Since, with science, we have now mostly conquered superstitions and mysteries in the physical realm of our experiences – volcanoes, tides, gravity, centrality of the sun, matters of matter, etc., etc. I think we now need to focus on our metaphysical world – the world we actually live in - and try to root out superstitions and voids of knowledge that may still retard our progress there. I suggest, for your consideration, that the following old, fixed ideas about elements of Nature may require some review:
A. Nature does not, I think, function randomly. This is suggested by the abundant evidence of Nature’s almost unbelievable ability to be inventive, efficient and adjustable rather than random with regard to its evolutionary products. Modern biologists say there is little or no evidence of the experimentation that one would expect in terms of a random processes of evolutionary change according to Darwin and co. If ‘mere’ mortals like Luther Burbank, for instance (a horticulturist and mortal ‘deity’) can have such a huge influence domesticating fruit trees why not other, little understood, energies of what could be called pan-creativity – a term invented to cover our present confusion as to what controls pre-human evolutionary forces.
The other important reason to consider why randomness may not apply in our affairs comes from the growing evidence that the collective output of ‘modern’ consciousness, as measured during emotional or mental peaks of crowd participation say, can influence the so-called Random Event Generator (REG) used as a reference for these measurements. However, where or when is there no such influence to be found in any statistical analysis, I wonder?
Consider also the mind-over-matter implications of the placebo effect – especially applied by the pharmaceutical industry in their struggle with ethical integrity.
I don’t think it is clear yet what other forces of influence may be at play in the universe. Because they are yet ‘unproved’ does not mean they emphatically do not exist. As usual, your opinions on this are welcome.
B. Suffering is not, I think, some kind of moral punishment or healing ‘potion’ in itself but, now that we have reached levels of evolutionary self-consciousness is, rather, just a warning message of evolutionary and personal consequence. In other words, it is a practical opportunity for us to serve our own destiny and to assist, to repeat myself, in the ‘Man, Know Thyself ‘of classical wisdom. We are now equipped with an opportunity, you might say, to influence our own personal and species evolution.
C. It seems obvious (although worth stating here) that the constituent particles or atoms of this (living) body must consist by now of some aspect of all of psycho-bio-physico qualities if it is expected to reflect – which it does - these qualities in the living organism. Or else someone must explain, if this combination is not the definition of pristine matter, how these three qualities come together in H. sapiens.
We get appropriate results when we measure wave or particle properties of electrons (according to our laboratory questions) but how about a few discerning biological or psychological questions also. If we want to study atoms, that’s good, but do we yet – despite our deep study of these things as observers - really see the full, intimate face of the atom?
D. If all mechanical and psychological events are meaningful and not random, it follows that suffering, in particular because it is an attribute of human consciousness, must be meaningful also, and not simply a vague and random end in itself, existing just for its own mysterious reasons. Furthermore, for all events including suffering to be consistently meaningful, I believe it is necessary for all things to be somehow interrelated and, particularly, for the psyche and the individual body to be specifically and purposefully matched {which I refer to as specificity (dealt with in 2n Fire) because of the precision required}.
E. I suggest, as a practicality, that we should acknowledge the potency of evolutionary energy – that which has brought us, by some remarkable coincidence, to the present level of consciousness – capable of discovering ourselves and, perhaps, for the first time, controlling the trajectory of our own personal and species evolution. The important consequence of this logic being that the body and the mind can be used to diagnose and therefore to heal, one another.
Evolution is today not a theory, but should be accepted as a fact which can therefore be used as the basis for the development of theories and useful creative research. Part of that fact also implies, because of its energy, that evolution is in harmony with that part of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which would require of the earth, if left uninfluenced, to cool down to absolute zero and simplify – the opposite of Evolution.
F. The further, possibly valuable, acknowledgement is that the goal of that trajectory seems to be not blind but something that I am provisionally calling ‘Unity’, which may be equivalent to the ‘Omega Point’, in Teilhard de Chardin’s terms.
Both terms have the merit of de-personalising the concept of a Godhead or creative source which then has less emotional and more intellectual potential for energy and therefore less inclined to lead to interpretations of destructive exclusiveness.
It is not too difficult then to sense the ultimate possibility of equalising concepts of Unity with concepts of a Deity.
G. Do not underestimate the possible influence of intentions emanating from the conscious and unconscious mind(s) of human beings. From the perspective of Evolution it is probable that the influence of these intentions is accelerating – especially in the light of uncertain assumptions about the whereabouts, if any, of true randomness.
Control of such negative (or positive) influences, however small, may, as I think I may have already implied, have an influence on individual and general health.