each living thing, that it is an intricate and inextricable part of it. What exists as our personal reality for each one of us alive has been with us from birth, and through our ancestry has been with us from the beginning of life on this planet. It may even be said that such life has preexisted this planet and had thrived on other worlds until it was recycled into the stars that power the planets. We are totally encompassed by this down to the subatomic level, same as we are connected with our being alive in terms of who we are individually. This means that for each living thing, there is a vast infinite web network of existence that had been there from the beginning. What makes this surprisingly exciting is that at least one of the living species which had sprung from this vast interrelated web can look back upon itself with understanding, and wonder: Who am I? What is this all about? I can think of no greater gift bestowed on us by that living web of the universe that had shadowed us from the beginning of time. And if that is not enough, then imagine this: We are conscious of it. The rule of interconnectivity has brought us to this, and that to me is totally logical.

END

If you would like to see additional web sites that deal with logic or interconnectivity, please go to:

Bertrand Russell: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/

David Bohm: http://twm.co.nz/Bohm.html

Interrelationship (Habeas Mentem): http://www.humancafe.com/titlepage.htm

Patterns of Conservation Economy (schematic): http://www.conservationeconomy.net/patternlanguage.htm

wow.

the feeling: that i can't be the only 1 feeling this (way).

it is all here :)

take care--it's free

kenny s (metan01d...)

hey again Ivan, all--

----------------------------------------
By Ivan A. on Tuesday, May 15, 2001 - 11:35 pm:
POSSIBLE PROOF OF UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS?

Assuming existence, a priori, is the final arbiter
of what is reality in the universe, can we also
assume that this existence is infinite? If Yes,
then is this infinite reality a closed system,
totally self contained; or is it an open system,
where it is subject to continuous change? If it
is a closed system, then it is what it is and it
------------------------------------------------

i've been thinking a lot about the open/closed system paradigm..
here is a post i made at another site--it's basically about "dimensionality" (among other things)--(it's a rant ;) take from it what you will. i've got to comb through a lot of these posts here where i've seen some very nice comments...

================================================
w/o reading the theory itself, i see dimensionality as a smooth, progressive *curve* that *just IS* (and is of a high-order importance to material-existence. we need it). if each successive 'dimension'--the magnitudinal portion which introduces a new set of rules, thusly becoming a *new* dimension--changes in geometry/size, what binds them together? there would have to be some sort of *constant* in terms of dimensional transition...OR, nothing at all (and yet, there may be some sort of enigmatic & paradoxical-value that satisfies this condition)..

so let's say--by the tenets of string theory--as dimensionality increases, the stability of dimensions lessons (unless of course you are a being which is able to "handle" whatever a dimension has to throw at you). of course, this is all about relativity cuz what if there's a being that can lives about 1/1E100-nanoseconds that lives in a dimension that lasts *only* about a nanosecond. anyway, we have a choice presented us: is there a specific (and absolute) number of dimensions, or is there an unlimited dimensionality (an infinitude of dimensions/dimensionality)?

in theory, in both cases, the "ends"--the dimensions that bound The Real (omniverse)--should ideally *join* (become "unitary"? or just 'border in an un/surreal way'...more thought crunching needed...). that is, a smooth transition should be of note by any being that could possibly traverse the presupposed dimensional pathway...

(and again, by certain theory, you're not supposed to *experience* The Big Bang/Crunch...so *who/what* could experience something that is inexperiencible to be able to bear witness to there being such "event-moments", if they really exist??...)


...and then when dealing with the reconstruction of the omniverse, stuff like knot/set/number theory (anyone got any good examples of Celtic design?), simple inversion principles, among other things, can come into play (depending on the theories in use).

lastly (in this thread?) for dimensionality--


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Z: A number which is deduced by our mathematics system technically cannot exist within it...so there we find a definitively unexplainable phenomenon, at the heart of our assumptions about universality...I don't know where else to go with this...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--...so as things (in particular, numbers) *seem* to manifest either from holes or *as* holes. i've been thinking a lot about how, technically, ALL numbers (more specifically, ALL solutions/solution sets for any equation/calculation); super-technically, infinity is inclusive ({n}+1; {n}^{n}...).

POINT: if every number is a hole, where is the "number line" solid?? if a hole is a definable, but 'undefined' *region*--the number is there, but yet, isn't (i'm introducing a lot of literal imagery as well)--what does it mean to be "defined" (vis-a-vis, *real*--anyone concur w/ this simple define of 'defined'? maybe Plato would ?...(damn constructs...)

where to go with this...is there "really" a universe?...(can an answer be yes and no, just not at the same time?...what the hell am i talking about???)

--oh, but on dimensionality--even taking into consideration the potential "knotting" of the structure of the universe (the "energy-matrix"..'vacuum' not included?), and all the flux with regards to this matrix we are of, i *i-magi-ne* dimensionality to be like a funnel (klein bottle-like?) that reduces proportionally in terms of magnitude *BUT* that this reduction is occurrent with regards to an OBSERVER (with a *perspective*, maybe like yours AND mine AND all of US combined!). this is to say--if you close your eyes (shut down all photonic activity as well), you might be getting a decent glimpse of what a 'dimension' *really looks like*. (this nutbasket theory strongly insists & presupposes that physicality in no way implies conscience/consciousness).

to add (sorry for the rant), going "thru this funnel/tunnel" means that you and the tunnel are always in a 1:1 relationship in terms of "size" (uh..spaciality is a very special con-cept in this funnel cuz there is none, but 'things' can't exist w/o (void)space--and time can't be w/o space, given the marshalled-vectoring of space-time). but if things (even 'minds') need "space" to operate in, how can something be the same size as the 'container' that bounds it?...maybe, the space that things are in is a numinous 0ne?...to achieve this, the structure and all bounds have to be included together--this would mean that the structure itself becomes 'a bound' only....................*sigh* (i once wrote an associate when i was feeling out of it and asked 'why should i try to figure out the mechanics of [God]?...)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"open hearts, feel about it; open minds, think about it" --"time to eat all your words, swallow your pride--open your eyes"--tears for fears, 'sowing the seeds of love'
--------------------------------------------------------------------

"i'm not your lover, i'm not your friend. i am something that you'll never comprehend--prince, 'i would die 4U'
-------------------------------------------------------------------
================================================

(oh, and i'm heavy into a more 'truer' *meta-physics*. i don't try to prove [God], but that i know i can't *disprove* such positions because they would need to have been proved first...digress)

("infinity is inclusive ({n}+1"-----sorry, ({n}+x))

"This understanding, this search for our identity is a fight for life...."

--and Life is not the same as 'living' (this is what i say). Life is *the* Essence in my view. i could care less about 'humans' at this point in my life, but the *essence* of humans is what i look at, and i truly care about all essences (and thusly the 'human' as well, though i'd rather try and be more "efficient" w/ my care and concern and care for 'it all'...and i do mean *try*)--they are "vital" and the true composition of 'Forma' and even (sub)-forms (i tend to *believe* that that's all we could be..layered essential-constructs, i suppose. also, i view an 'essence' as being everywhere and nowhere)

"i am" human myself (to a certain degree of acknowledgement), so i can't deny 'humanity' simply because i don't agree w/ all the positions involved thereof. the simplest form ("the human", however it is to be defined, essentially or whatever) is what i *do* care about; this is what i feel when i deal w/ any other human, that they are 'what' they are and we share a certain association.

--though i try to "disable" my own ego as well as the egos of others when i'm out in general population, i still hold an understanding that people will reflect 'spetially': to be a human, one has to *know* humaness. ie--i can't have a single human and have this being understand what it is to be 'human' (or, this being can't know what species it is of if it is the only one of its kind--kind of makes you wonder about [God] and how It would relate to itself and it's environment?). (at some point, language could be considered "internalized", especially if there is only one being communicating, whether this communication is to "the self" or...some "other", *higher* 'power')

"I am. That is the beginning of any search. But like a storm tossed ship lost in a deleterious
fog, I am is battered constantly by forces we can hardly understand, much less dominate. Our known history is a continuous string of violence and abuses we survived with intermittent moments of calm and creative successes that have laboriously elevated our civilization to heights never dreamed of by our ancestors...From the blistering dysfunctions of our social worlds on
Earth, we must come to that resting place on the periphery from which we can step forth into a new future, one that is rich in all the beauty and promise which I believe is our common goal. I am is what can do it."

--could the force that is battering 'I am' be "I am" Itself? (why would you 'batter' yourself?...). going back to your idea of "coercion"--i think governance is pretty retarded. you'd think, as i suggest to people i debate w/ at times, that we could "work together" and not *for* the glory of each other, or of someone who presumes themselves to be superior to others.

i question the *need* for "creative success"; if by creative success you mean "electrical power distribution to homes in the late 19th century" or "agricultural engineering", then i sort of contend that, as Michael Jackson once remarked as a character in a movie, success is an illusion.

as a sentient/cognitive being, i myself don't see any elevation of the whole of humankind as being relevant to solving for our apparent dysfunctionalness (however, i don't see the whole of any civilized society--even non-homo sapien (sapien) societies--as being corrupted. if certain beings carry on w/ different thought processes, social dysfunctionality (as it seems) might well be eliminated due to inroads into a deeper understanding of the being on the part of the being.

though i don't necessarily feel that we humans have to be so 'goal oriented', it seems that there is an immediate goal that you allude to: that would be to somehow "regain" that promise (maybe of "The Creator", i don't know, but it's a promise that we seem to be breaking, not 0ur Creator. we seem to be doing ourselves in for what can be seen as 'no good reason' at all...unless getting the ego stroked is seen as a good thing, which, sometimes it ain't. as you've said (in other words), it's easy to lose sight of what's *real* in the omniverse--instead of maybe giving thanks, if this is only a symbolic motion, some of us seem to want to be thanked as often and as (s)lavishly as possible. personally, i don't like when people thank me for something. i literally feel 'uncomfortable' and i always say "you don't have to/please don't thank me")

our "history" is what we've made it. in stating the obvious again (which is why i hate talking about matters of a social nature), the violence doesn't have to be, but of course, one has to understand that what they might be doing--as a group or individual--may be considered 'violent' and acknowledge thusly.

i do feel that there is a *deliberate* attempt being made to change/effect human history from this point on. this i feel is being done on behalf of those certain world controllers who would wish to remain nameless and faceless. yes, i hold a view on "conspiracy", but only that since it is possible for a few people to control a mass of people, it is very likely that a small percentage of the worlds population is utilizing such devices (all facets of thought & mind-control") to "gently persuade" (or coerce) people based on the psychosocial principle of "suggestibility". not making the task much more difficult and by choosing to be so negligent of the feelings and positions of existence and any other being(s), humans, hiding behind masks of pseudo-persona (feigned concern and compassion for others; ie, i feel, as others do, that the "token" food drop operation over Afghanistan conducted on the part of the US govt/mil complex is a shame and is, in essence, 'inhumane'--it's akin to dropping table scraps on the floor for the enslaved housepet, IMO. the united states cannot be bombing to feed starving people, as it appears they are bombing for the same reason they always have: to minimize that spooky, ever-present "global threat to democracy and freedom"--PLEASE. like the us congress and senate and big business haven't been that very threat that they so actively seek to stamp out! it is farcical)

"We live and breath and are within a universe that lives with us, and within which in the end we must die. This power is in effect far greater than any Earthly man made power. And to this power, with a conscious mind, we now turn our attention, and awaken."

--and i contend that what we "awaken to" is what 'gives' us (the "feeling" of, though some religious folk would say "knowledge of") eternal life. in short, we are finite; what we are of is 'infinite'--if we "give our being" to that which is infinite, then we would become infinite ourselves (certain givens).

i myself have been "coming alive" for a couple of years now. epiphany after epiphany, strange dream/vision after...i cannot finally *prove* that "there is something out there" (like a [God]), or that there is a definite, singularized 'meaning' to Life/living, but i 'know' how i feel, and what i feel like is that...i don't know and will never know (actively) what any of 'this' is about. why i'm "here", "now"...my mind just wanders and wonders all day long...and here i am, typing on a machine, w/ the intent to communicate and feel with others, and to become a part of them, and make them a part of me as we become a part of it all (too cheesy? *laugh*)

...and i think that as it *appears* that we "die" (though, i've 'proven' to myself that death is not a real proposition, using Incompleteness Theorem semanticized), by embracing--and 'giving into'--that "Unifying Principle", "It" lives wherever and whenever..and however--It Lives. (where there is Life, there is...)

"some things have become so innate to us that we have ceased to marvel at them."

--i know what you mean. for instance, once, i think somebody slipped me some LSD *wink*...well, the morning after my experience i went out for a nice little walk, and as i walked by some flowers--they GLOWED so beautifully that all i could do was just stare in amazement. i was really *surprised* that the flowers never seemed to do that before *smile*...or maybe, being caught up in my own world (self-centered) and not taking note of and *really* looking at/in/through my environment, i just never noticed.

i sat there saying to myself (and crying) that i would try to never let the world "bring me down", so much so that i stop seeing that "thing" that was 'calling' to me (Itself?...) from "inside" those flowers to the inside of me. as i tend to be a somewhat "angry" (neigh, frustrated--the past doesn't haunt me as much i used to let it, but still..) sort of person, a message to "lighten up" also seems to be created whenever i see the flowers. i never really took myself serious, and i used to have a pretty decent sense of humor :)

working w/ philosophy and metaphysics, one can become "consumed" in a way (is this necessarily "bad"? the film "pi" is one of my favs--maybe we can discuss this in another thread). to me, it's pretty important to be able to find those "bounds" so that i can understand that there might be a 'limit' to my ability (for finding this "truth" thing), and i should maybe try to relax every now and again.

every time i see flowers i stare (not lie), and wonder. they STILL IN FACT GLOW--this is the haunting and beautiful part. i feel that they will never not glow anymore *smile*.
"Coercion is the essence of life we had always known...We all have the power of language. Every human being throughout the planet can smile, or laugh. We think nothing of our ability to use tools, or even to read and write, or to think. Yet, how wonderful these are. "

--(what would be the "opposite/inverse" of coercion? i would suggest that it involves the principle of "inertia", or 'inert interraction'. can people/beings socialize w/o "effecting each other? how so?)

"Dream of a better world, and it will happen. "

--(has anyone ever thought about how 'a world' within a "dream" is defined, in terms of rules/laws? is it a "complete" world? is there "inherency" in terms of logical structuring? i suppose you'd need 'logic' to even 'comprehend' w/in the 'dreamstate', which involves a certain degree of conscious-lucidity)

"Do not coerce another. This is the law that stands behind all laws."

--so is the [God] Force not sublimely and inertly coercing 'it all'? *smile*...just thinking now--if "willfull coercion" is different/"worse" than non-willed coercion...(do any of you feel that you cannot *not-will* coercion? hm--could this shine some light at all on the nature of whatever potential "Divine Will" there might be?...)

"Do not lie, do not cheat, do not steal, do not confuse reality."

--done that, done that, done that--and done that (though i don't know if i've actually done that last one because i still don't know what reality is overall)

"There is only one rule [that they must obey, as we], and that is to let you be who you are, and respect you as a human being. You are a very great being and, in I am, you are the most wonderful thing that life, the universe, has
created thus far."

--and by not "allowing for an existence"--vis-a-vis, not 'letting a being be fully realized'--this, in my mind, speaks of the effective attempt to "close off The System" (of Reality). but we can know Reality to be both an Open and closed (there's that paradox thing again) system to certain extents. if Reality were to somehow be *only* a closed system, then we might be "in trouble" (i say this just on the surface of the implication alone: the supposition that if what we are were not allowed to 'be' should fulfill an understanding of this thought. what does it mean that 'what is' could never be?...)

(oh, and by the "paradox" of Reality, i mean that 'open' implies '("big") system', though system implies "a closed and absolute structure"; w/ regards to "systemics", an "open system" should only be definable as a system if it is "bounded". maybe it's bounded by itself, which then closes the system (so either open, or close; 0, or 1)...how we define/describe SYSTEM is pretty key, to me AW)
==============================
imagine that which is 'flowing through' you
as you flow through "It"
It is not you
yet, It is a part of you...

...and all of you--

(inspired by Ivan's "rant" on 'coercion' of person *smile*..this is that "Tao" principle: that which sits and just is, which is it's perfection, only that it's perfectitude can be realized at the interstice of 'the now' of any 2 moments. pure momentum. a force that forces itself?...or will just "force" suffice?)
==========================================

"If our world crashes around us as we pursue it
unconsciously, then what is the good?"

--again, i have to play "devil's advocate" on behalf of certain people---

1st, define "crashed world" and "(what is) the good" (or simply 'good').

i know how you may feel Ivan, but the *fact* is that some things are really open to interpretation; how we feel about things as individuals is one thing.

the good is supposed to be influenced and guided by "The Good", but since i really don't *know* The Good (of it all), how can i say that anything other than what i 'know' as good is/isn't good? and why can't "bad" be considered "good" in some ways? like--i think you've pointed out as well--a seemingly 'bad' event can still yield a 'good' result. IE--i could develop a terminal cancer which could *force* me to get over a possible fear of death (saying that cancer & fear are 'bad' and the overcoming of the position is 'good' negates the cancer and the fear)

...wow, what a rant.

take care all (feel free to ask for clarification on any nutty thing i may have posted)

metan01d

Dear Kenny, thanks for your great thoughts!

I think your question: "--could the force that is battering 'I am' be "I am" Itself? (why would you 'batter' yourself?...)" is very powerful. Indeed, why should one's ego batter one's ego? This is the big mystery that we need to solve. I think it may have something to do with that ego being still formative, not yet realized in its true being. That would point to an 'I am' which is still struggling for identifying itself, not unlike an errant teenager rebelling against society, parental authority, school, etc., as he or she is trying to find out who they are. It's the 'who am I?' question that is so fascinating universally. On a greater scales, it may be compared to an identity of the self that almost got it, is sort of conscious of the self, but is still somehow disconnected. What makes it worse, I think, is that in being so and acting out, this 'who' alienates himself or herself against other 'whos', and ultimately against itself. So conflict leads to greater confusion and more conflict, until it 'finds' itself, at which point is reaches some sort of inner serenity. I say this not only from my own experience, my violent and disconnected childhood, but also from having observed it in others. On the other hand, all this strife, conflict, battle, is also a positive force, since from it can come some great things, like the great warrior legends of old. Unfortunately, it also comes at a high price, that we are in conflict with ourselves and those around us, and thus our environment displays the kind of social dysfunctions we experience in society, both throughout history and in the present. So, yes, it is 'I am' battling with 'I am', but at some point, maturity needs to set it. I think the other side of that struggle is a new enlightenment and social serenity, even happiness, joy, the like of which we have scarcely experienced. Don't you think this may come to pass?

Re: " if by creative success you mean "electrical power distribution to homes in the late 19th century" or "agricultural engineering", then i sort of contend that, as Michael Jackson once remarked as a character in a movie, success is an illusion." I don't know about Michael Jackson, but I think washing clothes by hand in a cold river, as I have seen in my travels, is less of an illusion for those who have to do it, if they could toss it into a washing machine instead. Try it! I have... not fun after doing it a dozen times.

Re: "i don't like when people thank me for something. i literally feel 'uncomfortable' and i always say "you don't have to/please don't thank me"" I can relate to that! However, it is a far greater strength to accept 'thanks' than not to, in my opinion. So I liberally thank people when I feel it and mean it, and likewise have learned to accept their thanks graciously, when they also mean it. A 'thank you' is a gift, and same as it may be difficult to give, so it is sometimes even more difficult to receive.

Re: the 'mind control people', I don't feel this, though there are those who do, or even would like to be on the 'in' group doing it! In fact, I do not think anyone can control anyone else unless they let them, in effect, empower them. So I do not worry about this much, not losing sleep over it.

Re: "don't confuse reality"... this is another way of saying that the 'who' definition that defines you is also 'out there' (in that glowing flower?) so that when you confuse yourself, your reality manifests that confusion. That's okay, if that is what you willed, but usually it has disappointing results in our lives, and we get frustrated, disatisfied with our lot, angry, disconnected... in effect, the opposite of being happy and serene with our lot. Not easy, really not easy at all! For some people, I suspect, it never comes, for others they are almost born into it. I like Thich Nhat Hanh, the Buddhist monk, because he explains this better than I do.

Oh yeah, the opposite of 'coercion' is 'agreement'. Coercion is easy; agreement is damned hard. When is an agreement 'good'? That is a totally personal thing, as individual as each one of us. And that, I think, is the magic of agreement.

Well, that's all for today, will think of these things some more tomorrow. Gotta watch "Crime and Punishment" for diversion and to clear my mind of philosophical thoughts, then off to bed, another busy day at work tomorrow.

Ciao! Ivan

SCIENCE VS. PHILOSOPHY

If I were to coin a phrase as regarding science, I would call it the study of the infinitesimal. By the same token, I would call philosophy the study of the infinite.

Science dissects, tries to measure and verify and break things down to their smallest possible components, before formulating theory. Philosophy, on the other hand, works with systems that construct greater and greater models to encompass all the knowns, so ultimately the theory is to encompass infinity. So science is the handmaiden of philosophy, since it is her duty to verify what philosophers constructed; but philosophy is then the servant of science, since it is the experiential and empirical that dictates what material philosophy can work with.

Thus, I posit that neither science nor philosophy can exist on their own, but rather are symbiotic, and so are forced to work together into a whole... but the whole is philosophy!

Is this not so?

are you trying to dichotomize the 2 (science et philosophy)?

hm..i suppose i could concur w/ your rationalization, but (and maybe i'm going in a different direction)...

i suppose *i* would say about philosophy that an "Absolute" modeling for both the 'knowns' and potential *unknowns/unknwables* was a major goal...and i think 'a theory that would encompass "finitude"' (boundedness) would be more apropos than the terming 'infinity'; finitude (i say finit) says 'bound' which would be a *real* occurrence, while 'infinity' insists no bounding.

and science, at times, even suggests that it can't make *precise* enough determinations for certain ideals/things (ie, the definition of energy is based on what 'energy' *potentially* is 'used for' (work), not for WHAT IT IS).

is it safe to say, that under certain circumstances, both science (the raw application of mental ability w/ a nod to 'discernment') and philosophy ("purely rationalized discernment"...hopefully) fall WAY SHORT of being absolutely effective, either in tandem or separately (though you did say "Science...*tries* to measure and verify")?

(to wit--infinitesimal and infinite are the same, but just differing in MAGNITUDE)

to be honest, maybe there is to much of a 'generalization' going on here w/ regards to both the definition of science and philosophy. i guess a purpose needs to be understood as to what you had in mind w/ making such specific defines of these terms in the 1st place.

in my thinking, i can see that "science" can be considered TECHNICAL and "philosophy" NON-TECHNICAL (hypotheses garnered from use of Merriam-Webster's definition of relevant terms).

maybe what differentiates them is the "degree/type of mind use" they are both effective of. maybe science is more 'sublime' mind (eg, raw mechanical) and philo is 'high mind' ('emotional/intuitive' & all other related components and compoundings).

Hi Metan,

Yes, I think you are right, "infinitesimal and
infinite are the same, but just differing in
MAGNITUDE," so that the two are really ONE. This
brings us back to that old formula: Zero X
Infinity = One. So the ONE is the symbiosis of
the two, hence dichotomy is now restated as
"Science times Philosophy equals One," our
universe. Ha, ha, this is a mental game, but
'duality' is something we invent, whereas reality
is always a totality of One. Which is more real?
And since we can never stray too far from One, we
never achieve zero nor infinity, which is as it
should be, since we are alive here and now.

But why does the human mind seek duality? Is this
a function of our psychobiology? Or is it a
function of how reality is in this dimension? Or
is it all illusion, for we see things where they are
not?

Don't know!

"And since we can never stray too far from One, we never achieve zero nor infinity, which is as it should be"

--as can be exampled by 'the calculus' which, in part, deals w/ "limits", of which, 0 & [infinity] are the absolute representations.

i would insist that cognizance *primarily* utilizes 'logical structure'. (the mind seems to be doing *what it is supposed to be* when there is high lucidity. this, i'm assuming, is what the avg being w/ a mind would say).

duality points to the fact of "opposition-compliment" w/ regards to an idea (like the working of a "force") or thing (left foot opposes/compliments right foot).

i suppose duality (and other related concepts/principles) are as natural as 'mind' (as long as mind is considered natural). there "couldn't be a world w/o it/them".

on the other hand, if you were not "perceiving" sensually/sensorially, anything (in 'reality'), then no constructs/concepts/principles would be utilizable (needed?) and maybe our 'experience' as self would be a whole lot "more raw".

lastly, in terms of what is to be considered "real" or "illusory": if we take an (i feel Ideal) example of the 'real/virtual paradigm' in the (atomic) energy-bonding (or energy-'matter') principle, whereby 1 bond couples (ideally) 2, what i call, "energy principles"--the stuff that provides the 'orbital' info among other things: ie-we measure these directly, the energy indirectly--whereby, the bond (the "force/energy" tied up in the particular relationship) is the virtual component and the 'material(ized)/manifest' *stuff* is to be considered (though not by my estimation) the "real" part of the energy-matter relationship. (i see it as energy can't be destroyed, but matter--to a degree--appears to be totally 'deconstructible' and thusly, can be 'real' at one time and 'not-real'--not existent--at another. to wit, the energy is always translated through the "bond", which again, is always *virtual*).

so if we take one of the "stick-n-ball" representations of a molecule, the stick is virtual, the ball, real. interesting to note that, to "break a stick" it takes another (*bigger*) stick...in short, only energy ever interacts, such that, there would appear to be only "bonds"--(this would seem a perfectly rational idea considering that quantum principle says that particles (the "balls") aren't *real*, they have wave-functions...when these functions collapse (basically when have a particle--or you DON'T HAVE ONE), it becomes a whole lot easier to deal w/ the system at hand :)

when bonds break, wave-functions (for a given principle, or (sub)atomic particle) collapse (or do they?...); bonds forming would cause for wave-functions to *regenerate* (given the particle that is being "created")...or did the wave-function just PICK UP WHERE IT LEFT OFF IN ANOTHER "CONTINUOUS" PART OF THE "ABSOLUTE REALITY" *smile*

(..hm...since "0" and "infinite" would be 2 *special* wave-number thingies, are they to be found at the absolute creating and 'destruction' of a particle? i've only studied QT through chemistry, and that wasn't really thorough)

take it easy

metan01d

[hm--and aren't 0 and infinity in opposition as well? 0 being 'nothing', infinity being 'All']

INFINITE ELECTRONS? The Mind-Body problem of Consciousness.

-Examined Life Interdisciplinary Discussion Forums (http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi)
--Physics (http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/forums.cgi?forum=11)
---Consciousness- the Mind-Body problem (http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/forums.cgi?forum=11&topic=1)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Posted by WJ on 7:50 am on Nov. 16, 2001
All!


"A scientific world-view which does not profoundly come to terms with the problem of conscious minds can have no serious pretensions of completeness. Consciousness is part of our universe, so any physical theory which makes no proper place for it falls fundamentally short of providing a genuine description of the world. I would maintain that there is yet no physical, biological, or computational theory that comes very close to explaining our consciousness ... (emphasis added) "

"I don't know if consciousness has some profound metaphysical relation to physics. Science is notoriously unpredictable over the long term, and there are tricky mind-body paradoxes that may ultimately demand a radical solution. But at this point in the vexed history of the problem there is little question about the preferable scientific approach. It is not to try to solve the mind-body problem first --- that effort has a poor track record --- or to pursue lovely but implausible speculations. It is simply to do good science using consciousness as a variable, and investigating its relations to other psychobiological variables."

Question:

Can physics provide a theory of consciousness?

Sincerely,
WJ


------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Posted by Ivan Alexander on 1:54 pm on Nov. 17, 2001
Dear WJ, & all,

This is a most challenging question, to show consciousness through the laws of physics.  Obviously consciousness exists in the universe, but at what level do the laws of physics connect with it?  Daunting, since we approach physics mostly from a micro perspective at the atomic and subatomic levels, whereas consciousness is most evident in species at the most evolved macro level.  This is not to say that survivors of earliest evolutionary efforts, such as bacteria, viruses, single celled life, does not experience a kind of 'consciousness', but what we think of as consciousness is more akin to humans, mammals, both terran and oceanic, as well as some birds, parrots, etc., those which have the ability to learn and even comprehend.  But where do we make the connection, if we are to look at the micro level?  This is why I find your question daunting, since to connect micro physics with micro life, which seems a natural place to start, we need to show that consciousness is evident in both...  But is it?  This will require more thought.  

Thanks for asking such a challenging question!

All the best, Ivan  :confused:

Ps:  Maybe the connection exists at Bohm's QM where the electron 'knows' where it is to be, because the information it works with is all the forces that are around it, ad infinitum, whereas our 'guessing' of where it should be is limited by our lack of knowledge.  If so, then is the electron more 'conscious' than we are in that instant?  Thinking out loud...


(Edited by Ivan Alexander at 2:07 am on Nov. 18, 2001)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Posted by WJ on 10:55 am on Nov. 20, 2001
Hello Ivan!!

After picking-up the book 'the Mind of God' by Paul Davies (which I'd recommend) it confirmed some thoughts/instincts (albeit probably of the erroneous nature;)  I had about the subject of consciousness viz. physics. And also created some further thought about reducing human existence to physics.

Anyway, though an obviously difficult topic to the untrained, or a layperson (in physics) such as myself, the interesting philosophical questions abound.  For instance, if there are electrical neurons and the like (scientific physical phenomena as it were) as observed by brain activity or comprising what we know of brain activity, how does that *really*explain consciousness? The physicist's say it doesn't really.  (I think they all agree to that, but am not sure.)  

But as far as the philosophic (Materialism v. Idealism debate) questions,  one of the many (questions) I think relates to sentience.  Since science/physics can only observe physical matter/activity and all the rest from the brain, what does this really mean? Can science  discover and uncover through physics, the how's and why's  associated with all the human needs or wants-love? Or sex? Or hate? Or reason?

Someone said psychobiology?  Hello?

On the other hand, your question of electron-consciousness is interesting;  having a mind of its own, as it were.  Some sort of contingent or non-contingent feature of the universe, I suppose. I am equally perplexed.  Something set the laws of nature in motion the way it is, or the way they are, because apparently from physics there were/are other alternatives.  Maybe we can put some of this in 'lay-perspective'...

;)

to be continued

God Bless,
WJ

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Posted by Ivan Alexander on 9:50 pm on Nov. 20, 2001
Hi WJ, and All,

I will have to look up 'the Mind of God', sounds interesting.  As regards your question, psychobiology:

"Someone said psychobiology?  Hello?

On the other hand, your question of electron-consciousness is interesting;  having a mind of its own, as it were.  Some sort of contingent or non-contingent feature of the universe, I suppose."

I think this can be very exciting as a new avenue for physics, though at this point we do not know how to link the two, psycho with biology, using the laws of physics.

In pursuit of my earlier musings on QM and the electron's 'consciousness', I think there may be a link to neuron activity in our brain with what happens at the subatomic level.  Let's see if my 'misfiring' neurons can figure this (coffee might help), so we can make some sense of it.

Let's suppose that Bohm is right, that the electron 'knows' where to be because of all the forces that are around it, which then are connected to all the other forces around them too, all the way to infinity; so that the electron knows where it is to be because of an infinity of forces that are somehow ordered around it.  Now, let's suppose that the same process is activated in the brain, where the subatomic particles that fire the neurons are also connected to all the physical forces around it, infinitely so as in the case of our electron, but also connected to all the forces that compel us to be alive in our body; this means that the forces at work that influence how the neurons fire are both spatial and answering to the laws of physics of the universe, while at the same time biological, since they respond to the subatomic activity that renders us alive.  (I'm assuming that our aliveness is also a product of subatomic activity.)  Now, this is the link that I find tenuous, but I think it might work:  

If the electron is connected to forces that are infinite, is the subatomic activity of the brain that produces our consciousness also infinite?  Would this mean then that 'consciousness', or maybe all of life, the force or essence that renders us alive and cognizant, are also infinite in nature?  Then this neurological activity is modified, or contingent upon, by both the life needs as demanded by the body, while at the same time modified by the subatomic activity that connects our life to the forces of infinity.  If so, then there is here a link between consciousness and physics, where this connection takes place at the level of the subatomic activity that defines our neurological activity.  Hence, not only our aliveness, but also our consciousness, are properties of the laws of physics of our universe, as these laws are expressed by subatomic activity.  

But then the question arises:  If consciousness is infinite in nature, why don't we know more?  Does this open the door for a potentially infinite kind of knowledge, or consciousness, at some point of our evolution?  Are we there yet?  Is our consciousness already infinite?  Or is the 'consciousness' of a bacteria or fungus spore then also infinite?   Or am I confusing consciousness with aliveness?  Don't know, neurons are a little slow tonight, and I fear I am only adding to my 'psychobiological' confusion...  Is our 'whoness' also infinite?...   Help!

Take care, talk soon (with more clarity, I hope).

Ivan
             

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Posted by Ash870 on 1:04 am on Dec. 4, 2001
Above all things, one must keep in mind when discussing theoretical physics, is that physics and math are nothing more than metaphors.  As are all things...To begin, Consciousness is indeed intertwined with physics.  Although classical physics tends to distance itself from personal experience, modern physics is quite the opposite.  In modern theoretical physics, personal consciousness is needed for things to occur.  This can be seen from the Uncertainty Principle, and the Wave-Particle duality principle.  Again, it cannot be streesed enough that these are mere metaphors of reality...pictures which help scientists imagine how Truth works.  In fact the atomic model which exists now...is simply a mere picture.  Current theory advocates that all things are composed of variation.  In other words, all things are nothing more than a variation of one thing.  For example, imagine a cord...now if one were to pluck the cord, it would vibrate creating a certain sound.  If one were to pluck the cord in a differnt postion, a different sound would be produced.  One could make an uncountable number of sounds with different pitches and tones simply by plucking the string differently.  This illustrates how a multitude of waves were created by nothing more than ONE string.....simply pulled in a different direction.  The variations in the way the string vibrates produced different sounds.  Particles can be seen in a similar manner.  All particles are simply varitations of fields. In Quantum Physics, particles are defined as waves AND particles at the same time.  Now if one would imagine an electron as a wave, the electron would be smeared across space-time.  More precisely, in the math, the electron is at all places along the wave, but in different probablitlities, or as Aristotle called it, potentia.  The electron has potential to exist at all points on the wave and at the same time it IS at all points along the wave.  Only through measurment or conscious observance, does the wave collapse to an arbitrary point along the wave; usually being the point with the highest probability.  In fact in countless experiments that have been performed, one may study both the wave and partcle nature of particles. In Qunatum ElectroDynamics, experiments are performed in which it can be seeen that an electron can be at many places at the same time, and leave traces or effects of its existnce at all those places.  Once direct measurment is performed, the wave collapses to a point of highest probability.  This proves the direct relation between physics and consciousness.  With  Conasciousness, the whole universe exists as nothing more than one big probabiliy wave.  Only with the introduction of consciouness is this wave manifested into form, or a particle.  In fact, according to this principle, it is our counsciousness that actualizes ourselves.  If we, by oberving the universe, actualize or manifest its form.  And since we, are a part of the universe at the same time, this would make the universe a self-actualizing agent; a feedback loop could also be said of this.  Ironically, physics now seems to mirror ancient mystic thought in terms of conscousness.  And since, like i said in the begining, all thing are metaphors, it can clearly be seen that this understanding has been reached not just with the metaphors of physics, but with that of common men.  Men who knew nothing of math and physics.  The way i see it, becuase all metaphors are imperfect to some degree, there can be an infinite number of them.  The metaphors of mystics and that of physics may be slightly different, however, the conclusions rest the same.:-)

P.S.- if this article sounds weird, i apologize i wrote rather in a hurry.  If you see some merit in it, i suggest you read Bohm's "Quantum Theory".  The book does contain ALOT of complex math, but if you think you can handle it, the clearer the metaphor shall be in your mind.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Posted by WJ on 8:25 am on Dec. 6, 2001
Hello Ash!

Thanks for sharing your most insiteful thoughts on this  most perplexing subject.  Philosophically, one of the things you said was quite intriguing.  You said:

"The way I see it, becuase all metaphors are imperfect to some degree, there can be an infinite number of them.  The metaphors of mystics and that of physics may be slightly different, however, the conclusions rest the same.:-) "

What did you mean when you used the term 'imperfect', in this context?

God Bless,
WJ


------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Posted by Ivan Alexander on 8:39 pm on Dec. 8, 2001
Dear Ash, WJ, and All,

I agree with Ash's important insights here.  I especially like the statement:

"In other words, all things are nothing more than a variation of one thing.  For example, imagine a cord...now if one were to pluck the cord, it would vibrate creating a certain sound.  If one were to pluck the cord in a different position, a different sound would be produced.  One could make an uncountable number of sounds with different pitches and tones simply by plucking the string differently.  This illustrates how a multitude of waves were created by nothing more than ONE string....."

I find this an interesting metaphor because it lends itself to adaptability to another idea expressed in my above:

"If the electron is connected to forces that are infinite, is the subatomic activity of the brain that produces our consciousness also infinite?  Would this mean then that 'consciousness', or maybe all of life, the force or essence that renders us alive and cognizant, are also infinite in nature?"

It seems to me that these two concepts fit rather well together, a kind of cosmic agreement, if you will:  The ONE that is manifest into diverse vibrations of itself, what we perceive in reality, to infinity; and ONE that is also manifest as consciousness, which then in turn re-manifests diverse vibrations, a kind of infinite here and now as consciousness.  But is this not another way of saying that we affect reality with our consciousness, while at the same time our consciousness is a product of reality interacting with itself?  If we again look at Bohm's electrons, we then see them 'knowing' where they should be because of both, their interconnections to the forces around it, to infinity; and also to the forces around it generated by consciousness.  If so, then consciousness and the laws of physics, at least at the subatomic level, are indeed connected.  

But how are they connected?  How is the cosmic 'cord' of the ONE modified by consciousness as we understand it?  Is reality modified by us at some level?  It would seem to me that what happens at the subatomic level in the brain is thus somehow connected to what happens in the energy of all cosmic reality.  But does it work in reverse?  

Or indeed, as Ash says, these mental models of how the laws of physics work are only imperfect metaphors, but they can serve as usable images of what actually happens...  Or can they?  Is consciousness, in a cosmic sense, beyond imagining?  Mystical?  I wonder...  Or are we once again getting close to God, the ultimate consciousness metaphor of ONE?

All the best, in the metaphor of ONE,

Ivan
     

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Posted by Ivan Alexander on 11:05 am on Dec. 22, 2001
INFINITE ELECTRONS, continued:

In the earlier post above, I wrote:

"If the electron is connected to forces that are infinite, is the subatomic activity of the brain that produces our consciousness also infinite?"

This was the question that stayed with me as I thought of how can we connect individually in our brain's consciousness with the physical laws of the universe out there.  How does one connect with an 'infinite' system of thought, the ONE?  

In his book "The Mind of God" Paul Davies asks: "Is the universe a computer?"  Without going into religious questions of God, but inquiring purely on reason, he concludes tentatively:  "So can we regard the countless atomic processes going on quite naturally all the time -- processes inside you and me, inside the stars, the interstellar gas, distant galaxies -- as part of some gigantic cosmic computation?  If so, then physics and computation become identical and we would arrive at the astonishing conclusion: the universe would be its own simulator."  
--pg. 123  (Simon & Schuster,1992 NY)

So here Davies gives us another way of seeing the infinite universe as an infinite computational machine of an infinity of interconnections, same as our brain is its own computational machine of myriads of biological-neuron connections.  The two relate at the point of contact, ourselves, the "I am" that we identify with our consciousness.  If so, then the reverse may be also true that the laws of physics allow for an infinite "I AM" as some cosmic consciousness.  However, that is not what we seek here.  Rather, we are more interested in the life essence of living things conscious, as they can be explained through the laws of physics.

If each living thing is taken as an identifiable whole encased within its body, but its consciousness reflecting the computational activity of the universe, then we begin to see how its mind is a kind of reflection of how the universe works.  So we have in microcosm a 'consciousness' (to a lesser or greater degree) that responds to the universe around it, and it learns.  In humans, where this consciousness seems most evident, the ability to learn is magnified to the point where we can look back upon the universe in the abstract and understand its workings, the laws of physics.  But we have something else, which is also unique, for we can 'self-reference' into our personal consciousness with a unique identity, the 'who we are'.  Therefore, we have a mechanism which connects us to the computational nature of the universe in which we evolved and survive, and work and dream and reproduce and love and etc., with the computational mechanism that grants us our personal identity, the I am.  This is all done in the mind, more specifically in our consciousness, and very likely in the parts of the mind of which we are unconscious as well.  In effect, the 'mind' is the connector to the universe for each living thing.

Now this opens up exciting possibilities.  Does the universe 'respond' as we go about our 'computational' activity in our minds?  It does not appear to be so, on the surface, but this may be happening at some level of which we are not yet aware, something to look for.  For example, does prayer take on a new significance?  Are the dreams and hopes, and loves, then communicated somehow into the ONE, and does this then generate some condition in ourselves, our minds, our lives, that reflects this communication?  These are tall questions to be asked from the 'laws of physics', but now we can imagine at least that the questions fit.  Our electrons processing reality in our brains are in fact connected to the infinite forces that are processing reality in the universe.  This processing is in fact what we know as the universe, with the laws of physics as only one of its many algorithms that program this process, and we are the fortunate inhabitants who are a part of it.  So what goes on in our consciousness is not removed from the physical reality we witness out there; rather, we are totally intertwined with it and a subatomically determined part of it.  Of course, being human and opportunistic, the natural question arises:  How can we make use of this?

So, how can we use these laws of physics to meet the needs and demands of our self-referential consciousness?  Are there other laws of physics that pertain to this theory of consciousness we have not yet discovered?  Are the electrons and subatomic activities of reality interconnected somehow directly with what happens in our brains?  Is there some communication that takes place between the body, within which we live, and the universe, within which our body lives?  In fact, are we on the threshold of a whole new physics that is more holistic and biological in nature than the material physics of Newton's era?  I suspect this is so, and that we will discover that the physical laws of the universe are totally interrelated in a biological-like whole.  Further, I suspect that this interrelated communication between being and existence is infinite and instantaneous.  And if so, then we may ultimately find the communications link we need to talk not only to each other without conflict, but ultimately to talk to God.

Now, wouldn't that be cool?

Ivan

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL,  CHEERS!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examined Life Interdisciplinary Discussion Forums powered by Ikonboard
http://www.ikonboard.com
© 2000 Ikonboard.com

INTERRELATIONSHIP VS. CHAOS

Mercy, mercy. Can Interrelationship really solve
the Chaos question? Everything is inter-related
to everything, so the mathematics of the unknown
relationships are solved by the
interrelationship's totality, which works
backwards to reposition everything inside the
totality. A kind of Super Set Theory. Chaos
Theory is like the Bushman's Calculus: 1, 2, 3
... too many! Mathematical formulas can absorb
another variable which leads to chaos-like waves
and results, but more variables lead to unsolvable
equations, becoming chaotic. Lordy, Lordy, do we
have a short cut? Chaos sort of stabilize at the
set-like quantities that represent feedback order,
like the orbits of the planets, or the stabilized
populations of living things. But can anybody
really solve Interrelationship's Super Set Theory,
besides its ability to Infinitely solve itself?
That's Life!

--Mobius

In regard to Ivan's infinite electrons, I believe "the electrons and subatomic activities of reality [are] interconnected...directly with what happens in our brains," and I talk about this in my book, "InSight of God," along with many other relevant ideas.
We are the conscious interface between the realities of the infinitely small and those of the infinitely large. While at the level of the atom we are touching the center itself, we are, at the same time, not the center, but separate individuals caught within larger, more visible spirals. Thus, God is both immanent and transcendent, both within us and outside us. The divine spark of life, embodied in matter, wrapped up in the divinity of the universe.
To look more deeply into issues like these check out my book, "InSight of God" at http://www.llumina.com

'THINKING AND BEING ARE ONE'

Dear WJ, Ash, Tim, Deborah, and All,

I had written in my post (see below, Jan. 6, 2002), in response to Tim's note that for Heidegger 'thinking and being are one':

"...then all those unconscious or semiconscious brain activities are also part of our being, which in turn are part of our existence in reality. This is the direction I am searching for: what are the connections that validate this idea, that our thinking, conscious and unconscious, and our being are one, not only in our heads, but also out there?"

This takes us back to the subatomic activity taking place in our brain, and how they are infinitesimally affected by the infinite computational machine that is our cosmic reality, both interacting through myriads of interrelations playing against each other at levels unseen by us but which exist of necessity. Taking this as a starting point, one of which we are conscious of only in the abstract, since I cannot feel or experience directly these interactions taking place, and can only understand them happening conceptually, I must reason that this is taking place outside my consciousness. Nor can I see the subatomic activity in my brain, though science theorizes this is taking place within my neurons. So here is an element of faith, that this is taking place not only in myself, but also outside of me, ad infinitum, in a vast continuum of space and the interrelated energy that fills this vast cosmic space. So, where does this take us?

I think the medium that connects the two, my internal subatomic brain activity, and the outer universe's interrelated atomic activity, is my Being. I am positioned, in my being in my body, in being conscious of this position, and in my self awareness that defines itself as my 'who I am'; that all these come together as one, in the person I am in my existence, in my Being. This is another way of saying that my mind, being, and existence are one, that they are unified because the subatomic activity in my brain 'talks' to the subatomic activity out there. Again, this is conjectural, since I cannot have a direct experience of this happening, though it may be possible that at some future point the brain will evolve this ability; but for now, it is only conceptual. Now, if I take this to the next step: this is a totally natural event which had evolved with us to the point where we are conscious enough to even be able to think of it. So, if I may stretch this a little, as our species evolved, each living being surviving and interacting with its surroundings, in effect with the universe, it gradually matured or evolved to better interact in the future by developing a mind. So this mind, which is what is now looking back upon its existence, is a product of a long chain of events, of evolution, that has brought it to the present state, of where it is and of how it is. What it is is consciousness; who it is is the identity this consciousness has given itself: 'I am'. But the time line interconnectedness that has brought it to this point is a result of an interaction between its existence in the present since birth, as well as the existence of its surviving predecessors, all of which had experienced, most likely unconsciously, this interaction between micro subatomic activity in the brain, or its whole being, and the subatomic activity of the macro world outside, and learned to live in it. If we were to follow this thread further, we come to a realization that what has brought us here, to this state of realization, is a 'consciousness' that had been affecting us through all time of life's existence. In effect, we live in an 'intelligent' universe that is capable of creating a conscious mind... Wow!

Now, going back to WJ's original question of the Laws of Physics' relationship to Consciousness, it would seem to me that the two connect through our Being, at the point where we exist within the cosmic reality, within which we have learned to survive, and within which we became conscious. This means that each one of us has a 'definition' within this interrelated cosmic phenomenon, one which continues to interact at both the micro and macro level, which in turn defines for us the reality within which we exist in terms of how these interactions take place. But is this not another way of saying that we exist in reality in terms of 'who' we are in that definition from the cosmic reality? In other words, if the micro and macro reality interact at the point of our being, and are defined there by these activities into a being who can be conscious, a mind who can say 'I am', then is that being not the definition as it is given us by all of cosmic existence? Or, are we not 'who' we are both in our minds and in our being? And if so, then who we are is due to the laws of physics, those infinitely interrelated subatomic activities that take place both in our brain and out there, as these forces of reality converge on our individual being. Yes? Then we really are who we are... Really! You are who you are!

Hope you enjoyed this mental game of consciousness, but I suspect it hugs in close to the truth.

All the best, God Bless, always a joy,

Ivan

Ps: I think there is one more point to be made here, if only by extension, that in 'who' we are, we also affect the reality around us with which we interact. This means that all our choices, actions, attitudes, and even our emotional and rational 'thoughts', have a way of interacting with the physical reality we inhabit. This reality then becomes 'ours' in some way that is as yet not clear to us, but which can be understood to be happening conceptually. So, as I am in my being, so 'my' reality is with me. Or, another way to see this, 'who I am' is also 'who' is my reality, as it manifests around me in response to my being.

***************************************************
(Above written in response to below posts on The Examined Life On-Line Philosophy Journal: Inter-Disciplinary Discussion Forums: Physics: http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=11&topic=1&start=7 )

Hello all,

Thank you for your stimulating discussions of a topic which, to my mind, is extremely important.

Unfortunately, I don't have any great insights on this topic, just keen interest and a reference to share -- one which will hopefully not take the discussion to far afield.

The question of the relation between the theory of consciousness and the theory of physics made me think of Heidegger's essay, "On the Being and Conception of Physis in Aristotle's Physics B1" -- an essay I'd recommend.

For the early Greeks, according to Heidegger, physis was one of the names given to Being itself. And Being, for Heidegger of course, is always sited within the projects of humanity -- most notably within the thinking of Dasein. This is how Heidegger interprets Parmenides' saying that 'thinking and being are one'.

Now being, or physis, as sited within the "consciousness" of Dasein, is also historical. Being revealed itself in a certain way in the Middle Ages and is now unfolding in a certain way in the technological epoch. This technological unfolding of Being affects consciousness as well -- that today we understand physics as particles/waves which can be measured and calculated, even if it is with a degree of uncertainty, would be an example of this technological unfolding of Being; as would the fact that we understand our consciousness, also, as neurochemical processes to be calculated.

So, can a theory of physics include consciousness?  Perhaps, if we are willing to step back from the particular theses of a particular age of physics and of consciousness in order to place the two concepts within a broader, hermeneutical understanding of Being, that is, one which sees Being as historical and sited.

Tim

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 1 | Joined Jan. 2002 | Posted on: 3:48 pm on Jan. 2, 2002 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Tim,

Welcome!  Thank you for your insight into the physical laws/consciousness question.  You wrote:

"For the early Greeks, according to Heidegger, physics was one of the names given to Being itself.  And Being, for Heidegger of course, is always sited within the projects of humanity -- most notably within the thinking of Dasein. This is how Heidegger interprets Parmenides' saying that 'thinking and being are one'."

I feel this is an important point, that 'thinking and being are one'.  I would further modify that by saying that this is so not only in one's brain, but also in one's 'being', existence, interconnectedness to one's reality while alive, etc.  I would also go further, and say that even 'unconscious' thinking, the kind that goes on while we are asleep, for example, the parts of the brain that 'talk' to each other without our conscious awareness, all are also part of our thinking; and if so, then all those unconscious or semiconscious brain activities are also part of our being, which in turn are part of our existence in reality.  This is the direction I am searching for: what are the connections that validate this idea, that our thinking, conscious and unconscious, and our being are one, not only in our heads, but also out there?

Take care, will talk soon,
Ivan           

-----
It's a very big, infinite universe, and the search goes on... it starts here.   http://www.humancafe.com  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 86 | Joined Aug. 2001 | Posted on: 12:57 pm on Jan. 6, 2002 | IP

RE: 'Law of Identity' and Spirituality.


Dear W.A. (and all),

Welcome! Thank you for your clear and concise thesis on the 'Law of Identity' as it applies to Spirituality. Very fine thinking altogether. It brings a sense of 'objectivity' which dispels the fog of 'mysticism' with a fresh look at Reason by espousing non-contradiction, as opposed to embracing paradox and contradiction. However...

There would be one item that I would question, and which is important because it is pivotal to your thesis. That is a question of 'identity'. You write:

"The law of identity is a description of something that exists; it describes identity. Identity is causeless, existing from axiomatic necessity."

Now, I can agree with this statement, as it applies to me; same as I can agree with your stating it, as it applies to you. However, can we be sure that this statement is true for us as it is accepted by another, or for the other as it is accepted by us? Or, if I may rephrase it, do I know your sense of 'identity' is the same as my sense of 'identity'? Or, can 'identity' have a meaning that is of not of 'axiomatic necessity', but be other than 'a priori' and be 'caused' by something else?

The reason I ask these questions is because if the answer is "yes", it puts into jeopardy the thesis that, as you say: "Mysticism is the antithesis of identity philosophy and it inherently seeks to corrupt and destroy its opposite."

If 'identity' is not a given by axiom, instead that it exists due to conditions that are caused by factors outside of what can be identified by reason, by infinite forces, for example; then it opens the doors for a definition of identity as the result of something else, something infinite, or even mysterious and, if I may use the term, mystical. So the loop closes in on itself, that 'identity' is in fact 'mystical', since to believe in it 'a priori' is an act of faith.

If so, then there is room for 'identity' to become due to forces inherent is some structure of existence in the universe that 'defines' its parts in some way that is unknown to us, and thus it cannot be taken for granted that reason can identify what this identity is. So this is why it is so important to clarify what the term 'identity' really means, not so much in terms of what we ascribe to it, but rather in terms of what the reality of the universe ascribes to itself, as it 'causes' itself to be identified. In effect, how does the universe define 'identity'?

This question of 'identity', therefore, reopens the conundrum, that Spirituality is not an objective relationship between ourselves and the universe, but rather a still mysterious one, and rather a subjective one. Certitude of identity is possible, but not from the point of view of our reason. Another way to think of this is via 'chaos theory', that our reason is inadequate to the task of introducing risk and variables of any larger magnitude, since then this throws the outcome of reason into doubt. This would be also true as it applies to 'identity'. This then further means that we may be free to believe as we wish, mystically or otherwise, since this is subjective; it may even be acceptable for individuals to share in a common mystical belief and form a group; however, I certainly agree with you that this personal belief is not transferable with any degree of certitude on another. If I were to attempt to impose my 'mystical' experience on another human being, it is philosophically untenable and, as you say, it becomes a hoax. Philosophically, one's mystical belief is totally personal and not transferable, since what is truth for one, as a pure article of faith, becomes inherently a lie for another, unless the other also accepts it as an article of faith. Still, I would not take away anyone's freedom to believe as they believe, nor would I force them to reject it, even if it is unacceptable to me.

Lastly, yes we are rational beings in a rational world. But that is not enough. We in fact are still more. It is just that at this point of our consciousness, this is all we can know. The universe, and I also suspect our mind, is infinitely more complex than we can know with our reason. And that is why Mysticism exists for us humans. It is not that Mysticism destroys its opposite, but rather than it opens the path for new evolutions of mind. Nor is 'non-reason' lurking in the shadows to corrupt the 'human soul'; rather it is a freedom we should cherish and never give up. Without that freedom, we cease to be human; or we even cease to be spiritual beings, since that freedom is inherent in our human identity.

Now my question becomes this: "Given your Law of Identity, do I have the right to be 'mystical' if I choose this, if it is in my 'identity', even it if is against your reason?"

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. All the best,

Ivan


(Written in response to: http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/forums.cgi?forum=21 )

Re: Ethics. I believe that two universal precepts
serve as the practical basis for any modern
ethical system. (1) All are born with a need to
survive; (2) Unconditional 'love' for mother is
the first imprint of trust relational to
authority. Re: Infinity. It's important to
distinguish actual from potential infinity. Recall
that in Cantor's set theory, infinity is defined
when the sum of parts equal the whole (versus the
Euclidean notion that a whole is always greater
than the sum of its parts). Just some thoughts:)
G-man This is...

Three steps to understanding Interrelationship as a definition of Total Being and Identity.

(Same as submitted to the Inexpressible Committee's Forum, in response to Post #351, also posted on Humancafe's Forum under Challenge the Philosophy, July 7, 2002)

I think Total Being can be equated with Identity in three easy steps:

Total Being = Identity

Step 1: Interconnectedness.
All things are part of interconnectedness, everywhere and all the time, which is an ontological connecting of the dots, if you will.

Step 2: Interrelationship.
The patterns created by interconnectedness, the connecting of the dots, create interrelationships that define the dots in terms of there positioning within these patterns. So, interconnectedness is the first order of things, but their interrelationships are the second order of things, so that all parts are defined by how they are within the patterns within which they are positioned.

Step 3: Identity.
Identity is what the dots are, their being, in terms of the totality of the interrelated patterns. As the patterns of interrelationship grow in dimensions, so that greater sets defined greater patterns, then the definition of the singular dots increases in proportion to those dimensions. When tending towards infinity, if we could use a philosophical kind of calculus, then the definitions of the dots likewise tend towards infinity, so that at infinity, they are exactly as the patterns of the totality of interrelationship patterns have defined them to be. They are what they are, in terms of the whole. Therefore, Total Being, as defined by an infinity of interrelated patterns connecting all the dots of being, is exactly what those dots are in terms of their Totality within that Whole. Or, to put it simply, Total Being equals each thing's Identity.

Is this always at the Same Time? Of necessity, it is always at the same time, for patterns defining the dots of being have no time dimensions to them.

Is this Reasonable? If the definition of Total Being = Identity lends itself to infinite regress, then it is reasonable.(*)

Is Identity who we are in our consciousness? All living things are conscious at some level, if they can learn, exhibit locomotion, and have the ability to choose. By the three steps above, we are also defined in our being. This does not mean that we have to know, in our consciousness, all the interrelated patterns that define our identity to be conscious of them. What lends itself to the simplicity calculus of interrelationship is that those infinite patterns are ingrained that that identity's definition, whether or not it is conscious of that, though it displays consciousness at some level. We as human beings have taken that consciousness to a new order, where we are conscious of it, and have given it a name, consciousness. Is this same consciousness that we are now aware of the same as our identity? The two, identity and consciousness, are inextricably linked in terms of how both have been defined by Total Being.

Does this solve the Proposition? The Proposition, can we know who we are and be who we are at the same time, or its expression in the negative, is a mystery of paradox that cannot be answered here. However, since I think of God as the infinite regress of mysteries, I am happy to leave it at that, with one caveat: As long as I retain the right to be who I am, which is my identity.(**)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

*(Please note that this thinking, of identity and total being as equal, lends itself to infinite regress, so we can take it back to the beginning of the formation of the first atom in the universe as a result of whatever forces collided to produce it, or to the formation of the first thing we can define as being alive, however the universe created life within itself, or the first signs of consciousness, as defined above. This self defining interrelationship had been at work from that first moment of creation. It had been active long before we became conscious of our consciousness.)

**(But this is only the first order of things. Next comes agreement and coercion, and whether my right to be who I am is violated, or violates it for another, so that perhaps I no longer am who I am in my identity, etc...)

I hate to parachute in as the party spoiler here. But a total realization of self as extended seamless unity ultimately leads to a sort of non-differential calculus, who basic rules I can't even begin to suspect will reconcile with the current differential set. Any possible solutions?:) G-man