I’ve been reflecting on the evolution debate lately, and my frustration with the mainstream, either/or bickering carried on between the Neo-Darwinist’s and their Creationist opponents has reared its head again. How it is that people think these questions can be so clearly defined will baffle me forever.
What is Enlightenment dedicated Issue 35 to all things evolutionary, which is available in its entirety at their website. The articles "The Real Evolutionary Debate" and "A Brief History of Evolutionary Spirituality" are very thought provoking, and there’s several other resources that are worth a look. The following excerpt from the latter article regarding Friedrich Schelling’s insights intrigued me, personally:
"Expanding on a century’s worth of evolutionary thinking and the idealist philosophy of J.G. Fichte (who’d been a student of Immanuel Kant), Schelling proposed an alternative to the encroaching materialism so dreaded by his Romantic friends: an evolutionary idealism. As the opposite of materialism, the philosophy of idealism held that consciousness, not matter, was the ultimate basis of reality. And once combined with a scientific understanding of evolution, Schelling realized, idealism would represent a force with which all serious thinkers of the Enlightenment would have to contend.
"Envisioning an epic process of cosmic evolution in which an unmanifest realm of pure consciousness, or absolute spirit, is actively manifesting itself as the world of time and space through a series of increasingly complex and conscious forms — from matter to life, to mind and beyond — Schelling wrote:
It is the universal spirit of nature that gradually structures raw matter. From bits of moss, in which hardly any trace of organization is visible, to the most noble form, which seems to have broken the chains of matter, one and the same drive governs. This drive operates according to one and the same ideal of purposiveness and presses forward into infinity to express one and the same archetype, namely, the pure form of our consciousness.
"Thus, more than sixty years before Darwin brought the scientific world to its knees with his theory of biological evolution by means of natural selection and “random variation,” Friedrich Schelling and some of his closest friends (including his newfound mentor Goethe and his former schoolmate, philosopher Georg Hegel) were already claiming that reality as a whole was going somewhere."
The entire issue may be accessed at the following link, free registration is required, but they’re good about minimal email contact:
As it pertains to evolution, the suggestion of idealism, the idea that consciousness is the core stuff of the universe, may suggest an answer to the apparently dramatic leaps in the fossil record that continue to baffle biologists, and as an aside, can also be interpreted to support certain interpretations of quantum theory.
Before someone accuses me of attempting to sneak some version of Intelligent Design or Creationism through the back door, I think it’s critical to point out that idealism and ID cannot be conflated.
ID implies a deity external to creation, while idealism holds that creation is the manifestation of a transcendent consciousness. They’re very different concepts – ID supports dualism, relegating the ‘creator’ to some other realm, while idealism suggests monism, the idea that all is a unified whole, the ‘whole’ being pure consciousness. Idealism carried to its logical conclusion means that all we can ever encounter is ultimately a manifestation of the divine, from Blake’s grain of sand, to every plant, animal and human that crosses our path, to the immensity of the observable universe itself, and finally, to our very selves.
When I consider that idealism is advocated in one form or another by individuals of the magnitude of Sri Aurobindo, Teilhard de Chardin, Schelling and Hegel, that it’s consistent with the apparently sentient behavior of electrons and DNA molecules, is supported by the testimony of the great mystics of all religious faiths, appears to be referenced in much NDE testimony and dovetails with the most profound of my personal life experiences, well...let’s just say that I’m okay with idealism.
Regardless, reducing the evolution discussion to a schoolyard spat between Neo-Darwinists advocating their materialist agenda and Creationists clamoring that the truth can only be found in literal biblical interpretation does all of us a disservice. As far as what idealism implies regarding evolution, who knows? I think in the end, the evolution debate’s just another blind alley, another path to wander along that keeps us thinking we’re all separate beings living in linear time. I think that idealism implies that creation is actually happening now, moment-to-moment, and to paraphrase Wittgenstein, in an eternity not of infinite temporal duration, but of timelessness.
What idealism also suggests, though, is that proof of its veracity will always remain an individual realization. Exploring external theories will never lead to realization of the truth of idealism, only individual exploration of our own consciousness can provide that for us. For if the primal consciousness indeed gives birth to everything, we need to uncover the primal consciousness within ourselves to know it.
No one can do that for us; we have to look within ourselves, ourselves.
The importance of consciousness
Hi Michael,
Enjoyed this blog posting - I've put it on the front page at TDG.
Only minutes before reading the blog, I had just inserted a quote from Astronomer Royal Martin Rees into an essay I'm writing:
"The paradoxes of quantum mechanics, and the nature of consciousness, are manifestly two of the deepest mysteries of all. It is striking that John Wheeler and Roger Penrose, the most original and influential living theorists about space and time, have both, in their later years, advocated the dissident view that these mysteries are linked."
It says something about how entrenched the materialist paradigm is, when the two "most original and influential theorists" are regarded as having "dissident" views on the topic of space, time and consciousness.
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
Thanks Greg!
Michael Prescott got me going on this. As for Wheeler and Penrose, well, count me among the dissidents!
Wow!
Kudos on this magnificent blog entry!
I think controversial physicist Phil Tipler used a several argument in his book "The Omega Point" (which is also derived from the concepts of Chardin). I don't presume to understand exactly what he meant, but I think the argument was that basically, we are all part of the effort of God "becoming" in the very end of times; Whitely Strieber delves with simmilar ideas in the book "The Key".
Are they right? I can't really know. All I know is that I'm fed up with people thinking there are just two sides of that argument (or any argument for that matter), and that you must take sides in order to war against the others, who instantly become your "opponents". I welcome dissenting trouble-makers who can raise their voices to ask brave new questions, and force us to look at our same old tired problems in a entirely different way.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Agree, but ...
Good morning everyone,
Let me say straight away that I agree with the vast majority of this post. Indeed, I've placed several essays on my blog of late in the same vein. But perhaps we need to understand more of why there is such a controversy.
These ideas are essentially 'holistic' in nature. This was the central feature of Continental Rationalism following Kant. Opposing it was the English-speaking Empiricism and, later, Pragmatism.
The mainstream world today is based on the latter - it brought democracy, science, capitalism, individuality - most of the things that our world is based on.
Alternatively, the holistic approach led to Communism, Fascism, not to mention the Terror of the French Revolution. And the negative aspects of this have made modern intellectuals shun holism absolutely.
My approach is that there is equal value in both systems - they equally have things to say. But there is no chance of such a system being accepted until we realise what is wrong with holism in the 'real' world.
I suspect that in tying things to an overall 'ideal', we become too fanatical in the political arena, and there lies the problem. First of all, placing moderation in the holistic, and persuading intellectuals, first, that they fear it, and, second, that the model can be adjusted so you don't need to fear it.
Succeed in this approach, and ideas of consciousness will again be on the agenda.
...
Reality, like time, is relative to the observer
Anthony North
evolution and....
what it means. Darwin tried to apply a mechanism to evolution. Where he failed was in micro-evolution compared to macro-evolution. If we were to take the fundamental understanding of Darwin's evolution then we must reconise the fault in it. Humans are in fact declining in physical attributes while inclining in mental. If the mechanism of evolution is as it says, then we should be reaching a higher platform in the physical. This is not so.
We are constantly reminded by looking at nature with it's stagnated forms over many thousands of years that macro-evolution in it's understood state really can't be.
Neanderthal had a much greater cc capacity of brain then us, yet to us they were primitive. They may very well have had a more spiritive understanding then us maybe, yet this did not ensure their survival.
Intelligent Design can answer this but leaves too many other questions unanswered. String Theory answers anomallies outside of Earth reality but again misses a simple truth. Quantum Physics is raising more questions then answers.
It is possible to wrap ID, string theory, idealism and dualism into a simple package. This package can also explain evolution as seen from a consciousness of universe. But for this to happen we need to see the missing link, so to speak. This missing link being spiritualism.
Ignoring the physical, the gulf between humans and all other species is too great to be just an evolutionary leap. If we all(species)evolved from the same warm slime pond, then we should be able to sit down and have a chat with a crocodile.
Something else must have been at work to give us a greater consciousness. This, I believe, is at a level smaller then atomic. Consciousness itself could be the building blocks of all our reality. This could be defined as pure energy that has no power source for renewal but is a dualistic, attractive energy of positive and negative magnetic balance. The strongest emotional attractive force that humans can experience is love. So maybe the universe is built on a conciousness of love. I believe many masters may have hinted to that over time.
But, no matter how you look at it, there must be a form of intelligents behind the separation of species to evolve as they do.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
Cremo
Thanks for this post - it's exactly the topic of my thoughts right now. We only have two ideas for creation, one based on speculation (Darwin) and the other based on the bible?
See also Michael Cremo:
"We did not evolve up from matter; instead we devolved, or came down, from the realm of pure consciousness, spirit," says Cremo. He bases his response on modern science and the world's great wisdom traditions, including the Vedic philosophy of ancient India. Cremo proposes that before we ask the question, "Where did human beings come from?" we should first contemplate,"What is a human being?" Cremo asserts that humans are a combination of matter, mind, and consciousness (or spirit).
http://www.humandevolution.com/
Currently reading In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order by Ian T. Taylor:
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorI...
John Topp
Devolution
See also Michael Cremo:
"We did not evolve up from matter; instead we devolved, or came down, from the realm of pure consciousness, spirit," says Cremo. He bases his response on modern science and the world's great wisdom traditions, including the Vedic philosophy of ancient India. Cremo proposes that before we ask the question, "Where did human beings come from?" we should first contemplate,"What is a human being?" Cremo asserts that humans are a combination of matter, mind, and consciousness (or spirit).
I'm yet to read Cremo's books, but have much on the web about his ideas. What's fascinating, (and tragic IMHO), is the Richard Bucke suggested basically the same thing over a hundred years ago.
Chapter 3, Part II of his classic "Cosmic Consciousness" is entitled "Devolution".
Evolution debate
So long as the understanding is based on the perceived world, there will be debates because there will be speculations.
The only real proof is the one man can make for himself.
I disagree a bit on the world being whole though, but rather would suggest that there is division between our perceived world and other realms and that this division is represented in the division within man himself, between his materiality and his source.
This said, I would agree that there is an interpenetration of energy states between those worlds.
I say worlds because until the laws do not collapse when reaching the limits of the laws of a world, they cannot be unified but only used and manipulated.
One example is found in modern physics, where when matter is taken to certain extremes, the laws of physics collapse. Then you have the standard model and you have the quantum model. One world supported by another, one set of laws maintained by the other.
But the laws of matter do not bind quantum mechanics but rather are a consequence of quantic interactions. And we are trying to make the sub-planes of matter conform to the inherited laws of matter.
And we can't even yet tell if beyond quantum physics exists a sub-quantic plane of energy as the quantum universe represents a sub-material plane of energy.
So, you have a dualist school who seeks to bundle all the forces that are not readily perceived materially as a single entity and you have the school who sees all that is as a single entity, discarding consciousness differentiation like some mystics advocated, asking to dissolve the persona to lose it into the big bowl of milk.
Both approaches are spiritualist approaches that I feel only suggest there is more to it than just the perceptions within the receptor, and I find them inadequate. Then, you have the reductionists and the materialists that insist there is nothing else than what has been perceived, and I find them short sighted.
I do agree that it is within one's consciousness that the real proof lies. Until one is conscious of the multidimentional architecture of his reality as an objective reality, like matter is an objective reality, we will have debates and perception limited observations rather than study of the realities behind reality.
Nah
the philosophy of idealism held that consciousness, not matter, was the ultimate basis of reality
As Anthony touched upon, far too much of this kind of thinking has led to politically-motivated evil. Unfortunately, the lessons of history are often lost on the arrogant people of the "now". In my opinion, the only human idealism worth its salt, is that which draws upon the unchanging and ancient realities of the individual human spirit, both its failings and its strengths. The superficial and dangerous idealism is that which transforms and reshapes itself in accordance with short-term goals, political-correctness and group-think (popular culture), all the while ignoring the lessons of history and the fundamental and unchanging realities of humanity.
Matter, like cold (or the absence of energy), are two pillars of the universe's foundation. Idealism is too often an invention of idle minds trying to escape that reality. Usually with good intentions as the goal, but rarely with that outcome. Idealism that draws upon fundamental reality operates in accordance with the universe, as opposed to against it, and is therefore far better positioned to realize its goals.
--------------------------------------
My apologies go out to all who were just offended by this hostile, confrontational and completely unreasonable post.
Matter and cold
Maybe,
But could they be a manifestation rather than a foundation?
Well, we’ve at least started a conversation . . .
Richard M Bucke, who compiled and published the volume “Cosmic Consciousness” in 1901, speculated in the inimitable romantic style of the late Victorian era of his vision of the future, which included man’s imminent mastery of manned flight shrinking the world (true), the next evolutionary step of the realization of Cosmic Consciousness becoming commonplace among men (false), and the consequence of the aforementioned realization leading to a blissful, socialist political system (false).
Bucke had been inspired to spend thirty years of his life working on this book after personally experiencing the profound insights associated with what he termed Cosmic Consciousness. It is a remarkable volume, and he wonderfully illustrates the common aspects of the experience that has been reported throughout history by those we call “mystics” of all faiths and traditions.
The volume is available in PDF format here (36MB):
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/web...
What Bucke failed to understand in regards to his speculations is twofold. First, he failed to realize that the development of the human intellect and the associated advances in its mastery of the physical world would lead humanity to believe in the primacy of ‘reason’ to the degree it has. Second, he failed to understand that one of the consequences of this intellectual development would relegate the experience of Cosmic Consciousness even further to the fringe of human experience, and would have been shocked as a psychiatrist to see the transpersonal event listed in the DSM-IV under “Religious and Spiritual Problems”.
In any event, the essence of what I am suggesting in the main post is not that idealism is absolute (though I personally believe it is). It can never be demonstrated objectively, and it cannot be enforced via a gun barrel. What I am suggesting is that it is time for the idea of the primacy of consciousness to be brought into the mainstream conversation, and for it to be introduced as a legitimate concept for consideration in our education system.
We are unlikely to see this happen however, because the idea threatens core beliefs of both the materialists and the religious. Those of a materialist bent who fancy themselves ‘reasonable’ may play with the idea intellectually, but never take the time to investigate it experientially. They will not stop and take the time to watch their own consciousness converting their own thoughts into their own reality.
The religious will reject the idea for want of keeping the divine at a distance. To quote Ramana Maharshi:
“The ultimate truth is so simple. It is nothing more than being in the pristine state. This is all that needs to be said.
“All religions have come into existence because people want something elaborate and attractive and puzzling . . . For example, an ordinary Christian won’t be satisfied unless he is told that God is somewhere in the far-off heavens, not to be reached by us unaided; Christ alone knew him, and Christ alone can guide us; worship Christ and be saved. If he is told the simple truth, that “the kingdom of heaven is within you”, he is not satisfied, and will read complex and far-fetched meanings into it.
“Only mature minds can grasp the simple truth in all its nakedness.”
At the risk of offending many, I’ll repeat what I wrote in the main post: proof of the veracity of idealism will always remain an individual realization. No one can do that for us; we have to look within ourselves, ourselves.
The truth of idealism cannot be discovered through intellectual gymnastics.
Movie Night
While Keanu Reeves does manage to make an intersting film once in a while, I'll stick with the evidence. Assuming that evidence isn't the result of taking a little red pill. LOL
--------------------------------------
My apologies go out to all who were just offended by this hostile, confrontational and completely unreasonable post.
LOL
While Keanu Reeves does manage to make an intersting film once in a while, I'll stick with the evidence. Assuming that evidence isn't the result of taking a little red pill.
It is not. Take my word for it :-)
But I do think each and every one of us has the obligation to step inside the rabbit hole, eventhough it may be dark, and most of what some of us have discovered (so far) is a lot of rabbit s**t ;-)
_____
Red Pill Junkie
I Agree
I'll bring the popcorn!
--------------------------------------
My apologies go out to all who were just offended by this hostile, confrontational and completely unreasonable post.
What for?
I'll bring the popcorn!
The idea is to stop being a mere spectator, and become instead a protagonist. You become the character of your own movie; you find the answers for yourself, instead of taking for granted what other people tell you of how the plot goes.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Its all the same
This is certainly the perspective ive been choosing recently. The similarity between my understanding of conciousness and existence are the same. Something exists because it is self referencing, it has size or location or shape. A triangle is only a triangle because it has three points that reference against each other......actually i think i'm drifting a bit now, i know what i mean (is that still science?)
A thing is a thing ....why? because we choose to associate its constituent parts into a whole or because it itself is self referencing.....or are those both the same thing? The viewer and the viewed.
Why are things clearer in my head than when i try to spell them out?
Did i just type that or think it?
Existence and conciousness, i recon, humbly.....are the same.
The Problem's in Expressing it . . .
I hear you. loop. No one else can really describe it either - it all turns back in upon itself.
It's a matter of continually directing attention within, which no one can understand unless they've actually done so. Then when they finally do so, they discover they can't accurately describe it either.
It's like spending the better part of the afternoon looking for the keys you're already holding in your hand.
Part of the problem (of how to express it and understand it)
Part of the problem may lie in the fact that modern science was based on the idea that you can act as an independent observer from any given phenomenon from a vantage point of view (the other side of the microscope) without exerting a direct inffluence. Quantum mechanics has shown us that, at least in a microscopic scale, this is impossible.
And I suppose it is the same with consciusness and reality. How could we try to attempt to describe it from an external vantage point when we are immerse in it? not only that, but our conceptions are also deeply inffluenced by the way our sensory organs register and try to make sense from the info the Universe is constantly bombarding us with. To a bee that can sense ultra-violet light and pick up faint pheromone signals, the very same world we live in is a much different place.
Maybe in the end we will discover what mystics have told us all along, that EVERYTHING is conscious. But to do that we need to change our perspective; change our vantage point.
And don't ask me, cause I haven't the slightest idea of how to do that!
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Precisely, RPJ
Part of the problem may lie in the fact that modern science was based on the idea that you can act as an independent observer . . .
That's not part of the problem RPJ, it's the entire problem.
Objectivity is a wonderful tool that can lead to wonderful discoveries, but if as we're discussing, the ultimate basis of reality is consciousness, that fact can only be discovered subjectively.
I wonder what might be possible in terms of progress in the objective world if and when those working herein have fully realized it's ultimately subjective basis.
I'd venture it'd be a very different world, in a very positive direction.
As for getting there, well . . . I think even considering the possibility is a big step in itself.
The embarrassing shortcomings of reductionist science
With fossilised skull fragments, scientists can measure the slope of the brow, the width of the jawbone, the height of the eyes. From these measurements they can estimate the size of the brain, the cochlea and inner ear, the pineal gland, and determine how close to modern humans this prehistoric being was. What they can't measure is the prehistoric person's consciousness - their thoughts, dreams, fears, hopes, experiences. This is where reductionist, materialist science falls short, and scientists are too stubborn and proud to admit this. They're embarrassed to admit the scientific method falls short when it comes to exploring human consciousness.
For the answers to human consciousness, and the consciousness of all life, science needs to think with its heart and feel with its mind. Admit that materialist science falls short and show a bit of humility, for the sake of advancing our knowledge and understanding of consciousness.
As the Zen master is fond of telling grasshopper, "It can not be explained, only experienced."
Zen master?
You mean Morpheus, right? :-b
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie