A Paradigm fit for Burning
The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them
Albert Einstein
Science is a broad church full of narrow minds
Professor Steve Jones
In the Idealist/Esoteric/Yogic/DarwinPlus (D+) view of Reality I now saw a philosophy that would one day change the world. Thus:
- Materialism is demonstrably mad.
- Idealism/DarwinPlus is not mad. It also
- Is compatible with all the events and structures of the observed world that science is concerned with, and
- Goes at least part of the way towards explaining not just ghosts, but ‘supernatural’ and paranormal effects that everyone knows are there, but which Materialist Science refuses to acknowledge or investigate.
- It can also incorporate the fundamental tenets of all religions, and even
reconcile large areas of Western philosophy.
It was around this time that I came across Thomas Kuhn’s book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. TK is concerned with the deep basic premisses upon which science builds its Theories. Such a profound basis is called ‘a paradigm’: an ‘unquestionable’ truth upon which all other truths are built, in science and elsewhere.
For example, there was once an ‘unquestionable’ truth/paradigm which claimed that the Sun went round the Earth, because an ancient Greek had said so and nobody knew any different. It became received wisdom, meaning ‘Church wisdom’, as there was no other sort in those days. Many other scraps of unquestionable dogma were hung upon this skeleton. But then Copernicus (himself a Churchman) measured the movement of heavenly bodies, and found that the Earth was not the centre of all things. Galileo, Copernicus’ ‘bulldog’, spelled out the implications of the new discoveries to The Church and very slowly, things changed. In 1600 The Church had decided that Giordano Bruno, a monk, was a candidate for burning (alive, with a nail through his tongue), for suggesting that there might be life on other planets,
§ But as in every other case of low behaviour in high places, spin is ever-present. The official charge sheet seems to have been:
Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it.
Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, Christ’s divinity, and Incarnation.
Holding erroneous opinions about Christ.
Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass.
Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.
Believing in the transmigration of the human soul.
Dealing in magics and divination.
Denying the Virginity of Mary
The dogmatic arrogance of the self-regarding charge sheet is depressingly similar to the way our own Materialist Establishment sometimes conducts itself, as per Sheldrake/Nature. (See Ch18.)
but by 1633 they had moderated and merely imprisoned Galileo for claiming that Church Truth in matters celestial was demonstrably wrong. Before long (a couple of centuries; blisteringly fast for The Church) the Vatican had its own telescopes and would go on to build an international reputation for astronomy.
§ But it took until 1992 for the Vatican to admit that Galileo had actually been right.
I simply don’t understand this mind-set. What is the problem with welcoming the truth? I guess Dogma rots reasoning ability.
In Kuhn’s terms this was a spectacular ‘paradigm shift’, from an earth-centred universe to a sun-centred system. Astronomy was completely altered by this shift in perspective.
Another paradigm shift occurred with Darwin’s On the Origin of Species
(1859). This time it took the Vatican a mere 150 years to admit Darwin was right (2009), so things are really zooming along in Rome these days. However, they did find it necessary to point out that evolution had already been mooted by St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas, several hundred years previously. So that’s alright then. Face is saved.
§ Although one might wonder why it’s taken them several centuries to discover that they had been right all along.
Meanwhile: ‘That which is called the Christian religion existed among the ancients and never did not exist, from the beginnings of the human race until Christ came in the flesh, at which time the true religion, which already existed, began to be called Christianity.’ St Augustine. This is a very similar idea to that of Muslims calling the long-dead Abraham ‘a Muslim’. It’s that underlying Esoteric commonality they are both referring to.
It is clear to me that ‘Idealism/DarwinPlus’ is a superior paradigm to Materialism, the current ruling paradigm of S/science.
§ The path from Hypothesis to Theory is a sort of ‘densification’ from a vague fluffy idea to a fully formed and accepted one. More ‘solid’. A paradigm is more solid still: a firm rock, but still subject to change when a firmer rock comes along.
Materialism’s problem is that it’s allowed this densification to proceed too far: from ‘solid’ but still mutable Theory/Paradigm to utterly rigid Dogma.
I claim no authorship for this paradigm. Very little of what I’ve presented is ‘original thinking’. It is all ancient wisdom which has become distorted and buried under the anger and waffle generated by the battle between religion and science, or more accurately, between Church dogma and Materialist dogma.
Neither do I claim this as a matter of opinion. It is all borne out by logic, as I understand the term, and nothing more. Opinion is of no interest. Would you agree? Relevant points:
A Superior Paradigm…
- will include all the proved findings of the previous paradigm;
- will correct the root error or omission in the earlier paradigm;
- will not run counter to reason or logic;
- will be less paradoxical than the previous paradigm;
- will include more areas of previously incompatible findings;
- will resolve some conflicts thrown up by the current paradigm;
- will open the way in deep principle for further work and discovery;
- and will enable the greater integration of previously apparently alien fields of wisdom and study.
I suggest that D+ beats Materialism on every point.
Will D+ ‘resolve some conflicts’? I think it might help in some areas. Currently:
Cosmology has no explanation for the power behind the Big Bang. D+ suggests one. What of the ‘missing 95%’ of the universe, currently described as ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’? Perhaps the ‘highly refined’ material dimensions of the Higher world might help here. Maybe even Newton’s old luminiferous a/ether?
D+’s ‘infinite volumes’ view of the fourth dimension might also help to resolve the confusion surrounding M/String Theory (as I (barely) understand it).
Physics cannot reconcile relativity theory with quantum mechanics. D+ suggests that ‘time’ needs to be re-evaluated, and that it is OK (necessary, even) for Mind to be introduced into the question of how all matter is formed.
Biology is in a bind. Its basic paradigm/dogma claims that abiotic chemicals spontaneously assembled themselves into living, self-replicating entities which then spontaneously developed mind and thinking, then went on to develop consciousness and self-consciousness for no reason at all. D+ does away with this non-sense, claiming that evolution is really about the guided growth of awareness.
It also supports the possibility of the Darwin-Wallace paradigm of ‘evolution of species’ but enlarges its scope from evolution of body to evolution of Mind. It might help to reconcile ‘gradualism’ with ‘saltationism’, as previously suggested.
It is a sad fact that ‘nobody likes a new idea’, especially if it challenges the accepted wisdom of centuries. This might be for reasons of laziness, vested interest, senility, stupidity, reputation, not wishing to take a risk, or not wishing to rock the gravy boat.
But truth will out, one day. And it is clear to me that D+ is a step closer to Truth than Materialism is, and will one day be accepted as such, no doubt by another name. How long will it be before DarwinPlus is the accepted norm? Hard to say, but ‘many decades’ seems likely.
§ ‘A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.’ Max Planck.
Thomas Kuhn says that a new paradigm arises when science is in crisis. I think the points above might count as crises, particularly in biology, but Materialism itself is certainly in crisis, and always has been, as it is simply irrational and untenable for any reason at any time.
As a philosophy which underpins the practical paradigms, of say ‘evolution’ or ‘quantum mechanics’, you might say that D+ is a ‘super-paradigm’, as Materialism has been, historically, despite being no philosophy at all.
§ The phrase ‘a philosophy’ bothers me rather. In truth, surely there can be only one philosophy? And that would seem to be the one (the ‘perennial philosophy’) that the Yogic/Esoteric doctrine has been investigating for millennia.
I’ve been consistently rude about Materialism, but perhaps a hundred years from today (2023) we might say that irrational though it is, Materialism has done its work well. It arose as an energetic reaction to the dogmatic whims passed off as Truth by The Church, often backed up by cruelty and coercion. Materialism was science: a beacon of observation and logic that blew superstition out of the window, and let in the clear light of reason. ‘God? What is God? A cruel man in a nightie, dispensing curses and blessings at random. What rubbish! We don’t need such fairy tales! And we don’t need parasitic priests and bishops in palaces while so many live in squalor! A la Bastille! We have nothing to lose but our chains! Science will cure diseases, light our streets, breed better animals, cross the oceans, give us washing machines and telephones, and take us to the skies and beyond!’
§ ‘God is dead!’ Nietzsche. ‘You’re looking a little piquey, Nietzsche..’ God.
Yes, The Church was wrong in many ways, but so was Materialism, and fundamentally so. It’s time to recognise the fact and move on. The undogmatised Third Way, which can reconcile the essence of religion and the essence of science, is beckoning. Materialism has done a great job of rescuing Man from a world of enforced Belief and introducing him to the superior world of thoughtful Understanding… but Understanding now requires the removal of its stern and ignorant Materialist headmaster. The emperor has no clothes! The king must die! …to mix a metaphor or two. A Great Paradigm Shift is on its way.
§ ‘The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.’ Albert Einstein. It seems to me that DarwinPlus scores well here.
***
The fact that the wonders of scientific discovery have been abused by governments (napalm, atom bombs…) and business/advertising (overduplication, short-termism, inbuilt obsolescence, pollution, squandering of raw materials, destruction of farmland, forest…), and maniacs assorted (sarin, fertiliser bombs…) is not the fault of scientists. We are each responsible for our own actions and someone who abuses the technology deriving from scientific investigation is personally responsible for that abuse. Yes, I’m talking to you, who marketed the non-degradable nylon tea-bag, or the ball-point pen with an inch of ink in it, or the tech that breaks down after twelve months and twenty minutes.
§ Please feel free to add to this list. Discuss with friends in the pub. Post the results on the web for us all to add to, perhaps under the name of enemiesofthepla.net.
Any scientist (businessman, marketing agent) who develops anti-social technologies bears his own karmic burden, as his conscience will quietly explain to him. And once you hear even a whisper of ‘awareness’ from your conscience, you are responsible. So they say.
Scientific Materialism has become inextricably linked with its own offspring, social materialism (and its mad twin, consumerism, derived from capitalism). Capitalism and Materialism go hand in hand.
§ As do atheistic-communism and Materialism. More in Chapter 26.
If capitalism were to disappear, a lot of market-oriented scientific research would close down. So what? Do we really need a dozen different audio codecs? What about just one or two that worked everywhere? Or a hundred different painkillers? Wouldn’t two or three do the job? Five hundred sorts of ‘scientifically formulated’ hair soap?
My point here is that just because something is ‘scientific’ does not necessarily mean it’s of value. Nuclear power? Concorde? Genetic engineering? All very clever stuff, but not everyone is/was a fan, and for good reasons. The serious issue of AI or AGI is next.
When Materialism is finally dumped, still kicking and squealing no doubt, into the landfill site of history, people will begin to seriously think about other things, like whether there is more to Life than buying stuff that they don’t need, which does not make them happy as they were assured it would by lying advertisers, and which needs to be replaced, either literally or fashionably within a few months. They might even begin to seriously wonder what Happiness really is, and how to get some.
This step forward will not occur under the nihilistic rule of Materialism, but is possible, and I would say inevitable, under Idealism-DarwinPlus. Another reason to be cheerful.
§ As opposed to the much-quoted ‘It is meaningless that we live, and meaningless that we die.’ Jean-Paul Sartre, Materialist philosopher. So presumably everything in life must be meaningless too.. including what you just said, for example, J-P?
***
We have no idea what Life is. Or Mind, or Consciousness. Maybe LM and C are actually the same thing: three facets of one entity. A trinity? But if they are separable, then it would make sense for Life to come first, followed by Consciousness, and then Mind, on the grounds that something can’t think unless it is previously conscious, and it can’t be conscious unless it is already alive.
This analysis conflicts with the Materialist view that Life came first, then Mind then finally Consciousness. This sequence is based upon the observed levels of complexity in creatures from the simply Alive, like plants, to animals, which have Mind, and finally to people, who are clearly (Self) Conscious.
But what if LMC are just the one thing, which we have falsely split up, as Man the Measurer? What if everything that has L also has M and C, but to varying degrees? Is that irrational? No, it just runs counter to Materialist dogma. The fact that we can’t understand the mind or consciousness of a weevil does not prove that the weevil has no Mind or Consciousness.
In fact, it is now known that animals definitely show signs of not just Mind and some Consciousness, but of abstract thinking and Self-consciousness, previously thought to be unique to humans.
§ Consciousness: awareness of environment. Self–Consciousness: awareness of own identity. Following the path from ‘awareness’ to ‘greater awareness’…. Mind evolving…
We have all seen videos of crows dropping stones into bottles of water to float a berry to the surface where they can reach it; or chimps recognising themselves in mirrors, or carrying water in leaves; or gorillas testing the depth of a pond with a stick; or chimps and elephants mourning their dead.
§ I taught our dog, Dylan, the abstract command ‘go round’, meaning he should seek another route if the first one was blocked. He learned slowly, but he did learn. I have also seen a sheep mourn her stillborn lamb, and a cow become distraught when she’d forgotten where she’d left her new calf.
It is a fact that cows who have names give more milk than those who are just numbers. Relationships matter with animals, just as with people.
It is an error that has led to much cruelty to assume (as did Descartes and the Behaviorists, for example) that animals have no mind or feelings or consciousness of self or of anticipation of harm. Any pet owner or smallholder knows that the animals they spend time with become more aware and intelligent. Our old house cow definitely knew when she’d been naughty and would try to hide her head in a bush. A Yogi would say ‘Why are you so surprised?’ at this point, and by now I can see why.
§ Researchers in Georgia USA have discovered that monkeys make judgements about fairness, offering empathy and help, and remembering obligations. These are elements associated with morality and, wait for it, the Golden Rule. As for humanity: I’ve seen a horrific video of an Alsatian being skinned alive in China for the fur trade… (the danger of free will?)
The notion that Life, Mind, and Consciousness are just three ways of seeing the same unity would tumble neatly into place in the Yogic/Esoteric Philosophy… which accepts that every thing in the universe is to some degree alive, and evolving towards ever greater awareness. And you can’t evolve (as per D+) unless you already have at least the seed of potential for what is recognisable as Consciousness and Mind.
§ This is a seeming paradox, as it means that the chemicals which came together to form the first self-replicating entity are not abiotic after all. They do have a trace of Life about them. But it’s not a paradox in fact, as it’s not their own individual traces of Life which assemble them all into a complex thinking being like you and me. It’s a higher level of Mind which does the assembling. Layer upon layer… worlds upon worlds….
Take the common or garden slime mould: the ‘entity’ spends most of its life as individual single-celled foraging creatures which, when a chemical signal is secreted (How? And by what, precisely?), all move to a focus and then assemble themselves into a ‘slug’ that acts and moves as one organism, eventually sending up a tower-like growth which bursts and releases more single-celled units. If you don’t think that is utterly extraordinary, then I’m afraid there is no hope for you, and you should become an economist.
In the end, the acid test for a new paradigm is Does It Work? Can phenomena be explained better by this new paradigm? Can more things be explained? Do paradoxes in other paradigms disappear in this one? Does it suggest new avenues or techniques for scientific exploration?
If the answer to any one of these is ‘yes’ then D+ is worthy of attention by the scientific community.
If the answer is ‘yes’ to all of them, then D+ may safely be regarded as a paradigm superior to its predecessor.
But, as Einstein observed ‘It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom’. True then and true still… to the detriment of science and the planet itself.
§ ‘Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.’ Sir Isaac Newton
‘Everything is both simpler than we can imagine and more entangled than we can conceive.’ Goethe
These two views appear somewhat contradictory at a casual glance, but are not so if considered from the DarwinPlus perspective.
***
TH Huxley, Darwin’s bulldog, believed in reincarnation, but ‘simply could not get up an interest in the subject’ of psychical research. I find this attitude extraordinary, but I guess it just goes to show that there are people who will go ‘thus far and no further’, presumably due to a need to protect some sort of a dogmatic ‘certainty’ rather than explore new horizons.
§ The closest I have come to direct evidence for reincarnation came during a conversation with a Congregationalist minister, who told me had many times witnessed dying people claiming to see ‘the light’ before finally passing away. He had also recently officiated at the deathbed of a 22-year old man. As he began to fade, the young man said, a propos of nothing, ‘We agreed on 22 years this time’. The minister asked the obvious question of ‘Agreed with whom?’ but the young man would say no more and slipped into unconsciousness. The minister was quite sure that ‘this time’ implied ‘other times’, which could only mean ‘other lives’.
This was a shock for the conventional-Christian minister, as was the ‘agreement’ and the ’22 years’. It all fits very well with D+, however.
Also, my 2yr old grandson once said, a propos of nothing, ‘I used to be someone else, then I died and was with God and now I’m Edwin.’
Movement
Man’s mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions
Oliver Wendell Holmes
‘Eppur si muove…’
..as Galileo is alleged to have murmured after being forced to deny that the Earth went round the Sun. It was a pantomime moment, best translated as ‘Oh yes it does….’ in response to the Vatican’s ‘Oh no it doesn’t’.