Re: The Theory of Process
- From: Me <agnescherry@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 10:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
This one was criticized by me "original". Compare. AE
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS AS A UNIFYING PARADIGM
by Frank Barr, MD
Why? How? What's the purpose? How does one know? Questions relating to
the cosmic dilemma have been considered in various ways at different
times throughout human history. The cosmic dilemma, of course,
concerns "ultimates"--absolutes or invariants. Do ultimates pertain to
"objective" domains or to "projective" (non-objective) domains? In
other words, which domain has ultimate priority: 1) the projective
domain of intuitive insight, revelation, inner experience, faith,
belief, emotional charge, motivational drive, intention, and volition;
or, 2) the objective domain of physical sense data, observable
behavior, measurement, relationship, pattern, form, formulation,
concept, and hypothesis? Should ultimate questions center on
projective purpose and value or objective fact and theory? Put another
way, are ultimate questions to be relegated to the realm of religion
or to the realm of science? Can mystical revelation and intuitive
insight "project" a teleological pattern which is ultimately
accessible to "objective" study, as many ancient mystic-philosophers
believed? Is the objective search for the origin or cause of the laws
of nature ultimately a projective religious quest, as many leading
contemporary physicists now claim? How can the following "apparent"
paradoxes and/or dichotomies be ultimately reconciled:
1) random chance/uncertainty vs. control/certainty
2) free will/freedom vs. determinism/constraint
3) mystical insight vs. empirical fact
4) mind vs. matter
5) creationism vs. natural evolution
6) teleology vs. reductionism
7) religion vs. science
8) God vs. Nature?
The philosopher/cosmologist Arthur M. Young (1974) maintains that:
Both religion and science have a common origin in the search for
truth, but have approached this goal differently. Religion depends on
revelation or inspired teachers, science on experiments and theories.
It would appear that religion has declined in dignity and importance
from those early times when all art was dedicated to it and
architecture created its temples and cathedrals. Science. on the
contrary, began humbly and piece by piece constructed an edifice which
is yet to be completed.
The investigations I have made into these subjects indicate that these
two quite different endeavors tell the same story, reach the same
conclusions. The agreement to which I refer is to be found between the
ancient myths and the most recent findings of quantum physics . . . .
It is because science became the Scientific Method and ceased to be
the search for truth that it lost relevance and, like a time bomb
ticking in an airliner, is dangerous because it is cut off from our
control, following its own dictates. It is because the
institutionalized churches have taken little cognizance of scientific
discoveries and have insisted on a literal reading of all sacred
writings that they have become irrelevant and have had their
traditional teaching dismissed as superstition. Nor do the presumably
humanistic types of social reform fare better, for despite daily trips
to the psychologist, himself floundering in uncertain doctrines.
social reform has no notion of man's true nature and has created more
discontent than it relieves.
In earlier times there were those who went into the desert to discover
within their own depths, or to the mountain top to commune with god,
and returned with a teaching for their followers. But that is all
past. Twentieth century humanity has come of age. It is not to be led,
but must draw out of itself the wisdom it needs. That is why I say we
must look at what we already have in the earliest and undistorted
traditions. It needs no new doctrine because the printed word makes
available today the accumulated wisdom of all ages and of all
teachings, which. with the help of science, we can now sort out and
interpret. By science, I do not mean cultural anthropology but the
ontology provided by Quantum Physics . . . .
In short, we have no need for more "isms" and schisms, movement to
left or right. These divisions are the cause of our splitting up and
can hardly lead to its cure. We need a new, integrating direction, but
we cannot discover an integrating and unitary theory common to science
and religion without postulating the unity of all things.
In sum, then, our -thesis is: we inhabit a universe, and this implies
one universal set of principles or of truth. To discover these
principles or truth, we must enlist both religious and scientific
inquiry, and, recognizing the variety of expressions of both, be
prepared to seek out the unity in its true implication and
significance.
While science as it is presently represented is fragmented into a
number of disciplines, and these disciplines seem not necessarily to
indicate a common truth, we must look for their connection. Likewise.
religions, which for thousands of years have been manufacturing
schisms often merely to justify self-determination, need that overall
survey that can see them as the various expressions of one truth.
For just as the world with its oceans, continents, and nations
presents many facets, yet is one body of matter, so does our culture
with its religions and sciences present many facets, yet is one body
of life. Our task, then is to seek out this unity.
Indeed, over the Past 35 years, following his invention of the Bell
helicopter (the first commercial helicopter), Young (1976a; 1976b;
1980) has himself "re-discovered" and extensively developed just such
a unifying paradigm, which he appropriately calls the theory of
evolutionary process. This paradigm consists of numerous unique and/or
remarkable features(some of which are outlined below) which appear to
resolve, or at least clearly point the way toward resolving, the
dilemma of "ultimates." As Stanislav Grof (1983) recently noted:
"[Young's] theory of process is a serious candidate for a scientific
metaparadigm of the future."
A. Teleology and Projective Reality
In addition to the commonly accepted objective modes of reality--(e.g.
sense data/behavioral facts and observation/ theory), the theory of
evolutionary process gives formal status to the projective modes of
reality--(e.g. purpose/ intention and value/"emotivation"). It
suggests that such common knee-jerk statements as "Nature chose to..."
or "Science requires..." should be strictly analyzed for the hidden
inclusion of purpose and value. As Alfred North Whitehead (1929) has
facetiously pointed out: "Scientists, animated by the purpose of
proving they are purposeless, constitute an interesting subject for
study."
Process theory clearly acknowledges teleology, the process of
direction toward a purposeful end or ultimate goal. Furthermore, this
teleological process specifically recognizes the hierarchically
advanced status of evolving living entities, especially self-conscious
human beings and beyond. Rather than being simply a meaningless
"accident", self-conscious man is considered to be part of an advanced
stage of a universal process, which can be formally represented by a
self-reflexive, toroidal model of development. This view contrasts
sharply with the reductionistic assumption and tendency to confer
emphasis (and sometime crypto-worship) on non-living physical
substance, both deterministic molecular micro-matter and astronomical
macromatter. The theory of process appreciates the fact that the
current formulation of the behavior, measurement, and description of
matter (i.e. the "scientific method" and the "laws of nature") were
discovered, continuously modified/developed, and applied by advanced
living entities. Although it realizes the practical role of
reductionism within the larger scope of teleological process, this
paradigm never loses sight of the evolving "mental" and "spiritual"
characteristics and goal directed nature of advanced living entities.
1
B. Four Levels of Reality
Young's philosophical formalism consists of four ontologically
distinct, necessary-and-sufficient realms or levels of reality, which
are primarily and precisely defined by degrees of freedom and
constraint. 2 These distinct levels, which Young equates with several
ancient "four-fold" divisions, can be further equated with the
descending "involution" of spirit into matter and the ascending stages
of man's "evolution" as they have been articulated throughout ancient
philosophy and religion (Tables 1 and 2).
FOUR-FOLD REALITY
MODERN
ANCIENT
(..)
The first level is "point-like" or zero-dimensional in character, is
"outside/beyond" space and time, and has complete (three degrees)
freedom. Level I projects the "firelike" Ground of Being--the
teleological impulse of potential/realization.
The second level is "linear" or one-dimensional in character,
"subsists" in time, and has two degrees of freedom and one degree of
constraint. Level II precipitates and persists as the "watery" realm
of becoming--the continuous charged flow of substance/force.
The third level is "planar" or two-dimensional in character, "relates"
in space, and has one degree of freedom and two degrees of constraint.
Level III defines the "airy" matrix of relationship--the mind-like
pattern of form/field.
The fourth level is "solid" or three-dimensional in character,
"physically appears" in space and time or space-time and has complete
(three degrees) constraint. Level IV incorporates the observable,
"earth-like" world of concrete physical reality--the fixed combination
of form and substance, or formed substance.
The progression from Level I to Level IV is ontologically complete, as
evidenced by the "necessary and sufficient" developments: point ----
line ---- plane ---- solid; no space/no time ---- time ---- space ----
space/time; and, no form/no substance ---- substance ---- form ----
formed substance. (See "A Formalism for Philosophy" and "Constraint
and Freedom: An Ontology Based on the Study of Dimension" in Young,
1980 for a formal development of these levels.)
In psychological terms, Level I includes such "pointlike" or unitive
manifestations as unconscious impulse, intuitive insight, recognition,
purposive action, and decision; Level II consists of such "line-like"
or asymmetric/directional manifestations as inner experience-in-time,
"stream-of-consciousness." memory, emotion, motivation, value, faith,
and belief; Level III involves such "planar" manifestations as
comparison-in-mental space, ratiocination, cognition, concept
formation, and logic; and Level IV is represented by the "solid"
manifestations of observable sensori-motor behavior.
The two-category debate of the "mind-body" problem (Barr, 1982) in
contemporary philosophy and neuropsychology remains at a stalemate
primarily because of terminological ambiguity. For example, "mind" is
commonly used as a crude catch-all term for all categories other than
the grossly objective sensori-motor body (e.g., it indiscriminately
refers to insight/decision and emotion /motivation, as well as
ratiocination/conceptualization). Many "new-age" consciousness models
or frameworks of reality potentially offer only a slight improvement
in that they loosely employ three categories: e.g. spirit, mind, and
body; spirit, soul, and body; or soul, mind, and body. However, like
the "mind" of contemporary academic philosophers, the vacillating
meaning of the "spirit/soul/mind" complex of new-age religious
thinkers (especially spirit and soul) can be confusing.
Young's four category formalism not only offers an unambiguous
solution to this current categorical and terminological impasse, but
it is also consistent with the essence of the ancient "primordial
tradition" or "perennial philosophy", as described by Huston Smith,
the noted professor of philosophy and religion. Smith (1976)
distinguishes four necessary levels of reality or selfhood: 1) spirit,
2) soul, 3) mind, and 4) body (see Table 1), and he clearly
characterizes the separate categories of spirit and soul. While spirit
is the unitive or point-like immanent and transcendent Ground of Being
(the Atman of Hinduism), soul is the line-like, directional or
animational principle. Smith succinctly summarizes soul:
. . . We cut through elaborations to center on a single point: the
soul's essential dynamism. ['Self-motion is the very idea and essence
of the soul.' Plato, Phaedrus, 245d. 'Anything that has a soul . . .
move[s] itself.' Aristotle, Physics 256b, 34.] In the faint glimpses
of itself that the soul affords us, it appears less as a thing than as
a movement; to paraphrase Nietzsche, it resembles a bridge more than a
destination. Restlessness is built into it as a metaphysical
principle. And though its reachings often seem random, they have a
direction. . .
Even the contemporary slang usage of the term "soul," in describing
personality or music, captures the respective feeling or emotional
drive of Level II. And it is obvious that the directional (past-
present-future) flow of Level II experience-in-time is clearly
different from the static, frame-like comparison-in-mental space of
Level III.3 To reiterate, the comprehensive elegance of these four
necessary-and-sufficient levels is just that: they are all
distinctively different categories of reality and they are inclusive,
that is, no other category of reality is necessary or even possible.
C. Seven Stages (and Substages) of Process
Most simply stated, the theory of evolutionary process consists of
seven sequential, cumulative stages, each associated with a particular
essential property or Power (Figure 1a.). Each of these seven stages
of evolution, in turn, contains seven substages with the same
sequential powers (developed over the same four levels) as the major
stages.
Figure 1a.
Figure 1b.
According to Young (1976a; 1980), the seven stages of process, which
are found throughout ancient wisdom and esoteric literature, represent
the seven topological distinctions possible with the torus, the most
complex natural topological entity. The torus (Figure 2) is a self-
referential "time-structure" with numerous unique properties (Young,
1976) such as:
1) composition from two rotating "perpendicular circularities";
2) the shape of a vortex, an entity which is consubstantial with its
matrix--i.e., the only means by which self-sustained motion can exist
in a given medium;
3) the same volume formula, 2pi²R³, as the Einstein-Eddington
universe, the so-called hypersphere.
4) a universal distribution, occurring with photons and particles
through the cellular centriole to the universal hypersphere;
5) the ability to reconcile the continuum of relativity and the
discreteness of quantum theory;
6) the means to explain the ancient puzzle of "free will in a universe
run by God" or how there can be self-determined entities in the
continuum; and
7) seven topological distinctions--(i.e., a map drawn on the surface
of a torus requires seven colors in order for all bordering countries
to be distinguished by differences in color).
Figure 2a
Toroidal process may be schematically represented by a reflexive 7-
staged arc manifesting on the previously described four levels.
Through understanding and application of the arc of freedom and
constraint, such universal myths as the "fall" of man from the
"paradise" of freedom into deterministic matter and his eventual
redemptive "virgin birth" (or self organizational/bootstrap "turn"
back towards freedom) can be fully appreciated. The concomitant
developments of; 1) the descent (and subsequent ascent) through the
levels of freedom and constraint, and; 2) the sequential "forward"
progression through the seven substages of anthropotheic (man's)
process reinforce the validity of the myth of the "fall" and yet are
compatible with the principle of the "pre/trans fallacy" (i.e.
continuous evolutionary advancement), as discussed by Wilber (1960a;
1981).
Figure 2b
The Old Testament Biblical myth of the Garden of Eden, though not
necessarily the best example, suffices to mythically demonstrate the
(sub)stages of the "fall" (involution) from freedom into determinism
as well as to demonstrate the progression of the early (substages of
process. A pure and innocent Anthropos, Adam, located in the
paradisical Garden of Eden with unlimited freedom, clearly represents
lst substage "anthropotheic potential". The creative extension of Eve
from the rib of Adam, analogous to the linear charge or force of the
"separated-but-attracted" subatomic proton and electron, symbolizes
the 2nd substage "binding/desire principle". The "Tree of Knowledge"
of good and evil in the center of the Garden is analogous to the
establishment in the atom of a nuclear center with a stable structure
and represents the self-conscious knowledge and form of the 3rd
substage "identity principle". Complete banishment from the Garden (of
freedom) into the ordinary physical world of constraint and law
(determinism) where trial-and-error learning and responsibility of'
self-initiated action takes place, with the accumulation and
combination of facts, represents the physical solidity of the ordinary
world of molecular combinations and obviously symbolizes the 4th
substage "combination/control principle". Following this latter
deterministic predicament, the New Testament introduces the "virgin
birth" of the self-organizational anthropotheos (Christ) and the
ascending substages leading to enlightenment (or anthropotheic
realization).
In The Reflexive Universe, Young (1976a) outlines several well-known
cosmological myths which collectively portray the seven stages (and
substages) of process. This collection is certainly not exhaustive, as
numerous other worldwide myths (Eliade 1978; 1982) can also be shown
to characterize the same stages of process. These ancient myths
apparently globally precipitated from the watery, charged, archetypal
2nd substage of man's development (the so-called "collective
unconscious") down to the 3rd substage. At the 3rd substage, the
"identity" of self-conscious man (and logic/history) began, and these
myths could be recorded. The detailed study of comparative mythology,
perceived through the lens of process theory, promises to further
clarify both man's past and future evolution and the evolution and
development of the other stages and substages of process.
D. Integration and Prediction by Process Theory
The theory of evolutionary process is designed to be comprehensive
and, accordingly, to incorporate not only the fundamental principles
of ancient and modern philosophy, psychology, religion, mythology, and
esoteric systems, but also the entire range of contemporary science.
The latter includes quantum physics, chemistry, molecular biology,
cell biology, developmental biology, neurophysiology,
psychopharmacology, developmental psychology, cognitive psychology,
and transpersonal psychology.
Because the repeating seven stages and substages of universal process
exhibit the same sequential pattern of development, learning the
specific details of any particular stage or substage allows one to
extrapolate these mechanisms to the other stages and substages and
vice-versa. This continuous updating of the intricacies of process
leads to remarkable integration and prediction. My own work with
bioprocess, particularly bio-organization and neuropsychology (Barr
1983; 1982), has benefited enormously from the application of Young's
process model, and I am convinced that the cross-disciplinary
integration and theoretical predictions of this paradigm has advanced
us to the threshold of several major scientific breakthroughs. Further
integrative and predictive applications in all fields of
research-,should clearly establish the astonishing efficacy of this
approach. As John S. Saloma (1980) has noted:
The Reflexive Universe is written largely as an account of Young's
discoveries as he applied the insights and formal analysis of process
theory to the several kingdoms of nature. In this sense alone, the
book is a remarkable document in the history of science--as the
personal account of a scientific visionary seeing the world in a new
way for the first time..... To the extent that he has succeeded in
identifying valid universal first principles and correlating them with
modern science (as with the basic entities of physics), the theory of
process constitutes an unprecedented system for 1) organizing all of
the data of science, and 2) generating first-order hypotheses for
scientific research. Without underestimating the hard intellectual
work that remains, with the framework defined, the rest of the game is
like "filling in the blanks.
In short, meticulous application of process theory should hasten
progress toward the solution of such long-standing mysteries as:
1) the ultimate nature and function of the non-local "quantum of
action" and its interactions with atomic particles;
2) the evolutionary sequence, characteristics and roles of the various
molecules and molecular bonds;
3) the origin of life and the exquisite subcellular/organellar
organization of the life-sustaining cell;
4) the varied and potent functions of the diverse plants and plant
alkaloids;
5) the structural process which correlates ontogeny (embryological
development) and phylogeny (the sequential development of the distinct
functional animal types);
6) the "mind-body" problem and numerous related psychophysiological
enigmas (such as schizophrenia, the mechanisms of psychedelic drugs,
psychoneuroimmunology, tissue repair and regeneration, etc.); and
7) the nature of the past and future evolution of man. The application
of process theory to scientific inquiry, once accepted, could lead to
the following scenario: 1) university departments of theoretical
biology and medicine in the life sciences (similar to theoretical
physics in the physical sciences, 2) departments of integrative
science (combining the physical and life sciences, both empirical and
theoretical): and subsequently 3) exceptionally creative departments
of evolutionary process or consciousness studies (combining science
and religion, experiment and experience, observation and insight).
Only such a unified approach can lead to ultimate answers.
E. Action and Rotation as Ultimates
Finally, in tackling the domain of "ultimates," Young's process model
features the ontological priority of "light"-the photon or "quantum of
action" and its equivalence with rotation. Science relies on the so-
called measure formulae (where M = mass, L = length/position, and T
time) to describe the universe. The measure formula for "action" is ML
2 /T, which is the same as that for angular momentum or
"rotation." (Action -- i.e., random/'purposive, unconscious,'
conscious impulse, insight or decision -- is instantaneous, point-
like, and "projective particular" and is not to be confused with the
"objective particular" behavior which it subsequently activates. (See
Table 1.)
Advances in quantum physics, primarily derived from studies of the
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) effect and Bell's Theorem (Stapp, 1983;
Rohrlich, 1983; Davies, 1983), have recently culminated in a momentous
series of experiments by a group of French researchers led by Alaine
Aspect (1982) which have clearly established that the quantum of
action has "non-local" properties. That is, light is in some sense
"beyond/outside" space and time. [The "speed of light" is an absolute
or invariant--i.e., unlike all other velocities, it is constant and
can have no other value--and, as the theory of relativity suggests, it
creates a boundary between the photonic quantum of action and all
particulate matter.] The omnipresent, cosmic egg-like "quantum of
action" (ML²/T, Planck's constant): 1) is itself counted (as are
impulses, insights, and decisions, i.e., actions) and not measured.
[As Young points out, you cannot lean out a window 1.42 times. Actions
and quanta come in wholes without the fractions found in the measure
components]; 2) contains the measure components; and 3) is the
"window" of uncertainty/indeterminacy (free will), as noted by
Heisenberg, which instantaneously breaks up (when observed or
measured) into such measurable entities as energy and time, momentum
and position, etc. In fact, through a process called "pair creation",
the non-local, timeless, chargeless, massless photonic quantum of
action literally creates time-bound, charge- and mass-containing
particles (substance), such as the electron and positron or the proton
and anti-proton. In other words, action appears to be ontologically
prior to mass, charge, space, time, particles, forces, or fields.4
Distinguished physicists such as John A. Wheeler and David Bohm have
recently joined Young in emphasizing the priority of the "elementary
quantum phenomenon" or "light." In a recent Nobel conference and book,
Mind in Nature, Wheeler (1982) reflects:
How did the universe come into being? Is that some strange, far-off
process beyond hope of analysis? Or is the mechanism that comes into
play one which all the time shows itself? Of all the signs which
testify to "quantum phenomenon" (the quantum of action] as being the
elementary act and building block of existence, none is more striking
than its utter absence of internal structure and its untouchability.
For a process of creation that can and does operate anywhere, that is
more basic than particles or fields or spacetime geometry themselves,
a process that reveals and yet hides itself, what could one have
dreamed up out of pure imagination more magic and fitting than this?
Bohm (1983) points out that light "determines itself to make
particles....." and that matter "is condensed or frozen light."
Furthermore, he emphasizes that light is primary and time is derived
from it and that, in itself, light has no time, no space, and no
speed. He stresses that light (in its full sense) is one continuous,
unbroken, undivided whole " . . . especially if you consider the
quantum theory which says that the action in it is undivided as well."
To bring home the ultimate nature of light, Bohm clearly points out
that: "Light is what enfolds all the universe. . . it's the potential
for everything . . . the fundamental activity in which existence has
its ground. . ."
It is well known that every organic interaction--that is, every change
of orbit of every electron of every atom of every molecule of every
cell of every tissue of every organism--is ultimately due to the
activational exchange of photons. Young's predictive theory and the
ultimate significance of light led to my own research (Barr, 1983;
1982) regarding the light-absorbing black molecule (neuro)melanin.5
This unique phase-timing molecule--(and/or its closely related pigment
polymer allies, such as melanoidin and the isopentenoids)--is an
excellent candidate for the primary turning point of evolutionary
process. (See Figure 1.) That is, via the appropriate trigger-like
spark of light/action (the original "virgin birth"), the melanin/
melanoidin-building blocks (the 4th substage of the 4th stage) may
have autopolymerized or self-organized into this remarkable light-
absorbing polymer (the 5th substage of the 4th stage). Light (action)
could then develop and utilize this autopoietic, phase-timing
molecular vehicle for its evolutionary ascent--from the organization
of DNA (Barr, 1983a; 1983b) and "life" to the organization of self-
conscious mentation (Barr, 1982) and beyond. Of particular relevance
to this light-directed ascent toward anthropotheic enlightenment is
the ancient gnostic myth of an original being of light, recounted by
Marie-Louise von Franz (1975):
Highly dramatic accounts are given by various Gnostics of the journey
taken by the "Light-Man" or by the personified principle of light, the
Anthropos, who is identical with the supreme godhead. At first he
travels in a spiritual beyond but then, persuaded by evil star-powers,
he falls or flows down into matter and is finally broken up into
thousands of sparks of light or is scattered throughout matter as a
"crucified world-soul," there to await redemption. His liberation is
effected through the efforts of a Redeemer sent by God, or it may be
the task of the single individual to free the pneumatic original being
within himself and to return with him to the kingdom of light. The
gnostic Anthropos myth lived on, underground, in the alchemical
tradition and in Hermetic philosophy, down to the beginning of the
contemporary period.
Throughout the history of religion and mysticism, light has been
described as the ultimate mystical phenomenon (or noumenon). The
spectrum of ancient religions--
1) Hinduism--Vedanta, Sankya/Yoga;
2) Buddhism--Tibetan, Pure Land, etc.;
3) Persian religions--Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, Islamic Sufism;
4) Neo-Taoism--(c.f. "The Secret of the Golden Flower')
5) Gnosticism, etc.; --have at one time or another unquestionably
equated Light and God, especially in their earliest texts. (Eliade,
1965; 1978; 1982; Corbin, 1978; Jonas, 1963). Furthermore,
contemporary near-death experiences (NDE's) center on ineffable light,
as do ancient mystical transit texts such as the Tibeten Book of the
Dead. Illumination or "enlightenment" is literally the name of the
game.
Recall, however, that action and rotation.have the same measure
formula and that the torus itself consists of two perpendicular
"circularities." Like action(s), angular momentum/rotation/rhythmic
cycles are truly universal--from photons, particles, atoms, and
molecules (including the resonating/rotating rings of melanin) to the
rotating cellular centrioles, the direct current loops of cells and
tissues, the rhythmic functional circuits of the neuroendocrine
system, the ultradian/circadian/lunar/solar rhythms, and the rotation
of solar systems, galaxies and the universe itself. As integrative
religious scholars such as Mircea Eliade (1954; 1965; 1978; 1982)
continue to point out, the comparative study of ancient religions and
myths, throughout the world convincingly indicates that ultimate
reality is a coincidentia oppositorum and is cyclic in nature.6 In
Hamlet's Mill Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Deschend (1969)
note that the most ancient and universal myths appear to have
rotational motifs and astronomical/astrological origins. Ernest
McClain (1976; 1982) believes that "ancient wisdom" (including the
gamut of pre-literate oral traditions) is based on a numerical,
rotating "tonal zodiac" (of 360 and 720 degrees). In short, several
lines of inquiry suggest that action/rotation may be the key-to
unraveling the dilemma of "ultimates."
In The Geometry of Meaning, Young (1976b) outlines what promises to be
one of his greatest contributions to the study of consciousness: a
"rosetta stone" of rotation delineating the "meaning" of the phases of
rotation--(which includes the coincidentia oppositorium, though not
explicitly stated as such)--both in terms of the contemporary measure
formulae of physics and in terms of the ancient phase-timing system of
astrology. Furthermore, his "cycle of action" and "learning
cycle" (Young, 1976a; 1976b; 1980; forthcoming; Saloma, 1980) are not
only consistent with the latest findings in neuropsychology regarding
the etiology and mechanisms of "attention" and conscious and
unconscious action and reaction (Barr, 1982) but may very well clarify
phase-timing in general. In a forthcoming book, Young discusses the
problem of how photonic rotation can occur "prior" to space and time,
suggesting that such rotation occurs in "meaning space," i.e., the
rotation itself creates space and time. He also presents some of his
potential breakthroughs in astrology, a subject that he has studied in
depth for many years and has personally verified with amazing
accuracy. His developmental extensions in astrological phase-timing
beyond the foundations of "classical astrology" may perhaps-prove to
be comparable to the advancement of twentieth century physics beyond
classical Newtonian physics..7
Conclusion
Young's theory of evolutionary process successfully fulfills all the
criteria for a unifying paradigm in that it satisfactorily unites:
1) the projective and objective realms of reality;
2) "mind" and "body;
3) freedom/free will and constraint/determinism;
4) teleology and reductionism;
5) God and Nature;
6) religion and science;
7) ancient wisdom and contemporary knowledge.
In addition, it proposes "Light" (action/rotation) as the immanent and
transcendent "First Cause" and/or "Ground of Being," which purposively
constrains, develops, and ultimately re-discovers or realizes Itself
(and Its infinite manifestations) via a reflexive toroidal process
composed of seven stages (and substages) evolving over four levels of
freedom and constraint.
This theory is currently the only paradigm which thoroughly
encompasses all realms of reality and is equally "at home" with the
intricacies of both science and religion. It illustrates the unifying
purpose and structure, the function and form of the ancient myths, the
ancient religions, and the ancient esoteric systems (especially
astrology). It also incorporates the effective core of solidly
substantiated science as well as such avant-garde scientific theories
as: 1) non-linear dynamics, "dissipative structures," and self-
organizational systems (Prigogine, 1980; Jantsch, 1980; Lawrence and
Adey, 1982; Mandell, 1982); 2) "morphogenetic fields" (Sheldrake.
1981); 3) holographic memory (Pribram, 1971); etc.
Unfortunately, only a relatively small amount of Young's extraordinary
consciousness research has been published, and only a small amount of
that which has been published is outlined here. Furthermore, even the
most fundamental principles of the theory of evolutionary process
cannot be satisfactorily summarized in such a cursory review as this.
For example, the inner dynamics of toroidal process, which transpire
through specific interlinking "triads" (the seven Veblen-Young
"committees" of projective geometry) are not covered here. Moreover,
the comprehensive nature of this paradigm demands a dedicated cross-
disciplinary effort on behalf of each consciousness researcher/
explorer in order to be fully appreciated. One must, as it were, "put
it on and wear it" until it feels comfortable.
In summary, I fully agree with Grof (1983) that Young's process theory
is a serious candidate for the metaparadigm of the future. It is
especially valuable to the student of consciousness research who has
been seeking in vain for a comprehensive approach that does justice
both to science and to human experience. I enthusiastically encourage
the open discussion, criticism, expansion, and application of this
remarkably integrative theory.
Notes
1 Francis Hitching (1982) has noted, as have many others, that
Darwinian evolutionists tend to surreptitiously employ the term
"natural selection" as a reductionistic euphemism for teleological
selection:
'Natural selection,' ever since Darwin put the words, at his
publisher's request, in the subtitle of The Origin of Species, has
become not just biology's unifying principle, but its mantra: a phrase
embodying a kind of spiritual power. "Darwin himself endowed it with
an almost metaphysical quality: 'Natural selection is daily and hourly
scrutinizing every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which
is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and
insensibly working at the improvement of each organic being.' Ernst
Mayr compared it to a sculptor, Gavin de Beer called it a master of
ceremonies, George Simpson thought it like a poet or builder,
Theodosius Dobzhansky said it was similar to la human activity such as
performing or composing music'.....
Nevertheless. most biologists officially promote a strictly
purposeless reductionism and tenaciously persist (at least publicly)
in ignoring and/or impugning the obvious teleological purpose and
value projected by and through "Nature." The new-age historian William
Irwin Thompson (1981) demonstrates the sometimes vacuous employment of
reductionism by shooting holes in one of the latest trends in
reductionistic thinking, sociobiology:
As a form of reductionistic thinking, sociobiology seems to be a new
landslide of the detritus of nineteenth century materialism. First, it
reduces a psychological or a cultural complex to a gene, and then it
conceptualizes a gene as a hunk of matter rather than a crystal of
sacred geometry and frozen music. Wilson (1975) speaks of the "upward-
mobile gene" and the "homosexual gene"; we might as well speak of the
car-stealing gene and the vandalism gene and arrest such criminals,
through amniocentesis, in the womb. To say that a teenager steals a
car because he has inherited a car-stealing gene is to fashion oneself
in the sense of Moliere's doctor, who sagely explained that his drug
could induce sleep because it possessed a certain dormagenic property.
2 The rather involved discussion of the degrees of freedom and
constraint is beyond the scope of this article, and the reader is
accordingly referred to Young (1976a; 1976b; 1980; forthcoming) and
Saloma (1980).
3 In his books, Young emphasizes that Level I (e.g. insight, decision)
is projective "particular" and Level IV (e.g. physical object,
observable behavior) is objective "particular"--the basis of all
scientific research. On the other hand, Level II (e.g. value, belief)
is projective "general", while Level III (e.g. concept, theory) is
objective "general". The generality of the "in-between" levels, Levels
II and III--with their mixture of freedom and constraint, their
interplay of time and space, and their uroboric linear-planar
dynamics--may lead to confusion if this categorical formalism is not
strictly observed. For example, Level II "emotivational"/value/belief
is sometimes mistaken for Level III concept/description/theory,
primarily because of the continuous "shift" from one level to the
other and back again. Likewise, the directional flow of Level II
memory experience is categorically different from the static frame of
Level III memory comparison or conceptualization, though each
instantaneous Level III memory and/or sense data comparison (in the
"mind's eye" or "mental space") immediately changes category as it
flows into the temporal, experiential memory realm of Level II, with
its associated feelings. (See Table 1.) In summary, Level II consists
of time-like, Projective, tangible experience (the matrix of feelings
and participation) with no definition possible, while Level III
consists of spacelike. objective, intangible intellect (the matrix of
definition and measure) with no participation possible. These points
are explained in depth elsewhere (Young, 1980; Saloma, 1980; Barr,
1982).
4 Young believes that we should rejoice in the discovery by quantum
physicists that indeterminancy (or the lack of certainty or
constraint) is characteristic of subatomic particles and is complete
with the photon, because this absence of constraint can be positively
associated with freedom/free will.
5 M.S. Blois (1965), a Stanford biophysicist, previously recognized
the organizing potential of melanin and suggested that it was the
"first polymer", preceding and possibly directing the formation of
proteins and nucleic acids. John Oro, current editor of the Journal of
Molecular Evolution, has proposed that the closely related pre-biotic
polymer, melanoidin, because of its special properties and "directing
ability", may have acted as an organizing matrix for the specific
selection of the ribose sugars and nitrogenous bases which constitute
the nucleic acids DNA and RNA (Nissenbaum, 1975).
(Neuro)melanin has numerous unique and/or remarkable established and
proposed properties which are potentially designed for extremely
subtle control by light (action). It is: 1) an incomparable "black box/
absorber" of both light and sound; 2) an excellent photon-(exciton)-
phonon transducer (i.e., able to convert electromagnetic energy to
vibrational energy and vice-versa); 3) an amorphous semiconductor and
potential room-temperature superconductor; 4) primarily composed of
planes of resonating molecular rings contiguous with or adjacent to
other key functional "trigger" molecules; 5) able to produce,
maintain, scavenge, and regulate free radicals (unpaired electrons);
6) able to bind and release the full spectrum of metal ions (necessary
for enzyme activation, membrane dynamics, etc.); 7) a potential
regulator of the various covalent modifications, with the related
potential capacity to trigger and amplify reversible enzyme cascades;
8) capable of autopoietic polymerization primarily from monoamine
"neurotransmitter monomers" (such as dopamine, norepinephrine, and
serotonin); 9) primarily concentrated in the nervous system at the
site of origin of the monoaminergic nerve tracts; 10) able to bind the
various psychoactive substances (such as neuroleptics, stimulants,
tranquilizers, psychedelics, etc.); 11) the potential origin of the
organizational direct (electrotonic) current involved in regulating
cell surface receptors, embryogenesis, tissue regeneration, etc.; 12)
potentially capable of regulating homeostatic functions such as
autonomic nervous system coordination and immunoregulation; 13)
potentially capable of meticulously coordinating neuroendocrine phase-
timing (i.e., the strategic release of amine neurotransmitters and
peptide hormones); 14) the potential regulator of the neuroglial
syncytium, the neuroglial analog current, and consequently, the
"mind's eye" (ratiocination); 15) a potential "holographic film"
capable of capturing wave interference patttrns and storing memories;
16) etc.
The activational phase-timing of the brainstem neuromelanin system,
and its neuroglia and neuroendocrine extensions, appears to be
intimately involved (as far as can be determined by current scientific
observation) in: the initiation and maintenance of consciousness and
"altered states" of consciousness including "transcendent" states
(Mandell, 1980); the control of vital autonomic functions, including
respiratory and cardiovascular control; the organization of
electroencephalographic activity; sensorimotor and emotional-
motivational integration; the regulation of sleeping, dreaming, and
memory; and the regulation of physiological rhythms and
immunoregulation (Barr, 1982; 1983a; 1983b).
6 An in-depth study of the precise nature of rotational cycles (and
the opposite phases contained within each cycle) may resolve the
ongoing religious controversy of "the" ultimate mystical state or
"the" ultimate aim of religion (Murti, 1955; Kaufmann, 1976; Van Over,
1977; Smith, 1976; Wilber, 1980b; Young, 1976). Though this is an
obvious over-simplification, it appears that the various major
religions have tended to focus on different specific cyclic phases.
For example, Vedantic atman/Brahman--(absolute Self or Being) is
frequently contrasted with Buddhistic anatman/Sunyata--(the Void or
Non-Being), while the rapturous, insatiable, experiential "flow" or
"God-intoxificaten" of Sufic longing--(Becoming) may be compared with
the traditional, "solid" constraint of Judaic law and the "fixed"
anthropomorphism of Christian fundamentalism--(Non-Becoming).
Furthermore, one of the major tools of religion, meditation (Goleman,
1977), may also be viewed as a "cycle of opposites", a process which
cycles through the four levels of reality.
Advanced meditation (and sometimes "near death"/"out-
ofbody"experiences and dissociative anesthetics) can easily suppress
the sensori-motor world of Level IV. When this occurs, the opposite
realm, Level II (charge, attraction, experience-in-time) usually
predominates. Level II "experience" may range from the extremely
subtle, very tranquil flow of one's "stream-of-consciousness" (with or
without obvious memories, anticipations, desires) to overwhelming
religious ecstasy, unbearable love or fear, etc. In other words, Level
II covers the entire spectrum of inner experience-in-time, no matter
how subtle or forceful the experience. Many religions, in attempting
to categorize, over several hundred years, the extreme varieties of
mystical "experience" as separate or distinct levels of reality,
appear to have made a category error and have obscured the fact that
all experience occurs in time (Level II). As Carl von Weizslcker
(1983) notes: "There is not even a meaning to the word experience
which would not presuppose the distinction between past and future."
Level I and Level III, on the other hand, are nontemporal (Young,
1980; Saloma, 1980; Barr, 1982) but take advantage of the intervening
temporal memory/experience of Level II in their continuous
interaction. While Level I recognizes or detects Level II memory/
experience, Level III cognizes or ratiocinates Level II memory/
experience. While Level I retrieves or selects Level II memory/
experience, Level III organizes (compares and stores) Level II memory/
experience. In short, the "mind's eye" or "mental space" of Level III
conceptualizes one's experience--(e.g. "just an everyday experience,"
"a memory," "an anticipation," "a belief," "a feeling," "a delusion,"
"similar to the experience 3 years ago," "like nothing I've ever
experienced before."a UFO." "God," etc.)--and stores its memory. Level
I, however, "transcends" both Level II, experience-in-time, and Level
III, comparison-in mental space, and is therefore both non-
experiential and non-conceptual. Being opposite Level III, concept and
description, Level I is ineffable.
7 Classical and modern astrology--including the natal chart. transits,
and progressions, (and possibly pre- and post-natal charts), etc.--if
sincerely and intensively studied (over a minimum of two years), can
be demonstrated, in my opinion, to significantly challenge
contemporary developments in psychoanalytic, humanistic, and
transpersonal psychology in illuminating the dynamics of the human
psyche. Astrology, as a map of process, encompasses both the objective
and the projective aspects of reality and is therefore more inclusive
than science (i.e. scientific method alone. Frequent statements and
assumptions by scientists and "scholars" that astrology is a
simplistic "pseudo-science" which has been proved to be false are
without any foundation and serve instead to indicate the fervent
reductionistic faith (and obvious ignorance) of these self-proclaimed
"authorities." In commenting on the "Statement of 186 Leading
Scientists" against astrology which appeared in the September/ October
1975 issue of the Humanist, the eminent philosopher of science, Paul
Feyerabend (1978) incisively remarks:
Now what surprises the reader whose image of science has been formed
by the customary eulogies which emphasize rationality, objectivity,
impartiality, and so on is the religious tone of the document, the
illiteracy of the "arguments." and the authoritarian manner in which
the arguments are presented. The learned gentlemen have strong
convictions, they use their authority to spread these convictions (why
186 signatures if one has arguments?), they know a few phrases which
sound like arguments, but they certainly do not know what they are
talking about. (This is quite literally true. When a representative of
the BBC wanted to interview some of the Nobel Prize Winners [on the
list] they declined with the remark that they had never studied
astrology and had no idea of its details. Which did not prevent them
from cursing it in public . . . )
References
Aspect, A. et al. Physical Review Letters 49: 91 and 1804, 1982.
Barr, F.E. What Is Melanin? 1983a. Unpublished article available by
request from the Institute for the Study of Consciousness, 2924
Benvenue Ave., Berkeley CA 94705
Barr, F.E. Melanin: The Organizing Molecule. Medical Hypotheses 11 (1
1-140, 1983b.
Barr, F.E. Melanin and the Mind-Brain Problem. 1982. Unpublished
monograph available by request from the Institute for the Study of
Consciousness, 2924 Benvenue Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705.
Blois, M.S. Random Polymers as a Matrix for Chemical Evolution. pp.
19-33 in The Origins of Prebiological Systems and Their Molecular
Matrices (S.W. Fox, ed.) Academic, N.Y., 1965.
Bohm, D. Of Matter and Meaning: The Superimplicate Order. Re-Vision
6(i): 34-44, 1983.
Corbin, H. The Man of Light in Iranian Sufism. Shambhala, Boulder,
CO., 1978.
Davies, P. God and the New Physics. Simon and Schuster, N.Y., 1983.
de Santillana, G. and von Deschend, H. Hamlet's Mill: An Essay on Myth
and the Frame of Time. Gambit. Ipswich, MA, 1969.
Eliade, M. The Myth of the Eternal Return. Princeton University Press.
Princeton, 1954.
Eliade, M. The Two and the One. University of Chicago Press. Chicago,
1965.
Eliade, M. A History of Religious Ideas
On Apr 3, 12:05 pm, Me <agnesche...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This newly published internet published theory has been challenged by
me.
It resembles some of the Nazi rhetoric. I am challenging it on formal
grounds mistakes and plagiarism of the parts I do not object.
3.3.08 Sorry< i am not keeping my promises, as the excerpts were not
formerly published in the internet The full text was past here by me.
I am interested to know how was the correction on this group board
made overnight. Did administrator allow special access to the
corrector? It is also possible that Mr. Young himself operates this
board or that he "owns" or usurps owning the server and from that
access made a correction. Since I first published my THEORY OF
PROCESS in February of 2007, i have made a lot of new inputs to it.
Mr Young was aware of at Princeton University publications and other
applications, like at NY Academy of Sciences or the National science
foundation or via individual scientists contacts. So he is sort of
playing to my court , by false shot. That works since he has removed
the heaviest references to the Nazi rhetoric and we all want it too.
I am currently busy. I will still take on some points of divergence
and convergence with what he wants to accomplish here.
I am informing the audience that he has rushed to publish his Theory
of Process so late and on the internet while keeping it dormant so
long ( his language is archaic enough that we know that it originated
around 1960 ties or even earlier
THE THEORY OF PROCESS 2
by Jack Saloma
A Selected Excerpt
THE DYNAMIC UNIVERSE
The concept of "process" is the single most overarching and inclusive
term in Young's theory and a good starting point for a systematic
consideration of his ideas. Process is a description and an
interpretation of how the universe works. Young uses the term
interchangeably with "time-structure," suggesting an underlying and
definable dynamic. Process is initiated by a purposive, goal-seeking
thrust, an initial venturesomeness that pushes it ahead. At its most
fundamental level, the universe is a process put into motion by
purpose, analogous to a learning experience. Ancient cosmologies speak
of God wanting to know himself, seeking to actualize that which was
only potential. This same undeniable thrust toward actualization is
the essence of what Young means by process.
Thus, Young recognizes both "'first cause" (in the guise of purpose)
and a teleological (directed toward an end) design in nature, two
admissions to theory that modern science has scrupulously avoided.
Since at least Sir Francis Bacon, science has limited itself to the
consideration of secondary causes, rendering itself a partial theory
of the nature of reality. Young's aim in the theory of process is to
achieve a comprehensive theory or metaparadigm that includes and is
thoroughly consistent with the best science but which is capable of
dealing with nonobjective, nondefinable aspects of reality beyond the
accepted limits of science.
Young's investigation of how process works led him to some profound
insights into the nature of reality. At the most general level,
process or time-structure exhibits several features. It incorporates
"the arrow of time," the basic asymmetry of time, always moving ahead
from the past through the present into the future. Young rejects the
assumption of relativity theory that time is dimensionally
interchangeable with space. The fundamental irreversibility of time
must be included in any basic cosmological statement.
Process is defined as a series of actions or operations taken to reach
an end. Process, accordingly, Young concludes, must have direction,
build on itself, and use means to attain its goal, these means being
determinate or predictable if they are to be effective. The free,
initiating, creative play of purpose needs fixed laws, constraints,
and a deterministic framework through which to realize its goal.
Young's process paradigm deals expressly with this interplay of
freedom and constraint.
FOURFOLD REALITY
Young has discovered a specific pattern, an explicit design to process
that repeats itself again and again in nature. The "structure" of
"time-structure" has four categorically distinct aspects. Two of these
aspects are objective while two are nonobjective or projective. Young
devotes much of his second book, The Geometry of Meaning, to an
exposition of the fourfold.
The importance of the discovery of fourfold reality to the
construction of a New Age paradigm cannot be overemphasized. Science
assumes that reality is monistic, i.e., that there is only one kind of
ultimate substance. Mind, for example, is generally viewed as an
epiphenomenon of the brain, not as part of a basic dualism in nature.
New Age thinking, on the other hand, tends to accept a dualistic or
loosely defined "multidimensional" view of reality, making a
distinction between objective and nonobjective reality. Physicist
David Bohm's contrast of explicate and implicate order points in this
direction as does Carlos Castaneda's popularized teaching of "a
separate reality." Young alone, however, has seen the power and
necessity of a fourfold analytical interpretation of objective and
projective reality. In order to function, universal process requires
not one but two dualisms, two pairs of opposites that mediate each
other.
The concept of fourfold reality is the formal entry into the theory of
process. Unless one grasps it the full power of Young's insights and
the formal integrity and validity of the theory will be missed. This
is a major stumbling block since the concept is so totally foreign to
most scientifically conditioned, rational thinking.
Why four and why only four? Young attempts to answer the question in
several ways. Possibly the most accessible explanation is found in his
example of the learning cycle.
This example is important because it emphasizes the unitary and
cyclical nature of reality which, when analyzed, is broken down into
four parts. It is essential to remember in the following discussion
that Young views process as a unity, a dynamic potency whose division
into aspects creates a tension between the parts. This is a
cosmological principle of the first order: the parts are preceded by
and derived from the whole and can only be understood with reference
to the whole. The reductionist approach in science, in contrast,
assumes that the parts are fundamental.
Young describes how the child learns. He reaches out in a spontaneous
act or in curiosity to feel some strange object. This is the
instinctual starting place of learning, (I) thoughtless or unconscious
action. If he touches a hot stove, he withdraws his hand instinctively
in pain, (II) unconscious reaction. Next he observes the situation,
reflecting on what has caused him pain. Eventually he makes the mental
connection that signals an awareness of the situation, (III) conscious
reaction. Finally he incorporates and applies that awareness to future
encounters with stoves, exercising deliberate action or control, (IV)
conscious action. Thus, there are four aspects in this learning cycle:
(I) impulse, (II) feeling, (III) reason, and (IV) control or
manipulation of physical reality. Through this cycle, the child
acquires a conscious grasp of the world.
The proposal that these particular four distinctions are the correct
and only way to categorically divide the flow of the cycle is given
support by ancient philosophy. Young feels that the ancients had a far
more profound, albeit intuitive, understanding of the universe than
does modern man. Many of the ancient symbol systems, esoteric
traditions, and mythologies incorporate a fourfold distinction and
offer valuable clues to any attempt to verbalize the four aspects. The
"four causes" of Aristotle are a good example. Aristotle analyzes an
object such as a table in terms of four causes or aspects: (I) a final
cause, its purpose; (II) a material cause, the substance from which it
is made; (III) a formal cause, the blueprint or concept that guides
its construction; and (IV) an efficient cause, the actual work of the
carpenter in making the table. In the theory of process Young defines
these four aspects of reality as: (I) First Level--purpose or
potential, (II) Second Level-substance or value, (III) Third Level--
form or concept, and (IV) Fourth Level--combination or formed
substance.
Young represents the fourfold alternately as a set of coordinate axes
and as four layers or levels. These diagrams show a categorical
distinction between objective (quantifiable, measurable, verifiable)
reality and aspects of reality that do not lend themselves to
objective study and communication.
We have little difficulty in acknowledging the objective physical
reality of our sense perceptions or the objective mental reality of
concepts, language, mathematics, and logic. Both are subject to
confirmation and communication independent of the observer. Note that
we are recognizing two types of objective reality-one is physical and
the other is mental and nonphysical. It is less easy for us to
understand nonobjective reality because of the focus the modern
Western mind has on objective reality.
Returning to our earlier example of the fourfold, Aristotle's four
causes, we can show that the ancient recognition of nonobjective
reality was lost to modern science. Aristotle's final and formal
causes were assigned by Bacon to "metaphysics" since they were less
discernible in nature (being noumenal rather than phenomenal).
"Physics" appropriately studied the material and efficient causes: the
substance undergoing change and that by which change was produced.
Gradually these two branches of "natural philosophy" were separated
and by the time of
...
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
- References:
- Re: The Theory of Process
- From: Me
- Re: The Theory of Process
- Prev by Date: Russians in United Staes
- Next by Date: Arthur Young grounded in his process!
- Previous by thread: Re: The Theory of Process
- Next by thread: Re: The Theory of Process
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
