Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00107)

Dear Leon,

Thanks very much for this enlightening material. It is very 
gratifying to find that such ideas are circulating in the scientific 
community, although it doesn't surprise me, in view of the tremendous 
impulse from inner planes that humanity has received in the past 
century or so. I recently had the opportunity to attend a forum with 
a young scientist from the NIH who is a theosophist. He was asking 
about theosophical points of view and input regarding bio-research in 
several areas. I would like to give him the URL to your website, if 
you would be so kind as to post it again.

Best wishes,
Adelasie

On 2 Mar 2002 at 21:45, leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:

> Dear Adelasie,
> 
> With reference to my previous posts about ABC theory and its
> relationship to the leading edges of current science, as well as the
> current ethical, moral dilemmas of science -- I thought this recent
> dialogue between scientists on the Journal of Consciousness Study
> online forum, re their current ideas about reality and natural order,
> might be enlightening.
> 
> LHM
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> >From jsjnson@eskimo.com (Joe Johnson)
> 
> John McCrone said it best on 2/21, as below. I would simply add, with
> more specificity, an argument that may explain the structure of
> natural order in relation to the conscious journey of mind. Or,
> perhaps someone can tell me where I go wrong. :-)
> 
> [John McCrone]
> My route is to say consciousness, as we experience it, is an
> intensification of stuff that is already happening in complex adaptive
> systems. Understanding this is a journey exploring a broad terrain
> rather than a linear race from a start point to a finishing line. The
> journey can never be completed (the Hard Problem disposed) because
> there is always more terrain to enjoy. But you can get a sense of the
> lay of the land after a while. Especially once you've climbed enough
> hills to see that "consciousness" is part of a more general landscape
> of physical forms. 
> 
> So the biggest "improper" statement is to tell a reductionist that the
> secret of consciousness might not lie in a single causative mechanism.
> Instead, the answer is smeared across a wide terrain. That you will
> have to pass through philosophy, sociology, psychology, neurology,
> biology and certain areas of mathematics to glean all the intriguing
> detail. 
> 
> A reductionist just wants to dig for gold in the one spot - and thus
> to be the person who discovers the prize and takes the glory. A race
> has its winners and losers. A journey can only offer a certain
> personal satisfaction. -----------------
> 
> [Joe]
> 1. Natural order is a singular constraint, a fundamental, coherent
> necessity implicit in all expression, but subjective; ultimately
> beyond complete definition.
> 
> 2. The only information we have about natural order is of
> relationships in the language of common experience, i.e. metaphoric.
> 
> 3. Any particular is the expression of natural order; with implicit
> dimension, certainly, and perhaps also explicit.
> 
> 4. Physical order is the dependent, explicit subset of implicit
> natural order.
> 
> 5. Every state or process is an abstraction that exists as a virtual
> object in mind. By definition, mind is the perceiver and manipulator
> of virtual objects.
> 
> 6. Every such object is an expression of a higher abstract necessity,
> of which the object is a particular. (Abstractions can be thought of
> as simply virtual representations of particular things. But where
> process in relationships is concerned, the particular result is always
> the expression of some more abstract necessity. This is the subtle
> and generally neglected point where abstract/particular joins the
> lexicon of natural order to explain its structure.)
> 
> 7. Implicit necessity "A" (why anything exists rather than not)
> created explicit expression "B"; in which differences and limits are
> created perceived mainly in metaphors of time, space and energy. "A"
> continues to operate upon emergent properties of "B" resulting in
> increased complexity "C," and its own emergent properties. Likewise,
> "A" operating on "B, C," raises complexity "D" and its emergent
> properties, and so on. The point we make is that nothing exists that
> is not reducible to the implicit order of "A" because "A" is the
> all-inclusive abstract necessity of which all subsequent are
> particular expressions at various levels of complexity.
> 
> 8. Evolution is the boundless directed path of increasing
> complexities across time and space, each level with its emergent
> properties. There is no abstract of this process that is not a
> particular of higher abstracts, all the way up. It is the nature of
> abstractions that there is no finite top. The highest abstract ("A")
> is all-inclusive.
> 
> 9. Every process of this path expresses the implicit necessity of
> natural order "A". Every process deemed physical expresses both an
> explicit subset of natural order as well as the implicit necessity of
> natural order. The explicit set is "signed in nature," and is
> quantifiable; the larger implicit set is neither, and in our view is
> subjective but reflects fundamental natural order "A."
> 
> 10. A degree in the complexity of physical objects is reached that is
> able to support the creation and manipulation of virtual objects. 
> Mind may be defined as the perception and manipulation of virtual
> objects.
> 
> 11. The pursuit of order in relationships between quantifiable
> virtual objects is relatively simple and straightforward as physical
> science, a subset of natural order; what we recognize as "means."
> 
> 12. The pursuit of order in relationships between non-quantifiable
> virtual objects is not so simple. It requires an appreciation of the
> structure of natural order: that the implicit necessity "A" is
> subjective, relating not to the explicit parts but to the implicit
> whole; what we recognize as "ends."
> 
> 13. The question of ends is revealed to mind only by degrees. The
> accumulation of experience with particulars takes the form of an arrow
> that points in the direction of higher more inclusive abstracts and
> ultimately, as some report, to the direct inclusive experience of "A."
> The path is increasing degrees of the self-awareness of Kosmos and
> its fundamental subjective qualities, from the inside-out, in terms of
> the contrived illusion of differences and limits. Perhaps it points
> to a world implied by the Christians' meaning of "the second coming"
> in which civil order has taken a form that more completely expresses
> the higher qualities in the necessity of "A."
> 
> 14. The most primitive expression of "A" is the breaking or hiding of
> a perfect symmetry. As a constraint, the lower particulars of
> symmetry are most generally expressed in the meaning of conservation
> law. Its higher abstracts presumably point toward "A": notions such
> as justice, integrity, aesthetics, beauty, love, etc. that resonate,
> not surprisingly, with our higher intuitive values. Again,
> consciousness is not a problem at all. It is simply the increasing
> self-awareness of Kosmos - perhaps our collective flight from eternal
> sameness to reconstruct our highest nature into the contrived realm of
> differences and limits.
> 
> 15. I would say that abstracts of symmetry are the places to dig, but
> the path becomes endlessly complex and inclusive. For most of us, the
> end is perhaps not achievable in this life, but the journey is
> everything.
> 
> Joe Johnson