Non duality and evolution, was: evolution ?

[Guest guest]

, Dharma <deva@L...> wrote:

 

Hello Dharma,

 

 

to continue the discussion:

 

> Myth is symbol in movement... a way of perceiving the world and

> structuring our perceptions. It is perhaps unique to modern times

that we

> are able to see the myths in which we live, our own ways of

understanding

> the world. To say that something is a myth does NOT mean that it

isn't

> true.

 

Shaving off all concepts and all ideas, what /is/ true ?

 

> But this is one world, one universe, both material and

> spiritual... one does not evolve in the absence of the other. It

is a

> thinking, conscious world that is in evolution.

>And so he sees evolution as the forward movement

>of the thinking world.

 

Yes, the natural world is constantly evolving but every kind of

change does not automatically mean evolution. The term evolution

encompasses the changes that are transmitted from one generation to

the next and which allows the organism to increase fit in the natural

habitat. The term increased fit = having less energetically costly

reactions to their environment. Not all changes in the genome will

necesarily lead to an increased fit to the environment, on the

contrary, most genetic changes are detrimental to the organism having

them and is quickly taken out of the gene pool.

 

I think your sources use the word evolution meaning "change for

something better, more positive, more godlike" both Teilhard and the

other author's words indicate that. However, the value

judgement "better" is not applicable in evolutionary biology unless

the term is used in comparison with the existing environment. Better

is not used to compare two species since every species represents an

individual pathway of evolution, yet another difference from the way

your sources use the term evolution, where they seem to refer to all

species overall. Biological evolution does not directly compare

different species and grade them unless they are thought to be sister

or founder species and then the comparison is done to establish the

species' relationship with each other.

 

Also, your sources see evolution as a linear movement from point A

(bad, unspiritual) to point B (good, God-like). In biological terms,

evolution does not happen /towards/ something, in order to better

the /overall/ physical world or to improve anything as a whole. The

physical world outside of the organisms is seen as perfect /as it is/

and is both the force which pushes organismal evolution and the

framework where the organismal evolution takes place.

 

What evolves are the organisms and their reactions to the constantly

changing physical world, not all species as a whole, because every

species has it's own rate of evolution and evolutionary pressures.

There is no better or worse, there is only what is, the physical

world.

 

As soon as the environment changes on a large or global scale, which

has happened several times during the history of the planet, the

individual species may find themselves decreased in fit despite

earlier having had an almost near fit to the environment, and the

evolutionary pressure thus become stronger in another direction or

other species may have increased in fit because of the environmental

changes.

 

> >As the years go by, Lord, I come to see more and more clearly, in

myself

> >and in those around me, that the great secret preoccupation of

modern man

> >is much less to battle for possession of the world than to find a

means of

> >escaping from it. The anguish of feeling that one is not merely

spatially

> >but ontologically imprisoned in the cosmic bubble; the anxious

search for

> >an issue to, or more exactly a focal point for, the evolutionary

process:

 

Humans already have a focal point for their evolution and that is the

physical body both as inividual and as species. An organism which is

mentally, physically and emotionally flexible in its responses to the

changing environment has a good fit to the environment. In many ways,

natural evolution works in two dimensions, 1: to keep a widest

possible range of behavioral or organismal response to the

environment and 2: to keep as accurate a response to the environment

as possible, two values which are constantly weighed against each

other.

 

A mind unencumbered by emotional memories of the past and notions of

self apart from the natural environment and the other organisms

around it which constantly has to be defended from the environment,

has a much reduced waste of physical energy to spend in responding to

changes in the environment. Spinal reflexes are energetically less

costly and faster than having to consciously think every time you

want to prevent stumbling or withdraw your hand from a hot object.

The same way, a mind less encumbered by emotional memories can react

to changes in the environment with a greater range of response and

often times more accuracy because the mind is more accepting to the

current state of things, representing a less waste of energy for the

brain and muscles (one quote from Kean Klein in Joyce's recent post

indicates this).

 

My idea with separating the usual term of spiritual evolution (going

from an "unspiritual" to a "spiritual" state) with that of biological

evolution (going from "less fit" to a constant to "increased fit" to

a constant) was to present a view of non duality in terms of

biological evolution as suggest that the non dual state has been kept

as a possibility for the human species by selective pressures and

natural mechanisms.

 

I also wished to present a possible selective process which happens

in the individual organism which may be governed by similar physical

norms which cause natural selection and evolution on a species scale

(and be shaped and maintained by this) to establish the

experience/being of the non dual state in the organism, but I think

I'll have to save that for later.

> >In addition, the changes observed in the

> >organism during the spiritual "evolution" happen in the phenotype,

> >not in the gene pool,

>

> Are you sure of that?

 

Yes, because the phenotype, once been established in the form of an

embryo does not affect the genotype, there is no way for the

phenotype to change its own genotype (genome) except through the

selection of a partner to prepare the next generation and maybe

through genetic engineering, but that too will only affect the

genotype of the next generation, not the genotype of the present

generation (unless everyone in the present generation goes mad from

the idea of genetic engineering or starts global wars killing

millions because they disagree on whether to allow genetic

engineering of future generations or not) .

> The moment you posit that "natural evolution" HAS a goal, you admit

that it

> is also spiritual, involving consciousness/ spirit.

 

The goal of natural evolution is best fit to the current environment.

Whether the changing state of the environment conforms with the ideas

of a physical reality evolving from one point to another, which your

sources suggest, or simply a world governed by quantum mechanics in

which is already perfect because it represents what is possible and

all variations thereof, is something which evolutionary biology does

not speculate much about.

 

 

 

Love,

 

Amanda.

[Guest guest]

Hi Amanda,

>to continue the discussion:

>

>> Myth is symbol in movement... a way of perceiving the world and

>> structuring our perceptions. It is perhaps unique to modern times

>that we

>> are able to see the myths in which we live, our own ways of

>understanding

>> the world. To say that something is a myth does NOT mean that it

>isn't

>> true.

>

>Shaving off all concepts and all ideas, what /is/ true ?

 

How do you expect me to answer that in an email without "all concepts and

all ideas"?

 

But that's the point, isn't it? We always need _some_ symbols, _some_

myth, _some_ way of structuring our perceptions and thoughts, to

communicate with human beings in a society. It's only a question of what

myth, what words... The myth through which we can express ourselves

meaningfully in one society may seem out of date or laughable or even

incomprehensible in another.

>> But this is one world, one universe, both material and

>> spiritual... one does not evolve in the absence of the other. It

>is a

>> thinking, conscious world that is in evolution.

>

>>And so he sees evolution as the forward movement

>>of the thinking world.

>

>Yes, the natural world is constantly evolving but every kind of

>change does not automatically mean evolution. The term evolution

>encompasses the changes that are transmitted from one generation to

>the next and which allows the organism to increase fit in the natural

>habitat. The term increased fit = having less energetically costly

>reactions to their environment. Not all changes in the genome will

>necesarily lead to an increased fit to the environment, on the

>contrary, most genetic changes are detrimental to the organism having

>them and is quickly taken out of the gene pool.

>

>I think your sources use the word evolution meaning "change for

>something better, more positive, more godlike" both Teilhard and the

>other author's words indicate that.

 

I mentioned Henri Bergson and his _elan vital_, but all quotes were from

Teilhard, I think.

 

Yes, I think they both saw evolution as moving toward something better...

you could say more positive, in that sense. But I doubt if either of them

would have used the term "more godlike." That does not sound like the terms

in which Teilhard thought.

>However, the value

>judgement "better" is not applicable in evolutionary biology unless

>the term is used in comparison with the existing environment.

 

You use it all through your writing here... you just define it in a very

specific way.

>Better

>is not used to compare two species since every species represents an

>individual pathway of evolution, yet another difference from the way

>your sources use the term evolution, where they seem to refer to all

>species overall. Biological evolution does not directly compare

>different species and grade them unless they are thought to be sister

>or founder species and then the comparison is done to establish the

>species' relationship with each other.

>

>Also, your sources see evolution as a linear movement from point A

>(bad, unspiritual) to point B (good, God-like). In biological terms,

>evolution does not happen /towards/ something, in order to better

>the /overall/ physical world or to improve anything as a whole. The

>physical world outside of the organisms is seen as perfect /as it is/

>and is both the force which pushes organismal evolution and the

>framework where the organismal evolution takes place.

 

You frame your discussion in linear terms... past to present to future.

What I think you're disagreeing with is Teilhard's teleology.

 

It isn't new... we saw it in Aristotle. He saw the acorn as drawn toward

the future oak tree.

>What evolves are the organisms and their reactions to the constantly

>changing physical world, not all species as a whole, because every

>species has it's own rate of evolution and evolutionary pressures.

>There is no better or worse, there is only what is, the physical

>world.

>

>As soon as the environment changes on a large or global scale, which

>has happened several times during the history of the planet, the

>individual species may find themselves decreased in fit despite

>earlier having had an almost near fit to the environment, and the

>evolutionary pressure thus become stronger in another direction or

>other species may have increased in fit because of the environmental

>changes.

 

Yes, of course. You understand the theory of evolution... as an expert

with many years of work in the field, Teilhard had an overview - a

meta-theory, if you will - that takes some work to understand. If you want

to read it, you should refer to his _Phenomenon of Man_. As I said, what I

quoted here is not from his scientific writing, but from his spiritual and

poetic _Hymn to the Universe_..

 

>> >As the years go by, Lord, I come to see more and more clearly, in

>myself

>> >and in those around me, that the great secret preoccupation of

>modern man

>> >is much less to battle for possession of the world than to find a

>means of

>> >escaping from it. The anguish of feeling that one is not merely

>spatially

>> >but ontologically imprisoned in the cosmic bubble; the anxious

>search for

>> >an issue to, or more exactly a focal point for, the evolutionary

>process:

>

>Humans already have a focal point for their evolution and that is the

>physical body both as inividual and as species. An organism which is

>mentally, physically and emotionally flexible in its responses to the

>changing environment has a good fit to the environment.

 

You write as though _something _ is directing this flow of evolution...

here it seems to be the human race.

>In many ways,

>natural evolution works in two dimensions, 1: to keep a widest

>possible range of behavioral or organismal response to the

>environment and 2: to keep as accurate a response to the environment

>as possible, two values which are constantly weighed against each

>other.

 

And here it is "natural evolution" itself. Is evolution then an entity of

some sort that can work toward some goal and constantly weigh two values

against each other?

>A mind unencumbered by emotional memories of the past and notions of

>self apart from the natural environment and the other organisms

>around it which constantly has to be defended from the environment,

>has a much reduced waste of physical energy to spend in responding to

>changes in the environment. Spinal reflexes are energetically less

>costly and faster than having to consciously think every time you

>want to prevent stumbling or withdraw your hand from a hot object.

>The same way, a mind less encumbered by emotional memories can react

>to changes in the environment with a greater range of response and

>often times more accuracy because the mind is more accepting to the

>current state of things, representing a less waste of energy for the

>brain and muscles (one quote from Kean Klein in Joyce's recent post

>indicates this).

 

This is true... and a good argument for the value of spiritual work...

cleansing the karmic blocks from the lower bodies...

 

>My idea with separating the usual term of spiritual evolution (going

>from an "unspiritual" to a "spiritual" state) with that of biological

>evolution (going from "less fit" to a constant to "increased fit" to

>a constant)

 

Didn't you just equate leading a more spiritual life and doing your

cleansing and so forth with being "more fit"?? Then how have you separated

physical evolution from the evolution of consciousness?

> was to present a view of non duality in terms of

>biological evolution as suggest that the non dual state has been kept

>as a possibility for the human species by selective pressures and

>natural mechanisms.

 

I'm sorry... I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that

"evolution" has kept - or reserved - "the non-dual state" for the human

species? And that the means used to keep it for us and keep it from other

species is natural selection? I don't see how this is "a view of

non-duality."

 

>I also wished to present a possible selective process which happens

>in the individual organism which may be governed by similar physical

>norms which cause natural selection and evolution on a species scale

>(and be shaped and maintained by this) to establish the

>experience/being of the non dual state in the organism, but I think

>I'll have to save that for later.

 

I find that totally unclear also... but maybe you can explain it.

>> >In addition, the changes observed in the

>> >organism during the spiritual "evolution" happen in the phenotype,

>> >not in the gene pool,

>>

>> Are you sure of that?

>

>Yes, because the phenotype, once been established in the form of an

>embryo does not affect the genotype, there is no way for the

>phenotype to change its own genotype (genome) except through the

 

I think some authorities would disagree with you... but let's leave it.

>selection of a partner to prepare the next generation and maybe

>through genetic engineering, but that too will only affect the

>genotype of the next generation, not the genotype of the present

>generation (unless everyone in the present generation goes mad from

>the idea of genetic engineering or starts global wars killing

>millions because they disagree on whether to allow genetic

>engineering of future generations or not) .

>

>> The moment you posit that "natural evolution" HAS a goal, you admit

>that it

>> is also spiritual, involving consciousness/ spirit.

>

>The goal of natural evolution is best fit to the current environment.

>Whether the changing state of the environment conforms with the ideas

>of a physical reality evolving from one point to another, which your

>sources suggest, or simply a world governed by quantum mechanics in

>which is already perfect because it represents what is possible and

>all variations thereof, is something which evolutionary biology does

>not speculate much about.

 

But still, you're talking about "evolution" having a goal. Who or what is

this entity that has a goal? I don't think you can logically combine 1) a

world that is already perfect with 2) a force or entity called "evolution"

that has "a goal" and thus works toward change from what now exists.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

Hello again Dharma

> But that's the point, isn't it? We always need _some_ symbols,

_some_

> myth, _some_ way of structuring our perceptions and thoughts, to

> communicate with human beings in a society. It's only a question

of what

> myth, what words... The myth through which we can express ourselves

> meaningfully in one society may seem out of date or laughable or

even

> incomprehensible in another.

 

Do you want to leave it at that or is there still an interest in this

question (which I see as your main question):

 

> But still, you're talking about "evolution" having a goal. Who or

what is

> this entity that has a goal? I don't think you can logically

combine 1) a

> world that is already perfect with 2) a force or entity

called "evolution"

> that has "a goal" and thus works toward change from what now exists.

 

 

A.

[Guest guest]

>>Yes, because the phenotype, once been established in the form of

an>embryo does not affect the genotype, there is no way for

the>phenotype to change its own genotype (genome) except through

theD:I think some authorities would disagree with you... but let's

leave it.

G:As will explain later, humankind is doing exactly this, not just

with genetic research but mostly thru environmental impact on other

species. Evolution now includes this impact.

>selection of a partner to prepare the next generation and

maybe>through genetic engineering, but that too will only affect

the>genotype of the next generation, not the genotype of the

present>generation (unless everyone in the present generation goes

mad from>the idea of genetic engineering or starts global wars

killing>millions because they disagree on whether to allow

genetic>engineering of future generations or not) .>>> The

moment you posit that "natural evolution" HAS a goal, you admit>that

it>> is also spiritual, involving consciousness/ spirit.>>The goal of

natural evolution is best fit to the current environment.>Whether the

changing state of the environment conforms with the ideas>of a

physical reality evolving from one point to another, which

your>sources suggest, or simply a world governed by quantum mechanics

in>which is already perfect because it represents what is possible

and>all variations thereof, is something which evolutionary biology

does>not speculate much about.But still, you're talking about

"evolution" having a goal. Who or what isthis entity that has a

goal? I don't think you can logically combine 1) aworld that is

already perfect with 2) a force or entity called "evolution"that has

"a goal" and thus works toward change from what now

exists.Love,DharmaDear Amanda & Dharma,

The nonduality of Teilhard's vision of evolution is that he sees in

fact no difference between matter and spirit. The unfolding of the

universe is both a physical and spiritual evolution. The Absolute is

just as present implicitly in the beginning, say in bacteria, as in

any later manifestation, or more explicit form of this "evolution".

Throw away the concept of "better" and see how each increasingly

complex adapatation of life forms creates new creative possibilities

AND yet still depends on the continuing existence of all else. Our

brains are floating in the salt water from which life first emerged.

As far as we may go, we never leave. Complexifying, as a process, has

produced consciousness. He saw the significance of evolution in a

revolutionary way, as a cosmology. Just think of the extension of

both time and space which has opened up only recently in our

knowledge. It is Teilhard's vision of the whole of life which makes

some revere him as the world's most important thinker to emerge on

the significance of evolution. No "entity" outside this process is

required to direct it. This pervasive subjective/objective dualism of

western thought is what he went beyond. He began to see the universe

as a single energy event that was both physical and 'psychic', as in

suffused with spiritual energy.

There are all these creatures and suddenly one looks nature back in

the eye and saya, "What exactly are you up to?" It is truly

impossible to mention Teilhard's vision without oversimplifying. The

latest issue of "What is Enlightenment" magazine is asking can

enlightenment save the world? And Teilhard's vision is often cited by

others interviewed as the best framework for understanding both why

and how this may be possible.

The significance of our having conscious knowledge of evolution and

its mechanisms NOW, is that man is the major environmental impact on

all species NOW. Humankind is still within the fold of "natural

evolution" as consciousness is a fruit of it as much as any physical

adaptation. Man does not invent compassion so much as discover what

is already implicitly present in life itself. When compassion shows

up in the form of mammals caring for their young, it then becomes

possible thru extension of human imagination to extend it to all

others not just our own children, and then to other species. For the

world itself to survive, decisions being made today will affect the

future of all species on earth.

Gloria

[Guest guest]

Hi Amanda,

>Do you want to leave it at that or is there still an interest in this

>question (which I see as your main question):

 

I didn't have a question... just a comment.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

Hi Glo,

>>>A: Yes, because the phenotype, once

>>>been established in the form of an>embryo does not affect the genotype,

>>>there is no way for the>phenotype to change its own genotype (genome)

>>>except through the

>>

>>D:I think some authorities would disagree with

>>you... but let's leave it.

>

>G:As will explain later, humankind is doing exactly this, not just

>with genetic research but mostly thru environmental impact on other species.

>Evolution now includes this impact.

 

There is also the fact that in man evolution is speeded up by the

complexity of consciousness... i.e, we don't have to evolve wings to fly,

we just build airplanes. Hmm, did I read that in Teilhard too? )

>snip<

>Dear Amanda & Dharma, The nonduality of Teilhard's vision of evolution

>is that he sees in

>fact no difference between matter and spirit. The unfolding of the

>universe is

>both a physical and spiritual evolution. The Absolute is just as present

>implicitly in the beginning, say in bacteria, as in any

>later manifestation, or more explicit form of this

>"evolution". Throw away the concept of "better" and see how each

increasingly

>complex adapatation of life forms creates new creative possibilities

>AND yet still depends on the continuing existence of all else. Our brains

>are floating in the salt water from which life first emerged. As far as we

>may go, we never leave. Complexifying, as a process, has produced

>consciousness. He saw the significance of evolution in a revolutionary

>way, as a

>cosmology. Just think of the extension of both time and space which has

>opened up only recently in our knowledge. It is Teilhard's vision of the

>whole

>of life which makes some revere him as the world's most important thinker to

>emerge on the significance of evolution. No "entity" outside this process

>is required to direct it. This pervasive subjective/objective dualism of

>western

>thought is what he went beyond. He began to see the universe as a single

>energy

>event that was both physical and 'psychic', as in suffused with spiritual

>energy. There are all these creatures and suddenly one looks nature

>back in the

>eye and saya, "What exactly are you up to?" It is truly impossible to mention

>Teilhard's vision without oversimplifying. The latest issue of "What is

>Enlightenment" magazine is asking can enlightenment save the world? And

>Teilhard's vision is often cited by others interviewed as the best

>framework for understanding both why and how this may be possible. The

>significance of our having conscious knowledge of evolution and its

>mechanisms NOW, is that man is the major environmental impact on all species

>NOW. Humankind is still within the fold of "natural evolution" as

>consciousness

>is a fruit of it as much as any physical adaptation. Man does not invent

>compassion so much as discover what is already implicitly present in life

>itself. When compassion shows up in the form of mammals caring for their

>young,

>it then becomes possible thru extension of human imagination to extend

>it to all others not just our own children, and then to other species.

>For the world itself to survive, decisions being made today will affect the

>future of all species on earth.

 

A beautiful and cogent statement of Teilhard, Glo! Thanks!

 

I'll save this for future posting, if you don't mind.

 

Love,

Dharma