After the work of Copernicus and others had demonstrated that the earth was not the center of the universe but only a part of a much larger system, the world began to change its vision of reality. The process took hundreds of years. Today, because humanity has become a dominant influence on earth, we are faced with another such change: from nature being a convenience for people, to people being a part of nature. The scope is similar. The practical significance is of far greater consequence than the Copernican revolution but we have only a generation to complete the change. —Mike Nickerson, Change the World I Want to Stay On
Since evolution is a dynamic process, it is absolutely necessary to know where we come from if we want to understand where we are at present and where we are going in the future. It is a matter of momentum. Today, in all areas of science, a great deal of energy is being expended in the service of discovering where we stand in nature’s quartet (i.e., energy, matter, life, and consciousness). Unfortunately, since these efforts are made by specialists practicing their "art" in solo, they are mainly being employed to maximize the efficiency of our species' partitions, instead of being applied in concert with Nature in a symphony of life.
This is the price that true philosophers have to pay to perceive Reality’s leading edge.
We must awaken to this new reality that is emerging in our mist and unite our minds in a spirit of cooperation across all realms of social activities: politics, business, judiciary, academia, religion, art, and domestic affairs.
"Our time is a time for crossing barriers, for erasing old categories—for probing around. When two seemingly disparate elements are imaginatively poised, put in opposition in new and unique ways, startling discoveries often result." —Marshall McLuhan, The Medium Is the Message
". . . who will have the responsibility for lifting us out of the social and ecological morass into which we are inexorably driving ourselves[?]" —Noam Chomsky
"... populations and organisms are quite different kinds of systems with different kinds of structure. To speak of them as ‘sharing a common attribute’ [cancer, in our case] is to obscure what should be kept clear." ~ T. A. Goudge
"[Many] considerations are relevant to the contention that both individual organisms and populations have a ‘structure’. If this term is understood in a general sense to refer to the fact that in both cases we can distinguish a set of parts having a certain spatial arrangement and certain modes of functional correlation with each other, then the contention is no doubt defensible. But such a general approach fails to take account of the important respects in which the two cases differ. Thus, for example, the parts (cells, tissues, organs, etc.) which enter into the structure of a multicellular plant or animal are so intimately co-ordinated that as a rule they are in direct organic continuity with one another. But the structure of a population is not usually characterized by the organic continuity of its parts (the individuals that compose it). Furthermore, the functioning of the parts of a plant or animal structure is directed toward maintaining a state of relative equilibrium within the organism as a whole or between the organism and its environment [homeostasis]. The behaviour of individuals in a population, however, is not ordinarily directed towards preserving its equilibrium."
"Electric circuitry involves men with one another. Information pours upon us, instantaneously and continuously. As soon as information is acquired, it is very rapidly replaced by still newer information. Our electrically-configured world has forced us to move from habit of data classification to the mode of pattern recognition. We can no longer build serially, block-by-block, step-by-step, because instant communication insures that all factors of the environment and of experience coexist in a state of active interplay."
"The aim of science is to understand and explain the evolution of natural phenomena by studying the relations which exist between them." ~ Pierre Lecomte du Noüy
* The world was divided into two different realms of reality: the heavens above, ruled by a perfect order, and the earth below, the sphere of imperfection;
* The notion of perfect circular motion was used to explain the diurnal motion of the sun and the annual motion of the fixed stars;
* To explain the fact that the stars and the planets were not falling on earth, which was the natural thing for all objects heavier than air and fire to do, we invented the notion of crystalline spheres organized in different levels, on which the "fixed’ stars, the "wandering" planets, the sun and the moon were attached;
* Epicycles (small circles centred on the circumference of larger circles) were used to explain the apparent retrograde motion of the "wanderers" (the planets);
* Other ad hoc concepts, which we do not need to understand anymore, such as deferent, equant and prime mover, were also used.
" It is human nature"
"Human nature does not change"
"We cannot change our nature."But is it true? If we define a species in relation to the environment in which it lives, are we the same now as we were when we thought that the earth was flat? Ho! It is true that Genghis Khan probably thought that the earth was flat, and that this did not stop him from being as violent as we can be today. It is also true, though, that he did not have the same opportunities that we have today, because he lacked the present environment of knowledge. He was living in the same objective environment as the one in which we live today, but his mind was shaped by an environment of knowledge totally different from the one in which we are raised as modern-day human beings. At any rate, I contend that our intra-species violence is not the consequence of our nature, but of our ignorance, as we will later see.
In Response to the Awakening of Egypt - TZM
A Soldier's Awakening
Be The Change