KARL  JASPERS  FORUM
TA108 (Green)

 

Commentary 8 (to Patlavskiy, C3 and C7)

 

 

NATURAL ORDER, NATURAL LAW

by Joseph S. Johnson

15 July 2008, posted 16 August 2008

 

 

<1>

My arguments on this thread are based on 1) the assumption that the reader has read “About the Continuity of Our Consciousness” by Pim Van Lommel (1) referred to by Green, and 2) that the near death experiences (NDE) and studies thereof as described therein are factual and responsibly reported; particularly reports of clinically ‘brain-dead’ patients accurately reporting hearing and seeing events taking place during their comatose state, contrary to all medical theory.  Where such new experience is in such major conflict with existing belief a major synthesis is required to reconcile the two.  It is argued here that natural laws are only a small part of the larger hierarchic structure of natural order that is subjective at the highest level.

 

<2>

S.P.{2} “In my view, a true revolution would be in case we give up using such word as "epiphenomenon" at all, and accept that consciousness (or sensitivity to information and information workability) , matter, and energy are three equally important factors that, when acting together, enable existence of everything existent in our Reality.”  [JJ]:  Materialists invoke ‘epiphenomenon’ to imply that consciousness and its subjective experience is simply a meaningless shadow or illusion emerging from the ‘real’ material world.  My point is that the phenomenon of such emergence is a basic property of natural order of cosmos taken as a process in time.  In other words, what we observe in nature is the endless proliferati on from the most general to the most refined particulars, an evolution across innumerable levels of emergent properties of increasingly complex systems. This is the process structure of natural order.

 

<3>

What the materialists fail to understand is that it is consciousness that is fundamental, i.e. the Source, the abstract, the general, and it is the material that is contrived, derivative.  While we can ‘know’ consciousness (and perhaps more deeply through meditation) because we ‘are’ conscious, natural laws are simply the ways we define our experience with the emergent objective particulars.  Regardless of the depth of experimental data from our physical experiments such as the new LHC, the human mind will never compose an objective theory (TOE) that will explain all the data for the simple reason that at the most fundamental level, natural order is subjective.  The implication is that the material world will more likely be found to be the  contrived illusion. 

 

<4>

As William Byers (TA99) put it, when new experience clashes with old ideas, the result can be ambiguity, contradiction, even paradox.  As ‘new experience’ what NDE’s seem to demonstrate, more than anything, is that objectivity and subjectivity are two ends of the same stick; dualism is dead.  In other words, natural order is unitary, coherent.  Our perception of the persistent creativity of cosmos as process in time implies a most remarkable coherence of direction and means.   Direction appears to be from eternal sameness or omniscience toward eternal novelty.  As to means, novelty is impossible without perceived differences, requiring the imposition of limit s, constraints, both objective and subjective.  At our level, both matter and energy are relevant to discussion as particular expressions of the deeper structure of natural order.  However, the vital relational feature binding objective and subjective experience missing from most discussions is the relevance of the hierarchic structure of natural order connecting the two.

 

<5>

[S.P.] TA108 C3<20> “Consciousness, rather, organizes.  Namely, it tends to reduce the entropy of the system which is described by informational characteristic. In case of the living organisms, consciousness (or, the acts of processing and conceptualization of information) is responsible for the effect of self-organization, and life as such.  Therefore, the formulated law may be accepted if by the term "creation" we would mean "organization, or the improvement of something which already exists". For example, "creation of a life-form" should be meant as an "improvement, or organization of some already existent dead-form".   [J.J]: Stated in that manner suggests dualism; intervention in a mechanistic universe, which is misleading.  Bioscience reveals tha t self-organizing even precedes living organisms, to say nothing of creation of more complex atoms in stars, etc, so self-organization (consciousness) is there from the beginning, further supporting the notion that the deeper structure of natural order is singular, unitary, rather than dualistic. 

 

<6>

Again, we wrote natural laws simply to describe our experience of objective relationships within closed, isolated physical systems, rather than to cosmos as a whole.  They become essential tools to support our own creativity, independent of the larger cosmic process. On the other hand, natural order is the specification of the hierarchic structure of the essential qualities of the whole cosmic process; qualities which begin subjective and general, expressed as increasingly refined particulars, both objective and subjective, as the cosmic process in time.  For example, the very refined particulars of biological properties are sustained at the more abstract level by chemical laws, while chemical properties are sustained at the more abstract level by physical laws, while physical laws are sustained at a more abstract level by symmetry constraints upon the several forces.  Specifically, the big bang metaphor of creation reveals the equation between the objective and subjective properties of natural order: whereas the entire body of conservation law represents particulars of ‘symmetry,’ the hierarchic structure of natural order tells us that if symmetry is an abstract of conservation law, then symmetry must be a particular of still higher subjective abstracts of natural order, such as aesthetics and beyond. In turn, this has much to tell us of the reason why aesthetic sensibilities have evolved in the dominant species, and how they relate to our emotions and give direction to our more constructive and sustaining choices, and why such values have been a major issue in human history.  It is hardly surprising that the neural faculties of the dominant species have evolved to reveal to us the hierarchic structure of natural order in both objective and subjective qualities. (‘Abstraction Theory’ TA79 R8, etc.)  The creative subject seems nothing less than the integral agent of the larger cosmic process. 

 

<7>

Again, looking back on Cosmos as such a process, general features seem to stand out.  Creation appears as nothing less than flight of consciousness from eternal sameness toward eternal novelty.  Given the apparent scarcity (our lonely planet) and brevity of life where it does occur, all created at such enormous cost, it would make no sense at all if all such experience – information – was not conserved, and that the implicit creativity of consciousness had no other realm of existence, perception or expression than the physical.  As a tentative theory, it would seem that the ‘soul’ is born into the characteristics of local time and place; the beginning of an eternal and increasingly refined journey in the care and direction of the creative and sustaining sou rce of all. 

 

<8>

Not being a physicist, I can only wonder whether nonlocality, higher dimensions, etc. can account for such (subjective) information storage, interaction and processing.  It might explain why such ‘order’ of higher dimensional information is proving so intractable to objective analysis and any TOE.  Ideas?

 

------------------------------------------------

 

Note:

 

1. “About the Continuity of Our Consciousness” by Pim van Lommel.  See:

http://www.towardthelight.org/neardeathstudies/pimvanlommelarticles.html

 

------------------------------------------------

 

Joseph S. Johnson

     e-mail <jsjnson (at) comcast.net>