The Holistic Field

Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by radarmark, Jan 19, 2013.

  1. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    I realized Oldest Religion? before Christ? Post #47 may stir up some controversy with the phrase "evolving G-d".So I am starting this as a thread focusing on this notion.

    I am writing an extended post which I will get up tonight.:D
     
  2. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    You all know I am a nuclear physicist by education (with some experience in the field while in the Air Force). My minor in both my AS and BS was philosophy (shock shock). I am a very firm believer in the Copenhagen Interpretation (that the quantum measurement determines the state of the wavicle under investigation). I apply that non-common-sense idea to all physical interactions. The three best references I can provide are the David Bohm's "guiding wave" (but I do not agree with his physicalist interpretation of it), JA Wheeler's "It from BIT" thesis, and works of Henry Stapp on the Copenhagen Interpretation.

    The result is a model whereby there is a "quantum potential" (Bohm's phrase) which exists throughout the Universe for each wavicle which is the product of the possible interactions with all other wavicles and its own possibility for transition. On top of this is “quantum foam" (from Wheeler's later work) which is constantly creating and destroying via virtual particles. All of these fields can be summed to create a "Holistic Field" that fills the Universe with a constantly changing and evolving quantum potential that effects each and every wavicle.

    This quantum potential or holistic field is not physically existent... it is a web of possibilities that only actualize or concretize (Whitehead's term) only upon a measurement, an observation, a collapse of the wave function.

    Similarly there is a field driven, not by physicality, but by mentality and spirituality. The future is not determined… there is a similar holistic field of potential futures. This field is made up of several things, the first of which is the principle of manifestation (“concretion” in process speak)—that is the actual entities that exist now will merge with potentialities to become new actual entities. The second would be the Platonic form of eternal objects—any thing whose ideation does not involve a necessary reference to any actual entity. A third would be creativity—the transcendent drive towards newness and progress. These three form the primordial nature of G-d. The timeless and eternal essence of the Kosmos (the material Universe plus all mental and spiritual entities), existing from before Creation to after Destruction (in a metaphorical, mythical, and mystical sense) is this primordial G-d.

    The temporal (consequent) nature of G-d is the physical prehension of G-d by the actual entities in the temporal universe. The motivating and evolving (superjective) nature of G-d is the satisfaction qualifying (making actual) the transcendent creativity thereof.

    Therefore, the Creator, Immovable Mover, is the primordial nature of G-d. The Sustainer (H- who speaks to us) is the consequent nature of G-d. The Manifested (H- who is here and now) is the superjective nature of G-d.

    But all three form a holistic field of potentialities (the primordial nature) which become becomings (the consequent nature) which become the actualities of all actual entities (the superjective nature). All three of these extend into the future (the eternal Parusia of H-s Kingdom).

    Now, this is a mere condensation of the last chapter and 10 pages of Whitehead’s “Process and Reality”—perhaps the greatest theological statement in philosophy since Aristotle (IMHO). Is you want to learn about it, I would first start with the last 24 pages of Hartshorne’s “Whitehead’s View of Reality” or the final two chapters of LeClerc’s “Whitehead’s Metaphysics”. Why? Because Whitehead (especially P&R) is very cense and complex reading. Hartshorne unfolds Whitehead’s concepts well (he was the real force behind “Process Theology”), and LeClerc is an expert philosopher of science who really deconstructs the philosophy behind the ideas.
     
  3. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Very good! Let me unpackage this in terms of quantum physics. We can account for reality down to some level (be they quarks or brane/strings), but get stuck there (for now). The "implicate order" of Bohm explains this as the result of a physically manifest more basic order (this kinda applies to your view). The "standard model" of some multiverse variant explains it as "all possibilities become actualities" (the multiplication of things is a violation of Ockham's Razor). The "Copenhagen Interpretation" of Stapp (firmly my view) explains this as an externally uncaused manifestation of internal potentialities.

    So I explain physical reality as a continuously manifested process of various entities transforming into other entities under the influence of an unphysical field of possibilities and their own internal freedom under the manifest involvement of G-d.

    You seem to be saying (please understand that I use this technique to communicate my understanding of what you said) is that there is, instead of a set of possibilities that become manifest, a physical manifestation determined from each moment to the next. Assuming that is true let me point out our differences.

    I do not believe in "Hard" determinism at the physical or spiritual level. At the level of quantum mechanics what I mean is that the photon does not exist in physical reality until some measurement is made on it (this could be something as simple as interaction with a vapor and does not require a human being... the conscious observer in that case is G-d). At the level of human freedom this means that while I am influenced to commit adultery (say by having a drink at a "gentlemen's club"), I am not bound to do so (say by having both of us nude in a pool, I am not bound then, but the odds against me are much higher).

    Time is a reality, part and parcel of G-d H-mself. Up until this moment everything that has happened has happened and is determined by that fact. But the next instant it is not, there is a (in some cases an incredibly small) possibility (that is all that exists in the future, no manifestation into actuality yet, that is what "future" means to me) of different outcomes. Freedom for the possibility-that-is-not-yet-a-manifest-photon to interact or not interact with another of it's kind. Freedom for the-worm-in-time-that-is-me to do a good act versus a bad act. Once either of these things (the photon possibility or my possibility) occurs, the next actuality is manifested, changing G-d by adding some small amount of data to H-s infinite mind (filled with the past, which is now, in the new instant the consequent nature).

    Time exists so that all things do not happen at once (this is not what G-d wants). Causation is only approximate so that novel things can happen (G-d is the perfect manifestation of creativity, remember). Freedom exists (within constraints imposed by the primordial G-d) to some extent. And the result is an ever-living manifestation of G-d's love for H-s creation, an eternal Parousia if one can only return to one's original self.

    Is that close enough to an explanation of my "spiritual experience"? If you reply or criticize in the same vein as your previous reply I believe we could start a meaningful communication.
     
  4. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,882
    Likes Received:
    1,970
    YouTube

    Funny, I am so happily blissful in my knowing and aceepting of to me, what is.

    and so inadequate when you begin down this quantum path, or Thomas down the well read Catholic path or this fellow in the physical realm...
     
  5. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Well, I understand wil. Actually, the quantum part of it is metaphor. The core of the discussion of G-d and reality is philosophical.
     
  6. Ecumenist

    Ecumenist New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    1
    It's too heady for me. My 2 cents of the moment is that John the Evangel clarifies, in recent times, that the proper translation of the words Moses shared with his people, straight from God, as it were, should be:

    Tell them `I AM BECOMING WHO AND WHAT I AM' sent you.

    More to this effect, at any rate.

    God is not `done.' And every hylozoist knows it!

    It would be quite like a single, bold and zealous cell [or quark] within YOUR body declaring,
    "Hey, RADAR is DONE, perfect, ABSOLUTE!!!"

    Come back in seven years and see what he's singing about. ;)

    So the parallel is exact. And I have no less trouble knowing that I am a `singular existence' or entity, for being composed of different levels of being, morphogenetic and electromagnetic, as well as electrochemical and `meatbag'-oriented FIELDS of energy.

    Even the physical body has its organ systems and various organs, each of these being composed of millions upon millions of specialized cells, these having an intricate, varying structure yet basic, universal components, and such smaller entities as within the cell [vide Bruce Lipton] with THEIR individualized or specialized functions, all the while being composed right naturally of molecular bonds and unities of microscopic, synergistic parts, even the molecules and atoms of my being only arising when yet tinier particles, waves, and vibrations, as sparks/quarks of life itself [wait, that's a bit subtler still, isn't it] do Co-Operate.

    Curious, how amidst all of that Order, assemblage of Parts with Purpose, I don't even have to lift a finger, to bring certain elements TO THE SURFACE ~ at least, within my mind. As yet, at this time, I type onto the Intarwebs, and lo! a quaint little rhyme, but that's just owing to the fact that `Think' technology isn't quite ready for prime time, at which point the public will be able to just focus for a moment, to type a line. Be patient.

    My point is that a Humanity of several centuries into the future will experience the Invisible worlds as readily, objectively and unquestionably, even in their collectivity, as we do currently inhabit and experience the physical. Perhaps God is one of those interesting creatures who, like ourselves, chose the path of Upward Ascent, yet traveled it far, far beyond the stage of any Human being ~ even beyond those exalted states and examples thereof, as have become and do often best remain ... the stuff of Legend.

    namaste
     
  7. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Please note that I said

    "The timeless and eternal essence of the Kosmos (the material Universe plus all mental and spiritual entities), existing from before Creation to after Destruction (in a metaphorical, mythical, and mystical sense) is this primordial G-d" and
    "But all three form a holistic field of potentialities (the primordial nature) which become becomings (the consequent nature) which become the actualities of all actual entities (the superjective nature). All three of these extend into the future (the eternal Parusia of H-s Kingdom)"

    There is not one hint of "doneness" (you only see that in your mind ecumenist).

    And, I am sorry, I do not understand the rest of the post. Perhaps you are right, I do not know one way or the other. In my model (to encapsulate yours) one just adds all these "levels" as parts of the "field of possibility" that is the primordial G-d, the potential which is not yet.
     
  8. Ecumenist

    Ecumenist New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    1
    It sounds like you are interested in the Kabbalah, radar. The `doneness' is not in my mind. The rudeness, however, is in yours.

    Don't feel so smug. Some of us have been studying this a long time.
     
  9. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Please excuse what you see as smugness, I see it as reasonable communication.

    Then where is the "doneness" not in my post (or what I meant to post). I see G-d as ever-living and ever-evolving. H-s nature is not "done". H-s primordial nature (consisting of all the eternal actualities that are not contingent) may not change (this is the Unmovable Mover) and his physical substance at any moment may be limited to the Kosmos (but this changes instant to instant), but H-s consequent and superjective natures are always becoming more perfect (implying change).

    Just my opinion, but I wanted to be clear about what I think you mis-read or I expressed too broadly (or badly).
     
  10. Ecumenist

    Ecumenist New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think you've said it rather clearly, and that is what I was, am, always looking for. Thank you! :)
     
  11. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,605
    Likes Received:
    2,045
    Sounds distinctly triune to me ;) !

    Have you read of the Logos and the logismoi in the Greek Fathers?

    Have you ever looked at Bernard Lonnergan, btw?

    But ... here is a really interesting viewpoint. I know you've mentioned him before, but I've never given him a serious look, and will endeavour to do so.
    I scanned a page of his thought on religion here.
    It does raise some questions, dare I say there seems to be some 'assumptions' that a theologian might respond to, but there are some very interesting ideas.

    Back to your topic, I might start a thread on 'transcendental thomism' which throws up some new and interesting ideas on the nature of being.
    In short, and somewhat inaccurately, there is a tripartite model:
    Existence as being;
    Being as act;
    Act as communion.

    Which I think has many corespondences with the models you propose above ... or that might just be me reading things into things.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     

Share This Page