[P2P-F] Fwd: evolution of cognition : metaphor, metalingual definition, algorithm, and control (Anna Harris)

Thu Jan 10 00:03:53 CET 2013

Hi Anna,

There are many working in the field of integrating consciousness back into
science. I write about it on my website:

http://ingienous.com/?page_id=13173

In Rupert Sheldrake's latest book Science Set Free (The Science Delusion -
UK title), Rupert repudiates the common and unsupported claims of
mainstream scientists, exposing the weakness in their arguments. Others
like Amit Goswami and B Alan Wallace argue with Sheldrake for a replacement
of materialistic and dualistic paradigms - with consciousness and awareness
as the alternative replacement.

The mind that observes its external reality is the same mind that observes
its internal realities and as Sheldrake points out in his talks and his
books, materialist scientists may deny consciousness til they are blue in
the face but after they leave behind their narrow academic job and return
home, their way of thinking reverts to the common everyday person's - which
is that awareness and consciousness ARE real. Hence, they inhabit a strange
world in which they must take artificial views at their job that are
diametrically opposed to views they embrace when they are just themselves
and not donning the mental suits of their day job.

When I was in University, I read a book that changed my perspective on
things. The book was Godel, Escher, Bach, An Eternal Golden Braid, the
pulitzer prize winning book written by computer scientist Douglas
Hofstaeder. That book began by journey from a purely intellectual
perspective to a more inclusive non-intellectual perspective. In that book
was a chapter on Zen Buddhism, which Hofstaeder included because this book
dealt with infinite loops and the methods of Zen are a way to eject
awareness out of a narrow, dualistic, intellectual perspective.

Science will always reach its limits in its abilities to probe life. There
are infinite facts that can be discovered about the world. It's
inexhaustible. Perhaps Sheldrake's morphic fields, if true can offer a
reason for that - because from that paradigm, laws themselves are not fixed
and forever, but are themselves in flux, depending on how often conditions
allow them to persist.

Words split the unsplittable world up into abstract categories. Concepts
built upon these words are therefore unreal entities - as unreal as a
perfectly round circle is. Stringing words together continually and in
realtime creates realtime categorization of the world. Our minds become
habituated to these realtime abstract categorizations. Yet they are both
real and unreal at the same time. They are real in the sense that they have
an equal ability to be experienced by our awareness as any other
appearance. Yet they are unreal because they are ghostly images that
dissect an always-whole reality. To think that there are 2 alternatives,
totally subjective or totally objective gives us an illusion of choice
since both are abstract, both are like two sides of a coin. Is any side of
a coin any more real than the other?

The reality is far more simple (or complex) than one would imagine. The
simplicity/complexity depends on which view you currently see from - from
dualistic, intellectual, conceptual view or from the view that's not really
a view at all, but the natural state of being. From the dualistic view, it
will appear complex because dualism is a trap that continually generates
more questions. From the view of non-view, it will appear simple and
self-liberated.

The intellectual mind will never find satsifaction because concepts give
rise to more concepts. There is no hard limit that can stop the mind from
finding ever more combinations of abstract symbols, of seeing ever more
patterns in nature.

Even as we partake in our favorite pastime of symbolic engagement which
fills so much of our lives, at the same time, there is another side of us
that knows the futility of it. There is another side that knows that any
explanation is intrinsically inexplicable. We are used to using symbols to
generate more symbols in the mind habit we call "explaining". Yet, we do
not know how to use the silence to penetrate itself.

It is the same instruction from great contemplatives the world over: rest
in awareness, not unlike the stainless mirror surface that reflects
everything that is in front of it. The many perplexing and seemingly
intractable problems that confront the intellect are not problems when we
aabide in non-thinking awareness. We must revisit the Bishop Berkeley
problem with a different awareness. There is something unfathomably deep
when we are told that problems vanish when thoughts are not present. From
the intellectual perspective, it can never make sense. The trick is to try
to absorb that from the space of abiding in pure being.

The world's social problems are really a reflection of a mass forgetfulness
of this sacred principle of awareness found in each one of us. Until we
have personal transformation that brings beings back to the sacred nature
of our awareness, we will continue to distract ourselves with consumerism
and continue not to care for others - all leading to the demise of our
civilization.

Kindest
Gien

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Anna Harris <anna at shsh.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi Michel,
>
> There is a distinction which perhaps needs to be made between the *complexity
> of consciousness*, and complexity of social design. While organisms and
> societies appear to increase in complexity as they evolve, consciousness (I
> would suggest) appears to remain one and singular -an untestable hypothesis
> since consciousness is invisible.  What evolves is our ability to tap into
> it.
>
> The quote from Jorge Ferrer in the article on Equipotentiality you mention
> is a beautiful description of how unconditional love can be embodied in
> social relationships. The call to do that comes from the urge to live up to
> our full potential as human beings. But it is a personal choice, based on a
> subjective experience.
>
> The desire to find a method to assess in a scientifically rigorous way, ie
> objectively, how humans should live, is an attempt to by-pass subjectivity,
> which often (inevitably?) results in assumptions of superiority. The system
> of equipotentiality appears to be more *effective* in encouraging
> creativity, but that is still a personal choice. Subjectivity, which is our
> relationship to the invisible - consciousness, needs to be admitted back
> into the scheme of things.
>
> Anna
>

Mobotix Ticket 27283

>
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net>wrote:
>
>> Interesting comments Anna.
>>
>> I think this is a general difficulty with evolutionary schemes; whether
>> they are true or not, they easily lead to interpretations of superiority,
>>
>> at the same time, I do think there is such a thing as the evolution of
>> the complexity of consciousness, which has been noted by many researchers
>> (even if the need for such complexification may be a result of disfunctions
>> of the society in which they occur)
>>
>> my way out of this conundrum is the concept of Equipotentality,
>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Equipotentiality, i.e. the social design of
>> contributory projects where everyone brings something to the table which is
>> exactly right for the particular project, and hence can and has to be
>> honoured,
>>
>> Michel
>>
>> --
>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>
>> <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates:
>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>
>> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
>> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
>> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>
>

-- 
We cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails
*Birtha Calloway*

Web: www.ingienous.com
Email: gien at ingienous.com
Phone: +27 71 642 5521 (SA)
Phone: (206) 973-3924 (USA)
Fax: +27 86 675 9019
LinkedIn: alturl.com/mr4hc
Skype: ingienous
Twitter: ingienous
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20130109/d95e691e/attachment.htm 