The Narrative of Priunits. (Copyright. Jack Healy 2015)
A new cosmic narrative by Jack Healy
Preamble.
The main points of the narrative of priunits are as follows.
- The pursuit of the narrative anchors itself in one essential question: Given that we the humans are consequences of cosmic process, is there a presiding narrative that began with the big bang and ended most recently with the emergence of us?
- If such a narrative exists, has it come to a conclusion in us, or any aspect of our extended experience?
- If it has not come to a conclusion in us, or any aspect of our experience, how will it continue to process through and beyond us?
- Are we obliged in any way to serve the continuation of the narrative that might have given rise to us and if so, by what tools, etc., do we best serve that progress: Science? Religion? Politics? Law/Morality? Philosophy? Creativity?
- In this is implied a specific challenge to the concept of empiricism. If we decide that we are consequences of an ongoing cosmic narrative and that we are under obligation to the continuation of that narrative in some way, why do we conclude that we serve it best by realizing it as a set of empirical facts? (Narrative or not, why do we come to that conclusion?)
- The word “priunit” is a collective term, which pertains to all the entities which stock the narrative which began with hydrogen and ended most recently with us, the humans. So atoms are priunits, as are molecules and living things. We can learn much about the narrative by examining priunits. Pre-atomic things could also be considered to be priunits, but I am not exploring them as part of the narrative at this point.
- In this context the genetic/evolutionary (classical evolutionary) is seen as a stage in a broader narrative, the sub-phases of which to date are as follows: The pre-atomic, the atomic, the molecular, the genetic /evolutionary (single celled/ multi-celled) and the neo-evolutionary.
- In using the term “neo-evolutionary” I am suggesting that what we encounter in the human domain constitutes a phase beyond the classical evolutionary that pertained up to our emergence in the narrative and still does to our other living kin in the wild. This is not to suggest that the genetic does not pertain to us (which would be absurd) but that we encounter much in the human realm which seems to suggest that we choose to operate beyond the dictates of our own genes (and the dynamics of the classical evolutionary accordingly) to some extent.
- The narrative of priunits is the fundamental narrative of the cosmos.
The Narrative of Priunits.
The essence of this theory is quite simple and utterly obvious on one level. It involves a cosmic narrative that puts the theory of evolution in a new context. It also goes some way towards explaining aspects of the human reality that are not easily explained in what I am going to call a “classical evolutionary” context.
It begins with the invention of a collective term for all the entities that stock the narrative that has led from the big bang to us humans. While acknowledging the pre-atomic, I am going to address myself to the narrative that began with an abundance of hydrogen in the cosmos shortly after the big bang and led in time to our contemporary reality. The collective term that I am going to use is the term “priunit” (an entity which prioritises “unity” of presentation over “manyness” of composition). So atoms, molecules, simple single celled organisms, multi-celled organisms and finally humans are all priunits (and in terms of this narrative, the progression doesn’t necessarily stop there)
Of course, humans are multi-celled organisms as well, but in singling them out here, I am advocating that there is an aspect to humanity that takes it beyond the general multi-celled in the context of this narrative. In so doing I may be advocating that while all our living kin can be understood entirely in the context of the genetic/evolutionary (classical evolutionary) we may need to consider that the narrative has entered a new phase with the arrival of the human on the scene. For now we will call this new phase, the “neo-evolutionary”. Why “neo-evolutionary”? Because its attributes do not conform to those of the classical evolutionary but are possessed of a dynamic nonetheless. And so, my task here is to identify a presiding cosmic narrative that has led from the big bang to us (which may not have come to a conclusion in “us”), the sub narratives to date of which are, the pre-atomic, the atomic, the molecular, the classical evolutionary and the neo-evolutionary.
If the term “priunit” has validity in its application then we can say a number of very simple and perhaps significant things about priunits that might have a relevance to our reality. Firstly we can say that as the cosmos is progressing, the total number of priunits in it is decreasing.
This on the face of it might seem to be of little relevance. It’s certainly contrary to virtually all prevailing wisdom on the subject of cosmic narrative, which in every sense looks to a vast proliferation, both in number and kind. With respect to certain terms, this is accurate. If we look at the realm of the living we can see what is a vast proliferation of living things on planet earth. We see the same at the level of the molecular, again both in number and kind. There was a time when there were no molecules in the cosmos. As the cosmos unfolds and cools down the number of molecules in it is increasing all the time. What point then am I making?
Well, we see the de-proliferation of priunits very clearly however, at the atomic level. Without doubt, as the cosmos unfolds, the total number of atoms in it is inclined to decrease. For the uninitiated, there was a time in the story of the cosmos when there was nothing in the cosmos but hydrogen atoms, a tiny amount of helium and empty space. All the other atom types have come from this vast sea of hydrogen. The hydrogen coalesced under the force of gravity to form stars. In the high temperature and pressure environment of stars, atoms would fuse to form other atoms, initially, two hydrogens to form a helium (as happens in our sun), a hydrogen and a helium to form a lithium and so on. Carbon is the equivalent of six hydrogens, nitrogen, eight etc. The biggest atom is that of Uranium at a hydrogen equivalent (atomic number) of 92 and Bismuth is the biggest stable atom with an atomic number of 83. It is quite clear that in respect of that collective term “atom” the total number of atoms is decreasing. It is useful to point out that at this level the biggest degree of hydrogen equivalence is 92 with the Uranium atom. After that the structural paradigm is not such that it can support anything bigger, at the level of the atomic at any rate (interesting to consider that the imperative is there none the less)
In a less energetic environment, the atoms begin combining in a different way to give what are called molecules. As this happens, we see what looks like a proliferation of molecules. But the total number of atoms and molecules taken together is decreasing, since at least two atoms go into the formation of every molecule and even though the biggest hydrogen equivalent at the atomic level is 92, a much higher degree of hydrogen equivalence is possible at the molecular level with large chain molecules and crystals having what amount to millions of original hydrogens going into their making. An average DNA molecule could be said to have a hydrogen equivalence of millions. (My own is in the order of 4.7× 1027 _ my own weight in Kgs divided by the mass of a hydrogen atom.)
Molecules can combine to form other molecules but once the limit of the structural paradigm is reached in terms of hydrogen equivalence we see them combining in another way to give us the first living things.
Why do we need a new term at this point? Perhaps because the molecules are combining in another way to give presentations of unity that don’t rely on chemical bonding alone. Perhaps because for the first time they begin to be possessed of a mysterious imperative towards survival that can not be explained entirely in terms of their physical and chemical attributes (or anything else for that matter!!).
Essential to the first and all subsequent cells is the phenomenon of the membrane. For the most part the molecules in the cell are not bound chemically to the membrane, which could be seen as a single molecule. They certainly contribute to its maintenance and growth. But all atoms and molecules that make up the cell cede priority to its presentation of unity, which is represented by the membrane. What does this mean? It could be said as a statement to have no validity beyond the attributes of the language that gives rise to it. What is unity? Does the cell have the status of unity independent of my capacity to identify and allocate that status through the application of language? Well we can say that when it comes to priunits, they have the status of unity if they are mutually exclusive to other priunits. We can certainly say this of cells.
But we can say that the narrative of priunits is a narrative in presentations and realisations of unity that has produced in us, priunits that can detail that narrative in language. My capacity to identify unity in the cell is a part of the narrative that has led from these first cells to us. I am the cell talking about itself!! Indeed, I am the hydrogen atom talking about itself. The voice is the cosmos making potentially meaningful noise!!
We can say that the fundamental narrative of the cosmos is a narrative within the experience of unity. The cosmos has produced in us a dynamic experience of the “one”. The religious ring to this is obvious, but at this point, I mean it in the simplest of mathematical terms.
Why do cells divide? Is there any kind of cell that doesn’t? Certainly no cells that have made their way to contemporary life. (Although certain cells progress to a point beyond it, division is likely to be part of the history of any cell) If a cell didn’t divide what would happen to it?
It might be a good time to point out the second thing that can be said about priunits. It has an axiomatic connection to the first. In any system where the total number of entities in the system is decreasing by various processes of combination between the various entities in the system, the number of entities must in time progress to a total count of “one”. This ultimate entity I am going to call the “hyperparticle”. The fundamental narrative of the cosmos is a narrative of priunits progressing to the hyperparticle.
We can see this at the various stages. We could say that what is happening at the atomic level involves atoms merging towards the formation of the biggest possible atom, a vast eternal atom with all the stuff of the cosmos in it, but the biggest entity that is possible at this stage is the Uranium atom at a Hydrogen equivalent of 92. After that the structural paradigm becomes unwieldy and is prone to disintegration. The dynamic towards the hyperparticle is picked up at the next level and gives rise to priunits that have hydrogen equivalents that are in the millions before the limits of the structural paradigm is reached.
Enter the cell with a capacity to surpass any measure of hydrogen equivalence as encountered at the molecular level. Not only that, but it has the capacity to grow in size increasing its hydrogen equivalence in the process, in turn bringing down the overall number of priunits. And if it could it would grow indefinitely, towards a realization of the hyperparticle, pulling all the stuff of the cosmos into its burgeoning realisation of unity in the process. It would in time however reach the limits of its structural capability in this regard and disintegrate; dramatically reversing the decrease in priunit numbers that its existence and growth had given rise to in the first place. It is far preferable that the cell divides before this happens to give two smaller, structurally stable cells, both of which in turn grow and divide and hold the potential to constitute as building blocks for a future entity. Of course, there is no intent or standard in this. That is the way it happens in the context of the chemistry that is available to it at that time. It has lead in time to my capacity to comment on it as I am now doing.
In terms of priunit numbers, a small measure of proliferation (one to two) through division is chosen over a vast measure of proliferation through disintegration. At this point the dynamic to the hyperparticle goes from being intrinsic to extrinsic.
Also, at this point we see the cosmos behaving as if pragmatically, recognising that the cell is not such that any one of them could progress to the hyperparticle and that it at best could support the imperative by dividing and becoming a potential building block for a future entity. Some billions of years later I’m at my desk writing this.
Gene based evolution takes over. In time cells that coalesce after dividing gain an evolutionary advantage and the first multi-celled entities come into being. Cells have the capacity to adapt to particular tasks in respect to the needs of the entity, depending on where they are located within it and an extensive proliferation of plant and animal life, both in quantity and kind, is the result. But it is important to remember that in respect of this proliferation of living things, you have a de-proliferation of overall priunits and a measure in turn of progress to the hyperparticle. It is also important to consider that it is the cell division that leads to its survival as a phenomenon, not so much its replication. It happens to replicate because its division is on the back of the DNA molecule, which replicates. Obviously, in replicating, the daughter cells hold the virtues of the mother cell in terms of potential to survive. The virtues are defined in terms of the capacity of the cell (and subsequent living thing) to prevail. In time, we the humans emerge and the fundamental consideration of this thesis is how this dynamic that has given rise to us will continue through and beyond us. It is also fundamentally concerned with whether or not this continued dynamic requires anything of us in terms of input.
Two last things I will say about this narrative at this point. Firstly, this narrative is the fundamental narrative of the cosmos. By this I mean that if there is an avenue of progress available to fundamental cosmic entities, it will in time lead to the likes of us, or alternatively it will end up in some dead end along the way. When two hydrogens merge to form a helium atom, they have taken the first step on that journey. The only other avenue available to them is to form molecules. In as far as they can move forward in this regard, the molecules that they form can only progress to the formation of entities like us, or, as I say remain stuck somewhere along the way. If we want to know what the cosmos has done to date, we can say that it has produced us. If we want to know what the cosmos is going to do from now on we may look to what we are going to do with it in as far as it is manifest in us. In this context it is understood that gross cosmic entities such as stars and planets are not so much seen as fundamental cosmic entities, but vast collections of fundamental cosmic entities involved in progress to the hyperparticle or, as I say, stuck in dead ends along the way.
Secondly, a scenario of decreasing cosmic energy seems to facilitate progress in the narrative of priunits. Each new phase seems to happen on foot of a drop in ambient cosmic energy.
The Narrative of Priunits in the Human Domain.
If the narrative of priunits has validity, is there evidence to support it in the human realm? We can analyse what we encounter in the cosmos up to the emergence of the human in terms of the narrative of priunits. Can we analyse what has gone on and goes on in the cosmos since the emergence of the human accordingly?
There has been much effort to analyse the human reality in terms of the classical evolutionary and the genetic reality upon which it has progressed. What I am advocating here is that, while the human is fundamentally a genetic phenomenon, the human realm constitutes a phase beyond the classical evolutionary but in keeping with the narrative of priunits. What we see in the human domain is an improvement on the classical evolutionary in terms of service to the narrative of priunits. What detail in the human realm supports this thesis?
But before proceeding to that analysis, let’s look at the essentials of the narrative of priunits. It is characterized by:
1; A constantly decreasing number of priunits by various processes of merging between existing priunits or by cell division or other modes of asexual reproduction or by sexual reproduction.
2: Scenarios that prevent, or result in the avoidance of, a reversal of this dynamic, such as cell division before cell disintegration and progress towards increasing size and terms of life amongst the living.
3: Accommodation of the dynamic in a subsequent phase when the limits of progress are reached within a given phase.
4: Ultimate progress to the hyperparticle.
Again we can see this clearly in the narrative right up to the emergence of the human. It requires of us that we read a proliferation of living things as a de-proliferation of general priunits. But what do we see in the human realm?
To begin with, we see an imperative towards freedom from the strict dictates of the genetic in how we choose to operate as humans. In many casual ways (and perhaps ways that are not so casual), without any particular grand agenda in mind, we entertain the possibility of manifesting beyond the limitations of the genetic and the chemical realities that proceed from it. For me, this theory began its days in the context of a book I was writing about acting. What ultimately intrigued me about acting was that it involved the actor playing with both versions and conceptions of the self beyond the limitations of the genetic. This gave rise to an interesting consideration on the subject of personal truth and the concept of truth in general. If a concept of personal truth prevailed, the convention seemed to involve a measure of fidelity to one’s own genes. By an outmoded convention, a person who dyed their hair or had recourse to too much make-up etc. was considered to be involved in an act of deceit of some kind. We have moved on to an era in which we accept that one can make choices about how one is, independent of the dictates of one’s own genes. In a simple example, hair colour is now a choice often made independent of genetic endowment. We do not think of a blond or a redhead as necessarily required to be genetically so. Indeed we live in an age where we can choose a gender other than the one to which we were born.
It is true that we may be genetically compelled to consider manifesting beyond the genetic. But whether or not we are hardly matters. It seems to be the case that we have become obsessed with progressing a narrative that has happened up to our arrival on the scene within the limitations of the genetic, beyond those limitations.
Perhaps the most serious manifestation of this freedom is the extent to which we can make adjustments to the consequences of certain genetic conditions by chemical or other interventions. In general we make medical interventions in how we are. In the context of a more general view, we see the human entertaining and enjoying the ability to operate beyond the limits of the genetic in so many different ways. We get plastic surgery, we put on make up and we pursue courses of education and general self-transformation. We body build. We act. We take mind and mood altering drugs. We pursue personal transformation through the practice of religion and through other transcendental modalities. We sing. We generally transform our own voices and accents. We wear clothes, not so much to keep warm or out of a sense of modesty, but that we can have some choice in how we present to the world. We are concerned with transforming any aspect of our own presentation and sense of personal realisation that we can. We are inclined to use the manifestations of the genetic fact into which we are delivered as fabric with which we can shape other presentations and experiences of “self” outside of its limitations. We undertake to adjust our behavior according to moral, legal and other codes contrary to the chemical imperatives that proceed from the genetic realities into which we are born.
We choose to over-ride fear. We have a genetic compulsion to respond with fear to certain situations, but can consciously choose to override that fear if there is a perceived benefit in the fear-inducing situation. Consequently we perform, opt for surgical interventions of one kind or another, sky dive, do exams, ask people out, play sports etc.
In terms of service to the narrative of priunits, the best aspect of this is how it brings us beyond the dynamics of the classical evolutionary in how we choose to manifest. This largely shows in two ways as follows.
Firstly, when it comes to the survival of humans (and by some codes, all sentient life) we make interventions such that the agenda is not set by classical evolutionary dynamics. In the context of classical evolutionary dynamics, only those who are both compelled and equipped to survive on foot of genetic endowments, do so. We make interventions such that as many humans (and again by some codes, living things) as possible survive, whether they are genetically advantaged to do so or not. The bias of human activity has been towards long and happy life for as many as possible. Some choose to respond to religious codes, which oblige us to “increase and multiply”. Whether or not we do, there is no doubt that the population of humans on earth is dramatically increasing (the number of priunits in turn decreasing).
In general, this has given rise to moral codes in religious and other contexts, codes of law and charters of human and animal rights.
In a competitive situation, we are not entitled to exercise an advantage, on foot of genetic endowments, over others not so well endowed, in respect of limited resources. In such a scenario we undertake to mediate the chemical imperatives that might hold sway in a classical evolutionary context, such as hunger, fear, anger and a need for comfort etc. Again, this involves an intervention in the dictates of our genes with a view to an outcome beyond what is possible in the environment of the classical evolutionary, where the agenda is set entirely by the genetic.
In general, in terms of service to the narrative of priunits, we choose to make an intervention in the dynamics of the classical evolutionary with improvement in mind. This is a characteristic of how we assert our consciousness. We make interventions in things with general improvement in mind. It has brought us from the Iron Age to the computer. We look at the dynamics of classical evolution, in terms of service to the narrative of priunits and we make interventions with improvement in mind. More living things survive for longer because of the interventions that we make than would do if the dynamics of classical evolution were allowed to prevail.
The second way in which we choose to operate beyond the dictates of the genetic in terms of service to the narrative of priunits is a little bit more sophisticated than the first. The total number of priunits comes down on foot of two broad mechanisms witnessed throughout the narrative. One of these is reproductive. This gives rise to the proliferation of living things (and in turn, the de-proliferation of priunits) that proceeds from sexual and asexual reproduction. The dynamic I describe above involves an intervention by humans to remove the fruits of the reproductive from the dynamics of classical evolution with a greater degree of survival in mind. The other dynamic that gives rise to a reduction in priunit number is what I am going to call the “assemblative” dynamic. Perhaps the most recent assemblative outcome in the narrative involves single celled entities clustering on division to give the first multi-celled life forms. We choose as humans to pursue assemblative scenarios in the human realm in a way that would decrease the total number of priunits, perhaps beyond the dictates of the genetic.
The first way involves serving an increased proliferation of living things beyond the limits of the classical evolutionary but within a conception of the living as we contemporarily encounter it. The second way in which we operate involves us exploring possible priunitary assemblies proceeding from and beyond what we contemporarily encounter. The essence of this involves us ceding a sense of prior unity to entities that contain us, in terms of which we are fractional, in keeping with precedent; in much the same way as our own cells give rise to us.
There is an extent to which this is dictated by the genetic and the dynamics of the classical evolutionary. Animals, which were genetically predisposed towards herding, were more likely to survive over those that didn’t. We as humans experience that scenario as well. We are genetically inclined to herd and perhaps have enjoyed an increased capacity to survive on foot of that inclination. But we can also consciously dwell on the generation of units that contain us beyond the simple limitations of this primitive herding instinct. In keeping with the priunitary dynamics that gave rise to us, we look to future units that might contain us in terms of which we are fractional, in much the same was as our cells gave rise to us. Much of what we do as humans involves pursuing the life of such units, from families to nations, teams to choirs, dance troupes, bands, orchestras etc. All kinds of performance realities involve an audience joyfully experiencing a measure of shared unity (be it in a creative, sporting, religious or political context). There are audience scenarios where audience members will breathe in unison. We all know and are in thrall to the kind of power we experience from the collective cheer that goes up when our team scores.
A choir at work is a good example of the relevant dynamic. When we sing in a choir we cede a sense of prior unity to the collective voice of the choir. We could say that the fundamental dynamic of the cosmos is a process of “we” becoming “I”, where the “we” and the “I” are in two different linguistic paradigms.
As I say, much of what we do as humans in this regard can be analysed in terms of the genetic, but in keeping with cosmic precedent, we consciously undertake to venture beyond this limitation. In terms of the relevant dynamics that we have seen so far, atoms can merge with atoms to form other atoms, or atoms can merge with other atoms in a different way to form molecules. Molecules in turn can merge with other molecules to form larger molecules or molecules can merge with other molecules in a different way to form the first simple life forms.
Life forms merge in different ways to form other life forms. The most significant of these is the clustering of cells after division to give the first multi-celled entities, which lead to the broad world of multi-celled animals and plants, which prevails today. If “life” has a definition here, it is that it is rooted in the gene. Before they merge, they develop the capacity to replicate, but when it comes to service to the narrative of priunits the merging may be more relevant than the replication.
Again, if cosmic precedent is anything to go by and if it has not come to a conclusion in the human, we are possessed of a precedent which will have us merge with other humans (indeed, other living things in general, perhaps even other priunits) to form future entities of which we are part, to which we cede prior unity and beyond any definition of “life” that we now entertain. Again if precedent is anything to go by, these future entities may or may not be based in the gene. In itself, the fact that we might entertain life beyond the genetic is interesting. There is no reason why the concept of life must be tied to the genetic. That is just the way it has happened here, on earth, and up to now at any rate. The genetic has served the dynamic very well up to now, but now, much of what we encounter in the human realm involves us entertaining the relevant dynamic beyond the limitations of the genetic. If “life” moves beyond the genetic, we may need a new word for it, or may need a modality beyond language to detail it. And indeed, in every sense, what will the phenomenon that is “we” now, be then? What will life be then? It is interesting the extent to which a concept of life beyond the experience we now have of it is a concern for us, mainly in the religious context.
The third way in which we see the narrative of priunits at work in the human realm points to the apparent validity of the religious imperative that we encounter amongst humans. There is an obvious parallel between the idea of a progress to a shared and eternal state of “oneness” that we see as part of several religious traditions and the narrative of priunits progressing to the hyperparticle. The Buddhist tradition literally advocates moving beyond the limitations of the embodied experience of the self to a realisation of absolute oneness. In the Christian tradition, the fundamental narrative sees the living progress to a state of ultimate blissful eternal unity in the experience of God. Does this have a parallel with the narrative of priunits to the hyperparticle? In this regard, it is interesting the extent to which the concept of “unity” is central to the best aspects of the human project.
We have already looked to the moral imperative at work in humanity and the extent to which it has become secularised in the rule of law and various charters of rights, in the religious context. In the Christian, and indeed in other traditions, the moral imperative to a large extent required of us that we act contrary to our “animal natures” as a way of serving progress to a state of shared oneness with God. Perhaps this has been nothing more than a requirement to move beyond the chemical imperatives that proceed from the genetic reality in determining how we choose to behave.
Much of this has had a focus on sex and sexuality. In the past, the morality here had as much to do with combating the potentially disastrous consequences of licentiousness prior to the discovery of antibiotics and contraceptives. Now that morality no longer is required to protect us from these outcomes necessarily (though many religions choose to keep that focus) what are the virtues of chastity and celibacy (if any) and how can they be analysed in terms of service to the narrative of priunits?
In the era of classical evolution, the narrative of priunits was largely served by a de-proliferation of priunits on the back of a proliferation of living things. This was initially served by a process of asexual reproduction and in turn, one of sexual reproduction. The most significant new type of entity to emerge in the period of classical evolution was the multi-celled entity (a consequence of the assemblative tendency) the advent of which gave rise to a significant decrease in the total number of priunits.
It is likely that the next phase of priunitary development will move beyond any of these; the asexual, the sexual and the multi-cellular, and the monk, or nun or indeed any one who chooses to operate beyond the sexual (which is largely reproductive) is perhaps choosing to liberate consciousness and make it available to the next phase of priunitary manifestation (in the assemblative sense) whatever that might consist of. I return again to the centrality of voice work to a lot of religious practice. It is interesting the way in which it can create a sense of assembly amongst humans beyond the limits of their embodied states.
But It is also interesting to think though that the sexual act, in that it can involve a blissful sense of a two becoming a one (which is part of the essential mode of priunitary decrease) serves the narrative of priunits validly without any necessary requirement for procreation (though that of course might be seen as a further bonus). Am I making an argument for group sex? (As Woody Allen says…….)
It could be argued that this theory has little substance beyond the language that I am applying to it here. I may talk about a decrease in the total number of priunits and may talk about priunits manifesting states of unity. On what grounds can I attribute the status of unity to anything I encounter? It has that status if it has a measure of mutual exclusivity in the physical sense with other units. But it could also be argued that that narrative has produced in me, a unit that can detail that narrative in language and in turn herald it through the linguistic phase towards further relevant progress. (In the beginning was the word, and the word was of God and the word was God.)
I am not making an argument for religion, or for service to the narrative of priunits. I am pointing out perhaps that much of what we do as humans seems to be in service of that narrative. Nor am I advocating, that it there is virtue in it: it is all plain sailing in terms of how we bring our consciousness to bear on the narrative. Consciousness may be bringing us beyond the limitations of the genetic and the classical evolutionary that go with it. But if service to the narrative of priunits has validity, then consciousness may have a few battles to fight within its own ranks in terms of ultimate fidelity to that service. But that for now is another day’s work.
Science and Religion.
What I am writing here will undoubtedly pitch itself somewhere in the argument that has always gone on between science and religion. There are those who, in the world of science, dismiss the religious entirely, firstly on the grounds of its flawed cosmic narratives and secondly on the grounds that it advocates a mode of functioning beyond the throw of empiricism in its advocacy for the virtues of belief. Perhaps in the past we had an over reliance on the exercise of belief, because there was a real limit on how we could know. The march of science has led us to conclude that whatever journey we’re on can be fully realised within the experience of knowledge and that belief is no longer necessary as a modality by which we might be required to process any aspect of our experience. For many scientists, this passes without question. Science has already encountered some stumbling blocks in this regard.
But what journey are we on and what does it require of us? Priunit theory aside, if we accept that we are consequences of cosmic process (and what scientist would not?) why do we decide that the only valid way to operate in respect of that process is to realise it as a set of empirical facts? I am not advocating that we avoid or stop doing that, at least not at this point, but in terms of a processing of our experience, why do we think that this is the only modality that has any validity?
Science in the past (and to some extent today) has certainly had to do battle with what I would see as a misapplication of the exercise of belief in order to progress. Which brings me to the fundamental error of religion; the use of belief to attribute the status of the factual to things that simply cannot have that status. This creates error on two frontiers, firstly the attribution of the status of the factual to things that have been shown not to have that status (that the universe is only four thousand years old etc.) and secondly it fails to take cognizance of how belief can wholesomely be exercised as a way of taking us outside and beyond the limits of the factual with respect to service to the cosmic dynamics that have given rise to and perhaps contain our experience. If religion has failed, it has failed in not developing the exercise of belief as a more sophisticated tool in terms of what an evolving humanity requires. God and the soul may be very useful, essential and valid ideas, but we certainly cannot entertain them as fact. Perhaps by the time we can do so, we will have moved on from the era of the fact and all that goes with it.
In the context of the narrative of priunits I am advocating that we are the most recent offering of a cosmic narrative that began with the big bang and that, if that narrative is to continue, it will only do so in the context of actions that we take and choices that we make. It may not have been purposeful up to now, but we can undertake to progress its narrative with a sense of purpose.
If that is the case, why do we decide that we only serve a processing within our experience by realising it as a set of empirical facts? And if there is something fundamentally challenging in this it lies in the notion that in terms of what the progress of humanity requires there is no grounds to assume a privileging of fact over its own other (fiction?)
We can further challenge the notion that the factual has primacy by asking again; if we accept that everything in our experience is a consequence of process, is there any aspect of our experience that we can consider to be concluded? For example, is there a dynamic that pertains to the phenomenon that we call “science” and the phenomenon of the “fact” upon which it is built?
Those who know the history of science know that this is absolutely true and that science always advances not only on foot of a reappraisal of the facts but on foot of a reappraisal of the phenomenon of the fact itself. Given the implications of this in the world of quantum physics and the subatomic, it is no wonder that many in that world felt compelled to look to the religions of the east (Schrödinger, Heisenberg and Baum. Fritjof Kapra’s “The Tau of Physics” is a must read in this context)
But, in turn, if we acknowledge that dynamics pertain to every aspect of our experience, then we can not but recognize that if we make ourselves available to those dynamics in terms of service to a continuation of the narrative that gave rise to them, we may have to move on from our relationship to the concept of the factual. Not only that, but if we consider that our faculties of reason, which we tend to associate with scientific empiricism, are consequences of cosmic process, on what grounds do we conclude that the cosmic dynamics which gave rise to them in the first place have come to a conclusion in them? If we do progress beyond reason we must also consider that the progress may well be on foot of interventions that we make in the proscess. In the western world we associate progress to understanding with thought, investigation, knowledge and explanation. We certainly recognize a dynamic within the concept of understanding as the human race progresses. Many in the world of science might have difficulty considering that we may reach a point where, in order to progress on that journey to understanding we may have to leave our relationship to the concepts of knowledge and fact as we now relate to them, go. In order to progress in terms of the imperative implied in science, we may have to leave science behind, certainly “science” as we now know it.
This is as true of language in general as it is of science. We don’t consider that our progress as humans, as living things, as priunits will bring us to a point where language becomes a limited tool in service of that progress. It is hard for us to conceive of such a thing, the notion that if we progress to understanding we may need to leave the hope of explanation behind, or that at any rate, a need for explanation may become redundant or a distraction. In considering this we must acknowledge the notion that a concept of truth can prevail beyond the limits of fact and knowledge. The goal of the cosmos may not be so much that we come to fully know it, but that our experience as it now stands becomes fully realised within it. This is of course the goal of Buddhism and other religious practice. Whereas thought, a detailing in language and explanation are essential to the western, science based, progress to understanding, the eastern model, as pursued through the practice of meditation involves progress to states of understanding through a quietening of the mind and beyond the throw of explanation (and by extension, language).
The notion of belief then, may be nothing more than a willingness to accept that in terms of service to the kind of dynamic that might be essential to the progress of the human reality, the concept of the fact may be a limited and limiting tool. If the narrative of priunits has validity, we may recognise that there is a limit to which the scientific has an absolute function in terms of processing that narrative.
It may be time to reappraise Thomas Huxley’s statement; “The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence” Why is that a sin? (Of all things!!) It’s funny that he would actually use a language drawn from the religious. No surprise I suppose given the Victorian gentleman that he was.
Let’s try this: It is perhaps unwholesome in respect of some conception of that word to accept something without evidence over something for which there is. When there is substantial evidence to suggest that the universe is 14 billion years old, it is unwholesome to believe that it is only four thousand years old. Not only that, but it is unwholesome to assume that your belief is a valid basis for the attribution of the status of fact to what you choose to believe and in turn the rejection of a reality for which there is substantial evidence.
Again, this is the fundamental error of the conventionally religious; to use belief as a tool by which the status of fact can be attributed to things. It has led religious extremists to break that commandment which obliges them to the truth and in turn reject the fascinating reality of what may well be God’s creation.
If there is no evidence to either prove or disprove something, like the existence or indeed the idea of God, then “belief without evidence” may be as valid as anything else. The narrative of priunits, if it has validity, seems to suggest that our experience is only a fixture in the concept of fact to a limited extent and will in time, given precedent, lead to a state of absolute eternal unity. The parallel with the idea of God is obvious here and we will certainly not facilitate that progress by insisting on a priority in the status of fact. God is not a reality to us now but perhaps certainly a useful idea that we can come to fully realise through the exercise of belief.
But there may even be times when it makes perfect sense to believe something without evidence over something for which there is. For example, let’s say if you have a medical situation and your doctor tells you that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that you will die soon, then, unless there is a well-defined advantage in you believing him/her, you might as well not!! What have you to lose by it? In his/her scenario there is a huge likelihood that you will die, given the evidence that he/she has at his/her disposal, but in your scenario, you have factored in an element that he has not taken cognizance of in his analysis, a potential power in the circumstances that proceeds from your ability to believe in a positive outcome.
Why would he/she factor this in? Well – and here’s one problem with the evidential paradigm – there is evidence to suggest that those who challenge their doctors are more likely to fair better than those who don’t. So what he/she then might say, if he/she were to take that evidence into account would be: “You are very likely to die soon, but less likely to do so if you disbelieve what I just said!” In any case, the client in this scenario might serve himself well by considering that the 14 billion years of cosmic unfolding that has given rise to him might have another trick up its sleeve in respect to his continued survival as mediated through the pursuit of play within his own consciousness.
The most recent frontier of the cosmic narrative that began with the big bang lies in the experience we have, as especially mediated through the concept of the self that is the fundamental unit of that experience. If the cosmic narrative that gave rise to us is to progress through and beyond us, it will do so through that experience. I may well ask, on the basis of the evidence that is available; what else can it do?
I would like to finish with an anecdote. Well, two in fact. The first episode that I refer to, whether it is apocryphal or not, involves Galileo bidding with the Vatican philosophers to look through his telescope at the motion of Jupiter’s moons. They refuse to do so. They argue that it is invalid to do so since the idea of moons in motion about Jupiter is at odds with their philosophy and so must be the work of some demon acting on the mind of Galileo.
The rest as they say is history. Galileo was forced to recant on his position in support of Copernicus. The Vatican, needless to say was left with considerable amounts of egg on its face in the aftermath of this, given that the Copernican model was becoming generally accepted at the time. They did not officially reverse the position until the late twentieth century.
This joust was as much between science and philosophy as it was between science and religion. Up to the time of Galileo it was assumed that if conclusions were to be drawn about the universe, they were to be drawn from a mental process.
Galileo, the father of empiricism and by extension modern science, was of the view that if conclusions were to be drawn about the universe, they must be drawn on the basis of as thorough an examination of the universe as is possible. I use the word “rational” here in connection with the scientific, but in this context, the rational and the scientific (empirical) lay on opposite sides of the argument.
There is an interesting, and in my view, similar scene in the first episode of Richard Dawkins’ “Enemies to Reason” which to me has an odd echo of this one from the life of Galileo. In this scene Richard sits with some people involved in some kind of religious practice. They are chanting. Richard sits silently but respectfully (as is his way). There may be many valid reasons why Richard does not participate in the chanting, but for me it has an odd similarity to the Vatican philosophers refusing to look through Galileo’s telescope..
I may ask; what would it take for Mr. Dawkins to actually start chanting with the group and what in general would be the benefit of it?
If we progress beyond a need to realise as fact, essential to this is a willingness to move beyond an idea of ourselves as fact. This returns me back to a speculation on the work of the actor, which was the beginning point for the development of this theory.
Perhaps the hardest aspect of what Richard Dawkins would have to do, if he were to participate in the chanting would be abandon a fixed conception he has of himself. This is what actors do. For a scientist, the fact that he either refuses, or doesn’t know how to experiment – in this context- is amazing. What does the chant mean or imply? Does he have to sign up to its meaning if he chooses to chant? Can he? Can any one?
If scientists want to know what the cosmos is doing, all they have to do is keep an awareness of the experience they are having of themselves and consider how they can choose to operate within it.
The skeptical can involve a tyranny around the whole concept of the possible. The mythology with the skeptical stance is that it prevents us from deluding ourselves, or being deluded by others. We can only say that there is no God, there is no soul, on foot of an exercise of belief. It is a different thing to choose not to use the idea of God or to exercise belief as a modality.
What would it take for the skeptic to put his skepticism aside, or to even consider putting his skepticism aside? He could at the very least entertain as any scientist might do, that “fact” is not the only tool by which he might validly pursue and mediate his experience. He might bring this scientific sensibility that he so espouses to bear on the reality of himself and toy with the possibility of play within the rigid sense he has of himself and the views that he holds. He might courageously extend the scientific paradigm by which he claims to live and experiment with the experience of himself.
He might perhaps recognize that not only is he obliged to know the cosmos but to serve its continued dynamics, in which context, a need to know might become redundant or at any rate limited (and limiting). He might recognize that if he were to serve a continuation of the cosmic narrative that has given rise to him he may do it best by operating not just scientifically but also creatively in the most recent offering of that narrative as it is available to him, the experience he has of himself.
My name is Jack Healy. I am an actor and a playwright with a background in the sciences living in Cork, Ireland.