The search is on for new unities and meanings; a convergence, one might say, of the realities of science, nature, religion–and , of course,mysticism.

By mysticism I mean simply the institutional penetration of our camouflage reality to achieve deeper understandings relative to our physical and mental environments. No matter what our individual orientations may be, collectively we do have overall purposes in the world we’ve created. This realization alone can be a transforming one; it can be a , most useful one in practical, everyday life as well. within that sort of framework, the evolution in whatever way it may concern the development of ideas, planets, creatures, or anything else–make sense.

In scientific and religious terms we know little about our world [and universe]…

…Its origins, and its amazing variety of forms, both “living” and “nonliving.” Our own limitations may have something to do with our attitudes. Be careful about believing science or religion when either one tells us it can explain our world, for each of those disciplines ignores too much. No matter what the source of this camouflage reality may be, our conscious lack of knowledge and understanding as we manipulate within it, through naive realism or any other system of belief or perception, ought to make us humble indeed; all arrogance should be transcended as we become more and more aware of the limitless beauty, complexity, and mystery that surrounds us, and of which we are a part. I don’t think it all came through  chance. the mind can ask too many questions to be satisfied with mechanistic explanations, and nurturing that characteristic of dissatisfaction alone may be one of the most valuable contributions.

o8854

To me, even “ordinary” linear knowledge as it accumulates through the next century or two, not to mention over longer spans of time, is certain to severely modify or make obsolete many concepts about origins and evolution that today are dispensed by those in authority–and which most people accept unthinkingly.

or4imr

For some years now, organized religion as a whole has been suffering from loss of faith and members, stripped of its mysteries by science, which, with the best of intentions, offer in religion’s place a secular humanism–the belief that one doesn’t need blind faith in a god in order to be morally concerned for the common welfare; paradoxically, however, this concern is most of the time expressed in religious terms, or with religious feeling. Yet science too has experienced many failures in theory and technology, and knows a new humility; at least partly because of these failures, anti-intellectualism has grown noticeably in recent years.

omermrdu5

I certainly am not turned on to realize that a major religion, for instance, teaches the “facts” of man’s basically corrupt and sinful nature; surely a religion in the best sense can offer beliefs superior to those!At the same time, I take note of the latest efforts of biological researchers to explain how, millions of years ago, a primitive DNA molecule could begin to manufacture the protein upon which life “rides,” and thus get around the contradiction: What made the protein that sustains the processes of life, before that life was present to make the protein? The scientist involved hope the new hypothesis will survive further tests and become “fact,” thus giving clues to the riddles of origins and evolution. How does one deal with new facts that undermine old facts, in whatever field of endeavor? Do we say that reality has changed? Upon examination, facts give.

In our terms of history, man appeared in several different ages–not from an animal ancestor in the way generally supposed.

Their were men-animals, but they were not our stock. They did not “lead” to anything. They were species in their own right.

There were animal-men. The terms are for our convenience. In some species the animal-like tendencies predominated, in others the manlike tendencies did so: Some were more like men, some more like animals. The Russian steppes had a particular giant-sized species. Some also i believe in Spain–that area.

a6j

There is considerable confusion, for that matter, as to geological ages as they are understood. Such species existed in many of these ages. Man, as we think of him or her, shared the earth with the other creatures just mentioned. In those terms so-called modern man, with our skull structure and so forth, existed alongside of the creatures now supposed to be his/her ancestors.

There was some rivalry among these groups as well as some cooperation. Several species, say, of modern man died out. There was some mating among these groups–that is, among the groups in existence at any given time.

a7k

The brain capacities of our particular species have always been the same. Many of the man-animal groups had their own communities. To us they may seem to have been limited, yet they combined animal and human characteristics beautifully, and they used tools quite well. In a manner of speaking they had the earth to themselves for many centuries, in that modern man did not compete with them.

Both the man-animals and the animal-men were born with stronger instincts. They did not need long periods of protection as infants, but in animal fashion were physically more agile at younger ages than, say, human infants.

a64uj

The earth has gone through entire cycles unsuspected by our scientists. Modern man, then, existed with other manlike species, and appeared in many different places on the earth, and at different ages.

There were then also animal-men and man-animal civilizations of their kinds, and there were complete civilizations of modern man, existing [long] before the ages now given for, say, the birth of writing(in 3100 b.c.)

There are verbal difficulties having to do with the definition of life.

Because of the psychological strength of preconceived notions. Our kind of conscious ind is splendid and unique. It causes us, however, to interpret all other kinds of life according to our own specifications and experiences.

There is no such thing , in your terms, as nonliving matter. There is simply a point that we recognize as having the characteristics that we have arbitrarily ascribed to life, or living conditions. For there is no particular point at which life was inserted into nonliving matter.

d7

If we must speak in terms of continuity, which i regret, then in those terms we could say that life in the physical universe, on our planet, “began” spontaneously in a given number of species at the same time. Words do nearly forsake me, the semantic differences are so vast. In those terms there was a point where consciousness through intent, impressed itself into matter. That “breakthrough” cannot be logically explained, but only compared at once, that became a medium for life as we define it. It had nothing to do with the propensity of certain kinds of cells to reproduce–[all cells are] imbued with the set the conditions in which life was possible as we think of it; and at that imaginary, hypothetical point, all species became latent. The inner pulsations of the invisible universe reached certain intensities that “impregnated” the entire physical system simultaneously. That illumination was everywhere then at every point aware of itself, and of the conditions formed by its presence.

eeem,

At the same time, Electromagnetic Energy units became manifest. The universe expands as an idea does, and so the visible universe sprang into being in the same manner. The same energy that gave birth to the universe is, in those terms, still being created. The Electromagnetic Energy units contain within themselves the latent knowledge of all of the various species that can emerge under those conditions. It is according to our relative position. We can say that it took untold centuries for Electromagnetic Energy units to “initially” combine, forming classifications of matter and various species and of the entire environment. In those terms the environment forms the species and the species form the environment. There were fully developed men–that is, of full intellect, emotion, and will–living at the same time, in our terms, as those creatures supposed to be man’s evolutionary ancestors

fg

However, as we begin to question the nature of time itself, then the “when” of the universe is beside the point. The motion and energy of the universe still comes from within. I certainly realize that this is hardly a scientific statement–yet the moment that All That Is conceived of a physical system it was invisibly created, endowed with creativity, and bound to emerge [into physical reality].

eeff

There is a design and a designer, but they are so combined, the one within the other, the one within and one without, that it is impossible to separate them. The creator is within its creations, and the creations themselves are gifted with creativity. The world comes to know itself, to discover itself, for the planner left room for divine surprise, and the plan was nowhere foreordained. Nor is there anywhere within it anything that corresponds to our “survival of the fittest” theories.

In certain terms the “Theory of Evolution”, as it is conventionally held, has caused unfortunate beliefs.

For how can you look at ourselves with self-respect, with dignity or with joy, if we believe that we are the end product of forces in which the fittest survive? Being the fittest implies those given most to what would appear to be murderous intent–for we must survive at the expense of our fellows, be you leaf, frog, plant or animal.

We do not survive through  cooperation, according to that theory, and nature is not given a kind or creative intent, but a murderous one. And if we see ourselves as the end result of such a species, then how can we expect goodness or merit or creativity for oneself, or from others? How can we believe that we live in a safe universe when each species exists because it survives through claw, if it must hunt and kill out of murderous intent, as implied in the theories of evolution and of reality itself?

bio67

So when we think of our beliefs and who we are, we must also think of our species, and how we are told our species came to be. For your private beliefs are also based upon those theories, and the beliefs, culturally, of our times.

i4i

It is seldom that we really question our biological origins, what they mean, and how we interpret them. Are we physically composed of murderous cells, then each spontaneously out to get the others? If so, our physical being is more miraculous a product. If our cells did not cooperate so well, we would not be reading these words.As you read this, the cooperative, creative adventure within our bodies continues, and in terms of continuity reaches back prehistorically and into future. Because consciousness creates form with joy, there is no murder that you have not projected out of misunderstanding and ignorance of the nature of the consciousness.

nrns

Roots do not struggle to exist. One species does not fight against the others to live. Instead creativity emerges, and cooperatively the environments of the world is known and planned by all the species. What appears to be struggle and death to us at those levels is not, now, for the experience of consciousness itself is different there, as is the experience or our own cellular composition.

i67u

Our bodies knows how to walk. The knowledge is built in and acted upon. The body knows how to heal itself, how to use its nourishment, how to replace its tissues–yet in our terms the body itself has no access to the kind of information the mind possesses. Being so ignorant, how does it perform so well?

h66g

If it were scientifically inclined, the body would know that such spontaneous performance was impossible, for science cannot explain the reality of life itself in its present form, much less its origins. Consciousness within the body knows that its existence is within the body’s context, and apart from it at the same time.

Science wants only what Science believes.

While postulating that life is basically meaningless or goal-less [DNA doesn’t care what its host looks like], science fights awfully hard to convince everyone that it’s right–thus attaching the most rigid kind of meaning or direction to its professional views! At the same time, in mathematical and biological detail much too complicated to go into, the author of many a scientific work favor of evolution has ended up by undermining, unwittingly, I’m sure, the very themes he or she so devoutly believes in.

nere

The brain’s great creative neocortex is held especially accountable for problems that may lead to humanity’s self-destruction.

In our camouflage reality the ordinary concept of evolution becomes very complex if one chooses to make it so.

The process can be discussed from many viewpoints.

The members of each “pressure group,” whatever its orientation, want to see things their way–very human performances. Once it’s created, each school of thought takes upon itself, and often with great intellectual and emotional arrogance, the right to advance its own belief systems in the world at the expense of its rivals.

To imagine that an entire environment is an accident is intellectually outrageous and emotionally sterile.

To a molecule of DNA the conventional notion of evolution….

Could such an entity grasp that idea, or even want to–might be hilarious indeed, given its own enhanced time scheme. Actually it would be more to the point if perhaps with the aid of hypnosis and/or visualization, we tried from our giant-sized viewpoints to touch such minute consciousnesses with our own, and so extend our knowledge in unexpected ways. Some probable realities might be reached–potential conscious achievements that I think are already within the reach of certain gifted individuals. We each create our own reality, with all that that implies.

pt5,l

Our real challenge is knowing our own species, and others, may lie in our cultivating the ability to understand the interacting consciousnesses involved, rather than to search only for physical relationships supposedly created through evolutionary processes. The challenge is profound. The consciousnesses of numerous other species may be so different from ours, and miss the essences of others entirely. To give just two examples, at this time we are surely opaque to the seemingly endless search for value fulfillment that consciousness displays through the  “lowly” lung fish and the “unattractive” cockroach. Yet those entities are quite immune to our notions of evolution, and they explore time contexts in ways far beyond our current human comprehension. As far as science knows, both have existed with very little change for over 300 million years.