(logo) Natural Genesis (logo text)
A Sourcebook for the Worldwide Discovery of a Creative Organic Universe
Table of Contents
Introduction
Genesis Vision
Learning Planet
Organic Universe
Earth Life Emerge
Genesis Future
Glossary
Recent Additions
Search
Submit

I. Our Planatural Edition: A 21st Century PhiloSophia, Earthropo Ecosmic PediaVersion

A. Historic Prescience: Individual Homo Sapiens

Fox, Matthew. The Coming of the Cosmic Christ. New York: Harper & Row,, 1988. The book’s subtitle is “The Healing of Mother Earth and the Birth of a Global Renaissance” and is a lyrical mediation on the immensity of the coming revelation. We have lost an original vision of the correspondence of microcosm and macrocosm, as Hildegard of Bingen knew in the 12th century: “God has arranged everything in the universe in consideration of everything else.” If we can regain this providential secret then with St. Paul the world will rightly be seen as birthing and bringing forth a New Creation.

Gordin, Michael. Scientific Babel: How Science Was Done Before and After Global English. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015. If one might wish to gloss this fine review by the Princeton University historian of the presence and effect of a linguistic basis and bias for human inquiry, it could be, as MG notes in closing, that a deep historic goal of our natural research is to achieve an ever better, more accurate literary articulation.

Gregory, Mary Efrosini. Diderot and the Metamorphosis of Species. London: Routledge, 2007. We come to this work by a French Enlightenment scholar via a reference in Rebecca Stott’s Darwin’s Ghosts. An exemplar of his age, Denis Diderot (1713-1784), founder and editor of the Encyclopedie, also penned theories upon life’s embryogeny. Chapters here entitled Chaos, Probability, Epigenesis, Spontaneous Generation, Chain of Beings, Species Mutability, and the Ascent of Consciousness, are thus said “…to illustrate Diderot’s thought on the successive reorganization of matter from atom to man, as well as his belief that consciousness and motion are innate qualities of all matter, and that as matter successively metamorphosed into more complex organizational structures, higher and higher forms of consciousness emerged, as well.” (8)

But as immersed in a mechanical, atheistic mindset of the day, atomistic chance is seen at play within a malleable, transformative but directionless order. As such spontaneity “ferments,” a cosmic “lottery” then results. Yet by way of a tacit view of life’s recapitulative gestation, universe, earth, and creatures are seen to compose a vast “hatchery.” Nature is conceived as a self-patterning while blindly experimental force. But Diderot goes on to imply an animist, tandem ascent of consciousness with biological complexity. Across some 250 years, his version is quite akin, to Eugene Koonin’s The Logic of Chance, as an unresolved task remains to understand and square much plurality with an integral essence. As the quotes attest, a temporally repetitive scale of being and becoming is indeed witnessed, but without an initial or final cause. From our late vista, via a worldwide noosphere within an organic milieu, could the missing explanation of an innate genotype be at last witnessed?

Diderot envisages a whole that functions like its parts. This is similar to modern fractal theory for two reasons. First, many fractals possess the property of self-similarity. A self-similar object is one whose parts resemble the whole. This reiteration of details or patterns occurs at progressively smaller scales. A self-similar object remains invariant under change of scale. While the universe does not physical resemble a bird, a fish or an animal, its reproductive process is similar: both are hatched. The universe is hatched from inanimate matter as spontaneous generationists believed that animalcules are hatched from inanimate matter. (36-37) Estropier is to mondes as eclore is to univers, as both demonstrate that cosmic bodies have animal or human qualities: they are both hatched. The notion that the larger body is comprised of smaller constituents that resemble it concurs with modern fractal theory. (37)

The notion that every living organism is an aggregate whose consciousness is the sum of the consciousness of each of its smallest particles has an implication that Diderot exploited to the limit: is the world not a great animal endowed with consciousness of self? (152) The notion that matter is conscious at all levels of organization, from the molecule to the universe itself, and that a matter arranges itself into higher forms of organization, a new consciousness emerges that is greater than the sum of its parts. (163)

Groys, Boris, ed. Russian Cosmism. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2018. An NYU professor of Russian Studies edits a collection of original writings from this 1890s to 1930s visionary movement which arose from the rich Slavic soil, mind and soul. With chapters from Alexander Bogdanov, Alexander Chizhevsky, Nikolai Fedorov, Valerian Muravyev, Alexander Svyatogor and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, it is a companion to George Young’s 2012 The Russian Cosmists, herein. We note A Universal Productive Mathematics by Muravyev and The Future of Earth and Mankind by Tsiolkovsky. It’s fleeting, revolutionary moment evoked a numinous, panpsychic, animate milieu whence our fraught human phase is seen to yet have a phenomenal, creative significance. A century later, this website can report how a worldwise EarthKinder learning and achieving on her/his own could be of making this dream a reality.

Hagemeister, Michael. Russian Cosmism in the 1920’s and Today. Rosenthal, Bernice Glatzer, ed. The Occult in Russian and Soviet Culture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997. A Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich historian summarizes this grand vista, a rare entry before George Young’s 2012 The Russian Cosmists, see below. (In these editions “occult” means “metaphysical,” often a feminine Sophian sensitivity.) The quotes convey its positive, future oriented, meaningful quest, ultimately as ‘God building.’ But as Young also notes, with Vladimir Vernadsky as a prime advocate, the movement offered a profound antithesis to materialist totalitarianism, one that respects both creative persons and embryonic planet.

What lies at the heart of this flourishing interest in cosmism? Stated briefly, Russian cosmism is based on a holistic and anthropocentric view of the universe which presupposes a teleological determined – and thus meaningful – evolution. (185) As rational beings who are evolving out of the living matter of the earth, human beings appear destined to become a decisive factor in cosmic evolution – a collective cosmic self-consciousness, active agent, and potential perfector. Cosmic evolution is thus dependent on human action to reach its goal, which is perfection, or wholeness. According to cosmism, the world is in a phase of transition from the “biosphere” (the sphere of living matter) to the “noosphere” (the sphere of reason). During this phase the active unification and organization of the whole of humankind (living matter endowed with reason) into a single organism is said to result in a higher “planetarian consciousness” capable of guiding further development reasonable and ethically in line with “cosmic ethics,” changing and perfecting the universe, overcoming disease and death, and finally bring forth an immortal human race. (186)

Heylighen, Francis. Conceptions of a Global Brain: An Historical Review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Heylighen. A 2011 paper by the director of the Evolution, Complexity and Cognition Group and Global Brain Institute (Google each) at Vrije Universiteit Brussel. It can be accessed in full from the author’s Wikipedia page. A leading cybernetics and systems theorist for two decades, Heylighen is interested in the study and facilitation of this nascent cerebral noosphere of vital avail for a better world. He collaborated in the 1990s with the late Valentin Turchin to found the Principia Cybernetica Web. The paper advises how the worldwide emergence of a common humanity has long been prophesized, e.g., by Herbert Spencer, H. G. Wells, Pierre Teilhard, and others, but remains to be fulfilled by a true anatomy, physiology, and cognitive faculty. Its sections headings are: Organicism: Society as a Living System, Encyclopediaism: A Universal Knowledge Network, and Emergentism: A Higher Level of Consciousness.

There is little doubt that the most important technological, economic and social development of the past two decades is the emergence of a global, computer-based communication network. A general trend is that the information network becomes increasingly more global, more encompassing, more tightly linked to the individuals and groups that use it and more intelligent in the way it supports them. The “Global Brain” is a metaphor for this emerging, collectively intelligent network that is formed by the people of this planet, together with the computers, knowledge bases and communication links that connect them. This network is an immensely complex, self-organizing system. The global brain is a complex and multifaceted idea that has been proposed independently under many different names and guises. I classify the major contributions according to their guiding metaphor or source of inspiration. This results in three major categories that I label as organicist, encyclopedist and emergentist, depending on whether the global brain is seen as a social organism, a universal knowledge system, or an emergent level of consciousness. (1-2)

While most conceptions of the global brain are based on some kind of progressive evolution towards higher levels of complexity, intelligence and integration, this assumption receives surprisingly little support from the theory of evolution itself. The traditional (neo-) Darwinist theory emphasizes the gradual, erratic and non-directed character of variation and natural selection alongside the struggle for existence between selfish organisms or genes. It is only in the last two decades that biologists have started to focus on the “major transitions” in evolution, such as the emergence of multicellular organisms out of single cells, or societies out of individuals – studying the specific circumstances in which components can turn from selfish, competing individuals to cooperating members of a collective. (10)

James, William. Is Life Worth Living? International Journal of Ethics. 6/1, 1895. This entry is cited in a special Multiverse issue (Ann Alonso) on the Universe online site as the first time the word was used, see quote below. The philosophical psychologist (1842-1910) who thought and taught at Harvard University was an eminent scholar of his day. But as we read it, the paper also alludes to the fin de siècle closing of a scientific quest for a meaningful reality. James went on to profess a “pluralistic” model sans any inherent sense, a view which holds, and daunts to this day. And for another aside, some 125 years later we note that one can now draw upon a global cognitive repository and via Google retrieve this journal and full paper in a few seconds.

There were times when Leibnitzes could compose Theodicies, and when an established church could prove the existence of a "Moral and Intelligent Contriver of the World." But those times are past, and we of the nineteenth century, with our evolutionary theories and our mechanical philosophies, already know nature too impartially and too well to worship unreservedly any god. Visible nature is all plasticity and indifference, a multiverse, as one might call it, and not a universe. (10) These, then, are my last words to you: Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact. The "scientific proof" that you are right may not be clear before the day of judgment is Reached. (24)

Jantsch, Erich. The Self-Organizing Universe. Oxford: Pergamon, 1980. This unique, insightful volume by the German astrophysicist (1929-1980) can be seen from 2020 as prophetically way ahead of its time, a visionary exposition of a dynamic creation which spontaneously develops life, mind and personal significance. See How Complex is the Cosmic Web? byFranco Vazza for a current instance.

The evolution of the universe - ranging from cosmic and biological to sociocultural phases - is viewed in terms of the unifying paradigm of self-organization. The contours of this perception emerge from the synthesis of several important, recently developed concepts, to provide a scientific world-view which emphasizes process over structure, nonequilibrium over equilibrium, evolution over permanency, and individual creativity over collectives. The book, with its emphasis o interactive microstructures with the biosphere, and on how micro- and macrocosmos mutually create the conditions for their further evolution, provides a comprehensive framework for a deeper understanding of human creativity.

Life appears no longer as a phenomenon unfolding in the universe - the universe itself becomes increasingly alive. (9) In an Epilogue: Meaning, finally, the central theme of the dynamic connectedness of man with an unfolding universe is re-evoked. In a world which is creating itself, the idea of a divinity does not remain outside, but is embedded in the totality of self-organization dynamics at all levels and in all dimensions.(18)

Jenner, Richard. Globalization, Cultural Symbols, and Group Consciousness: Culture as an Adaptive Complex System. World Futures. 56/1, 2000. A parallel is discerned between dynamical societies and the Jungian process of individuation through its resolution of archetypes.

Johnson, George. Murray Gell-Mann, Who Peered at Particles and Saw the Universe. New York Times. May 25, 2019. This is an obituary by a science writer for the Nobel laureate polymath physicist (search) who has passed at age 89. Beyond finding and naming quarks, he is known for contributions from archaeology and linguistics to complex system theories at Santa Fe Institute. His 1994 work The Quark and the Jaguar helped establish the field of complex adaptive system studies. We quote a line as a capsule of 20th and 21st century science in which Murray avers the real presence of independent, generative principles. Murray Gell-Mann was a true iconic genius who merited a May 29 essay The Physicist Who Made Sense of the Universe in NY Times by the cosmologist Sean Carroll. But his books such as The Big Picture (2016) tout a quite opposite view that no intrinsic laws exist on their own. Here is the dichotomy - to be or not to be - that so troubles and daunts us today. In regard, Natural Genesis seeks to document humanity’s project in search of a mathematical source that is wholly repetitive at each and every realm. Could our late 2019 year begin to be the “someday” to come? After 8,000 annotated entries cited herein, this achievement may at last be evident.

In a talk (SFI) in 2007, Dr. Gell-Mann compared the last century of physics to pulling back the skins of an onion, finding at every layer that the same mathematics applies – and hinting that an objective reality can conceivably be explained someday by a universal set of laws.

Kak, Subhash. Indian Physics: Outline of Early History. arXiv:physics/0310001. In this 2003 posting, the Oklahoma State University sage scientist (search here and the eprint site) describes how, even centuries ago, this Earthly realm was distinguished by archetypal complements. As the quotes say, a Samkhya school takes a broad, holistic survey, while a Vaisesika mode attends to discrete depths. An amazing parallel then become evident today by their similarity with the brain’s dorsal and ventral streams, along with the right/left hemispheres. But we add that this should not surprise, for as this site tries to report, a phenomenal nature seems to prefer and reproduce this optimum pair everywhere. See also Time, Space and Structure in Ancient India by S. Kak at 0903.3252 (2009) which cites an infinitely recursive, repetitive existence.

The objective of this paper is to present a preliminary outline of early history of physics in India. The focus will be the schools of Vaisesika and Samkhya that were interested in general principles of atomic theory and cosmology. To summarize this background context, the Vedic texts present a tripartite and recursive worldview. The universe is viewed as three regions of earth, space, and sky which in the human being are mirrored in the physical body, the breath, and mind. The processes in the sky, on earth, and within the mind are taken to be connected. The universe is mirrored in the cognitive system, leading to the idea that introspection can yield knowledge. (Introduction)

During the Rgvedic period itself, it had come to be recognized that although nature follows laws, a certain freedom characterizes human behaviour. The fundamental unity of reality is thus split into two distinct categories related to innate nature and cognition. The universe not only exists outside of ourselves, but a copy of it, howsoever imperfect, exists within each one of us. The enumeration of categories as they arise in the space of the mind is the concern of Samkhya. The stated objective is to obtain discriminative knowledge of the manifest, the unmanifest and the knower. On the other hand, Vaisesika deals with the goal attributed to Kanada, the mythical founder of the system, “I shall enumerate everything [in this world] that has the character of being.” (2-3)

The two systems have differing focus. Samkhya addresses evolution at the cosmic and the psychological levels; Vaisesika delves deeper into the nature of substances and its scope includes both physics as well as metaphysics. (3) There is also a complementarity between Samkhya and Vaisesika. By considering the evolution of tattvas, Samkhya emphasizes genesis both as the cosmic as well as the psychological levels. More details related to the constitution of the physical world are provided by Vaisesika. (29)

Keller, Evelyn Fox. Contenders for Life at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century: Approaches from Physics, Biology and Engineering. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews. 32/2, 2007. The MIT philosopher of science recounts this long historical meditation to express a greater nature that is somehow innately moved to arrange itself in a nested, recurrent, quickening, emergence, advancing to its own self-recognition.

My theme is the concept, and the term, 'self-organisation'. Originally introduced by Immanuel Kant to characterise the unique properties of living organisms, the term's history is inseparable from the history of biology. Only in the second half of the twentieth century, however, does it begin to acquire the promise of a physicalist understanding. This it does with two critical transformations in its meaning: first, with the advent of cybernetics and its dissolution of the boundary between organisms and machines, and second, with the mathematical triumphs of non-linear dynamical systems theory and accompanying claims to have dissolved the boundary between organisms and complex physical systems. (113)

Previous   1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9  Next