Haha nice quote Elf.

Grammar isn't played like Scrabble - you don't get points for excessive syllable placement. It's about boiling down, not fluffing up. So say what you mean and get it over with.

<br>And thats exactly the point. To not have to continually reinvent the wheel. If we all know what a Jackalope (Lepus-Cervidae) is, there's no reason to define it at every mention. The audience will be able to rapidly convey and absorb ideas without the hundreds of lines of text required otherwise.

Thank you for your insights, Tachyon8491.
At what point does the divine make itself known as a creative force?
You may have answered that, but if so, it flew past me.

Devolution to Simplicity

A professor of linguistics
hid a secret in his hat
and entering upon victims
chewing gum in lecture halls
would prestidigitate with lexemes
like a conjuring with balls

Ah, he said, now listen
it's not a cat that's pissin'
it's a feline with polyuria
and crimen injuria
is not a pain in the Ukraine
or a Russian pornostar

Then, haemostatics
is what happens
in the typical student brain
when confronted with syllabics
in excess of roughly three
serially enunciated
irrespective of their clarity

And you, young man
with evident mimesis
displayed physiognomically
warranting your tractate's absence
will not, with your mindless mincing
sway my opinions condescendingly

He proffered his hat
and a samizdattian tract
lubriciously slid
down the side of his head
then sanguinely turning
to the voluminous chapter
on burning of learning and tomes:

He read out aloud
"It shall not be allowed
to disseminate dissension
regarding any mention
of the worth of intellect -
and well as any kvetching knows
it's self-entrenched elitism
insulting the semi-literate
and grossly insalubrious
to an analphabetic proletariat"

Thereupon he proceeded
to brand a "P" upon his hat
and pyrotechnically consuming
volumes of flaring Brittannica
proclaimed: This P stands for "perfection"
and devolution to simplicity..

Since then our simplified professor
is no longer a semantic aggressor
and lectures purely monosyllabically

FV

A very interesting question Bobart - I see the answer implicit in my opening article in this thread. One central idea is that the divine is inattributable, that is, any anthropocentic attribution (conceivable syntagmatically) is definitive of the divine, that is, reflecting an implicit intention to define its attributes. The converse of this is to speak about the divine in a non-definitive, non-attributional manner, such as indicated in the "un-writable" or unspeakable names used in several religio-philosophical doctrinal approaches.

Apart from what might be regarded as a simplistic arrogance, any attributional constellation, comprising (tacit, implicit) premises and stated conclusions, imposes limits in its suggested potential, and if we may assume anything with perhaps some safety, it is that a limiting definition of the divine does not indicate an openness and receptivity to unlimited divine potential, nor could it be an accurate reflection. We may ask in this context why cosmic ontology then has specific ontogenic phenomenology - there do not appear to be infinite permutations of thing and process. As any verbal statement also vectors a deterministic causal evolution, so fundamental quantisation also sets causally deterministic precedent from which to further evolve. Our science continually probes this deeper, with progressively higher energies, in order to make "nature" divulge its most fundamentally quantised phenomena. We have discovered hundreds of such fundamental particle resonances, and can from their relationships and familial categorisation and symmetries inductively infer the existence of others which we are presently searching for. We have postulated planck-length, planck-time and the bekenstein-limit as being the minimal meaningful quantisations of dimension, time and information, but I seriously doubt that they are. They reflect our present limits of resolution, applied to a meaningful ontological graininess. Our science is far from capable of searching at the higher energy levels which would allow us to investigate what I would call the ontogenic quantisation limit. (OQL) There may also well be a discontinuity in phase transitions between quantal families we presently know, and those still to be discovered. One problem certainly is, that science axiomatically assumes the universe to be exhaustively explicable - this would at some stage of future exploration then perhaps also tend to prove the existence of a true Anaxagorean, or Democritian atomos, an ultimately indivisible quantum which weaves cosmic reality on all levels of its phenomenology. Instead I postulate that the OQL is in fact only asymptotically approachable in a measure of its associated energy-magnitude and in this, verges on the infinite. A first approximation of this may be the ZPE of 10^104 J/cm^3 at planck-length. Energy-magnitude is itself only one measurand and doubtlessly insufficient to allow adequately defined conceptualisation of the perhaps infinitely fine-grained quantisation at this limit. Perhaps only pure consciousness can achieve that and in this case science with its typical orientation of consciousness being an epiphenomenon (a la Dennett) will have to evolve beyond its present perceptual and modelling domain. Let's not forget that today's cutting-edge science is as much the neolithic empiricism of a far tomorrow, as our present investigations are compared to those of Archimedes or Pythagoras, or perhaps even Neanderthals feeling the weight of stones suitable for arrowheads.

I admit being a monist, dyadicist, pluralist and crediting Spinozan mind-stuff as well - all of these - I believe however that the dyadic (FV) and plural epistemologies are due to phases of perception and indicative of phase-boundaries. Monism accentuates underlying singleness in the cosmological continuum, pluralism accentuates its diffracting view - both are marked by perceptual-conceptual impressions of dualistic paradox.

In view of the central tenet of my thesis that the entire cosmic ontology resulted from the quantisation of unitary, unquantised superconsciousness (the Jungian collective unconscious, or transpersonal consciousness,) your question answers itself - no single ontological entity is "unconscious" at all. Take into account Bohm's view of the electron's consciousness in an earlier post of mine. Each subjectifiable ontological simplex has its own unique ability to monitor environment and to react to it - in other words, an intrinsic ability for reactive self-reorganisation - it is sensitive to, and capable of interpreting specific subspectra of trans-species (FV) languages, modulating these with its own design-intentions (See Dennett - Kinds of Minds,) and re-emitting its own modulated species-language into its surroundings. In this sense there is also not anything like "dead" matter, or living and non-living, and no precipitous border dividing a spectrum of organicity that spans the present categories of organic and inorganic with a scholastic divide. There is no level of organisation that is not sensitive, sentient or intelligent. In "higher" organisations we see the development of a more focally-localised sensor complement, in contrast to distributed sensor equipment. An example of the former is eyespots in algae and mollusca (clams,) as compared to e.g. bilaterally disposed eyes in mammals. Of course a distributed sensory complement (as shortest range environmental monitor) is evolutionary ancient, such as e.g. our epidermal Merkel cells. Obviously the evolution of sensory organisations and specialisation is worthy of a major treatment in itself and I dedicate much space to this in my book.

If you grant that each ontological entity has intrinsic consciousness, then obviously we need to also quite redundantly specify that this is not some type of human consciousness, which would be a pathetic mis-conceptualisation. Let us take one example here (apart from that implied for the entire quantal family as derivable from the electronic context.) Gunter Albrecht-Buehler, professor of cell biology at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago proved conclusively that single eukaryotic cells are capable of cell-species-discriminating, three-dimensional photonavigation - the reception and processing center for this lies in the centriole and (although I treat this in great detail in The Nature of Being I will skip its technical analysis here) operates in a sub-band of the infrared spectrum. Nanoscopic collumnar blades detect altitude and azimuth of IR-signalling cells (all do) by occlusion in two orthogonally disposed centrioles and the cellular microtubular system is implicated in their processing and motoric-reorganisational signalling. Interesting corroboration comes from the plant kingdom where plants having non-motile cells which are static in their cellular neighbourhood, develop such centrioles when the plant needs them, e.g. in motile sperm-cells.

Each ontological entity can be attributed a lower-level analogue-set of consciousness traits as constrained by the specifics of its morphology and intra-cellular processing capacities. In that sense, a eukaryotic cell is capable of cognition with a degree of logic, analogous to multi-parallel asynchronous Boolean variable processing, or perhaps somewhat like fuzzy logic. Multi-leveled distribution of such cognition analogues over the entire species-spectrum is supported by the implicate holographic nature of the cosmos. I use the word "species" in its sense of referring to the entire ontological spectrum of cosmic organicity. On that basis, it is also totally ridiculous to posit that animals don't have feeling, and forms a fundamentally supportive tenet of bioethics.

Where does emotion begin and end, at some specifically emergent level of organisation or organicity? We must never forget that the word refers to a strictly human quality and is pertinently anthropocentric. Yet, in the human palaeopallium, the limbic system of our brains which we have in common with reptiles and fish and one of our earliest evolutionary inheritances, lies sequestered the ancient ferociousness of the crocodile brain, forming one extreme pole of our flight-and-fight response spectrum. (Some of us still need to learn to control it.) At lesser organisational complexity levels we will find regressively simpler analogues of this. We need to remember that the perception of cognitive and emotive processes and their typifying definitions in themselves form a bi-unity (much like electricity and magnetism unified in Maxwellian electromagnetism) - there is no thinking without feeling and no feeling without thinking. Cognition and emotion go hand-in-hand, although we may subjectively sense either to be predominant at any time. They also do not present to the awareness simultaneously from a neurological point of view as thalamic-amygdalic processes initially shortcut thalamic-cortical interactions. This allows "instinctive" and very quick responses in emergencies, where higher cognitive realisations only arise later. Of course, the concept of consciousness has been much distorted by researchers with scientistic and neuricentric orientations, e.g., that a thermostat then must have two states of mind, namely, on and off! This would be an eminent example of misconceiving the correct level of unitary entity-consciousness re organisation - it is not the thermostat which is conscious, but there is certainly consciousness at its sub-atomic quantal and atomic levels. In the same way that a crowd of people is not a conscious entity but may well display unique crowd-behaviour, entity organisation perceived at different levels of ontological graininess is distinctly marked by systemic non-linearity. A crowd can only be metaphorically be sensed as a conscious unit. The sum is greater than its parts. In many ways, our human physiology can be regarded as a massively coherent, mutually symbiotic colony of specialised cellular entities, each of these with sub-cellular quantal consciousness and unique non-linear reorganisation potentials. Are we the aggregate sum of such sub-entity consciousnesses? I do not believe so - taking into account much evidence for morphogenetic field action in embryogenesis and the fact that chromosomal material in its nucleotide selection is known to be non-locally programmed (See Gariaev Group,) we reach a domain of paraphysics where non-organically located consciousness can exist in unitary form. In non-local programming also lies the hint that organically resonant consciousness may be entrained to higher entity organisations. But that's another story..

I hope I have given some food for thought.

FV

Thank you for your time.
That will take a while to digest. I hope I don't gradually bend and twist what you have said until I have rectified it into something more or less resembling a warm stool.
Deeply religious people usually approach science with the desparate fear of a child who may wake up to find there is no Santa. I doubt these assurances would comfort them.

Bobart, with this understanding, there is absolutely no reason not to be deeply religious, and to have a deeply personal, intimate relationship with the divine. It is however also a way to uncouple from the dogmatic impositions, biased human editing and re-editing, simplistic absolutism, literalised symbolism and serious omission intrinsic to our present liturgical heritage. Let us not forget the words of someone like Dr. W Graham Scroggie (1877 – 1958,) a man who himself was turned out of his first two churches for his opposition to modernism and worldliness, pastor of the famous Spurgeon Metropolitan Tabernacle, London, asserting: “..Yes, the Bible is human, although some out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men and bear in their style the characteristics of men....” This is the epitome of anthropomorphic attribution. That, in itself, is no sinful epistemology, until however, you deeply study the historical development of the religion (and religions) and see the operation of selective editing, deliberate insertion of conceptual artifice, subjective theological synthesis, and the deletion of truly fundamental tenets understood and preached in the birth-phase of religion, for demagogic purposes. Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin von Tischendorf, one of the most renowned and respected theological scholars of the 19th Century, who made the spectacular discovery of the oldest biblical source manuscript known, the Codex Sinaiticus, asserted that, “(the New Testament had) in many passages undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written,” and found it necessary to apply 12 000 corrections to the 110 000 lines of this source work. Human processing is intrinsic to all epistemology, natural, normal, and fully acceptable - however, the gross, and mutually unacceptable contrasts between institutional religionisms as based on their documentation, show disparate facetting, an incapability to truly perceive the unifying and underlying. That time has perhaps arrived, but first we need to understand beyond the inherited picture that most accept gullibly and quite transparently, a picture that I can confidently state must upon deeper study be granted to have been affected by some of the lowest human ambitions.

FV

wher'd you get that from!!

at what point!!every impulse is a point!all points are divine in origin but not necessarily divine in reception!(depends on point of reference for man)!the christ is the only divine point of reference available to man!this is a scientific description of a spiritual reality or law!like gravity is a law!

Whatis, the better part of your argument has already been made. If you are sincere, please take time to read the full thread by Tachyon8491.

A Birth of Facets

Without redundantly restating what I think I have perhaps adequately addressed and expounded upon before, I feel it necessary to delicately remove an insiduous spanner that has been inserted into the works, albeit that this throwing was with some unjustifiably overconfident bravura. I will approach the point with some deviations and detours as it needs bootstrapping of several pertinent tenets and evolving these from one paradigm into another.

If every single subjectifiable ontological entity, at whatever scale of organisation, is the quantised individualisation of the single unquantised, cosmic, divine superconsciousness, then there is nothing, without exlusion, that is not divine. Every "point" (perhaps a misnomer as more a mathematical-geometric abstraction, but colloquially semi-acceptable) is then indeed divine in origin. To state that not every point is necessarily divine "in reception" needs some closer identification of that allegation and to dissolve its intrinsic conflations:

By reception we may understand information, perceivable data, arising either out of exteroceptively impacting signalling via the sensory complement, or alternatively, endogenously or interoceptively, via cognitive-emotive, or to place a different accent, psychospiritual processing. Here we to need consider potentially interpretable percept arising from any level of the aggregate spectrum of consciousness, ranging from focal self-aware I-ness, to deeper subconscious and unconscious levels interpenetrant with the transpersonal superconsciousness. This internal channel serves as both source of conceptually interpretable inspiration , intuitive guidance and a non-conventional path of communication with other quantised consciousness (See as before, Tiller, Houck, Russel &Targ, Puharich et al.) We need to further take into account that each species' sensor complement is uniquely selective in its sensor bandwidths and that accordingly we do not conventionally perceive the actually fully available spectrum of data-stimuli (trans-species languages) originating from the cosmic domain. Our resulting neurologically embedded reality model is therefore in the first instance derived from highly selective band-filtered signalling. This is not to speak of its cognitively processed forms and integration for which we would need to refer to the modelling suggested by psychoneuroimmunology (PNI.) Further considering the Bohmian Implicate domain and that non-local, superluminal data-percept is intimately associable with consciousness at all its manifest levels in trans-species reality, we have several distinguishable routes of "reception."

Implied in the interpretation that everything without exclusion is the explicate manifestation of divine quantisation, is a metaphorical parallel in Confucius' statement (see earlier post for ref) that "Everything has its beauty but not everyone can see it." In the same sense, everything is divine but some see the satanic. This paradoxical dichotomy is (almost automatically) the result of first-instance anthropomorphic attribution - a simplistic modelling that diffracts the holo-percept (the entire perceptually derived model of the phenomenological cosmos) into polar spectra: positive/negative, good/evil, black/white, healthy/unhealthy, godly/satanic, constructive/destructive. That such poles are not only far from absolute, also, acutely subjective and mostly memetically paradigmatic, but more, highly contextually relatable, is usually a complete non-sequitur to the religionistic stance. For example, first-instance interpretation would undoubtedly see the breaking of a limb as all of negative, unfortunate, an accident, or may even attribute it to effects originating from satanic motivations. If however the broken leg later leads to unquestionably linked causal evolution of event of immense personal value and objectively assessed precious gain, where the individual may later say that "this was the best thing that ever could have happened," then do we still regard the fracture as an unfortunate accident, or, in the temporally compressed juxtaposition of the two seminal events, see it as a boon?

Of course this is related to the psychology of "You cannot control what happens to you, but you can control how you react to it (interpret it) - you own how you respond to what happens to you. This demonstrates contextual objectivity, and invariably implies a paradigm-shift of the most difficult degree, and highest calibre, for individuals (and memetically concordant groups) habitually entrenched in first-instance polar interpretations. An example of this occurs psycho-acoustically in music: the playing of a first-instance dissonant interval such as a minor second or augmented fourth to a child, usually results in it slapping hands over its ears in distaste, yet musically mature appreciation accepts such intervals as a higher instance of consonance, less static and with more energy dynamically striving for resolution. Only the simplest melodic intervals and simplest chordal harmonies and contrapuntal progressions would be possible if we adhered to the first-instance impression of consonance. So, in a higher interpretation "first-instance good" may result in the worst subjectively perceived "first-instance evil" and, to explicitly list it, "first-instance evil" may be indismissibly catalytic in a resolving higher consonance of "first-instance good." Well-meant over-protection of a child for example, is classified by paediatric psychology as a quite disabling crime.

From my book The Nature of Being © Frank Valentyn, all rights reserved
Quote:
One eminent source of musical reference still quotes: (the augmented fourth or tritone) “...is relatively difficult to frame in singing and is in itself not a beautiful interval, and hence in early ecclesiastical music [fourth to sixth century] its melodic use was forbidden...Early musical theorists called it ‘the devil in music’ [Diabolus in musica] and its avoidance was one of the motives of Musica Ficta...”

The “difficulty”" in singing an augmented fourth derives from the fact that the voice follows natural tuning in which the upper component of the interval acting as leading note to a following resolution lies higher than in the equivalent interval on a tempered instrument such as the piano. The difficulty is overcome by practice in singing and aural training. The relative impression of “beauty” as given here is based on a phase of interpretation: what first instance consonant intervals have in their static non-resolutive lack of striving, is overcome by the dynamic resolutive striving of first instance dissonances.

There are different types of beauty and here is a clear case of a consensual stance that has not yet evolved to recognising higher instances, higher evolutions of contrasting relation, and the beautiful aspects of more intense energy and dynamism. The “difficulty in singing” is not just a vitally conspicuous psychoacoustic perception – it analogously relates to the incredible dragging effect of paradigmatic inertia – and in this “modern” age of ours, we are still dragging the psycho-taxonomic neolithics with us against their will. They, the least believers, are themselves pre-eminent exemplars of the workings of evolutionary cladogenesis – older, more statically unevolved taxons will coexist with the more modern, incapable of joining them in their ecological niche due to inflexible lack of evolutionary adaptability…
End Quote

Conciousness has what we could identify as two main streams of perceptual processing, a diffracting, decohering, de-contexualising stream which often results in first-instance polarity attribution, and a conhering, integrating, contextualising stream, which may result in objectively contextual, well-integrated perceptual modelling, which I suggest is a volitional mechanism of prime choice in the pursuit of psychospiritual evolution. It is the combined effect of these two streams modulating impacting percept that results in the derived perceptual gestalt at any moment, or phase, in an individual's life. (e.g. A-, B-, and C- conical integrations in PNI.)

First-instancers can confidently quote reams of cases of the worst evil, the satanic, and purgatorial culpability - they are also the planet's first promulgators of jihad, inquisition, religionistically motivated progrom and destruction of all that is progressive, and surely history groans in surfeit with an abundance of traumatic examples of their so well-meant excesses. As mentioned - owners of their interpretations.

In the aggregate psycho-philosophical evolution of the human species, phases of animatism, animism, deification, pantheism, lead to polytheism - the diffractive sense, yet recognising the divine in all facets of its phenomenology. In Akhnaton's daring grasp of monotheism arises the result of the cohering, re-integrating stream as precedent for all following versions of monotheism. However, in this spiralling evolution an incidental and unintended crime of the worst possible magnitude against the human spirit occurs: the creative agency is removed from the created - no longer intimately immanent and indivisibly fluxing in all existence, the "creator" (and we have to be genderistic here, a quite traceable story which we may well pertinently address more contextually elsewhere,) removed from what "was created," to the position of observer, now no longer an ongoing creatively-evolutional universe, a statically finished work, to reside in a utopian place called heaven which we no longer know. This historically quite transparent incident, religionistically first-instanced and literalised, is the single most "satanic" seed that has ever found nurture in the human psyche. It has caused more destruction, human trauma, division, regressive suppression of progress, static retardation of cultural evolution, suffering and death of genocidal propertions, than pandemic disease. Its time of dissolving in higher consonance has arrived, and I posit that nothing at all can stop this from happening.

You, I, and every wondrous consciousness in this incredible and mystical universe, are true and genetically authentic children of the divine, its source is unending within us - it is up to us to see godliness in foreign eyes instead of the entrenched satanic, to see striving to consonance at higher energies, to allow the intrinsic divine its intimately personal expression through us, channel it in integrity and accountability, birth it in all our motivations and to find a knowable heaven in that interpretation.

There is no single point that does not itself receive, interpret, re-modulate and express the divine in aspects of all its infinite potentials.

Frank Valentyn

Tachyon8491-
You were right. When I finally released myself from the need to protect my pre-existing paradygms, suddenly I began really enjoying what you were saying. This is intrigueing.

Thank you so much for the feedback Bobart, I can hardly tell you how validating that is, and what humble sense of purpose it inspires.

Peace and Joy,

FV

A bit humbling reading such wonderful use of language. I'm not going to attempt anything beyond the necassary at the hour this is being written...

Tachyon - I recognize that the gathering of a good vocabulary is a gradual process, so I might be revealing a bit of (classic modern) impatience by asking this, but I have to know; are you a strong advocate of flashcard use in increasing vocabulary? This might be good at providing an ability to recite a dictionary definition of the word, but makes the practice somewhat academic if you can't follow by using the word in your own writing.

I suppose whatever method best suits ones ability to absorb the information works. I started a pile of flashcards and it has increased the flow of reading I'm able to do through say, philosophical texts that require a dictionary in your free hand while reading.

Thanks for the compliment Clockwork It's validating that at least some appreciate language aimed at communicating effectively and in concise, compacting terminology, without diluting the message in "simplifying" vocabulary, simplistic syntax and the then required drawn out reams of simpler language.. Not everyone appreciates it though, as you will see in scanning earlier postings in this thread.

No I don't use flashcards, but it's quite probably a good idea, might try that myself..

If anything, my personal library of in excess of five thousand books and a further technical library of some five hundred, are an indication of some of what I've read - I do believe that it is reading, and good listening too, that enrich your expressive capacity in communication. Then we may ask with some justification, what kind of reading matter is it that most people read these days...? Does it in fact have a capacity for enrichment?

FV

Exobiological research carried out by several methods: radioastronomically by looking for typifying radio-spectral signatures of high-weight evolved molecular species in the circumstellar envelopes of protostars, also in stellar- and UV/IR-irradiated molecular clouds in the interstellar medium (ISM,) and in ultra-high stratospheric research by ER-2 aircraft, have severally proven an exobiological origin of advanced molecular species. Note, "...More than 5% of the carbon in the diffuse ISM resides in grains rich in aliphatic organics." (Scott Sandford; NASA-Ames Research Center.) Sandford goes on to say, "The presence of this molecular complexity may have played a significant role in terms of the seeding and maintenance of early life on the Earth."


David Deamer, Jason P. Dworkin, Scott A. Sandford, Max P. Benrstein, and Louis J. Allamandola in ASTROBIOLOGY, Volume 2, Number 4, 2002, 371-381, state:

"Organic compounds are synthesized in the interstellar medium and can be delivered to planetary surfaces such as the early Earth, where they mix with endogenous species. Some of these compounds are amphiphilic, having polar and nonpolar groups on the same molecule. Amphiphilic compounds spontaneously self-assemble into more complex structures such as bi-molecular layers, which in turn form closed membranous vesicles. The first forms of cellular life required self-assembled membranes that were likely to have been produced from amphiphilic
compounds on the prebiotic Earth. Laboratory simulations show that such vesicles
readily encapsulate functional macromolecules, including nucleic acids and polymerases."

They go on to say:

"Recent evidence suggests that membranes can self-assemble from organic mixtures available on any planet having liquid water and a source of organics. (Dworkin et al., 2001). It now appears likely that extraterrestrial material falling on the primordial Earth was a source not only of the elements from which prebiotic molecules were formed, but also of specific organic compounds that harbored the first cellular forms of life." "...exogenous delivery and endogenous synthesis are potentially important sources of prebiotic and biogenic molecules on the early Earth. Both processes can provide amphiphilic molecules capable of self-assembly into membrane structures. Under conditions prevalent on the early Earth, assembly of membranous vesicles, followed by incorporation and development of increasingly complex polymeric systems, would enable the emergence of a membrane-bounded self-reproducing molecular system."

In a different paper, Louis J. Allamandola and Douglas M. Hudgins of the Astrochemistry Laboratory, NASA Ames Research Center, state:-

"Twenty years ago the composition of interstellar dust was largely guessed at, the concept of ices in dense molecular clouds ignored, and the notion of large, abundant, gas phase, carbon rich molecules widespread throughout the interstellar medium (ISM) considered impossible. Today the composition of dust in the diffuse ISM is reasonably well constrained to micron-sized cold refractory materials comprised of amorphous and crystalline silicates mixed with an amorphous carbonaceous material containing aromatic structural units and short, branched aliphatic chains. In dense molecular clouds, the birthplace of stars and planets, these cold dust particles are coated with mixed molecular ices whose major components are is very well constrained. Lastly, the signature of carbon-rich polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), shockingly large molecules by earlier interstellar chemistry standards, is widespread throughout the Universe." Further: "...the emission features are observed even from extremely harsh environments, indicating that the gaseous, carbon-rich molecules are exceptionally stable."

Far more evidence of evolved proto-life exists in type-II carbonaceous chondrites and in terrestrial contamination-free meteoritic samples - apart from the ISM- and protostellar sources, this is treated in detail in my book The Nature of Being (530 pages, 176 illustrations, 2871 index entries, 45 pages of endnotes. © FV)

What is clear is that life, far from having been solely "created" on a tiny mote of interstellar dust called planet Earth, is universally ubiquitous in its origins. In its quite obvious hierarchical organisation of complexity, this vitally supports my central thesis that cosmic organic ontogeny is specifically the result of a morphogenetically vectored, condensative energy--> matter organisation with a vital prior stage of quantisation. This quantisation could potentially be scientifically monitored as I firmly believe it to consistently occur on an unceasing basis, but is at present certainly far beyond the energies required to probe the quantal domain for that evidentiary assessment - further, it may well remain outside the magnitudes required.

The taxonomy of the earliest lifeforms on Earth divided these into two main branches, prokaryotes and eukaryotes, with much evidence pointing to a process of phagocytotic or colonialising endosymbiosis in the clearly inherited nuclear genomic material present in eukaryotic protozoa, and even in mammalian cellular organelles such as mitochondria. This picture became more complicated with evidence pointing to the existence of a more evolutionary primary group, the archaea, from which eukaria (Woese's term; Carl Woese and George Fox, 1977,) descended. A phylogenetic tree based on rRNA evidence now more commonly divides these primary forerunners into the two branches of bacteria and archaea, with the eukaria as a sub-branch of the latter. At this point of recapitulative phylogeny, a bridge between exobiological organicity and terrestrial organic organisation still needs substantiation, although, among other, evidence from type II carbonaceous chondrites seems to strongly point the way.

The following points are made by W. Ford Doolittle (Scientific American February 2000):

1) In the mid-1960s, Zuckerkandl and Pauling proposed a revolutionary strategy that might supply the missing information concerning evolutionary branching. The essential idea was that instead of investigating anatomy and physiology, family trees of living organisms should be based on differences in the monomer sequences in selected genes or proteins. This approach became known as "molecular phylogeny", and its essential basis was that as a result of changes in genes caused by mutations, as two species diverge from an ancestor, the gene sequences they share will also diverge, and as time passes, the genetic divergence will increase. Researchers could thus reconstruct the evolutionary past of living species by assessing the apparent history of divergence of genes or proteins isolated from those species. Protein studies completed in the 1960s and 1970s demonstrated the general utility of molecular phylogeny by confirming and then extending the already established family trees of well-studied groups such as the vertebrates.

2) A new research development occurred in the late 1970s, when Carl Woese proposed that the two-domain view of life that divided living organisms into a] bacteria and b] cells with internal membrane-bound organelles (eukaryotes) was no longer tenable on the basis of molecular analysis. Woese suggested that certain so-called "bacteria" formed a distinct third primary group -- the archaea -- and that members of this group were as different from other bacteria as bacteria were different from eukaryotes. Woese suggested that although certain cells without internal membrane-bound organelles (prokaryotes) classified as bacteria might look like bacteria, they were genetically much different, and their *ribosomal RNA (rRNA) supported an early evolutionary divergence.

3) Once the idea of three rather than two primeval domains was accepted by researchers, an important question was which of the two structurally primitive groups -- bacteria or archaea --gave rise to the first eukaryotes? Because of evidence indicating an apparent kinship between the gene expression/protein synthesis machinery of archaea and eukaryotes, the consensus was that eukaryotes diverged from the archaea.

4) One important result of research in molecular phylogeny during the past 15 years has been the production of strong evidence supporting the "endosymbiont hypothesis". In biology, the term "symbiosis" refers in general to an intimate and protracted association of individuals of different species, and "endosymbiosis" refers to a symbiotic association between cells of two or more different species in which a smaller cell inhabits a larger host cell. The endosymbiont hypothesis in evolutionary biology, now a consensus view, proposes that the mitochondria components of eukaryotes, so essential for eukaryote metabolism, formed when an early eukaryote engulfed and then retained one or more primitive bacteria of a certain type (alpha-proteobacteria). Eventually, these bacteria relinquished their ability to live on their own and transferred some of their genes to the nucleus of the host cell, and these bacteria then evolved into the extant mitochondria. In addition, and similarly, the hypothesis proposes that some mitochondria-bearing eukaryotes ingested bacteria capable of producing oxygen during photosynthesis (cyanobacteria), and these resident symbiotic bacteria subsequently evolved into the chloroplasts, the present internal structures that drive photosynthesis in certain eukaryotes (e.g., in plant cells).

5) Until very recently, therefore, the consensus view in biology could be summarized as follows: The early descendants of the last universal common ancestor -- a small prokaryote cell --divided into two prokaryotic groups: the bacteria and the archaea. Later, the archaea gave rise to the eukaryotes. Subsequently, the eukaryotes gained valuable energy-generating organelles --mitochondria and (in the case of plants, for example) chloroplasts -- by taking up and retaining certain symbiotic bacteria.

6) Several years ago, however, the consensus view stated above became complicated by a large amount of evidence concerning the phenomenon of "lateral gene transfer" (horizontal gene transfer). Biologists recognize two types of gene transfer from one organism to another: vertical and horizontal. Vertical gene transfer occurs between parents and offspring, and horizontal gene transfer is the transfer that may occur between organisms otherwise. It is in bacteria that horizontal gene transfer has been studied most extensively, particularly in the last decade. Three types of horizontal gene transfer are known: conjugation, transduction, and transformation. Conjugation is a type of sexual reproduction exhibited by some bacteria, the process involving the exchange of genetic material by means of a tube or bridge, the transfer of DNA occurring either in one direction or in both directions.

7) Transduction involves the transfer of genetic material from one bacterium to another with the intermediation of a virus. Essentially, when the virus infects one bacterium, it often carries away pieces of that bacterium's genome, and those pieces, upon the infection of a new bacterium, become incorporated into the second bacterial genome. Finally, transformation is the process involving the uptake or incorporation of DNA fragments (plasmids) by a bacterium, first observed in 1944 by Oswald Avery. In this context, the important aspect of horizontal gene transfer is that in primitive cells such as prokaryotes it is now apparent that horizontal gene transfer readily occurs across species. As a consequence of the new evidence, the consensus view of the interrelations between the primeval three kingdoms has now been seriously destabilized.

8) In general, the current situation concerning the evolutionary "tree of life" is as follows: The conceptual tree-like structure with discrete branches is retained at the top of the eukaryote domain, and also retained is the idea that eukaryotes obtained mitochondria and chloroplasts from bacteria. But the lower parts of the tree are now seen to involve an extensive anastomosis of branches -- branches joining other branches in a complex network of intersecting links -- resulting from extensive horizontal gene transfer of single or multiple genes, the horizontal gene transfer known to be common in unicellular organisms. Thus, the author (Doolittle) suggests that the "tree of life" lacks a single organism at its base, and that "the three major domains of life probably arose from a population of primitive cells that differed in their genes."

Clear from all this evidence is that horizontal and vertical gene transfer are statistically far more probable in early evolutionary organic complexes than at later evolutionary phases, pertinently due to their sharing of minimally differentiated structure. Even here, at far more developed levels, transposon and "jumping gene" activity can cause advantageous evolutionary mediation. Even more obvious must be that proto-life, "purely" molecular organicity, must have an analogous pluridirectional sharing of evolutionary advantages between different organic pathways of development when these physically converge in the same proto-ecology.

Far from being "just" or "purely" a scientific approach and path of investigation, that interpretation is only a selectively focal attention - it is not "mere matter" that we are concerned with here, but the very essence of the cosmic divine, expressing itself in continually more developed purpose. It is in creative evolution, and evolutionary creation, that continually progressive awareness of a true cosmic purpose of being develops.

Unlike William Jennings Bryan who led a fundamentalist crusade to ban the teaching of evolution in American classrooms in the 1925 "monkey trial" of the biology teacher John Scopes, and who mockingly complained about the zoologist Dr. Maynard Metcalf's exposition of evolutionary mechanisms, that evolutionists had man descending, "...not even from American monkeys, but Old World monkeys," there is no shame whatsoever in having creatively evolved from stuff of the stars themselves. On the contrary, there is a properness and mystical wonder in it, and in looking at the endless stellar stretches in a summer's night-sky, there needs to be no feeling of alien separateness. Instead a justified relaxation and a comforting security, in the deep realisation that we are looking at the realm of our true origins, as also doubtlessly, our destiny as a unified Family of Humans who will one day venture beyond our cradle and colonise the outer reaches.

Frank Valentyn

Micro- and Macro, an introduction

Macroevolution, mediated by rapid evolutionary adaptation of a species to different ecological pressures, e.g. by a change of habitat, has been conspicuously obvious in the case of the lizard Anolis Sagrei which is scattered throughout the West Indies. The experiment in which Anolis was deliberately transplanted from its home econiche by a research team consisting of biologists from Washington University in Seattle, the University of California at Davis, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife in Olympia, to a different environment with its own ecological challenges, was reported in the May, 1997 issue of Nature. No doubt many with a by now well-worn creationist axe to grind will dispute the very possibility of macroevolution, and insist that the outcome of this experiment only suggested microevolution, but this is much due to deliberate distortion and conflation, misconfraction of both observational evidence and the tenets of evolutionary theory on their part.

Before we look at the specifics, it is important to note conventionally accepted definitive differences between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution." To do true justice to the topic in its many attributional interrelations would probably take at least the typical 679 pages of "Evolution" by Mark Ridley, published by Blackwell Science, ISBN 0-86542-226-5, but we will have to remain as concise as possible here. Microevolution is commonly defined as gradual change in allelic and gene frequencies at the sub-speciation level - in other words, notable change in morphology within a single identifiable species; in contrast, macroevolution posits greater, stepwise traceability in the generation of entirely new morphological attributes, e.g. new organs or conspicuous transformations of these in an evolutionary "jump" causing sufficient difference to claim that speciation has occurred.

A first fact to realise is that microevolution and macroevolution lie within a single continuum of morphological change, not two continua, and that the definitive border between the distinctions is not so much the mechanisms involved as but two salient attributes: the perceived rate of change per traceable timespan within one taxon, and separately, the assessed period between two stable phases identified on either temporal side of, minimally, one speciation.

Correlating the original Darwinian idea of traceable morphological change through different phases of speciation with the actual biostratigraphic fossil column presented Darwin with some challenges: although evolutionary morphological sequences were traceable, connecting phases of a species' development in these deposits, these changes were not represented in sequences of smooth, gradual change, but with conspicuous gaps in it. This is what some pro-creationist researchers such as Young, (Patrick. H.) are claiming as definitive evidence that either macroevolution is "impossible" and does not occur, or that speciation in its alleged occurrence by evolutionists, certainly does not occur by some mode of macroevolution:

"If macroevolution occurs through the successive accumulation of numerous microevolutionary events then there should be clear evidence of transitional sequences in the fossil record and very long time spans between the appearance of new phyla. There is no evidence of this type of observation as part of any discovery in the fossil record all the way down to and including the pre-Cambrian layers."

This type of claim is, to say the least, the very definition of the ostrich syndrome. Young for example, contemptuously dismisses the glaring existence of homologous organs in different species as being an indicator of a precursive ancestral relatedness. The presence of complete pentadactyl vestigial limbs in the whale, the human vermiform appendix which strongly alludes back to an earlier herbivorous precursor's digestive system in which it was fully functional, and the human recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) which evolved from the vagus nerve in a piscine progenitor where it sent direct branches to each of the gill-arch ducts, but where in humans the modern RLN descendent of the fish's fourth vagus now passes (very recapitulatively) down from the brain, down to the heart in the thorax and back up again to the larynx in a completely unnecessary detour, and literally hundreds of other convincing examples, are then just "non-related coincidence." Young claims with some victorious bravado: "...the fact remains that there are tremendous morphological similarities in numerous species (for example, several marsupials and placentals) possessing no kinship whatsoever. If common ancestry is inept at explaining this, then the observations must point toward some as yet unknown process. Since the process is unknown, teaching it as fact is nothing more than pseudoscience."

That these "morphological similarities" have been exceedingly well explained as a function of evolutionary convergence, the developmental solving in similar solutions of similar environmental challenges, such as the human eye and the at least as sophisticated eye of the squid, as hundreds of other examples more, is then confidently swept under the creationist carpet with whole teams of creationists sitting on it in desperation to keep the conspicuously moving shapes underneath it as well camouflaged as possible.

Homology and evolutionary convergence, especially in light of logical descent from a minimally diverged taxonomic lineage of ancestral precursors, perfectly explains morphological similarity - in light of this, a sense of irresolvable ambiguity in where, for example, the human gut originated, derived from the roof of the embryonic gut-cavity of the shark, or both the roof and floor of the gut-cavity in frogs, is a quite deliberate obfuscation of traceability in other definitely salient ancestral attributes which can be well traced in clear evolutionary phases in the biostratigraphic record.

Gould and Eldridge state, quoting Ridley, "...it is a common pattern for a species to appear suddenly, to persist for a period, and then to become extinct. A related species may then arise, but with little sign of any transitional forms between the putative ancestor and descendant. Darwin explained this pattern by incompleteness of the fossil record."

If evolution was actually quite gradual without sudden change or transformation, then if much of the fossil record was lost due to geological action, and failure to preserve it, the resulting biostratigraphy would be exactly what we see now. The preservation of a fossil in any state of completeness in itself, let alone the preservation of an entire phylogenetic sequence, is somewhat of a geological miracle and takes very special circumstances including phases such as sedimentary encryption and percolative mineralisation.

Gould and Eldredge in interpreting the existing evidence from biostratigraphy, postulated that phyletic speciation, that is, infinitely smooth gradual transformation, which classical researchers were focussing on in their investigations, led these to miss more rapid splitting of a lineage, then interpreting such deviations as gaps in the fossil record. Very pertinent here is also that, apart from a potential lack of preservation, if a new species arises allopatrically (separate and not interbreeding) and in small isolated population, then the fossil record may not display the speciation event at any one site. If a site does preserve a biostratigraphic record of the ancestral species, the descendent species will be evolving elsewhere. Fossils of the precursor and descendent will not occur in the same biostratigraphic column. The small size of an intermediate and transitional population also statistically makes it less conducive to fossil preservation. In contrast to phyletic gradualism, an alternative of punctuated equilibrium - long stable phases of minimal evolutionary change punctuated by short periods of rapid speciation, is an attractive alternative for which there is much incidental evidence. The Plio-Pleistocene snail sequences of Lake Turkana in Kenya unmistakeably show punctuated equilibrium occurring, in abrupt changes concentrated in intervals of around 5 000 to 50 000 years - such periods vastly shorter than the long stable periods of constancy spanning a total of some 4,5 million years. (Williamson, P.G.)

Anagenesis, slow transformative speciation, alternated with cladogenesis, rapid speciative splitting, shows both temporal-range extremes representative of micro- and macroevolution. Ridley states: "...gradualism...does not deny the existence of splitting: it would be absurd to do so, because there are over a million species now, descended from a unique origin of life. However, it differs from punctuated equilibrium in that it predicts evolutionary change between, as well as during, speciation events." (Evolution, p 512-13) This salient point is often made transparent in attacks on evolutionary theory and suppressed in hopeful non-mention. The fact that far over a million species originated from a concentrated focal origin of a few minimally diverged ancestral lineages, or a single lineage, shows unmistakable species convergence when temporally tracked to their common ancestral pool, and evolutionary divergence forward in time from that origin. The fact that there is a gapped and incomplete biostratigraphic record is far, very far, from some quite wistful ultimate proof that "therefore" macroevolution "does not occur."

It has also been claimed that microevolution cannot be construed as a proven channel to macroevolution - this claim suffers from a syllogistic incompleteness of declared premises and a therefore false conclusion: macroevolution assumes anagenetic phases of phyletic gradualism (adequately identifiable in microevolution) as well as non-microevolutive events and phases such as mutational effects and rapid cladogenetic speciation. Microevolution is therefore certainly an acceptable contributory evolutionary pathway towards macroevolution, but indeed not the only path, showing the falseness of the claim in its omissions. Additionally, macroevolutive phases may be elicited by coevolution - the mutually competitive pressure applied by species to each other when sharing a common, or overlapping econiche. Coevolutive pressure may manifest inter- or intra-specifically, or in a threat of differential extinction or predation, in which adaptive and selective pressures are maximised. Yet a further evolutive mode is co-adaptation, where e.g. ants such as Formica fusca feed on the caterpillar of the lycaenid butterfly Glaucopsyche lygdamus, not consuming it, but drinking from a special organ which appears to have no other purpose than to feed ants (Newcomer's organ.) A 1981 experiment by Pierce and Mead suggests that the caterpillars (and the resulting butterflies) gain by being protected against predation from parasites such as brachonid wasps and tachonid flies. Such mutualism shows that the ants and caterpillars are closely, or co-adapted: ants gain food and caterpillars gain protection in interspecific coadaptation.

In conclusion here we may quote Ridley, "It is...not revealing to try and test 'between' gradual and punctuated evolution (read: micro- and macroevolution; FV,) it is more appropriate to find out what the frequency of the different patterns is." (Evolution, p 514) As we may therefore from all the foregoing legitimately claim microevolution as an essential contributory mode to macroevolution, we may see one modality of macroevolution operational in short-term adaptive morphological change occasioned by new ecological pressures.

As an example of the value of biostratigraphy it is useful to examine a passage from Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey's book “Lucy” - the discovery of Australopithecus Afarensis, a six-million year old hominid precursor on the vague horizon of human origin. From my book, The Nature of Being, © Frank Valentyn, Part One, Chapter Six, Origins, p 138:

“For dating, there had never been anything like Omo in the entire history of palaeoanthropology. With a scale of that precision, it was possible to organise the multitude of mammal fossils that littered the Omo landscape… In the eight years that the Omo expedition operated, it collected close to fifty thousand specimens, representing more than 140 species of mammals. Some of the little ones - rats, mice and shrews - were valuable because such small animals do not move about much and are extremely sensitive to environmental change. Thus the presence…in a particular sediment says something precise about what the local climate was like when that sediment was laid down. -- Equally important, Clark's practice of carefully mapping each fossil made it possible to follow the evolutionary development of various types throughout time. Beautiful sequences of antelopes, giraffes and elephants were obtained; new species evolving out of old ones and appearing in younger strata, then dying out as they were replaced by still others in still younger strata. Evolution, in short, was taking place before the eyes of the Omo surveyors, and they could time it.”



Anolis Emigrates

Specimens of Anolis lizard were taken from their Bahamian home island of Staniel Cay to fourteen other islands, eleven small islands in 1977 and another three in 1981. These specific target islands were all previously devoid of lizards and had notable differences in vegetation compared to Staniel Cay in that this was characterised by coppice, i.e. thick stands of small trees, whereas the target islands had lower vegetation with thinner stems and far fewer trees.

In the incredibly short period of only fourteen years duration of the experiment, it was found that the lizards' anatomical attributes had adapted spectacularly in a differential manner to their new ecological survival challenges: the greater the difference between some specific characteristic of their home environment and the new one, the greater and more noticeable was the evolutionary adaptation in a specific aspect of their morphology to allow them to cope better with that change. Relative to their body size, Anolis lizards had evolved limbs which were shorter, as predicted by the researchers - in fact, the smaller the average branch diameter was on a particular target island, the shorter was Anolis' relative limb length. Additionally, the lizards' toe pads had evolved to a greater size and a relative greater width to allow better grasping. On large tree trunks the benefit of speed provided by relative longer limb-length is offset by the agility advantage of shorter legs with better grasping power on plants with smaller stems and branches.

There is not much doubt that consistently maintained ecological pressures on the lizards in their new environment would select for the genetic perpetuation of their newly evolved morphological adaptations by differential survival advantage and make these inheritable traits. That such consistently maintained ecological pressures elicit macroevolution in the sense of rapidly specific adaptation has been proven.

The biostratigraphic record provides more adequate proof of macroevolutionary morphological divergence and speciation in the Cambrian "explosion" at the beginning of the Palaeozoic Era which established virtually all the major body-plans seen in present-day oceans. More biostratigraphic proof comes from well-observable taxonomic and morphological divergences in bursts of secondary evolutionary development in the wake of known mass extinctions - the sense in this lies in the new availability of econiches freed up by the differential extinction of a previously wide-spread niche-occupier. In this way too, it was the relatively quick extinction phase of the Saurians that made way for mammalian species.


Frank Valentyn

Could you please explain why you care so much. From a evolutionary point of view it really doesn't matter if people believe in evoution or not. It doesn't matter if the human race survives either. So why do you care? Are you trying to convince yourself?

Wonder why YOU care so much about tachyon caring so much, puzzled? "Evolution doesn't care" is just plain silly, its a process and not an entity. Even tho you say that it doesn't matter if the human race survives or not, maybe he doesn't share your pessimism. Instead of inane and useless remarks why don't you rather try make a useful contribution, not evolved enough for that yourself maybe?

I can't speak for Tachyon, but there are many who truly want to know something about life and our place in it. For those with this passion, creation stories were not enough. It isn't as easy to find personal meaning in evolution because it isn't readily supplied by priests. This sounds like a puzzle, but in a very real sense I am millions of years old, not just forty something, and my young son is even a little older than I am. That isn't a sad or pessimistic thought.

I think what "Puzzled" was getting at is that this thread goes beyond revealing one's personel belief system and ventures into conversion business - but why? "Puzzled" then ventures the hippopotamus that the creator may be insecure.

I personally think that the universe was hatched from a GIAGANTIC Cadberry Egg, and the Cadberry bunny is the all knowing and all powerful... the Alpha & Omega. Everyone KNOWS the easterbunny exists... just take it one step further...



P.S- I hope my personal believe stated above doesnt detract from the credibility of my other posts.. k thx

Yes, I believe that the creator has a God complex. Hates yellow flowers and is sexually attracted to fingernail clippings. His source of frustration stems from his inverted need to be loved by himself. This unrequited love triangle is unusual in that the 3rd party is in this case is his computer. While the usual penis envy sub-narrative is now manifested as only small whimpering sounds at meal times there are overtly aggressive dark tones to his relationships with the other two parties. Having been abandoned as a child in a cinema and forced to watch “I, myself and Irene” non-stop for 4 days (until rescued by a passerby) the subject knows no other reality and projects a false libido as though he were on stage. Having made "evolution" his mission in life the subject see himself as the destroying angel of the oncongene mutations which he has mistakenly identified as belief in any God other than Himself.

Oh, tsk, tsk Dr Freud, how howwible that it was by passers-by you had to be rescued, and that as creator you could not evoke a scenario of reality virtual enough to save yourself! Of course if your attraction to sexy nail-clippings keeps you busy most of your valuable time, you couldn't be expected to redirect some Freudian analysis to your own holy self to enquire into your deeper motives... is your acerbic wit a symptom of frustration that even at your age the testicles have not yet properly descended? Perhaps you could re-create that bit of evolution and ensure the present trickle of testosterone is translated into a general ambition to uplift, instead of activating oncogenes in others? But then some of us can't really help the way we evolved, uhm... were created. Now if I had to choose between being a Marburg virus or a T-cell I know I'd rather immunize, but you've obviously made the choice already..

Dear Friends,

Many posts in this thread pose the question why it is that I am 1) So interested in evolution, 2) Want to dissolve a quite evident antagonistic polarisation that exists between the two camps of evolutionism and creationism.

I intend to explain this motivation at some adequate length in this post.

I assumed that my motivations would be transparently clear from the contexts of all the articles treating the subject of evolutionism and creationism which I have posted in this thread – it appears that for several reasons, this motivation has not become as evident as I would wish it to be. Note that I formulated this as evolutionism and creationism and not evolutionism versus creationism. That simple difference sums up a major aspect of my perspective and also my motivations.

Let me start by stating that what is involved here is a paradigm shift – this automatically means “great intellectual-emotional-psychospiritual challenge” – there is no quicker, easier way to spell it out than that. Another word that arises is “difficult.” No doubt those who have actually experienced what they unmistakably will have identified as a paradigm shift in their own understanding at some point in their lives, know exactly what I am talking about here. In a deeper analysis which would ideally be accompanied with diagrammatic illustration for clarity (such as I have done in my book The Nature of Being © Frank Valentyn; 530 pages, 176 illustrations, 30 tables, 2871 index entries, 45 endnote pages,) we can make elements of this challenge more objective to obtain greater insight into what these challenges amount to. It is therefore worth a quick review to see what is essentially involved, and needs to be faced by those with sufficiently open receptivity to dare meeting the challenges implied in paradigm shift.

A paradigm consists of an intellectual-emotional-constellation (IEC- FV) consisting of a closed domain of mutually referent and mutually supportive percepts, tenets and precepts, bounded by a semi-permeable perceptual boundary.

Taking this some steps further, we need to see that the mutually referent and supportive percept domain implies mutual proof. In other words, if any of the domain-intrinsic percepts gets questioned, automatic proof almost immediately arises from one, some, or many, other percepts within the closed domain boundary. It also means that when a percept which is not domain-intrinsic get questioned, the question will be seen as all of (or either) inapplicable, distorted in its formulation, synthetic, nonsensical, irrelevant, facetious, “incorrect,” “the wrong question,” manipulative or entrapping.

Such an IEC domain-extrinsic question may be considered completely legitimate and marked by total integrity outside the domain, but from inside it, the very salient fact is that it is simply not perceived in the way it was intended. Undoubtedly, from each side of the domain-boundary, the question is thought to be understood in the way it was intentioned. This misperception does not only apply to the perceived inter-personal intention of the question (am I being attacked, manipulated, ridiculed?) but to the percept-content and conceptual formulation of its tenets. This conflated, or misconfractive understanding arises because the question’s internal percepts have no true correlation with a reference frame that exists outside the paradigm. The reference matrix against which domain-extrinsic questions get tested and measured, does not allow a true one-to-one conceptual identification between extrinsic and intrinsic percepts. There is no true conceptual congruency even if this is perceived by each party across the paradigmatic divide. There arises a question of paradox here, and paradox is essentially and indismissibly involved in the comparison and mutual challenge between paradigms and paradigmatic stances. Namely: considered against the conceptual filtering action of the intrinsic reference frame, the intended conceptual format of extrinsic questions becomes altered – the incoming percept becomes modified in the act of perception itself, in the automatic matching against the internal reference frame’s fundamental tenets.

To illustrate that a little, let’s imagine, via an advanced hyper-processing autotranslator, a debate between an earthling (E) and an alien (A) about their fundamental beliefs and see a typical progression of dialogue.

E: “Surely there were intermediate lifeforms between Objiwarunga and your present anatomy and morphology?”
A: “It says clearly in the sacred crystal lattice that Warungas were created after Objiwarunga’s fifth moult, and that she shed five of her tentacles in great sacrifice during the exceedingly unselfish process, leaving the present seven. This happened two-point-seven tera-rotations ago.”
E: “What about the silica exoskeletons we found at b37 which have nine tentacles?”
A: “The sacred SCL states unmistakably in stanzas 433 522 to 433 527 that Warunga are direct meegwa of Objiwarunga, therefore what you have found cannot be “intermediated forms” as you so impertinently allege.”
E: “What are “meegwa?”
A: “This is not easy to understand unless you have been extensively schooled in warung-go-wumffla. I suppose the nearest equivalent would be ‘tentacular transformations?’”
E: “How do you know this happened two-point-seven tera-rotations ago?”
A: “It says so in..”
E: “Ah, yes of course. Hmm…, is there any evidence towards that, remains, fossil record, artefact, etc?”
A: “Dr. Peejum Druk has extensively chronicled our protohistory after the great mass-gassification, which is noted in several of our planetary mythologies and is the basis of record in Book One of the SCL. Each of the Five Tribes knows about the Great Gassing, although the Weqq disagree with the SCL’s historical explanation – they are however not tenticable and in cultured conversation are regarded as unmentionable. I would therefore kindly ask you not to refer to them when you are in contact with any other civilised Warunga?”
E: “What exactly, if I may ask, do the Weqq disagree with in the SCL?”
A: (A slight swelling of the peripheral tentacular vascular system is noticed) “They maintain that the SCL is almost entirely myth, not to be interpreted literally, and that specifically… (hesitates lengthily) well, it is to be noted that because of their disbelief they are automatically doomed to the Depthless Marsh after their last moult. They will not share in the everlasting bliss.”
E: “Where exactly is the Depthless Marsh?”
A: “Of course, it is not on Warunga-Jeen, it is not physical, nor can it be tenticulated with ordinary “senses” as you would call them.”
E: “Then how do you know it’s real?”
A: “Because it says so in…”
E Interrupts somewhat impatiently, and asks, “Do the Weqq have anything to say about the nine-tentacled fossil remains which are spread so widely throughout the B37 layer?”
A: “Well, yes, they insist that these are, uhn… as you would call them, “intermediated forms.”
E: “Intermediate forms?”
A: “That is what I signalled.”
E: “Is there not a subtle semantic difference between “Intermediate forms” and “Intermediated forms”?”
A: “Perhaps, it is a fine point. To use the term “intermediate” would appear to give some signalled credence to this utterly synthetic idea, it is therefore a matter of liturgical correctness to not refer to them so and as consequence to appear to lend the term any reality of reference to an actual phenomenon.”
E: “Is it possible to meet some representative academic Weqq and to further discuss their insights with them?”
A: “You must understand that Weqq are normally de-tentacled by sacred order of the Wumffla Tribune whenever they are found to express their anathema and attempt to infect others with it.”
E: “But,” (Remembering back some six millennia to the “Gross Vinquisitions” reputed to have taken place on Earth,) “Are they denied the right to express these in confidence, in private meetings, so to speak?”
“You must understand further perhaps, that the quintuple Warungian cognitive processors are located in the tentacular tips, and that de-tentacling therefore renders the subject incapable of any further cognitive processing. In caring for their.., what do you call those? Souls? We must do our utmost to save them. Weqq-dum find very satisfactory life purpose after de-tentacling in the somatic rest which is bequeathed them, glory be to Objiwarunga’s Great Moult, and usually serve blissfully as transducers in our heating ducts.”
E: “What is that large, squat, squarish building with the great chimney, uh, just behind the Warung-Wafful place of sacred worship?”
A: “It is, was, that is, a repository of intermediated forms, the great chimney is a recent architectural addition.”
E: “Could we have a look at its collections?”
A: “Of course, although the nature of the collections has changed dramatically since the Fifth Council.”
E: “Yes?”
A: “Oh yes, since the divine incineration we now keep select historical editions of the SCL on display there, it is now a sacred place.”

Etc. etc.

Paradigms exist in their group-adherence, resonant clustering, their “culture” and the memetic propagation of their foundational tenets which are programmatically enforced by processes of prescription, proscription, and education which are often not passive in their promulgation, but proselytic in a sense of calling to convert disbelievers to believers. Of course, this can be said equally of both parties across a paradigmatic divide, which does not reflect whatsoever on the veracity, integrity or verifiable phenomenology supporting either paradigm.

Paradigms evolve by import of percepts and tenets across their semi-permeable boundaries, or alternatively by the endogenous generation of intrinsic percept which may, or may not, show correlation with an existing extrinsic perceptual domain. Such is the case with the IEC-domain of “intelligent design.” This, under no-longer dismissible pressure of evidence from evolutionary insights came into being by previously intransigent paradigm bending partially towards the recognition of epochally stretched interrelationships between taxons, morphologies, and accomplishes a great step upwards from an originally common idea that an undeniable fossil record was temporally compressed to around 4004 B.P., and a previous insistence that the various isotope dating methods were not just highly inaccurate, but totally inapplicable.

Why are paradigm boundaries semi-permeable? In reality, the semi-permeable nature of cognitive domain boundaries is often an optimistic case, often they are effectively impermeable and act like one-way mirrors looking from the inside outwards – extrinsic percept is made invisible and non-existent through paradigmatic opacity. This is an extreme case, and the excessively defensive protection which marks it obviously revolves around a seriously perceived threat to psychospiritual comfort. Prime symptoms of paradigms protecting themselves this way are a complete lack of openness, receptivity, and a separative isolationism which is not just notable in modes of communication, but often socially shunning, and sometimes behind physical boundaries.

What stands out about paradigms, and their adherents, are the two polar extremes of inertia and momentum. In this, paradigms obey all of Newton’s Laws. The aggregate gestalt of a paradigm has a linear momentum that tenaciously resists deflection because of its massive memetic inertia. One of the most characteristic symptoms of paradigms is that the general impression they create is one of age and retarded development with entrenched memetic percept. This is often encoded into dogma, regulations, “laws” and ritualistic observances which are intended to analogise or symbolise, or artefact symbolising central figures historically relevant to the origin of the paradigm, processes or central tenets. In extreme cases, in the mutually referent “proof” of intrinsic percepts and their extension into dogma, the original stimulus and truth are lost, or so encrypted in layers of overlaid insight intended to supply redundantly extra proof, that they have become largely synthetic.

There are two cases of paradigm evolution: paradigm-drift, and paradigm-shift, PD and PS.

Both of these cases have almost exactly analogising parallels in the development of personality as it takes place in social individuation, in personal psychospiritual evolution, and in actual phylogenetic evolution.

In Drift, the genetic material of the domain, IECs (Intellectual-Emotional-Constellations) in the form of memes, undergoes very gradual change due to spontaneous new endogenous percept generation, a slow percolating import of extrinsic percept across the semi-permeable boundary, and sometimes also (in scientific paradigms but not often in theological ones) a gradual relinquishing to obsolescence of minor percepts. The bounding envelope of the domain can therefore be visualised to drift slowly, leaving perceived minor obsolescence behind, retaining central tenets, and incorporating new minor percept. Somewhat like amoebic phagocytosis in which a protozoan slowly oozes pseudopodia around the same old reliable nutrient, bodily incorporating it, steering away from the indigestible while discarding metabolic product by exocytosis and leaving this in its trail, paradigm drift is like a very slowly crawling envelope of mainly unevolving percept. In strict evolutionary terms this is taxonomic stasis, or at best anagenesis, or phyletic gradualism. (See previous post re micro and macroevolution.) To sum up, central tenets (memes, IECs) are retained, minor secondary percept may be discarded in perceived obsolescence and replaced by new minor tenets, by import or paradigm-endogenous generation. What is never sacrificed is the relational functionality of coherence between central tenets and all other through-percolating percept of lesser relevance. So for example, did alchemy slowly evolve into modern chemistry and materials science.

Paradigm Shift could not be more different – it represents quantum leaps in worldview, an entirely different gestalt with new major percept, it implies a radically new interpretation. In Shift, it is previously sacred percept, foundational tenets, which become understood as fundamentally untrue or truly obsolescent, and are discarded, ejected beyond the leaping domain boundary, sometimes with an entire set of coherent subsidiary percept. Often these memetic ejecta find adherents and are preserved in smaller sectarian or cultist clusters where they may survive as “anathematised” satellite paradigms.

In Shift, the bounding domain envelope quantum-leaps to embody radically new understanding. In strict evolutionary terms this is equivalent to cladogenesis, and, as often in that case, amounts to splitting of species into a new taxon by the complete extinction of an older one. So did the Ptolemaic geocentric system sway before the Copernican heliocentric insight, despite all the vitriolic religionistic condemnation and anathematisation. So also, did polytheism leap to an understanding of a single divine in Akhenaton’s mind in the 14th Century before the present era, and find a monotheism symbol most apt for the society of his time to set the precedent for all future monotheistic religious evolution.

A vitally important point to note is that Brahe, Copernicus and Galileo, looking at the anthropomanically entrenched geocentric system, understood its fundamental tenets extremely well, and had to reject it on the basis of evidence gained by daring investigation. So did Akhenaton understand contemporary Egyptian polytheism exceedingly well, and had to reject it due to a leap of psychospiritual insight with an immediate conceptual consequence, thus soaring to an entirely different perspective of physical and spiritual reality. The fact that he chose the Aten, the sun-disk as analogising symbol for a divine-single, indivisible cosmic force, lying in its obvious radiant power and fundamental life-importance, does not mitigate the possibility that this was a socially intended motivation, and that his personal insight most likely went vastly beyond this.

As I have illustrated in several previous posts, no classical evolutionist can penetrate temporally beyond an original moment of moments and not be faced with an apparent ultimate enigma of how and where the entire cosmic ontogeny began – a salient and vital focus on a creative aspect. Neither can anyone conventionally leaning towards creationism, but who has any truly objective reasoning power remaining, the merest titbit of conceptual receptivity and investigative daring, any longer deny the absolute reality of evolutionary mechanism in all nature.

My thesis is that the polarisation between these two camps is completely unfounded in a higher and harmonically unifying perspective. These two interpretations are dualistic aspects of a single reality that embodies them both indivisibly. They form a bi-unity, two sides of a doublesided coin where one can indeed see one side at a time, but only with X-rays at a higher vibrational level, can both sides be seen simultaneously and understood to be indivisible. You cannot pry one side loose from a coin without destroying the coin. There is no evolution without creation, neither is there any creation without evolution. Only evolutive creation or creative evolution exist. Indubitably, if nothing is too impossible for a divinely creative agency – then neither is evolution which is perhaps the single most natural process observable in every single subjectifiable continuum available to human perception and consciousness. I have defined and quantified this holistically unifying perspective of universal origin from several perspectives in earlier articles and will not over-expand this piece by doing that here again. This thesis did not arise from an initial personal motivation to unify – it began with a serious in-depth study spanning decades, of comparative religion, of cosmogony, cosmology, astrophysics, radio-astronomy, exobiology, trans-species genetics, molecular and morphogenetic embryology, immunology, teratology, mineralogy, crystallography, geomorphology, neurology, physics and electronics, philosophy and psychology, psychoneuroimmunology, acoustics and music, among others.
The realisation that the dualistic bi-unity of the evolutive and creative aspects of cosmic origin offered a vitally precious unification, came later.

Why do I so passionately wish to present this view? Because I believe that there are few things as precious as knowing where you truly come from, your true natural origin and heritage. This allows you to authentically understand your cosmic birthright, your intrinsically divine nature, the essence of your being, where it is that we may, can, and dare to strive in full realisation of our potentials, true harmlessness and a divine loving intelligence that continually quests for its intimately channelled personal birth within you.

Why even then? Simply, because I love all that lives and strives.

Frank Valentyn

Tachyon

Very impressive! Quite a castle you have built here. But its made of sand and will wash away with the next tide. Go to any second hand bookshop and you will find many tomes like yours - works that didn’t stand the test of time. You can only watch as new discoveries make your work obsolete.

But why wait? Why not start out with something that is already tatty but actually has the potential to sell a few copies and earn you some money?

Ok Mr. Smart Guy you have challenged me. So it is time to put your money where your mouth is. I am now going to give you an idea for a book that is worth a lot of money. Its free to you – all I ask is that you return the favor and give me an idea of equal value.

Here is the idea:

Write a Cook/Diet book based on the Astrological sign of the thing that is eaten. That is if one desires more “Virgo” qualities one should eat foods that are “Virgo”. I am sure you can work out the details and make it sufficiently credible and plausible.

That’s it. Now it’s your turn – put up or shut up.

Thank you for your so kind and very diplomatically extended invitation Mr Longnose, I do always accept the opportunity to discuss interesting, vital and challenging issues where there is a clear indication of fruitful outcome - not in a sense of competition whatsoever, but rather in the sense of a meeting of minds that, even if widely separated by a paradigmatic divide, can reach higher together than they could alone.

I have met many of these minds, hearts and spirits, and truly value the interaction I have had with them, and will have with them in future, as we know we will all gain profitably by our communications.This is predicated on two parties not just listening to each other, but actually considering what is said, not letting it go by misconceived while thinking up one's own wonderfully pre-emptive gambit.

Such fruitful communication is based on a love of knowledge, love of understanding, a thirst for growth through interaction and the wonderful sense of encountering minds with integrity of intent.

You, however, are not one of them. I would be loath to explain why, if however you were to reflect, with some doubtlessly difficult to evoke humbleness, on the calibre of intellectual content of your own posts, and the cretinously maniacal emotional tone contended in your last, you may, with some effort, pick up a clue.

FV

Additional Considerations on Paradigm Shift and Drift

It is indisputable that two wide temporally separated snapshots of accumulatively drifting paradigm have a high probability of generating the appearance of Shift having occurred – just as there are gaps in the biostratigraphic record, so are there conspicuous gaps in the historical record. Such evolution does not deny the possibility of an intermediate quantum leap in development, in the same way that phyletic gradualism does not deny the possibility of rapid mutational development occurring. This is exactly the evolutionary Gould and Eldredge concept of alternating anagenesis and cladogenesis in the punctuated equilibrium model: slow, almost static periods of balanced equilibrium with the environment (whether personally psychospiritual, paradigmatic, sociological or ecological) alternated with more transient phases of very rapid evolutionary development.

When two biostratigraphic, or historical snaphots, widely separated by a known epochal period, are compared where shift has occurred between them, there is therefore every probability that this has been due to accumulative drift. In the same sense, macroeveolution depends on some ratiometrically proportioned accumulative contribution from microevolution, and rapid, cladogenistic splitting of species. What we may confidently infer is that the punctuated equilibrium model has an extensively multilevelled action, an analogous aetiology, in all possible continua where change ocurs over time.

In the effect of new minor percept arising within a drifting paradigm, either endogenously or due to percolating import across the semi-permeable domain boundary, the attributional makeup of central tenets is unavoidably affected. The relational adhesion between central and peripheral tenets implies this minor modulation. Although the core character identity of central tenets may therefore remain statically preserved, the modulating effect of slowly evolving attributional overlay changes its personality.

We can see this effect operating in many mythologies, where the personality of an identity is modulated by cultural osmosis and import of percept. So we have the Interpretatio Romana, or the “Roman understanding” which occurred in the admixture of Roman and Greek culture after the Roman conquest of the Greeks in the 3rd Century. There, Artemis became identified as Diana, Demeter became Ceres, Vesta adopted Hestia’s identity, Poseidon became Neptune, the Apollo identity remained Apollo but instead of only being responsible for prophecy, medicine and archery, adopted some of this personality in his main task of being god of the Sun. Greeks maintained a culture that worshiped many gods but tolerated imported diversity, and generously accepted the immigration of divine identities by familial adoption. The change of names involved does not mean loss of central identity, as each admixed cultural sector could readily identify who was being referred to in their “new personalities.” In a further development of this, socio-historically and memetically in realtime, the original name and possibility of common cross-identification may be lost in the understanding of a more modern cultural consensus – e.g., Diana no longer identifiable as Artemis – at that point, shift may be said to have occurred, the product, in this case, of accumulative drift.

So we see the effect operating also in evolutionary development at the lowest rungs of the organicity continuum: there, vertical gene transfer (generational between parents and offspring) tends to preserve core identity, while horizontal, or lateral gene transfer (by processes of conjugation, transduction and transformation, between different species) affects the phenotypic expression, individual personality, and implies an extrinsic modulation of the core identity. I

In the case of shifting memetic paradigm, those minds questing beyond the bounding envelope understand well the tenets, relationships of percept, the reciprocally mutual proof of intrinsic memes and IECs comprising the body of the paradigm to be discarded. In stretching the envelope, their leaping insight contains all precedent and evolves it. The paradox to penetrate is that those clinging to a set of discarded tenets, contained in a rapidly separating envelope, splitting off and left behind, regard themselves as adherents of a different, and not an obsolete paradigm. II In evolutionary terms this case is so common that it is the general one, where old static taxons, among them the coelacanth, molluscs and reptiles, coexist with those species that quantum-leaped beyond them. In all rationality we may therefore regard the present form of Homo Sapiens as transitional, to be evolved beyond.

This process has an almost exact equivalent in the case of DNA-recombinative meiotic cell-division with, or without advantageous mutational development, as compared to the normal mitotic cellular complement of the individual. The new phenotype which is potentially enabled in a future conception effectively contitutes a new paradigm. When the “apple has not fallen far from the tree,” we may say that this analogises paradigmatic drift, whereas in radical personality difference, shift has occurred.

Frank Valentyn


I From a referred source in a previous article, “Vital Tree of Life,” –

Biologists recognize two types of gene transfer from one organism to another: vertical and horizontal. Vertical gene transfer occurs between parents and offspring, and horizontal gene transfer is the transfer that may occur between organisms otherwise. It is in bacteria that horizontal gene transfer has been studied most extensively, particularly in the last decade. Three types of horizontal gene transfer are known: conjugation, transduction, and transformation.

Conjugation is a type of sexual reproduction exhibited by some bacteria, the process involving the exchange of genetic material by means of a tube or bridge, the transfer of DNA occurring either in one direction or in both directions.

Transduction involves the transfer of genetic material from one bacterium to another with the intermediation of a virus. Essentially, when the virus infects one bacterium, it often carries away pieces of that bacterium's genome, and those pieces, upon the infection of a new bacterium, become incorporated into the second bacterial genome.

Finally, transformation is the process involving the uptake or incorporation of DNA fragments (plasmids) by a bacterium, first observed in 1944 by Oswald Avery. In this context, the important aspect of horizontal gene transfer is that in primitive cells such as prokaryotes it is now apparent that horizontal gene transfer readily occurs across species. (Doolittle, Ford W.; Scientific American February 2000)

II To be noted is a recent case of two Ph.Ds., highly qualified in both theology and advanced physics, arguing about geocentricism – one adamant that the theory was completely valid and that not only did the sun and planets rotate around the Earth, justifying this with extended formulaic reasoning, but that the Earth was indeed the true centre of the universe. I treated this case in The Nature of Being:-

There appears to be popular contention in an allegedly acute conceptual difference in the meaning of the alternative terms “geocentrism” and “geocentricism” – both of these are semantically derived from their root-form, “geocentric.” The suffix “-ism” refers instantially to processes, conditions, or beliefs. In the use of the terminological suffix “ic-ism,” this compound form is referent to “the belief in,” (-ism) a condition ( ic.) For example, for circles with identical epicentre but different radii we use the term “concentric” – a systemic condition or belief in a system definitively identified by this condition would justifiably be referable to as “concentricism.” A Linguistic alternative which is justified in the elisional omission of a homophonic syllable which generates a degree of redundancy, would allow “concentrism.” The choice of which semantic variant to use is not one of strict logical context as much as it is one of style, and the optionally extra stress elicited by the non-omission of the semi-redundant syllabic homophony in the “ icism” ending. When X is a thing, X-ic refers to it as an attributional condition and X-icism in the first instance refers to a belief in, or global application of, the attributional condition as a contextually applicable aspect of a system, or conceptual constellation of attributional elements. The idea that geocentrism and geocentricism are radically different conceptually, is singularly due to a synthetically definitive conceptual allocation which has everything to do with a quite personal inclinational attribution, and nothing whatsoever, with an intrinsic differentiation in fundamental, or interpretable meaning with any rational basis for such a lexical tradition. As other examples: parameter, parametric, parametrism / parametricism; center, centrism / centricism. In cases where the lexical root is such as, for example, “horizon,” we have: “horizontal” and conceivably “horizontalism,” – the generation of “horizontism” does not confer a specifically interpretable lexical bias with a one-to-one conceptual implication to these forms, apart from a synthetic attribution.

It is quite humorous to have recently witnessed an extremely protracted debate between two users of the internet arena, carefully defining themselves as being equipped with Ph.Ds in the area of contention, arguing about geocentricism (I want to accentuate the condition this time.) One of these is a literal geocentrist (I’m being economical now) who truly believes that (despite any vain scientific proofs which are dismissed outright) that the universe actually (yes, really) rotates about the Earth. Bringing in, and scholastically quoting reams of misconfractively interpreted expert reference, plethoras of scriptural chapter and verse and conceptually re-translated “fact,” they got on most diplomatically until finally, with some snide ad hominem tangents, they disagreed to disagree (I meant that,) parted their learned ways, and left it all there. Their dialogue, neatly marked in two contrastingly coloured fonts, would seminally appear to lend proof to a thesis that one can equip oneself with a doctoral degree and still believe that an engine actually rotates around its crankshaft. In slight extension of this, the car, the road and the starry infinitude rotate around that crankshaft too, unless of course you switch off the relativistically misperceived engine. For that matter, seeing that pistons do go up and down, the entire cosmos must be in a pluri-dynamic oscillatory hopping modality. More in view perhaps, is that the entire universe must of necessity revolve around the mote in an eye – and seeing that we are binocularly equipped, I would dare quip that the onus as which eye to choose for this onerous cosmic fulcrum is in the mite of the beholder.

(From: The Nature of Being, copyright © FV, Frank Valentyn 2003 to present, all rights reserved; Original endnote LXXXII, p 487; Part One; Chapter Five, Meditations; Page 99)

I am personally tired of all these "God fearing" people protesting evolution. It is quite obvious that it exists, and they are ignorent fools.

The Psychodynamics of Energy Control

All entities in an ecology compete with each other to their own best advantage. The modes of that competition vary widely, from direct predation of another species, to the exploitative use, access-denying occupation, or destructive alteration of resources. This competition essentially amounts to a competition for energy. It can be spectacularly evident in a closed eco-environment with many non-motile species limiting each other's proliferation, displacing each other, or affecting each other with their metabolic products. This can be as simple as one species denying another sunlight or water or as complex as one having an inhibiting hormonal effect on another. In hierarchies of interdependence between species that can contain very many relational pathways of which a food-chain is one example, there is also vital mutual beneficiation in the energy-processing modes of one species advantaging those of others.

Each species has modes of accessing energy that may overlap with those of others, but also possesses unique specialisation allowing it to occupy energy-source domains, access and utilise energy resources in highly specific ways - these specialisations manifest in mutual ecological pressures that balance in a usually delicate equilibrium of interdependencies. So we have generalists and specialists, generalism and specialism. A conspicuous symptom of this is in the balance between a specialised predating species and its predated species where the numerical predominance of them varies in a complimentary oscillation over time. As the predatory species over-utilises the predated one it disadvantages itself and declines numerically which then allows a numerical resurgence of the predated species.

The picture evoked is of a living matrix of interrelating and mutually interdependent species with multifactorial pathways of reliance between them crossing in nodes, each node an identifiable species, where pressure applied to any one node spreads out circumspherically to affect all surrounding nodes to degrees varying from minimal to catastrophic.

All species we may consider in this living matrix, live out their species' mass-aggregate effect in a vastly lesser conscious expression than that enabled by human consciousness - choice potential available to them is narrowly limited to their morphological and biochemical constitution, or a spectrum of neurally embedded fixed action programs (FAPs) which are elicited by specific environmental trigger situations and as such, across most of the species continuum, the concept of "choice" does not apply.

In lower primate species, monkeys and apes, the degree of conscious intentionality over the enactment of alternative choice potential, increases, is however often strongly frameworked by socialised protocols of behaviour, therefore restricted, and still separated from that available to humans by an enormous divide. We can see the living ecomatrix therefore expressing itself in mostly passive implementation of intrinsic potentials with the exception of the most evolved primate, human species. It is humans who have more capacity for predicting outcomes of the implementations of alternative choice than the entire remainder of the matrix.

We do not hold oysters, sharks or even orang-utans ethically responsible for their environmental effects but certainly apply such responsibility to humans. This allocatable responsibility lies in a continuum the view of which must of necessity be complicated more by the very necessary consideration of human cognitive-attitudinal attributes. Can we apply the same ethical expectations to an Amazonian farming family carving a desperately needed econiche by slash-and-burn techniques, as we can to the relatively far more educated management of a logging company marketing exotic woods from the same area? Educational differences, belief systems, perpetuated traditional behaviours and psychospiritual stances towards the environment radically affect how humans interact with it. Pertinently, we must also recognise that humans would not have come into being, not would their existence be maintainable were it nor for a vast segment of other living beings in the ecomatrix. As heterotrophic organisms (those that cannot directly obtain all their energy needs in a form un-preprocessed by intermediate organisms) humans are vitally reliant for their very survival on vast domains of other heterotrophs and autotrophic organisms (those that can directly access un-preprocessed energy forms.) Mostly such reliance is frighteningly user-transparent and nonchalantly taken for granted.

At least 40 000 different plant, animal, fungal, bacterial and viral species are used by humans in components of foods, medicines, clothing and shelter. More than a thousand important plants and animals have been identified as threatened by extinction. The fact that many of the delicate relational paths of interdependence are not well known or understood also makes it difficult to distinguish between species of alleged greater or lesser importance. In many such assessments, the perceived importance of an endangered species has an anthropocentric focus, how important it is for humans, and not specifically centered on an intrinsic value of the species itself. Of the 1,75 million species that have been identified, classified and named, regarded as a mere fraction of the total number in the ecomatrix, estimated to be between ten to thirteen million, most biologists accept the evolutionary biologist Edward Wilson's assessment that at present the annual extinction rate amounts to 27 000 species dying out and disappearing forever from the Earth. That estimate is based on observed evidence of damage to, and the disappearance of ecosystems and our knowledge of the species inhabiting them. Typically this involves tropical forests, jungle and grasslands, deforestation, desertification, alteration of natural water levels and courses, and devastating anthropogenic destruction and pollution.

In an ever-greater human entanglement with the environment since the development agricultural techniques some 10 000 years ago, humanity has increased 1 200-fold, from around 5 million to six-billion and in its destruction of natural habitats forms the single greatest threat to biodiversity. The depression of so many nodes in the ecomatrix and the total destruction of so many others is causing a wave of reaction that reflects inwards on the primary agent of these effects, on the human species itself, which accordingly has begun to seriously affect itself by affecting others.

Of a conservative two billion hectares of soil that have been degraded by human activity, 28% has been specifically due to agriculture, deforestation has been responsible for 29% and overgrazing for 34 %. A third of the world's land area consists of arid and semiarid areas, so-called drylands, where desertification has become a serious problem. These drylands support various populations amounting to close to a billion people. Of these regions, 70% are sensitively susceptible to degradation - 15% have been so seriously degraded that agricultural output has dropped to half of previous levels and fifty percent are degraded to noticeable degrees. Quite logically, economic concerns often amounting to a crisis status have resulted from practices brought on by the participants themselves.

In 1995 around 29 000 sq km of rain forest were destroyed, close to double that of the previous year. Deforestation in the Amazon, one of the greatest repositories of biodiversity on Earth and one of our greatest oxygen generators, amounted to an annual 21 200 sq km in the decade ending 1988. Although the level of deforestation is alleged to have dropped to 18 600 sq km in 1996 and a further reduction was promised by the Brazilian government in 1997, there is evidence that selective reporting distorts a trend that shows a gradual overall increase.

The world's oceans have been so seriously depleted that entire industries relying on them have died and this has led to the impoverishment of whole communities who have not even been able to find buyers for their equipment and infrastructure. Major studies have found that since industrialised fishing began in the 1950s, the oceans have globally lost more than ninety percent of large predatory animals such as the blue marlin and cod. A stark statistic is that industrialised fishing reduces fish stocks by up to eighty percent in some fifteen years, and although some non-predated species then rebound, these soon follow a devastating decline. Another study of fish stocks under U.S. government control reached a 2001 conclusion by the Pew Oceans Commission, that only 22% of these were being fished in a sustainable manner, with twelve of the thirteen largest oceanic fishing enterprises already severely depleted. Globally, toxin-polluted and overfished lakes, seas and oceans have not only lost fish stocks but the level of carbonic acid in them is increasing at a rate one hundred times faster than the world has witnessed in literally millions of years.(1)

The "metabolic products" of our ever-increasing global industrialisation, synergised by a nonchalantly optimistic population increase, have so contaminated our atmosphere, groundwater, rivers, lakes and seas, even the arctic oceans where DDT metabolites and other toxins show up in seal blubber, that it evokes a picture of humankind tightening a noose of toxins around its own throat and progressively choking itself.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration from mainly fossil-fuel combustion and agriculture has reached present levels that have not been exceeded in the last 420 000 years, and most likely not even during the last twenty million years. Its current rate of increase has not had a precedent in the last 20 000. Of other greenhouse gases that have now been conclusively proven to cause anthropogenically caused global warming, the amount of methane has more than doubled since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution almost three centuries ago, whereas nitrous oxide which can trap around 300 times more heat than an equivalent amount of CO2, has increased by 17% since its pre-industrial levels.

For those of us who casually run fresh water by just opening a convenient tap, it perhaps comes as a shocking realisation that most of Africa suffers such chronic water shortage that access to drinkable and often seriously degraded water may entail journeys of several hours, or in worst cases a full day, and that over 95% of untreated raw urban sewage in developing countries with their ever-increasing populations is discharged directly into surface waters such as rivers and harbours.

The world's fossil fuel reserves are being consumed at rates several million times their original deposition rates, and although there is some latitude in the scientific analyses of how long these can still be commercially exploited, there is no doubt that their "extinction" is in sight. More than two-thirds of fossil-fuel oil consumption in the United States is in the transport sector, aircraft fuel uses some 14% of oil in that sector with locomotives and ships consuming much of the remaining 5%. With many so-called renewable energy sources having a distinct seasonal sensitivity and dropping to their lowest U.S. level of just six percent of total energy consumption in twelve years, nuclear power becoming unprecedentedly unpopular in most of continental Europe with decommissioning planned for almost all existing reactors after living out their useful lifetimes without replacement, it is clear that the human world is facing a progressively critical energy shortage.

To the undoubted chagrin and frustration of some large corporates and even governments, conservation activists have achieved some major successes that have cramped some of their more nearsighted exploitative ambitions, among these restrictions on fishing, logging and mining, farming and industry, power generation and commercialisation, their techniques and planned locations. Yet, with energy needs growing ever greater, one wonders where the threshold lies at which technology moves in and the conservationists are forced to capitulate.

Some of the high-tech improvements on nature and its multi-million year evolutionary trials in excellence, efficiency and adaptation, such as genetically engineered crops, are acutely contentious and have led to the necessary development of newly specialised herbicides and pesticides which have unacceptably high mutagenic and teratogenic potentials.

James Lovelock formulated the Gaia hypothesis in the 1970s, the percept that the planet behaves like a single living organism - the concept is regarded as not having much practical scientific merit although it is agreed that the entire physical planet including its biosphere behaves like an integrated system. Perhaps the main reason for its practical value being regarded as minimal is comprised of a twofold impression gained from these integrated planetary systems: firstly the Earth shows a great latency in cause-effect evolutions due to the sheer enormity of the systems involved and long lag effects before symptoms become noticeable, coupled with the fact that an almost incredible amount of damage can be absorbed before non-return thresholds are reached and therefore also a great apparent capacity for self-repair; secondly, due to a very human cognitive-perceptual process of categorisation and classification, the enormous systems in the integral ecomatrix are separatively individualised and the degree of coupling between them is seen as flexible and loosely interdependent. However we see this coupling and systems interdependence, whether in a diffractive scientific view or an idealistic esoteric perspective, an outstanding fact is that the aggregate human species organism has become a substantial controller of the planetary bio-engine of which it forms an inseparable part. More pertinent is that the modes of control, simplistically, the way the meters are read and the buttons pressed, acutely rely on the state of human consciousness, the integral resultant of its present phase of psychospiritual maturity. To make this percept as acutely subjectified in our own consciousness we should abbreviate or acronimise that, perhaps Human Psychospiritual Maturity, HPM, is suitable to work with.

What is HPM actually, can we quantify it more closely, clarify it, understand its implied and intrinsic intentionality by projecting its built-in idealised objectives? In the "H" and "P" components there is not much loose latitude in interpretation, but the "M" component is acutely conjectural and definitionally is itself subject to the very state of its internal perceptual variables that would define it, consequently, would themselves be defined by.

Maturity in the clinical psychological sense implies the product of individuation and socialisation, and in a deeper sense, the understanding of selfhood in a harmonic context with all non-self. It is of course easy to address and condemn leanings towards materialism, egocentricity, onesided and self-serving elitism and myopically destructive exploitation of resources - we can easily see these symptoms distributed throughout all levels of human activity and enterprise, personal expression, trade and commerce, international relations, border conflicts, wars and social system stresses. Very relevant here is that we see that the individual worldlines of all subjectifiable entities in the ecomatrix mutually restrict each other's freedoms - complete freedom is a furtive and unrealisable ideal - it is the manner in which we mutually restrict each other's freedoms, and reciprocally, how we enable each other's latitudes of freedom, that controls how we can, and may express our lives and potentials. Practical freedom, and the only kind there is, and the only kind that we should allow ourselves to pursue, lies in harmonic relationships, a harmonicity in which mutual beneficiation is mediated, catalysed, and ensured by psychospiritual maturity.

Most of us know and understand these insights well already and ask how we can optimise the quality of lives, trans-species lives that is, not just anthropocentrically, human ones, and ensure long-term viability. Even this does not go far enough in its projection of ideal: we need to see this long-term viability itself as being a transitional phase towards a more ultimate growth of human potentials. We occupy a drifting planetary home in space with walls, floors and ceilings that are sensitively alive - we literally eat, drink, breathe and interpenetrate each other vitally.

In contrast with HPM we need to define its opposite, effectively this amounts to how the aggregate human species organism has interacted with its ecomatrix up to the present, an immaturity with some individual and grouped exceptions, but in its collective impact severely destructive, misperceiving and misunderstanding the harmonic pathways of interrelation.

What we need is a more mature understanding of the concept "harmonic freedom" - this is not the freedom of the past where one trading company visiting the newly exploitable paradise of penguin islands in the Antarctic circle in 1876, boiled down 405 600 birds for their oil.(2) It is not the freedom of the slave trade or the opium wars, or the Blue Whale hunt of 1931 that killed 30 000 until the "harvest" of 1966 could only deliver 70 pathetic victims worldwide.(3) It is not the freedom which Russia in its communist phase abused by stealthily violating international treaties and dumping some 12 million curies, 7 000 tons of solid nuclear waste, 1 600 tons of liquid nuclear waste and in excess of 18 complete nuclear reactors, many still containing their fuel rods, a complete nuclear submarine with nuclear warheads, and 900 tons of radioactive water from scrapped nuclear submarines into the Barents Sea, Kara Sea (4), and the Sea of Japan.(5) It is not the freedom that Japan insists on in still catching up to 650 whales for "scientific research" per year and no less than 7 000 since a worldwide ban on whaling in 1986, where the "scientific research" exclusively consists of degustatory tests in Japanese restaurants, and claims that whale populations have recovered sufficiently to resume commercial whaling. (6) It is not the freedom of the U.S. "Wise Use" Movement which insists that the Earth's resources are certainly not limited and which promotes whaling internationally at every opportunity.(7) Freedom is not causing massive whale strandings such as have occurred on the beaches of Fuerteventura and Lanzarote in the Canary Islands, off Greece and in the Bahamas, hours after military sonar exercises.(8) Freedom is not the forced child labour of an estimated 246 million children worldwide where most of these are working in hazardous and health-damaging environments,(9) nor the quite common council-commanded gang-rape of a woman for the alleged and unproven offence of a relative.(10) Freedom is not the Sharia law that a female rape victim must have four male witnesses to prove that it was not illegitimate sex outside marriage, which can result in a death penalty implemented by being buried up to the head in sand and stoned to death.(11) Freedom is not the religiously enforced Islamic rape of at least nine girls under the age of thirteen, and one of ten, to ensure that they were not virgins before their executions by hanging or shooting, to guarantee that they would go to hell and not paradise.(12) Perhaps freedom is also not the "L-curve" of wealth distribution in first-world countries and the siphoning of frozen energy in the form of financial instrument to a super-elite , where the top one percent are now estimated to own between forty and fifty percent of the nation's wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 95% (13)

Fundamentally all the above inclusively concern the garnering, control, channelling, transformation, redirection and targeting of energy by the intentionality of human consciousness.

From the author's book The Nature of Being © Frank Valentyn:

QUOTE:
Energy garnering can be regarded as not just a universal symptom of all more organised entities, a vital and primary necessity, but as much a natural right as the right to breathe (not to speak of air quality.) The phenomenon of energy funnelling cannot be called unnatural however, especially perhaps, because it is so markedly a behavioural component of our society. We take energy funnelling for granted – it is after all what builds roads, bridges, provides transport, educational and healthcare infrastructure, finances weapons research and the military and allows us our first tentative steps into space, doesn’t it? We need to carefully distinguish though, between organised energy targeting for optimal social benefit and energy funnelling, and it seems not inappropriate to use these as definitive terms, giving one a positive and the other a negative connotation. Organised energy targeting may philosophically be regarded as comprising a mechanism of non-self-serving accumulation and redirection of garnered energy, where we, perhaps stigmatically, may regard funnelling as motivated by egocentric psychodynamics.

The field of these considerations is perhaps best brought into focus by selecting extreme economic cases of energy deprivation, although it must be strikingly obvious that the true question is one concerning the merits of shifting the median. Addressing this issue from a (what many would perhaps regard as idealistic) humanitarian viewpoint, the conspicuous fact is that the capacities to perceive, to recognise, and to respond to classes of poverty and severely restricted economic activity which imply a truly demeaning human existence, may well each be brought into question, severally. That, in itself, is but looking at an extreme case and does not address the delimiting of enforced economic restriction across the social continuum. Wealth per se is not obscene, the selective funnelling of wealth and its concentration in the face of those facing impossible hardship and doom because of the way energy distribution is actually organised, is however, indeed obscene.

When we better realise the degrees of restriction imposed on our lanes of limited behavioural freedom, we see that instead of describing them as high-walled hollow roads, it is more apt to liken them to tunnels. Tunnels, like roads, follow a deterministically prescriptive direction of progress and travel. No longer could you build energy to climb out but have to acquire sufficient energy to break through the tunnel surface. Behavioural freedom of choice is then limited to the width of the tunnel, with the greatest ease of progress perceivable at its lowest horizontal point. This is the road most travelled and well recognisable as the straight and narrow, despite its culturally determined curvatures reflecting the beckoning lights intermittently visible at ends that turn out to merely be branchings or turns. Of course there are the countless many who question laughingly what all the fuss is about, the tunnels are after all full of opportunity, the recognised way to go, their progress parameters constitute meritorious goals and their branching nodes are subject to free and unimpeded choice, aren’t they? Such are the sentiments of the well-programmed to whom the process is transparent and unquestioned. We note that their stance is not to be regretted, nor identified as incorrect or to be atoned for – their stance is resonant with the maxima of their perceptual sensitivities in their individual developmental phase – it is exactly right for them.

Our modern societal lattice is so well-regulated, has achieved such self-reinforcing rigidity, that its allowed behavioural modalities define what is regarded as societally consonant, without much latitude.

Two salient aspects of this are our increasing lack of privacy and progressively rigid and dehumanised enforcement of energy garnering levies, EGLs. In both these aspects, individuals are to all intents and purposes as much the effective property of states as they are in the relatively shifted dynamics of socialistic and communistic regimes. The sophistication and intensity of transparently unseen, or acutely invasive monitoring of our every indexible somatic, psychological and behavioural attribute usable for commercial demagogic manipulation and population control, have escalated to such a degree that we can no longer afford to believe in the freedom of unmonitored expression of who we are or what we wish to achieve.

In this sense, we are progressively becoming, and desired to be, well-predictable, programmable and regulable nodes of expected productivity in the lattice. The musical parallel begs mentioning – it is cohesive melodic entities, quantised individuals, that form an evolving counterpoint in relational harmonic progression – not the music, that forms the melodicism. The one is primary source, the other a secondary and resulting structure which serves in incidental modulatory feedback function to allow individual adjustment of melodic coordination. It is individuals that create society, and societal feedback which allows coordinative, cooperative, or contrasting action.

To a degree, the contention and the conflict have always been between the collective and the individual. Presently however, the music threatens to become owner and conductor, a distorted application of the sense of an integrated whole in orchestrating command, a conflated shift towards scientism and materialistic pragmatism, away from an ever vaguer core of spiritual integrity.

Irrespective of our conformance, or lack of it, to the paradigmatically tolerated and prescriptively enforced behavioural spectrum, there is, what very unscientifically we can only describe as the subtly calling inner voice, intuition, speaking often in symbolic constellations that lie far below a verbal cognitive level, yet these perceptions point unfailingly to exactly the consonance or dissonance of our projected self-expressions, and their resulting resolutive tensions. This, undeniable aspect of our intimate channel to the single underlying whole, the undivided, the sacred inattributable, our source and destination, is our most trustworthy, abiding and unerring compass. Its intuitive indications are through our heart, manifest in our feelings, elicit overlays of testable cognitive percept, which together point the way ahead and the long way home.

END QUOTE. Extracted from: The Nature of Being, Part Three; Afterword, The Psychodynamics of Energy; pp 412-414 Copyright © 2003 to present, FV, Frank Valentyn, all rights reserved.

Whatever we as humans do, in thinking, emoting, speaking, dreaming or planning, or any one singled-out action selected from within our incredibly wide spectrum of human actionable potential, it is the result of our consciousness controlling and steering energy. Depending on how we handle that energy, we can uplift, rescue, succour or nurture, or, disadvantage, depress, debase, deprive and debilitate. However we handle that energy, it is divine stuff, its source is from the divine and wells from an infinite abundance. It is up to each of us to handle it with utmost responsibility, a sense of authentic accountability, and to channel it harmonically in each our own personal melody, aiming to make the music as beautiful and sacred as it is intended.

Frank Valentyn



(1) New Scientist; Marine crisis looms over acidifying oceans; 30th June, 2005. A report commissioned by the Royal Society, of the U.K's National Academy of Science found that if present CO2 emission rates continue until 2100, the Ph-level of global seas and oceans will drop by 0,5 points from its current level of 8,2 - this change is irreversible in any short-term scenario, or by human remediation after the fact. John Raven of the University of Dundee proclaims that "..it will take many thousand of years to return the oceans to their pre-industrial state." Crustaceans, corals, molluscs and certain photosynthetic plankton species (coccolithophores), all organisms which produce calcium shells, will be at ever greater risk as acidification interferes with their ability to form these shells and grow. In consequence, this biomass domain will be less capable of absorbing atmospheric CO2, in turn further affecting these organisms. The result is a runaway positive feedback effect with a potentially catastrophic outcome. The environmental biologist Andrew Watson from the University of East Anglia states that “Most climate scientists think the Kyoto targets themselves are wholly inadequate,” and “We need a sharp decline in CO2 emissions, down to half of today’s levels.”

(2) Ackerman, Diane; The Moon by Whalelight; publ. Chapmans Publishers (1993) ISBN 1 85592 076 X

(3) Encarta Electronic Encyclopaedia (2003) - "Whales"

(4) Zolotkov, Andrei, "On the Dumping of Radioactive Waste at Sea Near Novaya Zemlya", Greenpeace Nuclear Free Seas Campaign; Russian Information Agency Seminar: "Violent Peace - Deadly Legacy", Moscow, September 23 and 24, 1991.

(5) Zylam, Melana, Deep Trouble: Russian Nuclear Waste Dumped in Sea of Japan, "Far Eastern Economic Review" v.156 (March 18, 1993)

(6) Japan's call to resume commercial whaling, which would have ended a nineteen year moratorium on whale hunts, was firmly rejected by the International Whaling Commission by 29 votes to 23 with five countries abstaining (21st June, 2005.) Japan currently catches a total of around 650 whales of all types yearly, although it is allowed 400 Minke, specifically, under the "scientific research programme." Claiming that whale populations have adequately recovered, Japan wants to increase its annual Minke whale quota from 400 to 800. Since the moratorium took effect in 1986 more than 7 000 whales have been killed under the glorifying banner of scientific research, mainly by Japan. Other presently pro-whaling nations are Norway and Iceland which still bring in catches although public resistance to whale meat is palpably increasing. In Japan, 2000 supermarkets have stopped selling it, although Japanese diplomats repeatedly refer to anti-whalers as cultural imperialists, claiming that eating whale is a tradition dating back 4000 years, despite the fact that large-scale commercial hunting did not properly take off until after the Second World War. (New Scientist, 21st June, 2005)

(7) The "Wise Use" Movement consists of a loose coalition of anti-environmentalist organisations and started in the U.S. in 1988. It has had a hand in funding whaling and pro-whaling interests and actively promotes the perception that planetary resources are not limited. (New Scientist, 20th June, 2005)

(8) Autopsies of Cuvier's beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris), Blainville's beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris), and Gervais' beaked whale (Mesoplodon europaeus) found microvascular haemorrhage in vital organs, associated with systemic embolism, gas-bubbles in the vascular system, associated with the tremendous sonic impact of new military sonars. Strandings of these whales were observed literally hours after known exercises occurred. In the Canaries Islands case this was a period of four hours. (Nature; October 9, 2003)

(9) UNICEF; "Child Protection."

(10) The case of Mukhtar Mai (Mukhtaran Bibi) - www.mukhtarmai.com and a plethora of international news agencies.

(11) The case of Sufiyatu Huseini (Nigeria) - O'Sullivan, Michael; amaericamagazine.org

(12) The 1979 Tehran Revolution, fundamentalist Muslim regime led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. A credible list of 14,028 names is available (male and female) and some sources claim figures of several tens of thousands. 187 of these were women under the age of 18, 9 girls under the age of 13, 14 between the ages of 45 to 70. The youngest girl to be executed was just 10 years old. 32 of these women were reported to have been pregnant at the time of their execution. (Establishment of the Islamic Republic in Iran & The Present Situation For Women - Darabi, Parvin; Dr. Homa Darabi Foundation; http://www.homa.org)

(13) Schweikart, David; political philosopher who proposes “Economic Democracy.” After Capitalism; Schweickart, David Ph.D. publ: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002; ISBN 0-7425-1300-9. Re L-curve, this has no relation to the Tikhonov curve, sometimes referred to by the same name, which has its roots in fine engineering for analysis purposes.

[removed by admin] You expect someone to read that?!?


Gone

admin's note: Could you please be a little bit more constructive and polite in your comments?

^It's a little late to be reading this^

Yawn. Psuedo science and new age-isms. Hence the use of 'enhanced' semantics and verbosities.

This is not science, it is another spiritual interpretation of life.

Your creation/evolution duality is a tired remix of the yin and yang brand of eastern thought, and your over use of the word 'quantum' and 'paradigm' do little but to impress upon me that you take yourself to seriously, Frank.

This is crap, and i will glady pick any of your so called 'new viewpoints' and go the distance.

There is a fundamental discordance between creationists and 'evolutionists', and that is one of approach. One supposes an answer and seeks to support that answer, and the other is a conclusion built on observations so structured to support it.

It doesn't get any more antithetical than that, Frank. It is very good, necessary in fact, to understand each other, but the implorings to do this in order to fully understand out exustense is a retread of everyone who ever wished to tell others what to think, every naive claim that someone has "The Answer" to all our problems.

You seem completely oblivious to the state of perceptions that are incongruent by thier very constructions, like digital and analog, like general relativity and quantum dynamics, like oil and water.

We all want to share in the wonder of how we see things, how we each experience the profound experience of existence and the meaning behind it.

But supposing there is a common foundation in structure, even purpose, of these myriad viewpoints - specifically the opposites of creationism and Darwinism, is misguided at best, and dangerous and naive at worst, and egocentric and opportunistic at most likely.

You talk details and mechanics but miss the primary difference that you suppose to address, that of the psychspiritual need to see things a certain way. It is a matter of common sense, not couched spiritualism.

Dear mixmix,

My deepest apologies for boring you with what you regard as "enhanced semantics and verbosities" - I in turn graciously forgive you for your unbridled animosity which shines rather clearly out of your blunt and unconsidered accusations. Also for the low-class language you use - but then I expect you move in different circles and I truly do understand that this can be very infectious. In response I would prefer not to come down to your level - and far down is what I consider it to be. It is never misguided to wish to remain refined, to use reason, rationale, debate and thetoric to defend your own insights in contrast to those you disagree with, but I suspect you have not had the good fortune to be exposed either to that refinement, nor those techniques.

The fact that you appear to be somewhat semantically challenged is completely forgiveable, and curable too, I would never hold it against you. Except of course, that if you can't come up to an expected linguistic level, than it seems a little ungracious to attack the originator of it instead of alternatively applying a smidgin of self-motivation in picking up your own reading and interpretative powers.

It is interesting of course, that your easy condemnation does not address a single point of the many percepts, precepts, quoted facts or conjectural projections presented in my articles, instead you simply offer a stance, based on your own worldview, which of course must be in advance of anything else offered, unless, naturally, this also agrees with yours. The suspicion presents itself that you probably haven't read much more of this work than some introductory sentences that acutely piqued your ire and motivated you strongly enough to pump out your patronising and over-familiar denunciation, Sir.

Fundamentally my thesis is that the polarised antagonism and precipitous schism between evolutionism and creationism is acutely unnecessary - this is not "new-agish" nor wistful pseudoscientific ambition. To gain some insight into this perspective does however require a substantial paradigm shift, and not just a bit of drift in a few minor percepts - it is however accomplishable and offers a resolution which I regard as preciously vital, not just in its psychospiritual implications, but pertinently (sorry I keep using these five-syllable words but they come naturally to some) also in its ability to modulate interpersonal dynamics, and those between greater memetic groupings. Ultimately there is only a single all, a cosmic continuum, an "universum" which, diffracted into as many specialised facets of perception and interpretation, subdomains or reams of continua, once had no quantised ontology, no symmetries or assymetries, no faceting. There is every possible reason for seeing evolutionary mechanisms as creatively developmental, and in an ultimacy, to see the original ontogenic quantisation as being a moment (in itself a temporally quantised percept) of creation that is indivisible from evolutionary process.

If you regard that as second-hand old-hat, please do feel welcome. It's obviously not intended for you. Many appear to find the derived insight, as it is built up carefully from both a pragmatic scientific view concomitantly with deep spirituality, to be a vital convergence and a fulfilling answer. Of course, if you believe that science and spirituality are fundamentally irreconcilable and irrevocably divergent, don't catch that boat, don't take the journey, and dismiss the destination - that's entirely your choice and you have the fullest right to it. Fortunately my book The Nature of Being, is selling well and I have every wonderfully satisfying indication that quality people do recognise quality. I am getting very laudatory feedback from Ph.Ds in many disciplines, from the head of a TV service and film producer, among others. To place that in perspective, it is they who are applying some ambouchure to the trumpet and not I, I have a very humble stance towards my own work, but certainly believe in its fundamental tenets utterly.

Opposites of course are always exactly that aren't they... two sides of a coin that are mutually denying, can only each be seen singly, and one only believed in where the other is imaginary, fictitious, or each valid in their own epistemological domain but totally unrelatable and irreconcilable, until the paradoxical dualism, the bi-unity, is seen as resolvable from a higher view, just like the two sides of that coin can be seen simultaneously in a higher-frequency radiation band. Agreed that to some this makes no sense whatsoever, it is their phase of psychospiritual development, and exactly right for them. Oh, and please learn how to spell - I promise that it will serve you well, lend your own stance a little more weight and definitely assist you in being somewhat more believable yourself.

FV

the 8 hour work day would have to extended to 96 hours per 24 hour period.

By my calculation it would take approximately 45 minutes to place an order at a drive through.

The average book would weigh 16 lbs

A bottle of aspirin would be 12 feet tall to accomodate the directions.


A stop sign would consist of 2 pages.

Jack and Jill would still be on the top o the Hill explaining the how they could manipulate H2o and the well bucket to fly back down.

What am I talking about ?