Shift

December 18, 2009 | Leave a Comment

Category: Play, Society, Unconscious

Thomas Kuhn describes those unique situations when a science discipline experiences a shift.  Shifts occur in different ways.  One way that a shift happens is when a new presupposition introduces new information that offers an almost completely alternative frame of reference and new world view.  Everything seems to look different with the new presupposition.  The established presupposition, by not embracing the new presuppositions, can continue in a kind of alternative universe.  The question becomes:  Which presuppositional matrix is more useful for which particular outcomes?  Asking which paradigm is true is not a useful question.

Darwin expressed deep distress and consternation that his theory of natural selection was instrumental in the discussion of whether god existed.  Indeed, his fears were reasonable, and we might say that society has shifted as a result of its acceptance of the theory.  This work operates with a different thesis.  It is an integration of all three of Darwin’s theories and the work of theorists that immediately followed.  This orchestral theory of evolution is an alternative frame of reference and a new world view.  Nevertheless, it has roots going back thousands of years, with connections to the work of many contemporary theorists.  Try on this work like a winter overcoat in a blizzard of reductionist premises and feel if spring might seem to be coming a little closer.  If my hypotheses offer little usefulness in your experience, return it to the idea manufacturer.

Although this work draws upon the research and experiments conducted by scientists for centuries, there is a radical departure from trends initiated and supported over this long period of time.  This is a paradigm that unites contemporary theorizing with features carried forward from aboriginal frames of reference.  Just as neoteny in biology carries forward ancestor infant features to adult descendants, this work carries forward ancient aboriginal processes to inform contemporary pattern recognition.  Another way to say it is that this is a work of both my unconscious and conscious minds, associating the unconscious with primary process, primary process being central to the daytime consciousness of our aboriginal forebears.  In other words, this is a work of play.

As will be explored in detail in several sections of this work in the upcoming compilation, understanding consciousness is integral to understanding human and biological evolution.  Presupposing that everything is connected is to regard one’s relationship with consciousness as fundamental to a theory of evolution.  In other words, philosophy, or how we relate to spirituality, has been considered integral to an understanding of how we come to evolutionary theory conclusions.  This is what Darwin feared, that evolution and one’s opinion of spirituality be closely tied.  I would suggest that it is more useful to step into such an evolutionary theory discussion and make it clear how theorizing is informed by one’s relationship with connection or not connection, seemingly deistic or material perspectives.  I’m hoping that we can then discuss what is useful, not what’s true.

The atheism-advocating Neo-Darwinians are right that evolution theory is directly tied to a deity or nondeity frame of reference.  This theory of evolution is grounded in an alternative, still nonmythology-based, point of view.  I would suggest that maintaining a relativistic frame is essential while navigating between these two paradigms.  The atheists proclaim that truth is relevant.  I think not.  I’m not concerned with whether god exists or not as regards evolutionary theory.  What I find interesting is whether behaving as if there is that which connects everything offers theorizing advantages.

The potential advantages are twofold.  First, are the results of this theory useful?  I concentrate on the origins of autism and related conditions and a variety of diseases and conditions that may be explained by this work’s perspective.  For example, does this theory usefully explain autism and provide avenues to enhance the autistics’ experience?  Does this theory provide parents choices before and during pregnancy, making it possible for the condition to emerge in less burdening forms?

Second, is the theorizing process itself enhanced by behaving as if everything is connected?  Unlike Huxley’s revelation regarding the simplicity of Darwin’s theory of natural selection, the principles and processes outlined in this orchestral theory of evolution are characterized by a complex, subtle yet elegant, interconnected whole that I would consider impossible to create without a presupposition that everything is connected.  What we presuppose influences the world we perceive.  This work represents a shift both in theory and how a theory is constructed as it shifts back to nonmaterialistic perspectives while shifting forward to nonmythological interconnection.  I’m interested in the deistic without the deity.


Comments

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Share your wisdom