for Marta - Development and Sources of my Ideas and Being

FOR MARTA
DEVELOPMENT AND SOURCES OF MY IDEAS AND BEING

Document status, June 9, 2003: no action

Started as an attempt to understand “all reality” [1964…, especially 1970…]

First attempt used an evolutionary perspective focused in the period [1983 to 1992] - where did it all come from? Origins provide a perspective, understanding… One deep thing that evolution taught me is this. In older ideas from science and philosophy, the history of the universe is one that is deterministic - determined from the beginning of the universe. This would mean that there is never anything new, no creation. However there is newness. Therefore, the universe cannot be deterministic as it would be in the older ideas. In the newer Darwinian biology new species are truly new, not contained in what came before. Life is a part of the universe. Therefore the universe is not determined from the beginning or from any point in time: it is indeterministic. The most stark example is the creation of the universe from nothing. Only for an indeterministic universe can generation occur from nothing. Creation is the process in which the random novelty of indeterminism is balanced by the needs of more than transient existence. Out of the myriad novel forms only those persist that have more than transient -stable- existence. It is a multi-step process with structure building through novelty upon structure. Since it is not the seeking of a given outcome - it is at each stage the expression of possibility, the question of probability is irrelevant [Lay the 52 cards of a deck in a row. The order that results is an expression of possibility, not of necessity. If the order were claimed to be necessary prior to the deal, one could validly respond that the probability is 1/52! The evolution of the world is different in that each state affects subsequent states: prior states form selection forces but probability remains irrelevant unless one demands that that the actual state of evolution was necessary from earlier stages]. Although the idea originates in biology, it is confirmed in physics, cosmology; and there is a necessary chain of reasoning from the nature and possibility of our existence to this balance between structure and indeterminism. It is a universal idea; and a universe in which it does not hold, if possible, is a dead universe. Another interesting point: stable existence means more than transience, not infinite. What makes something stable is some kind of symmetry. The more symmetry there is the more there will be stability. Perfect symmetry will result in perfect or infinite stability: things will last forever if they come into existence but by the same logic that will take infinite time. Therefore, the actual universe will have a high degree of symmetry that is sufficient to provide richness and variety -the scene at Stuart’s Fork- but not perfect symmetry. In another universe in “another time” there may be more symmetry and higher degrees of structure and forms of life and intelligence. These newer ideas of indeterminism and symmetry are consistent with newer physics -quantum theory- and biology

Support from science: physics [1964…], cosmology [1970…] and astronomy, geology [1972…], biology which includes evolution [1962… especially and intensively 1985… e.g. Evolution and Design completed 1987], science of mind [1972… especially 1986…], philosophy [1961…], mathematics [1964…]

Then an ultimate perspective [1992…], what is the nature of “all being” [1995…]? [What is an ultimate perspective? For me it is understanding things as they are -as far as that is possible- rather than in terms of some specialized idea such as evolution]. Not unrigorous but denies that science is ultimate measure. This denial is based on the usual limited concept of science. Questions whether science in the limited sense is more than a set of successful social rules for secure discovery; questions whether science is a discrete thing or continuous with everyday life

Concept of knowledge widens [1986… especially 1992… and recently 1999 - 2000] Alternatives: explanation, understanding… Philosophical “sophistication.” From object knowledge to action cue to relationship

Can we truly know by ideas alone [1986… and recently 1992…]? Or is action, commitment of one’s being necessary? Knowledge, instead of being a description of the world, instead of standing outside the loop like an objective spectator is seen as part of the loop. What loop: idea ® action ® growth? Growth is change in or evolution of being. The old meaning of knowledge is a special case of “idea” in which, because of repeatability etc., mental representation is an appropriate term, is out of the loop to some extent; but this is a limited meaning based on safety, security. The escape from the loop is a limited escape made absolute in imagination by the ego. The wider meaning includes “risk” but, as seen from evolution, this is in the nature of reality as seen above

So, in this new way, the nature of reality cannot be fully known without transformation of our own being [1998…] I can ask “what forms of being are open to individuals?” Why ask that? Well, human being is the form of being for which the combination of complexity or fullness of being and for which we have intimate knowledge is maximum. [Dolphins may be more developed but we do not know them as well.] But, some kind of life centered [I asked “are we central?” After consideration I realized that the question was not about Homo sapiens but about mind: “Is mind, awareness central” or is it contingent, an accident ] approach is necessary; everything we know, however objectively, is known through the agency of our own being. Being totally centered is a way to approach the limitations of our own perspective -- Atman = Brahman, the sea of the unconscious… This is not saying that this human centered approach is better than the communal enterprise of science; it is not even an alternative. That would be an example of the so common either/or thinking that is so satisfying to the ego “my way is the way.” Instead the human centered approach can be woven together with the view from science which provides a unified though “low level” view of being. But to know this and to know reality it is not enough to theorize, one must experiment with one’s own being. This is the parallel to scientific experiment but it is not controlled or necessarily repeatable. There is risk. And it is not merely discovery, but we are actively involved in creation. What kind of experiment? There are experiments such as meditation and other mind experiments: induced hallucination, mood; experiments with imagination… and there are physical experiments: pushing to physical extremes; these interact with the mental. That is one kind of experiment. The other kind is where I involve my whole life. A third kind is described in the next paragraph. These could be described as “experimental philosophy”

Corresponding to the quest to “know all”, the new way requires “be all” [September 1995… and July 1998…] Given indeterminism, this is not as absurd as may have been thought: it may be remote but it is not absurd or illogical. Is this realized through evolution or in a lifetime? To make the process accessible, one needs a sequence of stages like the stages of evolution. Consider different levels of transformation. Start now. Build up imagination and experiment. Transform. Now see the next stage. The analogy is learning. What seemed impossible comes within grasp. But we are not learning from another more experienced teacher: we are alone without support in fluid reality. We must travel in the dark, use our own imagination, take risk. Then, when I get to a new stage I can begin to sense, and see the glimmer of the next. Once an individual has seen through more than one stage he or she will begin to get the feel of stages themselves, build theories, predict and the prediction will be the source of new higher level experiments in being. Begin to get the following concept: a hierarchy [ladder] of stages beginning with human being arching to the ultimate. If one individual or group [of humans, life forms, and universes] fails, the next can take over. It is like the cumulation of knowledge except that knowledge alone is insufficient to the goal. It is a balance between knowing and being… and an individual and a social enterprise