evolution of consciousness?

General discussion about the Elder Race, Life, the Universe and Everything.
Post Reply
twilight boy
Indagator
Indagator
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:37 am

evolution of consciousness?

Post by twilight boy » Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:22 pm

evolution of consciousness?

I'd like to offer another perspective.

Soma.

Soma is not just flesh but also organization. It's a network of multi trillion cells. To be inclusive, it's whatever components a man must be. It is the crux of the evolutionary tradition. The reason why i think soma has been subjugated is because soma compromise has been mistaken for soma optima and since this false optima entails aging and death, life must be more than soma. To be frank, a lot of it is probably the aftermath of intervention. But even without factoring this into account,

Soma compromise is due to soma instrumentalization, i.e. soma as a means to survival and reproduction (even at the expense of the soma). Eventually, as the soma system builds up from accumulative change, as the system becomes more complex, in other words, has a wider spectrum of internal maneuverability, the internal contradiction between soma integrity and soma instrumentality becomes obvious, especially with the emergent soma awareness. This internal contradiction being embedded into the tradition can easily be mistaken, even by the soma (meaning, viscerally), to be natural.

(As mentioned, this scenario of contradiction can be further compounded by the effects of intervention. Particularly, the leaning toward the non material can be explained as an understandable way out of the awkwardness of a soma with alien dna, i.e. non earthly vs earthly. (The more the more.))

This is when you have a chunk of reality or perception associated with being in a place of no, or rather, hard to, return. And the difference between this and the reality of natural unfolding can be illustrated as follows. There has been numerous discussion on this site regarding free will and predestination. But there is a third position, also vigorously speculated.

Simply, hopefully not simplistically, if free will and predestination are descriptions of the relationship between man and circumstance, and free will connotes 'man over circumstance' , and predestination ' circumstance over man', then, the third position of natural unfolding, or what i deem as the operation of soma optima, connotes 'man WITH circumstance'. Recycling terms, it's a scenario of rivalry (free will and predestination, with their 'over') and rapport (soma optima, or synonymously, soma immortalis, soma dynamic responsive, soma non compulsive). Although I would like to point out that the WITH is more than a simple external affair, it's a resonance of nature, within and without, within therefore without.

In a way (as mentioned many many years ago in this forum) it's a path of least resistance, but from the point of view of soma optima, not soma compromise. It's least because it's effortless natural unfolding, there's nothing to practice to upkeep anything. It's a flow because the flow of communication between cells and clusters of cells is fluent. There's no sense of disconnection and alienation because the soma has become integrated; it's an organizational flair. Meaning is living, not lifeline.

On the other hand, soma compromise due to its soma internal rivalry will want to exert control, like an autocratic mandating strictness in a populace tired of endless warfare demanding peace at all cost. (And perhaps so strict for so long that it eventually implodes. Death). In such a scenario, the path of least resistance would probably lead to irrevocable soma discordance. Different contexts.

Another kind of difference relates to the emphasis on foreknowledge (ability to predict) popular among the consciousness camp. Bring into the picture soma optima as in soma dynamic responsive who can easily attune to whatever comes, and the campers's bias sounds almost like a somatic confession of its bureaucratic staleness. In fact, the ability to predict implies predictability. I mean, put just two (or even one) of your esteemed masters of improvisation on stage, and see if you can predict anything. In a way, that the world can be predictable suggests perhaps a human-wide condition of soma compromise. Which brings us to yet another kind of difference.

The reincarnation karma system, or even the mere exposition thereof by some spiritual escape programs. Question: what kind of soma system requires life-times to correct imbalances? Probably one with a resident framework enabling stuckness to accumulate. In other words, soma compromise.



Another way to look at the whole thing is this.

Until we have a cultural fabric woven with a vision interested in soma potential, in what soma optima would entail. Until we have a community of individuals who have developed in an environment embedded with such a vision, who have an appropriate activation ratio of Sympathetic Nervous System and Parasympathetic NS, predominantly in the latter (unlike now, which is skewed toward the former, with a resultant chronic stress condition), where societal tempo serves biological tempo (and not the other way round, like now), can we really know what that potential entails. Definitely not when civilizational growth is still measured in GDP and not Health Index, which in a way reflects the survival-at-the-expense-of-the-soma syndrome.

To summarize, the framing of the human condition was flawed from the start due to the equating of soma compromise (which is due to soma internal contradiction, and intervention, if any ) and soma natural. Being in a place of hard-to-return, an emphasis on consciousness was evoked as a way out. Unbeknownst, soma optima remains unexplored, and soma immortalis as foundation awaits.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3906
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: evolution of consciousness?

Post by LoneBear » Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:55 pm

twilight boy wrote:Soma.
I had not heard of this theory, so I did some research and found this:

Disposable Soma Theory of Aging
In 1977, a statistician named Thomas Kirkwood (now a biologist and professor of medicine at the University of Newcastle) published his disposable soma theory of aging. Kirkwood’s idea was that organisms only have a limited amount of energy that has to be divided between reproductive activities and the maintenance of the non-reproductive aspects of the organism (soma). Aging is the result of natural degrading processes that result in accumulation of damage but the damage can be repaired by the organism at the expense of reproductive effort. Because of the declining evolutionary impact of adverse events on older animals (Williams' hypothesis), a tradeoff exists in which it does not make sense for an organism to invest effort (food energy resources) in maintenance (at the expense of reproductive activity) to result in living much beyond the initial breeding years.
The theory appears to be a variation of the old Chinese theory of Jing Qi, where a person is given an initial quantity of Jing (bioenergy) at conception from the parents, and when that Jing is expended through life's activities (mainly reproduction), you die.

The word soma is from the Vedas, "Drinking Soma produces immortality (Amrita, Rigveda 8.48.3). Indra and Agni are portrayed as consuming Soma in copious quantities." This appears to be analogous to aqua vitae of Alchemy or a specific type of mead used in Norse legends. I am assuming Kirkwood picked the word because of its bioenergy and immortality connotations.
twilight boy wrote:Soma is not just flesh but also organization. It's a network of multi trillion cells. To be inclusive, it's whatever components a man must be. It is the crux of the evolutionary tradition. The reason why i think soma has been subjugated is because soma compromise has been mistaken for soma optima and since this false optima entails aging and death, life must be more than soma.
Compromise refers to how the body uses its energy. Due to the limited availability of soma, one system must be compromised in favor of another. (This is the same in the Jing system, and why priests abstain from sexual activity, so the energy is available for spiritual purposes.)

You would need to clarify what soma optima is, as I was not able to find any references.
twilight boy wrote:To be frank, a lot of it is probably the aftermath of intervention. But even without factoring this into account, Soma compromise is due to soma instrumentalization, i.e. soma as a means to survival and reproduction (even at the expense of the soma). Eventually, as the soma system builds up from accumulative change, as the system becomes more complex, in other words, has a wider spectrum of internal maneuverability, the internal contradiction between soma integrity and soma instrumentality becomes obvious, especially with the emergent soma awareness. This internal contradiction being embedded into the tradition can easily be mistaken, even by the soma (meaning, viscerally), to be natural.
Please define your terms (instrumentality, integrity, optima, awareness), as I am not able to follow your reasoning.
twilight boy wrote:(As mentioned, this scenario of contradiction can be further compounded by the effects of intervention. Particularly, the leaning toward the non material can be explained as an understandable way out of the awkwardness of a soma with alien dna, i.e. non earthly vs earthly. (The more the more.))
Intervention theory both compounds, and clarifies, a lot of things. Entities of a non-earth origin will also be responsive to a different set of energies and bioenergies, so interbreeding (which the 'gods' did a lot of) could produce all sorts of sympathetic and discordant energy patterns.
twilight boy wrote:This is when you have a chunk of reality or perception associated with being in a place of no, or rather, hard to, return. And the difference between this and the reality of natural unfolding can be illustrated as follows.
That is an interesting observation, and one that I've noticed a lot of in the New Age community--that "spiritual homesickness" and the "I don't belong here" feeling of the Wanderer types.
twilight boy wrote:Simply, hopefully not simplistically, if free will and predestination are descriptions of the relationship between man and circumstance, and free will connotes 'man over circumstance' , and predestination ' circumstance over man', then, the third position of natural unfolding, or what i deem as the operation of soma optima, connotes 'man WITH circumstance'. Recycling terms, it's a scenario of rivalry (free will and predestination, with their 'over') and rapport (soma optima, or synonymously, soma immortalis, soma dynamic responsive, soma non compulsive). Although I would like to point out that the WITH is more than a simple external affair, it's a resonance of nature, within and without, within therefore without.
I have concluded something similar from an entirely different line of reasoning (RS based), where free will and predestination are just aspects (modus operandi) that result from the influences of the two aspects of life units (material and cosmic) upon consciousness.

Free will seems to arise from precognition, a cosmic sector function. When you can see what is coming, you can be proactive and made a decision before an event arrives, allowing you to choose a different path.

Predestination arises from the material sector sensations, where you must react to changing environmental circumstances.

Proactive and reactive are aspects of action (actio), which is consciousness affecting physical change.
twilight boy wrote:In a way (as mentioned many many years ago in this forum) it's a path of least resistance, but from the point of view of soma optima, not soma compromise. It's least because it's effortless natural unfolding, there's nothing to practice to upkeep anything. It's a flow because the flow of communication between cells and clusters of cells is fluent. There's no sense of disconnection and alienation because the soma has become integrated; it's an organizational flair. Meaning is living, not lifeline.
I actually see this "optimization" as a natural consequence of the evolution of life towards the ethical. Even Pythagoreas talked about it with his monad-dyad-harmonia concept. As long as the dyad exists as two, separate functions, one cannot achieve harmonia.
twilight boy wrote:On the other hand, soma compromise due to its soma internal rivalry will want to exert control, like an autocratic mandating strictness in a populace tired of endless warfare demanding peace at all cost. (And perhaps so strict for so long that it eventually implodes. Death). In such a scenario, the path of least resistance would probably lead to irrevocable soma discordance. Different contexts.
It would be really helpful if you defined "soma," as you are using it in different contexts. Here, it is more of a complex than an energy; energy in its natural state is no competitive, it is cooperative.
twilight boy wrote:To summarize, the framing of the human condition was flawed from the start due to the equating of soma compromise (which is due to soma internal contradiction, and intervention, if any ) and soma natural. Being in a place of hard-to-return, an emphasis on consciousness was evoked as a way out. Unbeknownst, soma optima remains unexplored, and soma immortalis as foundation awaits.
If I understand you correctly, I would agree. And what I understand is that religion and spirituality is serving more as a distraction to the evolution of consciousness, like an escape route to ease discomfort, than it is being a tool of advancement?

twilight boy
Indagator
Indagator
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:37 am

Re: evolution of consciousness?

Post by twilight boy » Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:15 am

Lonebear,

First of all, thanks for your reply, Second, apologies for the wanton usage/ amalgamation of terms.

Let's start afresh. Forget about the soma stuff, and take out intervention theory for a moment.

I make the following assumptions.

1. Nature is intelligent. Cellular operations, photosynthesis, are examples of the expression of this intelligence.
2. This intelligence has both diachronic and synchronic aspects. Think music, i.e. the pulsation of rhythm, the flow of melody, the chords,etc.
3. A fundamental attribute of this intelligence in the aforesaid dual aspects is 'relationship', how one component interacts with another. Again think music. In a sense, 'organization' may be said to be a higer order concept of 'interaction' and 'relationship'.
4. Evolution is this unfolding of nature, perhaps an ever-clarification of the self organizing order
5. Only when inhibited, this unfolding doesn't end. (For if it be unconditionally intelligent, how can it stop being intelligent?)
6. Naturally, the human being is part of this unfolding, so is its self consciousness.

Against this background, when I asked 'evolution of consciousness?', I am actually asking

Is the result of natural unfolding, consciousness, now being privileged for further evolution? Or, as I believe, should it be the evolution of the total system that makes up the human being- since the organizational aspect is fundamental to nature's intelligence- and not just some aspect of that organization.

A lot more was said in the original post, but I think I should wait for your inputs before I continue.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3906
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: evolution of consciousness?

Post by LoneBear » Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:25 am

twilight boy wrote:1. Nature is intelligent. Cellular operations, photosynthesis, are examples of the expression of this intelligence.
You probably need to define "intelligence," as I would not consider the operations listed to be intelligent, but simply instinctive.
twilight boy wrote:2. This intelligence has both diachronic and synchronic aspects. Think music, i.e. the pulsation of rhythm, the flow of melody, the chords,etc.
3. A fundamental attribute of this intelligence in the aforesaid dual aspects is 'relationship', how one component interacts with another. Again think music. In a sense, 'organization' may be said to be a higer order concept of 'interaction' and 'relationship'.
4. Evolution is this unfolding of nature, perhaps an ever-clarification of the self organizing order
I have never related well to music, so not an easy analogy for me to follow.

Self-organization, as I've always understood it, occurs when a system finds an equilibrium based on a fixed set of rules, and is not actually indicative of intelligence. Actually, it tends to promote stasis, not growth, and structure tends to lock in to a specific form (such as crystals).

I agree there is a duality; a yin-yang or time-space (Reciprocal System) in all things, and that duality causes sympathy and dissonance. But I do not see how "intelligence" fits into this.
twilight boy wrote:5. Only when inhibited, this unfolding doesn't end. (For if it be unconditionally intelligent, how can it stop being intelligent?)
What is being inhibited? Evolution?
twilight boy wrote:6. Naturally, the human being is part of this unfolding, so is its self consciousness.
So you are trying to equate self-organization with self-consciousness?
twilight boy wrote:Against this background, when I asked 'evolution of consciousness?', I am actually asking

Is the result of natural unfolding, consciousness, now being privileged for further evolution? Or, as I believe, should it be the evolution of the total system that makes up the human being- since the organizational aspect is fundamental to nature's intelligence- and not just some aspect of that organization.
I consider intelligence to be a proactive reasoning pattern (instinct being the reactive). Consciousness would be an outgrowth of proactive reasoning, the ability to determine that "I will be" rather than "I am".

In Nature, the subconscious tends to dominate behavior (hence the success of subliminal marketing). The unconscious is reactive; the conscious is proactive. So when it comes to the application of consciousness, in general, it is temporal: past (unconscious), present (subconscious), future (conscious). If you consider it as a "total system," then that system is not limited to the human being, it is ALL life within the same ambit--from your cellular mitochondria to the planet, itself, and perhaps the solar system (or even the stellar neighborhood--the concept of the logos).

So where do you draw the line? One of the things Larson proposed is that Nature is discrete, not continuous, so there are lines of demarcation between things, at various stages. In regards to consciousness, that appears to be limited to the individual at this stage of development. Esoteric literature indicates the next stage is collective consciousness, the "social memory complex." but will it "self organize?" More likely, because it is a proactive function, it will need to be intentionally organized as a conscious act of free will. So there does seem to be a logical barrier to the evolutionary development of consciousness.

In answer to your question, I believe the solar system is "evolving" together, but the components may not be evolving at the same rate. Varying "speed ranges" are an intrinsic part of Nature, some things tend to poke out in front, others lag behind, and the main body moves at a collective pace.

Perhaps you can clarify your concepts?

twilight boy
Indagator
Indagator
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:37 am

Re: evolution of consciousness?

Post by twilight boy » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:25 am

1. In trying to find a common ground on which to discuss, I will ask you this. What is the relationship between the so called proactive and reactive? In other words, what is the relationship between the so called material and cosmic sectors? How do they interact? Is one more fundamental than the other?

Maybe a better question would be, in your scheme of evolution, is it mind over matter? Or mind with matter?

2. If I read you correctly from what you have said in general, you seem to be equating liberation with evolution.

There may be variations but the dominant theme of liberation philosophy goes something like this. In the realm of matter, since everything is changeable, inter-dependent, therefore, nothing is real for the only real thing is the unchangeable, that which causes but is uncaused. And the purpose of man is to rise above the so called bondage of matter and realize the real.

The other (and incidentally opposite) perspective, and the one I am taking, would be since everything is changeable, inter-dependent, therefore, change and the way of change, i.e. interaction, relationship, organization, must be real. It's a basic affirmation of life as we know it. It may be asking us to accept 'the burning house' of Lotus Sutra Chapter 3, but the house may not be burning on absolute fire.

In short, I am entertaining the possibility that liberation is not evolution.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3906
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: evolution of consciousness?

Post by LoneBear » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:57 pm

twilight boy wrote:1. In trying to find a common ground on which to discuss, I will ask you this. What is the relationship between the so called proactive and reactive?
Proactive and Reactive are aspects of action (motion).

The old definitions of "pro-" and "re-" mean forward and backward. In a natural reference system, you can only move forward (start at unity and increase in magnitude). Backwards is moving forward in the inverse aspect (out in time = inward in space), so reactive is moving forward as an unconscious (yin) action, as compared to the forward motion of proactive in the consciousness.
twilight boy wrote:In other words, what is the relationship between the so called material and cosmic sectors? How do they interact? Is one more fundamental than the other?
The material and cosmic sectors are conjugates of each other; space-time and time-space, equally expressing both conditions of motion (speed or energy).

They exist orthogonally to each other, from the perspective of one to another, so in an inanimate, chemical realm, they do not interact directly. One aspect is local (observable, measurable) and the other non-local (unobservable, unmeasurable).
twilight boy wrote:Maybe a better question would be, in your scheme of evolution, is it mind over matter? Or mind with matter?
It is neither, as mind and matter are not related as reciprocals nor conjugates. The conjugate of the mind (process) would be the brain (structure).

I consider "matter" to be a general term for both m-matter and c-matter (much like action can be characterized as m-active = proactive and c-active = reactive).

In the accepted concept of "mind over matter," the application of consciousness to alter physical structure, is a totally different "matter." Being conscious does not necessarily imply the presence of consciousness, what Larson would term the "ethical control units." His ethical control units exist beyond space and time, outside the material-cosmic sectors and are therefore able to influence both, simultaneously.

Larson defines this structure in three levels:
1. Inanimate (material OR cosmic)
2. Biologic (material AND cosmic)
3. Ethical (beyond material and cosmic)
twilight boy wrote:2. If I read you correctly from what you have said in general, you seem to be equating liberation with evolution.
If you define "liberation" as utilizing your consciousness (ethical control units) to choose how you act (proact or react), then yes, to me that is the next stage of human evolution.
twilight boy wrote:There may be variations but the dominant theme of liberation philosophy goes something like this. In the realm of matter, since everything is changeable, inter-dependent, therefore, nothing is real for the only real thing is the unchangeable, that which causes but is uncaused. And the purpose of man is to rise above the so called bondage of matter and realize the real.
I would not agree with the premise of that definition, as I work with a "Universe of Motion," in which everything IS change, not "changeable." Therefore, the only concept that would be "unreal" would be the unchangeable.

I would put the purpose of man (evolution of consciousness) as recognizing that nature is change, and to proactively increase his level of change, therefore increasing his level of complexity and, as they say in the New Age, "increase in density."
twilight boy wrote:The other (and incidentally opposite) perspective, and the one I am taking, would be since everything is changeable, inter-dependent, therefore, change and the way of change, i.e. interaction, relationship, organization, must be real. It's a basic affirmation of life as we know it. It may be asking us to accept 'the burning house' of Lotus Sutra Chapter 3, but the house may not be burning on absolute fire.
I would generalize that a bit, and perhaps make it a bit more mathematical, is that any system that contains either zero (nothing) or infinity (everything) is unreal (an illusion of consciousness), because to have nothing or everything indicates a state of "no change."
twilight boy wrote:In short, I am entertaining the possibility that liberation is not evolution.
I believe we both believe the same thing, but based on personal definitions, have come to opposite conclusions!

twilight boy
Indagator
Indagator
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:37 am

Re: evolution of consciousness?

Post by twilight boy » Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:57 pm

Attempting to find common ground part 2.

Let

Matter (c and m) be MATTER
Ethical control units be ECU

If ECU is beyond MATTER, how does ECU affect MATTER? By what means? What is the medium?

And can MATTER affect ECU?

I ask these questions to get a sense of your qualification of 'beyond' .

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3906
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: evolution of consciousness?

Post by LoneBear » Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:25 pm

twilight boy wrote:If ECU is beyond MATTER, how does ECU affect MATTER? By what means? What is the medium?

And can MATTER affect ECU?

I ask these questions to get a sense of your qualification of 'beyond' .
As I understand Larson's use of the term "beyond," it just means that it is a level of complexity of motion that contains "something else" besides space and time.

In the conventional, space-only universe, 3D time is "beyond space," which is why they call it things like hyperspace or subspace. In the inanimate realm, you only need 1D clock time to represent the net motion of 3D time. But once you move into the biologic realm, 3D time along with 3D space is a requirement. It has gone "beyond" 1D, clock time.

When it comes to the ethical control unit, the motion extends "beyond" the composite motion of 3D space AND 3D time, into something else that Larson did not name the aspects of.

So your ECU still has aspects of space and time, but also something else "beyond" that is influencing the spatial and temporal aspects of life, in the same non-local way that time effects space as "force fields." It appears we call this ethical field, "consciousness."

twilight boy
Indagator
Indagator
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:37 am

Re: evolution of consciousness?

Post by twilight boy » Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:19 pm

Correct me if I am wrong, but this ECU sounds more like an afterthought in Larson's system. Did he ever consider the possibility of emergentism?

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3906
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: evolution of consciousness?

Post by LoneBear » Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:12 am

twilight boy wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but this ECU sounds more like an afterthought in Larson's system. Did he ever consider the possibility of emergentism?
You are right. Larson's approach was to take all human experiences, and remove the stuff he COULD account for with his model of the physical universe. That left biology, ethics and the paranormal. He then derived biology and some paranormal from the merging of space-time with time-space and eliminated that from the data. All the stuff that was left, including ethics, was just lumped together under the "ethical control unit." He did not get far with that research, as he died shortly thereafter. He never got around to breaking up the data to see exactly what his ECU would define, and if there was anything beyond it.

From what I've read, he was using William James' research as his philosophical approach.

Post Reply