The journey itself.
Since Thomas Huxley, another English biologist, coined the term in 1869, the term agnostic has been used almost exclusively by scientists, who may have had reasons not to confess their atheism openly. What baffles me is that the essence of agnosticism has been used in, what can only be termed as religious writings, namely by Nasadiya Sukta in Rig Veda, the Sanskrit text written c.1700–1100 BC. Yet, more often then not, it is used against religious thought, rather than to support it. In the light of what the majority of churches have done with various myths, I can hardly blame those people, but it would be nice if a scientist, somewhere, had the courage to show the folly of ‘modern’ religion, rather than the folly of faith. I am fully aware of many evils that may have been fuelled by the power of faith. Yet faith, hope and charity are prerequisites to our survival. Physical and—if you think of yourself as more than 2730 near empty space atoms whirling in near emptiness—otherwise.
So, let us not delude ourselves. To repeat, we are stardust thinly diluted in bags of water, pretending to know something. We don’t, but it’s such fun pretending, isn’t it?
Some say that, unbeknownst to many, with the onset of the Industrial Revolution we, the human race, have entered the Age of Aquarius. Without venturing into the inner meaning of the Procession of the Zodiac, enough said (by the ancient Hindus) that the Age of Aquarius will last some 2150 years, during which time we are to become (more) self-reliant. That is not to say that we are to close our eyes to external sources of knowledge, but that we must learn discrimination in our judgment. We shall no longer be able to blame others for our misfortunes. Not even science or scientists.
In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins discusses a “trickle down theory of creation.” Then, scrupulously, honest that he is, he denies the authorship of the ‘theory’, and appears to give full credit for it, equally to Darwin and, apparently, to his late friend, philosopher Daniel Dennett.
“You’ll never see a spear making a spear maker. You’ll never see a horse shoe making a blacksmith. You’ll never see a pot making a potter.”
Then he adds:
“The concept of stunning simplicity that he (Dennett?) was talking about was, of course, nothing to do with me. It was Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection—the ultimate scientific consciousness raiser.”
Finally Dawkins adds one more tidbit:
“Darwin’s discovery of a workable process that does that very counter-intuitive thing is what makes his contribution to human thought so revolutionary, and so loaded with the power to raise consciousness.”
Does it mean that a pot does make a potter? A spear is making a spear maker? My consciousness is having problems following the logic. There is logic there, somewhere, isn’t there? I suspect he merely means that small, simple things are capable of combining to make complex structures. Or at least, that’s how I understand Darwin, without all the rigmarole.
Unfortunately the observations are not taken to a logical conclusion. Before I began writing, I spent many years practicing architecture. The reverse “trickle down theory” can, in a way, be applied to my old profession. I noticed, that I’d never seen a building before the architect produced the working drawings. The working drawings could not be produced until the design has been produced. And the design could not be presented to the client until the architect had an idea what to draw. Thus, the “trickle down (or up?) theory” proves that the idea precedes “anything physical” taking place.
The idea, that elusive, intangible, ethereal concept, must come first.
By simple logic we must conclude that the mind precedes the brain, which in turn we employ to translate an idea into an object, which we can share with others in the objective reality.
Pragmatic Reality demands it of us.
And talking of Pragmatic Realism, there is that gently nagging problem of evolution.
Frankly, from the Pragmatic Realism point of view, it is a matter of relative indifference to me whether the world, as we know it, began with the influence of “objects of worship”, or in a primordial cesspool. What matters to me is which theory can make me a better man today. As you may have noticed, I am an advocate of living in the present.
Discounting extraterrestrial accidental bombardments, (grudgingly admitted as a possibility even by evolutionary biologists), there are two basic theories concerning the origins of life. (No, not the fundamental creationists’ nonsense). The first proposes the theory that could be described as many resulting in few, and the second as few evolving into many. Also the first is concerned, principally, with quality—the second with quantity. The differences are mostly philosophical, and/or pragmatic, although the word evolution has a slightly different meaning.
The first is the biblical model, wherein ‘objects or worship’ (extraterrestrials, though not necessarily organic life-forms) originated evolution on Earth, which ‘they’ hoped would ultimately result in a few good evolutionary products. “Many are called, few are chosen” would fit in nicely into this theory. Please note, evolution remains unscathed—it is still evolution.
The second theory is the Darwinian model, wherein the few (proteinoids, or thermal proteins formed inorganically from amino acids, were the precursors of the first living cells) would, eventually, result in (great, great) many living organisms.
I don’t think either theory will change my plans for dinner, tonight. Or what tie I’ll wear tomorrow. Even my distant cousin, the biologist, will probably not change his thesis about what his parasites feeding on the excrement of bats had for dinner last night. There is, however, just one stimulus hidden in one of the theories: that nagging phrase that, “Many are called and few are chosen.” I find it stimulating to try my best to make the right choices throughout my life, regardless of my origins. The Darwinian model offers me no such stimulus. And let us not forget, I’m talking only about the origins—the rest remains the same. The only theory that has any effect on me today is Pragmatic Realism. The rest is just, “Much ado about (almost) nothing”.
At long last we come to the essence of the delusion propagated by science. Before we dismiss science, as many scientists dismiss religions, shouldn’t we ask ourselves how many of the 7 billion people crowding our Earth have benefited from the knowledge that a proton consists of two up-quarks and one down-quark? On the other hand, such knowledge may have brought us closer to the invention and production of an atomic bomb. While religious misinterpretations of scriptural teaching are certainly responsible for many a wholesale slaughter, no religion or its misbegotten promulgators have ever threatened the existence of life on Earth. (At least, not yet). Science, specifically nuclear science, did. Actually, still does. As I am sure might a number of artificial bugs, which the biologists are on the verge of discovering.
And if you think that I am going too far, then think of the hydrogen bombs. They are much more destructive. Or, better still, think of the 30,000 bombs presently stored by various military regimes (including the USA), under strict supervision of… scientists, of course. The detonation of a few well placed such installations could easily put an end to humanity on Earth as we know it.
And if anyone were to survive a few well-placed mistakes, the evolutionary biologists would be rejoicing. The nuclear radiation would result in countless mutations. At last progress, the evolutionary biologists would cry! At long last nature would have a field day, or century, or millennium, to make her almost-natural selections.
No matter; perhaps the next holocaust will vindicate Roger Fouts and Stephen Tukel Mills, in their prophetic book: Next of Kin: My conversations with Chimpanzees, suggesting that we are not the pinnacle of evolution, but only a rather unsuccessful branch of the major stem of Chimpanzees. I don’t really mind. I never met a Chimpanzee I didn’t like, which I cannot say about their next of kin.
So much abortive evolution; so much waste…
At least religions convert, or used to convert, most of their money into art. The scientists�
� you decide? And talking of the money aspect.
Science Daily (Dec. 13, 2006) reports: — A group of 50 international physicists, led by UC Riverside's Ann Heinson, has detected for the first time a subatomic particle, the top quark, produced without the simultaneous production of its antimatter partner—an extremely rare event. The discovery of the single top quark could help scientists better explain how the universe works and how objects acquire their mass, thereby assisting human understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the scientists discovered a cure for the common cold? Now they are saying the same thing about the Higgs boson.
Just think—50 international physicists! And, having spent countless millions of dollars of public funds, (or pounds, or rubbles, or franks, or rupees, or yuans…) to find the top quark, after they discover its mass, they’ll learn that that mass is surrounded by mostly empty space. And next time they might not be so lucky. They might stumble across a bunch of antimatter particles. Bingo, or perhaps Little Bang? Look, no scientists! Just more empty space.
It has been said that science is always better than ignorance. I put it to you that ignorant scientists are more dangerous than ignorant priests. Their toys are more dangerous. But to give priests their due, I should add the following to balance the odds.
Dawkins writes that:
“…a Gallup poll in the United States of America found the following. Three-quarters of Catholics and Protestants could not name a single Old Testament prophet. More than two-thirds didn’t know who preached the Sermon on the Mount. A substantial number thought that Moses was one of Jesus’ twelve apostles.”
I am surprised they could count to twelve. But in their defense, I’d rather hear what it was that Yeshûa was preaching on the Mount. Not who was preaching. What really counts is the message, not the messenger.
All the same, is this the “American culture” they’re so keen to export around the world? This and hamburgers, American Idols, and Hollywood miasma? Well, at least they have more atom bombs than anyone in the whole wide world.
I have a number of very, very good dear friends in America, and they are as embarrassed as I am.
I am also very close to giving up. If only the scientists would allow me to keep faith that this present (imaginary?) reality is only temporary. That one day we shall all wake up and find ourselves in another Golden Age.
At long last, a word about Pragmatic Reality.
To listen to biologists, one gets the impression that nature, in her wisdom, looks dispassionately at a vast array of choices and then makes a profound selection of the best traits necessary for a gene to survive. This is not how nature operates. From the “natural selection” point of view, the method is simple: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. In fact the greatest effort nature appears to make is in maintaining the status quo. Like all forces that wield power, the churches, the governments, the oligarchies and, the most powerful oligarchy of all: nature.
Cockroaches and sharks are two of the examples that come to mind. Fossils indicate that cockroaches have been around for at least 340 million years. They seem omnipresent, and survive in great many environmental conditions, including north and south poles, at 670 meters depth of coalmines, and will survive 2 weeks without food, while an A4 piece of paper will feed one for a week.
As for sharks, “fully 350,000,000 years ago, sharks had evolved a reproductive strategy which favors the production of a small number of offspring, retained, protected, and nourished within the body of the mother, and requiring a strong investment of the female’s time and resources.” (So says Pacific Fisheries Coalition on the Internet).
If, Darwin and Co. are concerned with evolutionary survival, then their selective process needs look no further. Humans have a lot to learn from both, cockroaches and sharks. Evolutionarily speaking, they are both more successful than we are. More advance that Homo sapiens.
What minute and extremely rare changes do occur in “natural selection” that might result in an evolutionary upward step are invariably the result of a ‘mistake’, which the evolutionary biologists call mutations. When something goes wrong with the self-perpetuating/replicating process of a gene, a tiny slip, and nature doesn’t notice it until it’s too late to be instantly destroyed, then a change might indeed take place, and a new, accidental gene might—again accidentally—prove to have greater survival value than its predecessor. Usually any deviation from the established norm is caught in time and eliminated, as in the human reproductive process—see Chapter 20, above.
And this, the evolutionary biologists call natural selection. Sorry, Charles, but it sounds more like wholesale murder.
Finally a word about raising of our consciousness.
There is a compendium of books called the Bible, whose sole purpose is to help us to raise our consciousness. Should anyone wish to forego the fundamentalist nonsense and attempt to decipher this document, this collection of documents, to discover their symbolic meaning, (which protects the wisdom from ‘unholy eyes’), I offer, once again, my Dictionary of Biblical Symbolism. It is more than evident that the scientists are in dire need of it. They might, just might actually find that Yeshûa was the greatest atheist of them all. He certainly disliked the sacerdotal class of his day.
As for the symbolism employed in the Bible, the following warning is issued for obvious reasons.
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” (KJV, Matthew 7:6).
There is a reason for it. A consciousness raised above their fellow men wields enormous power. In the hands (heads, minds) of those who have not yet established high ethical standards could be disastrous for others. Remember, consciousness, like spirit or life, are neutral. It is us, you and I, who can use it or abuse it. “All power is given to the son.”
There are examples of this.
Attempting to raise consciousness without defining what we mean by the term is, to say the least, abortive.
On the other hand, we need three known, accepted, proven qualities of man’s psyche to examine the world we live in, in terms of Pragmatic Realism. The Conscious, the Subconscious and the Unconscious. In terms of these three states of consciousness we can define our reality.
In the New Testament, the unconscious corresponds to the ‘biblical father’, the omnipresent intelligence, the omnipresent creative force, often referred to as spirit, life force, and presumably referred to by Darwin as Universal Laws, though the latter sounds like a limiting definition. The unconscious is the source from which all that is un-manifested comes into manifestation. Intangible, even as the unconscious, is the conscious, referred to in the Bible as its ‘son’, and thus indivisible from the unconscious. The conscious, as the individualization of the unconscious, exemplifies life or, the condition of change and thus becoming, while the unconscious represents the (infinite) potential i.e. the static condition.
The subconscious is little more than memory storage of that which already took place. It does, however, maintain the status quo. It uses its acquired knowledge and records all new tidbits of information. That is why it tends to reproduce the malignant cells, which should be replaced not reproduced. To replace them, however, a creative (not reproductive) act must take place. The conscious must reprogram (contemplation, meditation or autohypnosis may be used), the reproductive program, so that the ‘replacement cells’ do not repeat the known knowledge, but the improved one. A sort of conscious natural selection.
The conscious, or the biblical I AM, is the boss. It makes all the judgments, decisions, definitions of what is required. On rare occasions it can reach out to the unconscious (e.g. during contemplation), in search of possibilities. Yeshûa describes the relationship (generically) between the conscious and the unconscious as that of son and father. Usually the unconscious is taken to be replete with a vast array of possibilities (the unconscious is non-judgmental), and the
conscious must still decide what is best, but at least new fields or possibilities are opened. In this way, the conscious and the unconscious are inseparable. As mentioned above, the conscious is the individualization of the unconscious, with the added attribute of self-awareness.
Thus, to quote Jung once again, the “Individual is the only reality.”
There is a great deal of confusion regarding various states of consciousness. So to sum up, there is I AM, as indicted above, which defines our state of being, and I AM, which describes our state of becoming. The two are inseparable hence virtually—one.
By the mere fact that the unconscious is endowed with the attribute of individualizing itself, does not make any part of it any less than Whole. It is rather like arguing how many souls there are. In the I AM sense, there is but one, spelled with a capital S. I AM is the attribute of the unconscious to individualize itself.
‘I AM’, (as in I AM that I AM) also describes our transient condition of becoming. I am happy, I am sad, I am an architect, writer, dancer, singer, physician, and so forth.
There seems to be also a great deal of confusion between the biblical concept of ‘soul’ and the subconscious that is the indispensable part of our psyche. Up to the first breath taken by the baby, human or otherwise, the gestation is dependant exclusively on the data stored in our genetic system, which corresponds to our subconscious. In fact, the Hebrew word for the subconscious is ‘animal soul’, representing the passive side (the non-creative) of our psyche, and which is erroneously translated and confused with the Soul, which represents I AM. The fundamental difference is that soul, nephesh, or the ‘animal soul’, defines our differences. I AM, or the individualized Soul (note the capital letters), defines what makes us one.
DELUSIONS — Pragmatic Realism Page 17
