Here’s a great contribution to the global efforts to save ourselves from ourselves.
We have met the enemy, and it is us. We can also stop being the enemy.
Go here to go from me to we.
Read about the new logo for this campaign. It’s brilliant.
Unfortunately, it’s also not the whole picture. More on that later.
I was asked recently, during a conversation about whether conscious evolution was a movement and what would happen to religions, what about the fundamentalists? I certainly don’t have an answer, and I don’t think my strengths are necessarily in giving answers. The most important part of finding answers is in asking the right questions. So how do we think about the fundamentalist Muslims the media tells us to worry about?
Following, then, are straight-thoughts: simple content strung together to evoke your own interpretation and answering abilities:
I think that the point is that the Iraqi situation the world is in, not to mention the many other conflicts and crisis around the planet, cannot just be boiled down to “they are crazy.” We are to blame. They are to blame. There is in fact no us nor is there a they. There is only a we. We have found the enemy and it is us. The ONLY way we can really get past our conflicts in the world, and in our personal individual lives, is to have a hard and long look in the mirror and ask two questions: “how have I contributed to getting us here?” and, “what can I do now?“
Autopoiesis, the Pyramid and Man
As written out by Chris Davia (I would love to know if this is true, as I have not confirmed it from my own online research)
There once was a man in the desert and he was building a pyramid. And when the man had nearly finished God came down from heaven and said ‘What are you doing?.’
And the man replied, ‘I’m building a pyramid’.
And God said, ‘No!’.
The man said, ‘I am, I am! There it is! It’s a beautiful pyramid.
And God said, ‘No!’
The man did not understand.
God said, ‘Come, look through my magic window.’
And so the man looked through God’s magic window and he saw a hundred years go by; a thousand years go by, and gradually his pyramid turn to dust.
And God said to the man ‘You haven’t built a pyramid. You have simply started a process that will one day end in a pile of dust.’
So the man went away and wondered how he might satisfy God. He resolved to start all over again, but this time, he would use only the finest materials; - the best wood and the best stone. And so he sent all over the land for the finest of materials from which to build his pyramid.
And when the man had nearly finished God came down from heaven and said, ‘What are you doing?.’
And the man replied, ‘I am building a pyramid’.
And God said, “No!”.
The man said ‘I am - I am! It is a very beautiful pyramid.there it is!’
And God said ‘No!’.
The man did not understand.
And God said ‘Come, Look through my magic window.’
And when the man looked through God’s magic window he saw a thousand years go by - a million years go by, and gradually his pyramid turned to dust.
And God said to the man ‘You haven’t built a pyramid. You have simply started a process that will one day end in a pile of dust.’
And so again the man went away and wondered how he might satisfy God. He thought and he thought and he thought for many years. And then, one day, he realized something that he had never realised before. He realised that the wood from which he had made his pyramid had its own nature. The wood might warp in the wet weather; it might split in the dry weather. He realised that the nature of wood was the nature of wood and the nature of wood had nothing to do with his pyramid.
And the man also realized that the stone from which he had made his pyramid had its own nature. The stone might splinter in the frost and that it might be eroded by the sandstorm. He realised that the nature of stone was the nature of stone and the nature of stone had nothing to do with his pyramid.
And one by one, the man examined each of the materials from which he had built his pyramid and he realised that each had it’s own nature – a nature that had nothing to do with his pyramid.
And he wondered if it were possible to build a pyramid such that each part of the pyramid owed its’ strength and its’ resilience through time as a direct consequence of its’ relationship to the rest of the pyramid. Such a pyramid would exist and persist because it was a pyramid. Such a pyramid would last until the end of time and thus satisfy God.
But, of course, the man had no idea how to build such a pyramid.
Well, many years went by and one day God was looking over his kingdom. And there, in the desert, He noticed a man sitting all alone. The man was sitting quietly, cross-legged in the sand. And God noticed how still and silent and peaceful the man was. And so God came down from heaven and said to the man – ‘What are you doing?’.
And the man replied, ‘I’m building a pyramid.’
Michael Dowd has just released the new book trailer for Thank God for Evolution!, made possible by a generous grant from the Foundation for Global Community. Below Michael Dowd’s comments, I’ll post a few media links.
From Michael Dowd:
As we enter 2008, I am overjoyed to report that we are in our second printing of Thank God for Evolution! The book is already attracting attention from major media worldwide including Newsweek, Wired, and the BBC, among many others. It’s introduction of Evolution Theology is inspiring thoughtful new conversations about the marriage of science and religion throughout the blogosphere. Connie and I are deeply grateful for your role in helping us realize our dream of sharing a sacred, meaningful view of evolution with as many people as possible, as soon as possible.
This April, our mobile ministry will enter its 7th year! As you know, Connie and I live on the road full-time, offering all of our programs and presentations for free to churches and other organizations across the continent. What you may not know is that 100% of the profits and royalties from Thank God for Evolution! will go toward furthering this movement and keeping us on the road sharing the good news, hopefully for the rest of our lives. We are grateful for the many gifts we’ve received, and this year we have a special request.
This one act alone, when taken together, may help us reach enough people to inspire an evolutionary revival in 2008.
As news of global warming and global warring dominates the headlines, we believe that nothing matters more at this crucial crossroads in human history than accepting evolution as a fact of life. Reality is teaching us that it’s not just what we believe that matters, it’s how we choose to evolve. A sacred evolutionary worldview offers a way for people to make peace with themselves, each other, and the planet, and no gift could be greater than that right now.
So, thank you again for your support, and thank you in advance for helping us evangelize The Gospel of Evolution throughout 2008 and beyond!
Blessings,
Michael Dowd
Michael@ThankGodforEvolution
.com P.S. Here’s a short note that you can cut and paste into a new email and send to your friends, which makes it easy for them to do the same:
If this book doesn’t end the science and religion war, it’s certainly a MAJOR step in the right direction!
http://www.ThankGodforEvolution
.com/book-trailer.html If you are so led, please pass this announcement on to others. Thanks!
Here are some media links:
Using Science Magazine’s 125 Top Questions from 2005, the Mind Science Foundation put on this debate on the Neuronal Correlates of Consciousness. In very brief terms, here is the background:
Inquiry into what consciousness may or may not be has been ranging for over two thousand years, but it is only recently that science has allowed itself to explore consciousness. Yet it cannot, because though we know intimately that consciousness is there (I think, therefore I am) there is nothing to measure. The best science can yet do is to look at what happens in the brain during conscious and un/non conscious events such as sleeping, dreaming, waking, making love, watching television, driving cars, falling out of airplanes, etc. The activity they can measure are correlated to reports of subjective experience.
Here is the debate. It’s fast, so don’t blink or you’ll miss a whole lecture!
The MIND SCIENCE FOUNDATION
is pleased to announce that the October issue of Scientific American features MSF’s inaugural
“Distinguished Debates in Consciousness”
with a spirited debate between
Susan Greenfield, CBE, D. Phil. (Oxford) and
Christof Koch, Ph.D. (California Institute of Technology)
focused on one of the central issues of consciousness research – the search for the elusive NCC (Neuronal Correlates of Consciousness).
Moderator: Joseph Dial
For the 125 most compelling and puzzling questions today, visit the special anniversary issue of Science here.
Amazingly, the second question on their list is:
What is the Biological Basis of Consciousness?
An interesting note: the framing of the question above assumes (consciously or not) that there is a biological basis out there to find. This is something like asking, “What is the mechanical basis for driving?” or “What is the physical basis for exercise?” Though it is a valid question, it may only tell us what is happening biologically at the same time the organism is thinking, feeling, and behaving in a particular way. The answer to this question cannot tell us what consciousness is any more than knowing the mechanical interaction of parts of a car will tell you what driving is, let alone the experience of driving.
NCCs seem to be but a way in the door of understanding consciousness, though from science’s stance on generating falsifiable hypotheses and testing them, it seems to be the best possible. Here’s the rub: science tries to remove itself from the limitations of subjective, first person experience. Here, I don’t know how to get away from actual subjective experience, that is to say, consciousness itself. For example, let’s say that we take the perfect brain scan, which tells us exactly which neurons are firing, which other neurons they are connected with, in what order, with such and such timing, and so on. All the electrical, chemical, and mechanical aspects of the interchange are precisely described. We would still be left with having to ask the subject of the scan what he or she was thinking at the time of the scan.. What were being done? What was experienced? That’s exactly what we’re trying to correlate - experience - with brain (and perhaps body) activity.
What we’re left is this: consciousness trying to understand the activity in a system, dependent on using consciousness itself to correlate activity to, well, consciousness.
Is it any wonder it’s such a fascinating and challenging problem?
For a definition of what seems to be THE problem of consciousness, just google “hard problem of consciousness.“