Gaia theory and its relationship to faiths

Tao_Equus

Interfaith Forums
Messages
5,826
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Location
Edinburgh, scotland
As some of you are aware since finding this wonderful forum I have been rather engaged in the threads regarding evolution. I think some have tended to see me as a Darwinist, whatever that is, that believes rigidly in certain evolutionary principles. This is not the case. I have stated more than once now that my own personal hunch is that one of the 'missing' dynamics of evolutionary theory has it answers in the concept of Gaia theory.

The principles of Gaia theory are not new and can be found in many so called primitive culture's religeous beliefs. But in modern times it was James Lovelocks theory devised in the 1960's and first published as a scientific paper in 1973 that has conceptualised it anew for us. The basic premise is that all life on earth, the entire biosphere, acts as though it were a single organism. Adherants of the theory come in at four levels.

Level 1; Acceptance that life on earth has radicaly changed the surface of the planet. This is scientificly undeniable and widely accepted.
Level 2; Life on earth as a whole acts to regulate the optimum conditions for its survival within the biosphere, that life on earth is actually a self-organising system.
Level 3; Life on earth is a single 'being' and that every living species is but a constituent part of a much greater whole.
Level 4; As above but this 'being' is concious and intelligent and one of countless throughout the cosmos.

If level 4 is in fact the truth does it not explain where we get this powerful sense of God from? Does it not give good explanation as to why so many of us feel like we are 'a part' of God? These ideas seemed intuitively obvious to more ancient cultures that had to survive in the 'real' world, in nature, and not the modern world where man seeks to control every aspect of his enviroment. Most of us have never seen first hand the complex inter-relationships that play out in nature and reach so many improbable harmonious equilibriums. Except in quickly forgotten nature documentaries none of us gives a second thought to the myriad little inter-relationships being played out right now across our planet. Even in the human body itself the complex array of friendly bacteria that keep us alive is staggering.

It seems to me that most of our modern religeons, and by that I mean all religeons with a written history, are an entirely anthropocentic hijacking of this sense of belonging to life on earth that we all feel. Most are at best a moral code for human relationships to aid our co-existance or a source of comfort in time of distress. At worst, and all too commonly, they are a weapon of power hungry individuals who use it to supress free will and exploration of the individual and turn it to thier profit. So many Evangelists, Mullahs, Guru's and their like have been exposed as fraudsters and charlatans that it seems incredible to me that mankind as a whole is not far more sceptical. But I understand too how powerful this sense of knowing and belonging is and how powrful the need to find some way to express it.

I think I come in at level 3 personaly. I am not convinced that Gaia is intelligent in the human sense. But Gaia is the supreme organism if not the supreme being and I believe we are a part of it that has been evolved for a specific purpose. We are Gaia's reproductive organ. Humankind alone has the capacity and will to carry life beyond this sphere and the sooner we start working together as a whole the sooner this will happen.

I hope that this thread will be a place to explore the many examples of how Gaia acts on earth to achieve its aims. And to discuss issues pertaining to the exact level of conciousness Gaia is exhibiting. I deliberately chose this section over the science and technology thread because I see it best discussed here in the context of belief and spirituality. The science of Gaia is less interesting to me in this instance than its profound spiritual ones.

Regards to all TE
 
The Earth as a single "system" if you will aside, let us consider the human body (or any living body). 70% water, right off the bat. 3.5% minerals and salts (not counting calcium). 11% foreign bacteria. That leaves 11.5% Human/animal cells, making up the Human/animal body. In short, we ourselvses are not even a single "system".

We are a mobile chemical factory, with life running through it. Does the earth have life running through it, or is it a rock with a shallow powder of dust covering it, that life holds tenuously to the surface of?

If you believe the earth has an heart and soul, due to the heat within the molten core, then I submit you might be stepping into the metaphysical realm of thought, and not the physical...

Earth in my opinion is not a mother. It is a biosphere that happens to be conducive to our type of life (most of the time). If it were "mother Earth", then we would have no death due to weather conditions. Mother Earth after all, would look after all "her children", at least in this light. To imply that man has caused the mother earth to rise up against him, because of the damage he has caused it as of late, can be met with the mother earth rising up against man 2000 years ago, 4000 years ago, 500 years ago, 100 years ago, 150 years ago...when man didn't even put a dent in the biosphere's ability to cleanse itself (Pompei 79AD, The flood like catastrophe 2434 BC, The Great Divide of North and Central America 500 AD, the earthquakes on the west coast 1900s, and the earthquake that nearly destroyed the American Midwest in the 1830s).

I took time to read the history of Hurricanes that struck the US, due to the number we've received this year and last year...man was I surprised to find - this is nothing new!!! This happens in cycles (about every ten years). Water goes 3 degrees warmer for ten years, more hurricanes at great intensity. Water goes 3 degress cooler for ten years, less hurricanes at less intensity.

But, the media never bothers to tell joe citizen that little bit of information. Only that we are causing all this trouble, and it is our fault. Like ducks.

Ozone depletion...that is a great one. We are killing the ozone? We make more ozone than the earth can sustain. The hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica? Mt. St. Helens did more damage to that in one day than we've done in 25 years.

We should be concerned with depleting oxygen levels (1,000,000,000 more people in the last 50 years, plus cutting down all the forests of South America? That's what the media said). Oxygen levels have increased world wide by .3 percent. How is that possible? Carbon Dioxide levels are still at 1% total atmosphere. Inert gasses are still at <1% total atmosphere. Were is all this CO2 going, that we are allegedly making? Don't take my word for it. Go get an anylizing kit for yourself. Test the air you breath outside your own house...

Earth is not Gia. It is a biosphere. We can screw our home up royally if we are not good stewards, but it hasn't happened yet. And we are not to blame for the weather changes, not at least in the physical sense.

Maybe with all the anger in the world, we are in fact whipping up storms (as I recall Jesus was able to calm a storm to nothing , with a simple word). Perhaps we can calm storms with a heart felt world wide word as well...

v/r

Q
 
Some people in Jewish Renewal have adopted Gaia theory, but only so far as to be able to view the earth as one big organismic system. Although some would go so far as to say that the earth is a good model for how to relate to God on a local scale, not that the earth is all there is to God, but that because it has a unique position relative to us in the cosmos, that we relate to it differently, especially after the photos from space that showed us how desolate everything else is around us. Also, a theological position that at one level centers on the earth allows for greater focus on healing the earth, which also means a shift in the phrase tikkun olam, healing/repairing the world.

Dauer
 
Tao_Equus said:
As some of you are aware since finding this wonderful forum I have been rather engaged in the threads regarding evolution. I think some have tended to see me as a Darwinist, whatever that is, that believes rigidly in certain evolutionary principles. This is not the case. I have stated more than once now that my own personal hunch is that one of the 'missing' dynamics of evolutionary theory has it answers in the concept of Gaia theory.

The principles of Gaia theory are not new and can be found in many so called primitive culture's religeous beliefs. But in modern times it was James Lovelocks theory devised in the 1960's and first published as a scientific paper in 1973 that has conceptualised it anew for us. The basic premise is that all life on earth, the entire biosphere, acts as though it were a single organism. Adherants of the theory come in at four levels.


Regards to all TE

i dont see why not. it seems to me no matter which way we go with it we run into a wall. i would much rather talk to those who have a hunch, than those who have the absolute answer to everything.
everyone else is entitled to their theory. i gave my brief theory awhile back which of course includes God & dirt as the missing link, but i realize that is a bit too unsophisticated & unacceptable for some.
i kind of see how the earth works as one life form in ecology.
i am up for it little by little. anything but the same old monkey, fish & fruit fly hypothesis.
it will be refreshing & a nice change of pace.:)
 
Greetings Q and thanks for your input.

If you believe the earth has an heart and soul, due to the heat within the molten core, then I submit you might be stepping into the metaphysical realm of thought, and not the physical...

Ermmmm noooo.......I dont think thats part of my thinking. Of course there is now a well founded theory that it is water that drives the tectonic activity on earth, and thus much of the vulcanism. And that it is this process that gives us fresh supplies of nutrients on which life flourishes and without which life would be much less abundant. Without life to regulate the temperature on earth some argue we would have a runaway greenhouse effect like on venus. All the water there has now evaporated and as a result there are no tectonics on venus, vulcanism is reduced to a few rarely active hotspots. So no I do not think the earths molten core is the heart of Gaia but I dont discount the possibility that Gaia has harnessed its energy and resources very cleverly.

I took time to read the history of Hurricanes that struck the US, due to the number we've received this year and last year...man was I surprised to find - this is nothing new!!! This happens in cycles (about every ten years). Water goes 3 degrees warmer for ten years, more hurricanes at great intensity. Water goes 3 degress cooler for ten years, less hurricanes at less intensity.

But, the media never bothers to tell joe citizen that little bit of information. Only that we are causing all this trouble, and it is our fault. Like ducks.

Maybe the 'media' is not too informitive in the US, i dont know. But here in the UK it was clearly stated many times that this year recorded the the most hurricanes since records began in, (from memory), 1883. Last year shared 2nd place with 1892 (from memory again). But aside from the effects of Global Warming, (accepted by everyone in the world almost accept the American government and its christian right backers), there is the observed intensification of solar activity in recent years to take into account. Something over which Gaia would have no control.

Ozone depletion...that is a great one. We are killing the ozone? We make more ozone than the earth can sustain. The hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica? Mt. St. Helens did more damage to that in one day than we've done in 25 years.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that one because I have a friend who was with the Brittish Antarctic Survey in 1974 when the hole over that region was first detected and he has given me more than ample proof that it was a man enduced phenomenon. Since the worldwide ban on hydroflourocarbons the ozone depletion over both holes has dramaticly reduced. I trust the science on this one.

We should be concerned with depleting oxygen levels (1,000,000,000 more people in the last 50 years, plus cutting down all the forests of South America? That's what the media said). Oxygen levels have increased world wide by .3 percent. How is that possible? Carbon Dioxide levels are still at 1% total atmosphere. Inert gasses are still at <1% total atmosphere. Were is all this CO2 going, that we are allegedly making? Don't take my word for it. Go get an anylizing kit for yourself. Test the air you breath outside your own house...

I have never heard the oxygen depletion tale before so cant comment on it. However I have to disagree with you that the levels of atmospheric Co2 have not radicaly altered recently. There has been a 31% increase in atmospheric Co2 from 1750 to 1999, (from 280ppm to 367ppm). Todays Co2 concentration has not been exceeded in the past 420,000 years, (as far as ice cores allow us to study), and probably not in the past 20 million years. {all data from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change} http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/taroldest/wg1/016.htm
In addition to this concentrations of Co2 'sunk' in the oceans has dramaticly increased and is feared to be close to saturation point. The fear is once this point is reached atmospheric Co2 levels will skyrocket to levels life on earth has never had to cope with. Who knows what will happen then. But if earth (Gaia) does come up with some 'natural' counterbalance to cope with it it may represent a strong line of evidence for a pro-active Gaia.

Maybe with all the anger in the world, we are in fact whipping up storms (as I recall Jesus was able to calm a storm to nothing , with a simple word). Perhaps we can calm storms with a heart felt world wide word as well...

Perhaps as an american you can lobby your government and join the rest of the world in the word we already have on our lips....Kyoto.

Peace
 
dauer said:
Some people in Jewish Renewal have adopted Gaia theory, but only so far as to be able to view the earth as one big organismic system. Although some would go so far as to say that the earth is a good model for how to relate to God on a local scale, not that the earth is all there is to God, but that because it has a unique position relative to us in the cosmos, that we relate to it differently, especially after the photos from space that showed us how desolate everything else is around us. Also, a theological position that at one level centers on the earth allows for greater focus on healing the earth, which also means a shift in the phrase tikkun olam, healing/repairing the world.

Dauer

Hi Dauer and thank you for your input. I had no idea that Gaia theory had been adopted by any Jewish group and will look into this now that I do.

Peace
 
Bandit said:
i dont see why not. it seems to me no matter which way we go with it we run into a wall. i would much rather talk to those who have a hunch, than those who have the absolute answer to everything.
everyone else is entitled to their theory. i gave my brief theory awhile back which of course includes God & dirt as the missing link, but i realize that is a bit too unsophisticated & unacceptable for some.
i kind of see how the earth works as one life form in ecology.
i am up for it little by little. anything but the same old monkey, fish & fruit fly hypothesis.
it will be refreshing & a nice change of pace.:)

Hi Bandit and thanks for your post. I do hope this thread generates some interest as the subject has long been on my mind but never really had anybody to bash it about with. Any further thoughts you have on it will be greatly apprecited :)

Peace
 
Tao_Equus said:
Greetings Q and thanks for your input.

You know, cheap shots in the guise of enlightenment, are still cheap. You really should look under the hood, before challenging another to a race (Old Detroit proverb).

I have made a life as an engineer, and as such I understand hydrodynamics as well as thermodynamics better than most. Water does not move continents. Magma below the plates however, does move them. And though hydrothermal vents in the sea bottom do spew out nutrients, it wouldn't happen without the heat of the earth's core kicking the water in gear.

Oh, and I was seriously mistaken on the amount of Carbon Dioxide in Earth's atmosphere. It isn't 1%, but rather .04%, with 2% making up other gasses. That comes from an international symposium, last updated in 2005.

And there is nothing in the constitution of sea water itself that absorbs Carbon dioxide. However plantlife with chlorophyl, does. Sea water may bury CO2, but only for a season. Algae in the Sea loves the stuff and goes to town on it (The North Sea is a great example).

Venus is like earth in size and density only. It doesn't even have a molten outer core and solid inner core, hence very little magnetic field. Being 29,000,000 miles closer to the Sun, I suspect has quite a bit to do with its greenhouse like atmosphere. It also has a proliferation of Hydrogen sulfide and Carbon dioxide in its atmosphere (that we did not put in), to the order of 96%. A Venuvian day is 243 earth days long, which means the planet bakes real good. The atmosphere on Venus is so thick that standing on the surface would be the equivelent of standing 1/2 mile below sea level on the ocean floor. Therefore it is impossible for anything, let alone water, to evaporate and dissipate from the atmosphere. It is there, there just isn't a lot of it, and never was to begin with.

At the other extreme, Mars, being 48,000,000 miles farther than earth from the Sun, seems to suffer from the other extreme. And, yet its atmosphere is mostly Carbondioxide (95%, and we are not there to blame for it either). It has a day that is close to earth's (about 24 and 1/2 hours), and a temperature range of -135*F to 40*F, wherein earth is from -120*F to 120*F (pretty close). Its atmosphere being only 1/100th that of earth would not keep a man from exploding unless suited properly.

These are three celestial bodies that are close in many ways to eachother, but so different, and nothing that indicates they are "alive" unto themselves.

Perhaps the US media is not too informative about hurricane history, but I am. It is afterall part of my job. Every ten years or so, the planet goes through cycles of cold water and warm water. Consequently there are more and then less hurricanes through out the various cycles. The intensity of such hurricanes also follows suit.

Second, global warming has been occuring for the past 10,000 years, and is going to continue, as we move out of the Pleistocene/today's periods of earth's time into the next phase. Prior to this time (The Tertiary period), earth was in fact a great big green house. The average global temperature was 22*C or 75*F, compared to today's mean of 12*C or 53*F. That is significant warming.

Solar activity also moves in cycles, and is recorded.

And what does Christianity have to do with the fact that some of us do not agree with the rest of the world's view?

Your friend may have been there in 1974, but I've been there three times since. And the Scientists we carry on our Ice Breakers down there, are international in make up...and they do not concur with your friend. In fact, as one put it, how could the earth warm up when the Ozone layer has a big hole at both poles? Considering the fact that Ozone is a greenhouse gas as well as CO2 (albeit a more minor one), heat radiation should be and is pouring out of the holes at a phenominal rate. Second of all, the Ozone layer's holes get bigger and then smaller with time, regardless of the fact that CFCs are not in use at all. Bottom line is they are not certain why there are holes in the Ozone. But they do suspect the holes have been there all the time, sort of like heat vents.

I too trust science...I use it everyday, and work with the scientists regularly.

There is no radical increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Since CO2 is heavier than oxygen and nitrogen, it is reasonable to consider that at sea level, one would be able to analyze the atmosphere and get a good reading of what is out there, yes? Secondly, since I live in the US and work in a big city, I should read a difference in atmosphere just as you speculate, particularly pertaining to CO2, yes?

Using my handy dandy 5 gas analyzer made by MSA and as a back up my five gas analyzer made by BW (oxygen, Carbon dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons 1 and hydrocarbons 2), I get: oxygen 20.5%, Carbon dioxide 0%, Carbon Monoxide .001%, hydrocarbons 1 .003% hydrocarbons 2 0%.

Interestingly enough, Carbon Dioxide should have registered before Carbon Monoxide, simply due to the fact that it is a heavy gas. That was down by the sea in the shipyard of a city on the Eastern Seaboard. Now, I go next to my home @ 650 feet above sea level, in the middle of the woods, and at least 15 miles from any city, and do the same thing: oxygen 21.1%, Carbon dioxide 0%, Carbon Monoxide 0%, Hydrocarbons 1 0%, Hydrocarbons 2 .001%. Now that got my attention. Why would Toulene even register here in the middle of no where? Then the sound of the corn havester caught my ear. Since I live in a "valley", and the harvester is running the "ridge" above my home, and Toulene is a heavy gas, my meters were registering the unburned fuel exhausting from the harvester's engine.

An hour later, it was gone...

There may be a 31% increase in the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere in the time you have provided (1750-1999), however there has been a 33% increase in boreal forests in the northen hemisphere since 1920, as well as a 40% increase in algae in the seas of earth. There has also been a loss of tropical forests at the rate of 1% per year since 1985, however, the Oxygen levels have actually gained ground by .3%. There is no evidence that CO2 levels have increased in the overall atmosphere of earth. We may be pumping it out, but it is not staying in the sky. Also, the majority of the amount of CO2 we have produced, was produced between 1750 and 1940...since then we have cleaned up our act so to speak (in the developed countries).

Once again, sea water does not absorb CO2. Cold water may "sink" it, but it never absorbs it.

Let me point out a small but significant fact. If there was as much CO2 as your sources claim there is, in the atmosphere?...we'd all be dead, unless we all lived several dozen feet above sea level. And those poor sea creatures? They'd be dead, because they would have no where to go, and no way to breathe.

Kyoto is a joke, another attempt for the UN to try and enforce their grand scheme on the world, as they see it. And of course, we all know just how above board the UN is...right? LOL

You make a good arguement my friend. But though I was born in the dark...it wasn't last night.

v/r

Quahom
 
Quahom1 said:
You know, cheap shots in the guise of enlightenment, are still cheap. You really should look under the hood, before challenging another to a race (Old Detroit proverb).

I am sorry I dont really understand what your getting at in your first sentance. I dont believe I have ever claimed any kind of enlightenment.
And I was not challenging you to a race. I dont have a hood either and only 1.0hp too!!
My purpose in starting this thread was to explore Gaia theory from a spiritual perspective and not a scientific one. But since your first post here dealt with mostly scientific views, which IMHO were largely erronous I felt compelled to respond. And I'm afraid to say I have to do so again for in some instances you have misunderstood my point, which may be my own fault, and in some cases you are stating things with which I disagee. And I do love a banter :D

Water does not move continents. Magma below the plates however, does move them.
Water is actualy believed to be vital to the process in tectonics known as subduction. No water = no subduction= no tectonics. See following link for a simple explanation. http://www.mala.bc.ca/~earles/subduction-water-oct01.htm

Oh, and I was seriously mistaken on the amount of Carbon Dioxide in Earth's atmosphere. It isn't 1%, but rather .04%, with 2% making up other gasses.
If you want to be precise the figures are (a) as a % of particles 3.6 x 10^-2 and (b) as a % of total mass 5.3 x 10^-2 Of course this is also subject to seasonal fluctuations of about 10ppm.

And there is nothing in the constitution of sea water itself that absorbs Carbon dioxide.
I am sorry but of all the atmospheric gases CO2 is the most readily absorbed gas by seawater. Each year about 10% of absorbed CO2, converted by plankton into organic carbon or calcium carbonate, drops to the ocean floor as 'marine snow' in a process known as the 'biological pump'. Absorbtion rates of CO2 by seawater is highly dependent on water temperature, the cooler the water the more it can absorb. Much of the sinking carbon is disolved again as ions in the cold deep sea waters. This is estimated to be around 9,000 million metric tons anually. (source; discovering science block2 The Open University)

Venus is like earth in size and density only.

My reference to venus was merely to highlight the effect water has on earth in terms of tectonics.



Perhaps the US media is not too informative about hurricane history, but I am. It is afterall part of my job. Every ten years or so, the planet goes through cycles of cold water and warm water. Consequently there are more and then less hurricanes through out the various cycles. The intensity of such hurricanes also follows suit.
So are you disputing that this year recorded the most hurricanes since records began?

And what does Christianity have to do with the fact that some of us do not agree with the rest of the world's view?
I did not say christianity I said the christian right that put Bush in power.

Your friend may have been there in 1974, but I've been there three times since. And the Scientists we carry on our Ice Breakers down there, are international in make up...and they do not concur with your friend. In fact, as one put it, how could the earth warm up when the Ozone layer has a big hole at both poles? Considering the fact that Ozone is a greenhouse gas as well as CO2 (albeit a more minor one), heat radiation should be and is pouring out of the holes at a phenominal rate. Second of all, the Ozone layer's holes get bigger and then smaller with time, regardless of the fact that CFCs are not in use at all. Bottom line is they are not certain why there are holes in the Ozone. But they do suspect the holes have been there all the time, sort of like heat vents.
You seem to have your mind made up on this one and I am not going to try to pick holes :) in this one mostly because I'm running out of time. Need to agree to differ here for now.


There may be a 31% increase in the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere in the time you have provided (1750-1999), however there has been a 33% increase in boreal forests in the northen hemisphere since 1920, as well as a 40% increase in algae in the seas of earth. There has also been a loss of tropical forests at the rate of 1% per year since 1985, however, the Oxygen levels have actually gained ground by .3%. There is no evidence that CO2 levels have increased in the overall atmosphere of earth. We may be pumping it out, but it is not staying in the sky. Also, the majority of the amount of CO2 we have produced, was produced between 1750 and 1940...since then we have cleaned up our act so to speak (in the developed countries).
Again these figures I quoted are from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and are about as cast iron an assertion of the facts as anyone could demand. This increase in boreal forrest and phytoplankton you refer to is locking up atmospheric CO2 and despite this levels are continuing to rise. Measurements at Mauna Loa in Hawaii have risen very steadilly since 1960 readings of around 315ppm to 367ppm in 2000 so how you can say its no longer a problem I dont know. Infact global emissions are still increasing despite all the warnings.

Once again, sea water does not absorb CO2. Cold water may "sink" it, but it never absorbs it.
Sorry but your just plain wrong on that one. Water will absorb up to 1.45kg per cubic meter.

I note you made no further reference to the platypus or Andrewsarchus, maybe they both grew wings and flew off out of site for now :D



Thanks again for your input, it may be a little bit straying from the direction I hoped it would take but you are making it interesting :)

regards & peace
 
Hmmm, my brain may superheat before this is over, but I am captivated by this thread and so grateful to you for starting it, Tao_Equus.:)

Before I throw in my 2 cents, I wanted to make one, simple metaphysical statement which I consider absolutely *vital* in considering Gaia as a "Level 4" believer. Not all such believers need agree, but as an esotericist and a proponent of a consciously, Intelligently-guided, Spiritual Evolution (according to set Laws), I consider the following premise to be indispensable ...
`No matter where we look, there is always Life behind the Form.' To wit: Science as yet may not recognize this disctinction, save in the effort to label some matter `organic' and other matter `inorganic.' A quasi-scientific term occurs to me in describing the latter, or form, and that is inert matter. Life itself I take to be the ensouling principle behind and ultimately responsible for the very existence of any organism. This is not a statement of an priori principle, as it can be supported at length by much experiment and experience from the domains of science, religion, and personal discovery. But in its broadest definition, the Life I am referring to is even so basic as to be the ensouling principle of energy (currently acknowledged by science only on the physical level as strong & weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity) found latent within the structure (form) of every atom. Thus, minerals are ensouled, vegetation is ensouled, animals are ensouled, and humans are ensouled. Super-human kingdoms are also ensouled, right up to the level of a Planetary entity - that under consideration in this case being `Gaia.' Likewise, Solar Systems, Galaxies, and even greater units of Life ... always consist of this dual relationship.
It could be said that, after accepting this basic premise and being willing to investigate the ongoing relationship between the Life and the Form, the study of the development of each of these constitutes the ABCs of Esoteric Philosophy. This contrasts with modern scientific study of Darwinian evolution in that the Life side is emphasized and the entire process is investigated from an interior point of view (eso vs. exoteric). The very idea that an entity could abstract itself from its surroundings - utterly and completely with respect to the physical world, and even to a large extent relative to the world of ratiocination - might be objectionable or alien to some. But I would appeal to the Mystics of every spiritual tradition, as well as to the genuine, earnest Occultists (or esotericists, to attempt to be a bit more politically correct) ... for silent corroboration that indeed, we can so withdraw. This need not require travel to a mountain retreat (although that luxury can reward the seeker with untold advantage), but we do need to be serious and committed in our efforts. Otherwise, and certainly if we begin with the premise that "this is really all just bunk and I'm wasting my time," we shall invariably fail.

Nor may we allow religious bias or the tyranny of an unquestioned belief system to hold sway. Returning again and again to some root concept ... may help us immeasurably in many instances (as also the power of Faith) - yet we may also build a prison for ourselves if our ideas do not lift us closer to the Light but instead shield us from it. Faith, in such an instance, is but a prayer that our cage may become opened - and our Soul set free!

As for the importance of the Life-Form relationship in considering "level 4" of Gaia theory ... I would put it thus:

Every atom is a duality of Life-ensouling-Form, and through this relationship a third principle is brought into play -> that of Consciousness. On the atomic level, as we look around, there is nothing like what we know of as "self-consciousness" as we consider the atom; however, there are exceptions. Certain atoms of substance, esoterically, are vastly more evolved even than those which compose our human bodies. Such particles, in these rare cases, serve as points of contact with the physical world for entities far beyond the human kingdom in their evolution. Enough said; this can neither be easily proved nor disproved.

The important point, however, is that if such is true, then it's a safe bet that even these super-developed points of contact with our physical world - are but a fragment of the Greater Being of any such entity under consideration. And to think more universally, Consciousness, as the 3rd aspect of the trinity of LIFE-Consciousness-form, is also evolving, along with the other two components of evolution. To keep it simple, students of esotericism consider the duality of Life & form, yet the real focus is precisely on the indwelling Consciousness which is the direct result of the interaction of the two. In truth, none of these aspects can be completely separated from each other!

Moving on, we do know that atoms are grouped together in greater and greater groups to eventually form the basic unit of organic life on this planet, the cell. In fact, at this level, a cell is an atom - if we look at the Greek root of the word: a-tomos, `indivisible.' We can't break a cell up any further and not destroy it as a unit. Likewise, atoms in esoteric chemistry, cannot be further broken on the physical plane. Science may divide atoms further & further into their component protons, electrons, and nuclei, but even these particles resolve into quarks, sub-quarks, etc. Esoterically, electrons are the ultimate physical atom, and dividing one of these results in astral matter - but that's another "matter" entirely at this point.

Grouping atoms together, to focus again on building rather than dividing, we come eventually to cells. These, when grouped sufficiently (I know I'm leaving out intermediate systems), result in organs & organ systems when we focus on the human body. Assemble these, and we have the dense physical body of an entity as a whole, consisting of solids, liquids, and gases - always in a state of flux, but apparently stable (even if, spiritually, the most transitory of all our "equipment").

Now we need to consider relationships, and with many thanks to Tao_Equus and others for what's already been pointed out in the thread about the intricate nature of these, and the delicate balance that unquestionably exists within such a complicated organism as Gaia - or any other planet - let's take a further look.

If you consult Wikipedia, you'll find that Synergy includes the definition that "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." One hopes that by now, any thinking, reflecting, insightful human being might come to this recognition on his or her own. If we still question this, then unfortunately the Gaia hypothesis will make little sense from the outset, and any efforts to discuss levels 3 & 4 of such an idea will be utterly futile. But let's think for a moment - what are the implications of the above statement if we allow it to reverberate within our innermost being ... and jostle loose a few otherwise not-so-obvious possibilities?

I'll toss out the least of what occurs to me, and since I'm so damned verbose I'm betting that I will barely scratch the surface ...

From The Holy Bible, Acts 17:28 - "In Him we live and move and have our being." Interestingly, as St. Paul was speaking to the learned of Athens, he said quite plainly that this insight comes to us thanks to the gift of poets, and indeed, Alexander Pope told us more recently that "
All are but parts of one stupendous whole, Whose body Nature is, and God the soul."

Now, probably 99 times out of 100 I think the soundest advice one could give an earnest Christian seeking to understand his well-traveled Bible would be - "Don't take everything you read so darned literally!!!" ;) Safe to stick to this rule. However, as Paul is quoting the poets of the day in Acts, and as Alexander Pope invokes the Muse to help us with this little mnemonic, I do believe that what is being indicated is plain simple facts - just a convenient statement of things, as they are.

Both torchbearers are shedding light on the nature of our innermost Being, as they make metaphysical statements about the nature of the world in which we live and our relation to it. This also gives us insight into the nature of Deity - and to do this is also, simultaneously, to do no less than give us insight into the most ancient of questions, "Who am I?" For in the image of Deity we have been fashioned (~literal interpretation mode OFF~), and as instructed by the Delphic Oracle, `Man, Know Thyself.'

What is our relationship to the whole - that Deity of which and Whom we compose some particular part, organ, system or sub-system? Indeed, let us ask! If even a "level 3" Gaia adherent might consider the various kingdoms of nature, I'm sure any number of relationships might become apparent. The vegetable kingdom (especially those Amazonian rainforests that our current American President is scrambling to utterly eradicate) serves as the lungs and respiratory system of the planet. Metaphor? Allegory? Or is this not simply a verbatim statement of relationship. Whack the "Gaia hypothesis" entirely and I don't think that changes things one bit. The pollution from industry and automobile exhaust will further damage the "lungs" of the planet, whether you call them lungs or simply trees, forests, ecosystem, etc.

Dear God, even lava is red like blood, it flows like blood, it permeates the "skin of the planet" like blood, and chemically/biologically, it has a similar composition (iron, red, blood, ummm) relative to the planet as does blood relative to our body - mineral. Let me repeat, if a Buddha walked up and shook your hand - would you recognize him? (Not if it did not serve a purpose.)

Okay, brain gave out. Oh well. Gaia as an organism, as an entity, cannot be fully considered or understood, imho, without also considering that the dense, material earth (rivers, oceans, and even atmosphere included) is but the outermost layer or garment of her existence ... in exactly the same way (EXACTLY) that our dense physical body is our most external vehicle for consciousness. It is a bit like the peeling of an onion, and other posts have recently addressed various ancient systems for acknowledging and classifying the increasingly sublter level of existence at which one invariably and unfailingly arrives as s/he patiently and persistently strives to penetrate deeper & deeper into the heart of being. Ouch. Sounds painful. So perhaps before we dive in too deeply, we should look around, blink a little, and then reach out to mentally, emotionally, spiritually and physically acknowledge those fellow human, animal & other souls whom & which also inhabit this Beautiful, amazing orb that we call home.

I barely even got started, but other, subtler relationships might include the following for anyone familiar with the system of chakras and the esoteric concepts of Hierarchy and Shambhala:
Chakra (in Humans) ..... Corresponding Planetary Center



  1. Base of spine ....... Mineral kingdom
  2. Sacral center ....... Vegetable kingdom
  3. Solar plexus ......... Animal kingdom
  4. Heart center ........ Hierarchy (Spiritual Gov'mt of World)
  5. Throat center ....... Humanity
  6. Brow/Ajna center ... Focused group of spiritual aspirants**
  7. Crown center ........ Shambhala, `The Father's House'
Here, then, is a correspondence between the subtle, etheric mechanism in the physical body only (the vital soul, or Life behind the form as regard's a person's physical body alone) ... and the same vital principle at the level of what esotericists call The Planetary Logos (or `G-d'). A further parallel could be drawn between the as-yet poorly understood stimulus-response system we call "instinct," and a vast, Devic (sub-angelic) entity called the spirit of the planet.

Collectively speaking, the latter entity - altogether unconscious or subconsciously as we understand the term - accounts for the majority of what people usually mean by the term "Mother Nature" ... while to keep things in perspective, the actual Consciousness of the entity called a `Planetary Logos' esoterically consists of a synthesis (or Synergy) of the activity of all of the above energy centers, with ultimate governance being directed from the crown & heart centers - at least inasmuch as we might hope (aspire) to relate esoterically to the Being called by Christians `The Ancient of Days' ... or "G-d." The relationship would be like the difference between the conscious authority we have over our own physical body as contrasted with the automatic, subconscious processes which go on 24/7 to maintain the life of the physical body.

NONE of this ... because I'm so damned verbose ... even scratches the surface of the relationship between Humanity & the other Kingdoms of the planet, in comparison with the Purpose, Love, and Activity of Deity on levels beyond Deity's outermost garment - the physical (`Nature'). Alas, the average Christian entirely annihilates the vast "discrepancy" in scale between himself and the Supreme LOGOS - and speculation becomes impractical. A moment's pondering would reveal that if Deity also evolves, then - just as we humans struggle in our various levels of spiritual development - so also does Deity aspire to a HIGHER consciousness ... and to the realization of a greater measure of BEING. Hmmm

Cheers ... it's time for beers,
andrew
 
Thank you Andrew for such wonderfully enthusiastic verbosity!! I only had time to read it 3 times so far and its going to take another 3 at least I think before I'm ready to respond in full to it.
But briefly I would like to say that I see the common logic in what you are saying, and I mean that from a spiritual perspective. I referred in my original post to 'primitive' cultures understanding this better than we do today and would draw parallals with N.American Indian concepts of Manitou, the spirit that resides inside all things animate and inanimate, with your opening premise. And further the more I think on it the more impossible it is to remain camped at Level 3, level 3 is a cop-out, a place to hide from answering difficult spiritual, and indeed scientific, questions from oneself or others.

I particularly enjoyed your mandlebrotian description of repeated duality, and indeed trinity, and would be fascinated to see how you include Quantum theory into that fold. Is it in this field that our scientists will find those "certain atoms of substance" that you refer to? And will our exploration of these avenues lead us into hitherto impossible communication with the universal conciousness?
Its true that synergy exists wherever we care to look. And that poetic focus is somehow devine. Actually each of them deserves its own thread.
Your final few words touch on something that I have often pondered in contemplating Gaia theory, that is if it is a 'God' then its a God thats clearly still evolving.

Anyway this is just a short post to let you know I have seen yours and I will return to it over the next couple of days to explain in greater detail how my own thoughts and experiences relate to what you are saying. Thanks again for your input.

Regards TE
 
Quahom1, I offer you my unreserved appology for the following statement in my last response to your post. I unfortunately got the content of two threads mixed up, Sorry for any offence I may have caused.

I note you made no further reference to the platypus or Andrewsarchus, maybe they both grew wings and flew off out of site for now :D

Regards TE
 
Hi Tao equus, nice thread!

This is from one of the evolution threads but I have updated it.

The humanative:

Does evolution arrive at humanity just by chance - I don’t think so! For me it is a question of source. What comes first principle or events moulded by it! The humanative is a principle by which evolution is ‘pre-set’ [loosely meant] to arrive at humanity! This is not a rigid thing, it is an idea that there is universal human nature e.g. intelligent beings throughout the universe would develop human like features & or high intelligence & ethics + religion. All creatures, plants, stars & planets [etc.] types would also have a pre-destined nature! The whole evolution tree would thence be within the womb of the earth mother – so to say, thus it is not mere co-incidence [which I find vague beyond belief] that we exist and are here debating our nature!


If the universe had infinite potential and occurred purely by chance then it would eventually arrive at humans etc. but in infinite time we would have come and gone yet always be here [thus ‘it’ would ‘know’ all history]. Now imagine that there is a nature of universal mind/sub-quantum mind that has the capacity to find the ‘natural line’ or evolution of a trend and all trends. So it can ‘traverse the veins of time’ [and are those veins] arriving at the pre-conceptual principles that bind reality in its ‘ever evolving state continuum’. In other words ‘it is the mould by which all things are cast’ as it is ‘that which is cast’!



The atom-self.

I have discussed this on other recent threads, but spirit is in all things and is all things the singularity is an atom-self [ancient Greek meaning to the term Atom – kinda], and everything from plankton to us are also atom-selves [planets and stars etc. too]. It is like an onion with many evolutionary and layers of potential evolutions. Then there is the fact that all life and we can too have an effect on evolution! The human genome project confounded scientists who believed it was all rather mechanical and that gene sequences equalled us. Yet the environment plays a crucial part in switching off parts of the gene tree e.g. in ivf treatments the genes are affected by the temporary transfer of the donor egg where it is impregnated, often causing genetic diseases! [all this was on horizon {tv program} recently] this shows how we may directly affect our evolution – if humans do or believe in something for long enough then it changes us!



Ok so where am I going with this! Well we have the capacity to change, yet whatever we change into is already a part of the onion! This is applicable as far as major change is concerned e.g. something as different as apes and humans would be part of the pre-conceived evolutionary path, yet more superfluous changes are ours.

Z










 
Tao_Equus said:
Quahom1, I offer you my unreserved appology for the following statement in my last response to your post. I unfortunately got the content of two threads mixed up, Sorry for any offence I may have caused.



Regards TE

And I apologize to you. I was truly under the understanding that CO2 was suspended in water, not absorbed/dissolved by it. I thought it later converted into carbonic acid and carbonate solids.

v/r

Q
 
Thank you Quahom for accepting my appology so graciously. You need not have appologised to me tho, we all get our facts mixed up sometimes and I'm counting on you being there to point it out to me when I do.

Regards

TE
 
Hi Z :) and thanks for visting.

Does evolution arrive at humanity just by chance - I don’t think so! For me it is a question of source. What comes first principle or events moulded by it! The humanative is a principle by which evolution is ‘pre-set’ [loosely meant] to arrive at humanity! This is not a rigid thing, it is an idea that there is universal human nature e.g. intelligent beings throughout the universe would develop human like features & or high intelligence & ethics + religion. All creatures, plants, stars & planets [etc.] types would also have a pre-destined nature! The whole evolution tree would thence be within the womb of the earth mother – so to say, thus it is not mere co-incidence [which I find vague beyond belief] that we exist and are here debating our nature!

This is something I have a great deal of trouble accepting and for a very simple yet very massive question remains unanswered. Why ,if the case is as you state, did 'evolution' waste 350 million years playing around with dinosaurs? I find this question difficult to balance with what knowledge I am forced to work with. It seems to me more as if Gaia itself is evolving and gaining conciousness. That any future 'planning' it has is more of a reactive response to what it has learned on its journey to this point. This perhaps has changed with the advent of Man. Perhaps not only are we the reproductive organ, as i touched on in my opening post, but the emerging conciousness of a Gaia reaching puberty. In much the same way as a teenager begins to think independently. (puts a whole new sway on the phrase '[his] brain is in his pants'.). And it is not reliant on mere coincidence.......its more trial and error, learning from mistakes made and perhaps even educated guessing.

If the universe had infinite potential and occurred purely by chance then it would eventually arrive at humans etc. but in infinite time we would have come and gone yet always be here [thus ‘it’ would ‘know’ all history]. Now imagine that there is a nature of universal mind/sub-quantum mind that has the capacity to find the ‘natural line’ or evolution of a trend and all trends. So it can ‘traverse the veins of time’ [and are those veins] arriving at the pre-conceptual principles that bind reality in its ‘ever evolving state continuum’. In other words ‘it is the mould by which all things are cast’ as it is ‘that which is cast’!
Possibly, but in a very real sense, and for all intents and purposes pertaining to evolution each moment is essentially a stepping stone to the next,(or preceeding) moment. Its impossible, IMHO, not to accept the infinite potential of infinity but so far as it relates the physical potentials in the evolution of life/Gaia I feel we have not sufficient information to say any more than it is evolving as any organism does. I dont see any evidence anywhere as yet that Gaia is not learning as it goes. Up till Man's emergence I think even Gaia was unable to contemplate its place in the cosmos, let alone time. Only in the centuries to come as Man is able to discover other Gaia's can we begin to answer whether 'it is the mould by which all things are cast'.





I have discussed this on other recent threads, but spirit is in all things and is all things the singularity is an atom-self [ancient Greek meaning to the term Atom – kinda], and everything from plankton to us are also atom-selves [planets and stars etc. too]. It is like an onion with many evolutionary and layers of potential evolutions. Then there is the fact that all life and we can too have an effect on evolution! The human genome project confounded scientists who believed it was all rather mechanical and that gene sequences equalled us. Yet the environment plays a crucial part in switching off parts of the gene tree e.g. in ivf treatments the genes are affected by the temporary transfer of the donor egg where it is impregnated, often causing genetic diseases! [all this was on horizon {tv program} recently] this shows how we may directly affect our evolution – if humans do or believe in something for long enough then it changes us!
I suppose this begs the questions "what is Gaia and how does it relate to the universe/multiverse?" Humour me and read this little idea based on the possibilities I have heard bandied about by scientists.
Our solar system was not always as it appears today. At one time venus was much farther out and there was another planet where the asteroid belt is now, between mars and Jupiter. Some highly advanced civilisation ( think of them as part of another Gaia and therfor a God), came along and saw a solar system with great potential for life to flourish on its (then) 2nd planet. But it had already formed a crust and all the minerals etc required to sustain life were locked away. So this race decided in order to kick start and maintain the the tectonics the crust of the earth had to be shattered and a moon put in orbit to create the gravitational stresses to maintain plate movement. And so they gave a gentle nudge to the twin planets orbiting where the asteroid belt is and they collided. The bigger planet remained largely intact but drifted into an orbit much closer to the sun and is now the planet Venus. The smaller one was smashed to pieces and the largest chunk sent on a trajectory to hit Earth. When it impacted the crust was shattered and a large chunk was thrown back up to form the moon. This extra-terestrial Gaia then seeded the early Earth. Knowing that one day it would evolve as it had.
Perhaps a nice little SF story, who know perhaps the absolute truth !! But even if it were true it does not infer a Universal 'spirit'. It was another much more evolved Gaia doing what any life form is driven to do, reproduce. But the fact appears to be that the 'building blocks' of life appear to be an abundant part of space dust. The Universe is teeming with potential and it requies no seeding as in my mini story. I have little doubt that life is as pernicious and pervasive throughout the universe as we see it here on Earth, cramming every possible space from the high atmosphere to the abyssal depths to deep within the crust.. But why? Why is it so determined to evolve? Surely not so it can create a species evolved enough to argue over which idea of God to worship?

Ok so where am I going with this! Well we have the capacity to change, yet whatever we change into is already a part of the onion! This is applicable as far as major change is concerned e.g. something as different as apes and humans would be part of the pre-conceived evolutionary path, yet more superfluous changes are ours.
And I have to say that with the meagre knowledge I have, I have to agree with you. But still I feel there is something else there that we are just unable to grasp yet. And more I feel its staring us in the face.


Thanks again for your post Z

Regards

TE







 
The posts from you Taijasi and Z are forcing me to think a bit further than I have ever thought before, especialy in relation to the energy potential and purpose in inanimate atoms. The past few days I have found myself looking at Gaia not as an isolated bubble of life adrift in the cosmos but as part of an even greater 'onion' as you both put it. Though dissecting the onion from the inside out requires the adroit deftness of the keyhole surgeon and I feel I'm more a ham fisted butcher.
Presupposing that 'Spirit' is the essence, the metaphorical DNA, of matter then purpose, benign or contrived, is everywhere in everything. So far we have gone through a few layers of the 'onion', electron, atom, cell, body, ecosystem, Gaia. The next layer then would be the sun and all within the heliosphere. The sun protects us from interstellar radiation, (especially extremely dangerous gama radiation), in a way directly comparable to the way in which our atmosphere protects us from harmful types of solar radiation. And so our solar system also shares many of characteristics of the cell. Next layer would be the Galactic bubble, then the galactic Cluster bubble and ultimately the Universal bubble.
Now this idea is not new to me or anybody else thats taken a cursory look around them. And again that visual interpretation of Chaos theory, the mandlebrot set immediately springs to mind. My problem however is nowhere in all this do I see intent, or evolution for that matter, (for life cycle is not evolution). This pattern seems to me to be more an inherrant property than a purposeful design. And I thus conclude that searching for the universal spirit in the physical fabric of the observable universe to be a futile excersise. Its like trying to understand how my computer works from looking at the casing.
There are however these invisible forces at play such as gravity, electro-magnetism and the nuclear forces. We have always looked on those as properties of matter, our view seems to be that matter causes them to be. But what if matter is but the bi-product of those and other forms of energy we are only just begining to comprehend or of which we are as yet unaware? That though matter makes all these wonderful kaliadoscopic accretions, matter does not infact matter. That its the energy what counts.
Physicists have proved, to themselves at least, that our universe has many more than the 3 spatial dimensions and time. I believe they currently are of the consensus that there are 9 or 10 dimensions to reality. The average man cannot get his head round this and conceptualise it in any meaningful way. The tools in our cognitive toolbox have a hard enough time understanding the true nature of time. So if there is a Universal spirit God man is not made in its image. God is after all supposed to be all seeing where as we can barely see a third of whats right under our noses.
I have a feeling that mankind is on the edge of a breathrough in understanding and that its our analytical prowess that will bring it about and not our spiritual enlightenment. I believe that the only God relevant to us is the one of which we are most directly a part of, and I call that God Gaia. And why should we need more? It is a sad fact that we appear intent on wiping out much of what Gaia has strived to create over countless millenia and on killing each other in the name of doctrines that entirely miss the point. I look at Gaia and I see a bubble of the most profound beauty adrift in a vast ocean of essentially hostile space. I see Man as the pinnacle of its evolution. But most of Mankind is intent on self-obsessed navel gazing, groveling to his own fictitious demons born of primitive superstition and adopted by charlatans who want power and nothing else.
I hope in time, and 'in time', we come as a race to worship the one God we can surely see and that we a surely a part of and reject the superstions of our ignorant childhood, there is no Santa Claus. And as long as we search for salvation in anthropic Gods and the promise of eternal life we are ignoring what we are really a part of. Gaia, as any organism might, will tolerate extreme personal hardship to reproduce but it cannot be expected to endure its own self destruction as a price. If we dont recognise what we are a part of soon and behave accordingly then I am afraid Gaia will get rid of us and try again.

TE
 
Tao equus, hi

In reply to your second to last post, I’ll answer then next one as soon as possible.

That is an interesting parallel you drew there, where humanity is like gaia reaching puberty! Did you answer your own question there! :D



Gaia is learning as it goes




Of course – as concerns linear time! Yet infinity knows all as all things are within it. Thus the universe has order, it did not begin with chaos and everything ‘fits together’ because all things are relative to one another. There is something there we just need to find it- I fell we are moving nearer to an explanation!



Why is it so determined to evolve? Surely not so it can create a species evolved enough to argue over which idea of God to worship




Perhaps it is simply so that ‘all forms must become of themselves’! and/or dinosaurs existed because there form is one of the potential forms that would evolve in an early stage of a given evolution path [it may be different elsewhere in the universe], eventually more complex creatures would out perform them [mammals]. Yes we may be her to ask if god exists, then again what will we be asking in a thousand years time, or even a million years time! It is sometimes useful to imagine resultant natures of things i.e. ‘the after the fact’ beings – when the questions have been answered [although there will always be questions]. What then is the point of evolution, when the peak is reached? Evolution that cannot evolve any further! Do we then simply ‘exist to exist’ in a simple life?



I so agree, that we are staring ‘it’ [the ‘something else’ that is ungraspable] in the face , but it is illusive and seeks not to be known – but we’ll catch the elusive creature one day eh!



Btw, if we add your gaia theory to my atom-self theory, then when you think about it the atom can be microscopic and macroscopic, thus gaia is an atom-self.

Of course this atom-self thing is not the final vision! I am moving towards a less rigid and universal idea, where we are epicentre’s of universal mind and that this is a fundamental nature of the physical universe as well as the spiritual. What we think and do merges with the environment both ‘mental’ {and quantum} and holistic, even affecting our gene evolution [ I’ll explain as it comes to me]. Perhaps there is a side to evolution generally that is relative to the interactions of thought, and thence the nature of spirits/souls evolving in thought evolution creating the resultant physical manifestation of forms. This is then transformed externally – like feedback – into what we normally consider to be evolution e.g. survival of the form creates change in a kind of circle.



Fascinating thread this is/is becoming! :)



Z











 
Ty for your post Z


I do like where you are going with your thinking. I remember reading something about when Einstien got his Eureka moment and he said that it was not something he could see or touch but that he intuitively/ instinctualy sensed its presence hovering just out of site till "pop" there it was. But his 'atom-self', if I understand you right, was exceptional, rare and had huge 'gravity'. He was an atom of plutonium, you might say, where as I am reluctant to claim a place in the periodic table beyond some lowly gas.

This thread is revealing to me just how difficult it is to marry all the plausibles with all the possibles into some coherant whole. Of course this is no suprise :p It is my natural tendency to approach each observation of the esoteric properties of spirit and nature with scientific rigour, as a kind of control. There comes a point however where its all just blind speculation. Thats where we become artists though and its very possible that inspired artistry is the only way round the dead ends of our limited information.

The arcane inter-relationships of matter and spirit are more difficult to grasp now than ever precisely because when we look hard all we see is the infinite. Your idea of 'atom self' is compelling and the concept of it making limited manipulations using the quantum matrix is not at all implausible to me. And the fact that most of that manipulation would take place on a subconcious level adds wieght to the idea that infinity itself is not a boundless space in which the program runs but that it is the program itself. But how do we begin to contemplate infinity? I suppose we can only do what we are doing, look for patterns and infer meaning from them. Its like God/Universal Spirit/Purpose gave us a 1000 billion piece jigsaw of a plate of baked beans, said good luck and walked away chuckling.

Bringing it back to the more graspable and back to Gaia. I have thus far used the term God for Gaia. We tend to think of a God as superior in every way to us. Gaia however appears to be a lot more benign than our usual concepts. More a ruminant sedately masticating its way through the evolutionary processes than a humanoid astride some chariot traversing the heavens and keeping a watchful eye on his dominions. Perhaps this is why despite the obvious logic in Gaia theory that the worlds religeons almost without exception have totaly ignored it. Its just not sexy enough. Even with the idea that Mankind is its sex organ and its emerging conciousness. So I just wanted to add I found it rather funny and ironic that in all my swings at the faulty anthropocentrism inherant in the worlds religeons I have gone and outdone them all!!
(Note; I am not claiming these ideas as my own original thoughts. They are from books on Gaia theory including James Lovelocks books).

Gaia may not be a God to everyone and even to me perhaps more a Godling. On a fundamenmtal level it may just be a creature created by a much greater Infinite and Multiversal God. But in the physical every day reality of our existance there is no more important a God.
 
Tao_Equus said:
And I have to say that with the meagre knowledge I have, I have to agree with you. But still I feel there is something else there that we are just unable to grasp yet. And more I feel its staring us in the face.
TE
there is no doubt about that. if we could figure it all out and prove it, then we would be Gaia.:)
 
Back
Top