God Is Under Review

did Darwin UNNECESSARILY throw the Baby out with the bathwater?

There is always controversy in talking about God, starting from the basic issue of whether or not ‘God Exists’.  But there is general agreement that different people have different views on the topic.

Thus, there is an opportunity to review the different ‘ways of seeing things’ that influence one’s views on this matter which in turn have a major influence on the global social dynamic.

I will ‘jump in’ upfront with a simplifying hypothesis to avoid getting bogged down in a conventional review of this huge subject.

Science typically models the world in terms of LOCAL objects/organisms/systems and the actions/interactions of this diverse plurality, imputing them to have ‘their own LOCAL AGENCY’ and imputing to ‘living systems’, their own LOCALLY ORIGINATING (internal process/purpose-driven) BEHAVIOUR, … however, … scientists are more often and more seriously challenging this (their own)  ‘LOCAL-FORCING’  view of dynamics with the alternative ‘SPATIAL-FORCING’  (aka ‘CELESTIAL-SOURCING‘) view of dynamics.  This issue is cross-coupled with theology since ‘GOD’ has always been associated with the ‘basic sourcing power of creation (i.e. ‘GOD’ has been the answer for many as to why we and other creatures are here and why the world dynamic unfolds the way it does.  So, there is a question as to whether the fundamental (first-cause) creative sourcing power is ‘LOCAL’ and lies within local objects/organisms/systems (e.g. the ‘gene’, the ‘human’, the ‘earth’) or whether it permeates the energy-charged medium we call ‘SPACE’ that science now sees as the mothering medium of all precipitate material objects, organisms and systems.  While this may seem to be an ‘intra-science issue’, it is tightly coupled to ‘THE GOD ISSUE’.

One of these seemingly ‘intra-science’ issues is ‘climate change’.  Scientists are split as to whether this behaviour-of-the-total-earth is ‘celestially-forced’ or ‘locally (internal-process) forced’.  This issue of ‘celestial-forcing’ versus ‘terrestrial-forcing’ emerged between the approach of Lamarck and the approach of Darwin in biology, and recently, the ideas of Lamarck have been making a scientific come-back.  The terrestrial-forcing notion of a ‘great chain of life’ or ‘tree of life’ that associates with Darwinism, when traced back to ultimate origins (the origin of the tree) goes nowhere, whereas the celestial-forcing notion traces everything back to the energy-charged medium of space; i.e. to the spacetime continuum.

Rather than getting into the ‘detail’ of these ostensibly ‘intra-science’ debates, one can simply observe what they have in common.  The dominant notion of ‘local forcing’ presumes that the present depends only on the immediate past.  This is also called the causal model.  In order to understand the world and the world dynamic in these terms, we must look backwards in time and inwards into the dynamics of material things (such as the earth, humans etc.).   When we do this, and when we develop explanations and understandings in terms of ‘local forcing’, there is no longer any need to inquire into the role of ‘spatial-forcing’ (‘celestial forcing’).   For example, if we see ‘wildgeese’ in terms of ‘local organisms’ with ‘locally originating (locally-forced) behaviours’ then we can explain their ‘V’ formation in terms of a deliberate, cooperative effort that brings benefits to them as a group (‘V’ formation flying allows them to fly farther and faster for about 20% less expenditure of energy than they could ‘flying solo’).  This implies that the behaviour of the wildgeese is internally-directed by knowledge, purpose, instinct, … or something that resides within the wildgeese.  The knowledge-driven model SATISFIES the ‘local-forcing’ paradigm.  That is, if we start off with the assumption that the behaviour of wildgeese is ‘local-internal-process-forced’ then we have to ‘backfill’ with notions like ‘knowledge’, ‘purpose’ and ‘instinct’ to make sense out of ‘local-forcing’ to answer the ‘follow-on question’; ‘If the behaviour of the wildgoose is internally-directed, what is inside of the wildgoose that is doing the directing?’

Of course, there is no justification for asserting that wildgeese KNOW that they flying in ‘V’ formation.  That is just our own human intellectual concept.  They wildgeese are just doing ‘what comes naturally’.

Most of us,.modern scientifically educated people that we are, take for granted that the behaviour of organisms is ‘internally driven and directed’ (the ‘powerboat’ model where we assume that we and all cells, organisms and genes, have inboard power and steerage).  But most of us would also acknowledge, at the same time, and science supports this, that the wildgeese stir up turbulence in the space around them and the resonances in this turbulence orchestrate their individual and collective behaviour from the ‘outside-in’; i.e. their behaviour is ‘spatially-forced’.

One can compare this to the design of modern ships with bulbous bows which similarly allows for higher speeds with less expenditure of energy due to the shaping the boat in such a manner that it sustains resonances with the hydo-dynamic response of the medium it is moving through.  That is, the fluid-dynamic response orchestrates the form and behaviour of what is moving through it (e.g. the most energy-efficient speed for a boat to move through water is where the length of the boat at the water line matches the wave-length of the disturbance it is making in the water [speed in knots = 1.34 X square root of boat-length in feet].  At this speed, the boat will persistently ‘sit in the wave trough’ resulting from the interference of its bow-wave and stern-wave; i.e. it will persist in a condition of resonance which is ‘spatially-forced’, in the same sort of manner as the wildgeese ‘V’ flying formation).  Of course, even after acknowledging the fact that the manner of engaging of the marine inhabitant within the fluid-dynamic-space/habitat can give rise to resonant ‘sweet spots’ in the co-developed slipstream, the tanker captain may choose go ‘full speed ahead’ and ignore his sensors which allow him to attune his behaviour (speed) to the dynamic he is included in so as to sustain energy-saving and movement enhancing resonances in his fluid-habitat – marine-inhabitant conjugate relation.  Dolphin’s, whales and other forms marine life who stand to benefit from letting such resonances orchestrate their behaviour are unlikely to adopt such sensorless behaviour as the ship’s captain..

Let’s not let the ‘technical details’ make us lose sight of the ‘philosophical issue’ in this example.  The issue is; ‘Have the wildgeese ‘learned their energy-saving trick’ of ‘V’ formation flying, and are they just repeating it generation after generation by somehow ‘passing on the knowledge of how to do it’?   (whether this ‘passing on’ is at the level of “genes’ or ‘instinct’ or conscious ‘understanding’ or whatever), one or more of which we would have to choose if we were to stick with the ‘local forcing’ paradigm, … or is this resonance-seeking phenomena simply ‘built into the energy-charged medium we call ‘space’ or ‘nature’?   The latter constitutes the ‘spatial-forcing’ view.  That is, do the dynamics of space orchestrate individual and collective behaviour, or does the source of organisation come from within the individual organisms?  This question is important, both to an understanding of evolution (shaping of form) and to an understanding of behaviour (shaping of the movements of the forms in nature).   If the ‘habitat-inhabitant’ resonance in nature, whereby the habitat-dynamic takes precedence and orchestrates the form and behaviour of the inhabitant,  has evolved the form of modern ships, why would ‘resonance’ not have played a leading role in evolving the form of marine animals?  Should we go along with Darwinism and say that competition coupled with random modifications developed their sleek hydrodynamics-friendly forms without even having to give any direct ‘credit’ to the shaping influences of resonances that are an inherent part of experiencing a fluid-dynamic space?

Where I am going with this is to a very basic place, to the place which is the source of all of these different models, to our human minds.  And pretty much the most basic question we can ask is; ‘Is our human behaviour spatially-force or locally-forced?  Is the most basic nature of a human being to be ‘driven by internal intellect’ or to be ‘orchestrated in-the-now by the dynamics of the space we are situationally included in?  Of course we have the notion of ‘free will’ but it is idealisation that must not be confused for reality..  The sensorless behaviour of the captain mentioned above puts him in conflict with the dynamics of the space he is included in.

‘Free will’ wouldn’t make sense without the notion of a ‘local human organism’ and the ‘localness’ of the human organism wouldn’t make sense without the notion that matter exists locally and the local existence of matter wouldn’t make sense without the notion of absolute space that is void where it is not occupied by matter (where matter (M) and space (S) are governed by the logic of the excluded middle; i.e. where M cannot at the same time be equal to S, a relation that relativity and matter-energy equivalence has overturned (space is an energy charged medium in which matter is relative concentration of energy which reflects light and thus becomes a visible region of the energy-charged space.

That is, ‘free-will’ is idealisation that cannot be confused for reality (nature).

The question is not whether man acts out of his own ‘free-will’ since this boils down to a question as to whether he acts out of his own self-contrived idealisation.  The question is whether man’s natural, pre-intellectual (pre-idealisation-driven) mode is to let his behaviour be orchestrated, in-the-now, by the dynamics of the space he is included in. (i.e. the question is one of the ‘precedence’ of ‘spatial forcing’ and ‘local forcing’).

And yes, this is one of these current intra-science issues.  See, for example; Arctic climate change discourse: the contrasting politics of research agendas in the West and Russia, Bruce C. Forbes & Florian Stammler (http://arcticcentre.ulapland.fi/docs/ForbesStammler+2009.pdf )

If nomadic hunting and gathering is common to early homo sapiens as persists to this day in certain cultures such as the Nenets of the European and Siberian Arctic, then it suggests that the ‘base case’ for human behaviour is that it is ‘spatially-forced’; i.e. the dynamics of space orchestrates individual and collective human dynamics.  The Nenets, according to Forbes and Stammler and others, consider themselves to be included in the natural schemes of things as yet another member of the ecosystem (as a ‘strand-in-the-web-of-life’) thus the movement of the reindeer herd orchestrates their movement, and the movement of plants orchestrates the movement of the reindeer, and the movement of the seasons and the climate orchestrates the movement of the plants, and the movement of the solar irradiation cycles and planetary orbital wobbles etc. orchestrates the movement of the climate.  Thus, the behaviour of nomadic tribes is ‘spatially-forced’ in the same manner as the wildgeese; i.e. their natural quest for sustaining a resonant relationship with the dynamic space they are situationally included in is the most basic source of animation of their behaviour.

As with the wildgeese, one could ‘try on’ the ‘local-forcing’ model and argue that the Nenets ‘know what they are doing’ in the sense that they are deliberately doing what they are doing out of their own internal free will and choice (the ‘local-forcing’ view).

As noted earlier, the notion of ‘free will’ is idealisation which rests dependently on the idealised logical notion of the mutually exclusive existence of space and matter.   Without this mutual exclusion, which presumes absolute space, there can be no LOCAL system to serve as the residence for the power of ‘free will’.

So, the burden that accrues to the scientist that is a proponent of ‘local forcing’, is to avoid all basic dependency on ‘spatial-forcing’ by going deeper and deeper inside the organism, explaining things in terms of brains and neural networks and biochemical process and biophysics, which have teleological and theological assumptions built into them (each cell notionally has ‘its own purpose’ etc.).  There is a lot of arm-waving going on, but it generally succeeds in putting the inquirer’s inquiry to sleep and the inquirer goes away repeating such arguments as ‘it is internal knowledge’ that is the driving source of behaviour of the organism.  This avoids having to put ‘sustaining resonance’ in the habitat-inhabitant relationship (‘spatial-forcing’) in the primary ‘driver’s seat’.

Note that it is not the case that the ‘free will’ of the tanker captain is in a primacy over the resonances in the habitat-inhabitant dynamic relation since ‘free will’ is idealisation and the habitat-inhabitant dynamic relation is ‘reality’.  Reality (nature’s dynamic) ultimately prevails, always, over man’s ‘idealisation’.

This philosophical issue is at the base of the stand-off between scientist currently studying the behaviour of nomadic tribes and how they are effected by ‘climate change’.  They are split on the starting assumption as to whether the behaviour of the nomads is spatially-forced (orchestrated by the property of nature to tend towards the sustaining of habitat-inhabitant resonance), or, whether the behaviours of these nomads is locally-forced (driven and directed by knowledge acquired over the multi-generational long term as to how to survive in the Arctic).  The split seems to be yet another ‘Eastern thinking’ – ‘Western thinking’ split.

What’s ‘on the table’ here is the question as to ‘what knowing is’.  Is it something ‘internal’ or is it spatial-relational (experiential) or is it ‘both’?  And if it is ‘both’, which is primary and which secondary?

There is a long history of philosophical debate on this issue.  Goethe’s Faust examines whether ‘in the beginning was the word’ (as in the Bible) or ‘in the beginning was the act’.   Is ‘the word’ (intellectual knowledge aka ‘idealisation’) nothing other than ‘analytical backfill’ to explain an intrinsically ‘ineffable’ ‘happending’, the continuous and unpredictable unfolding of the energy-charged medium of space?

From an anthropological view, it is clear that nomadic hunter-gatherers ‘put down roots’ (built permanent settlements) and in so doing they inverted their role.  They essentially made a unilateral ‘declaration of independence’ and imposed ‘local forcing’, establishing locally-driven production of goods and services, a ‘man-made economy’ that was ‘locally driven’, a ‘man-made economy’ that split them out of their former quest for sustaining resonance in their habitat-inhabitant spatial relations.  The man-made economy is clearly ‘locally-forced’ and modern man tends to give himself an identity that is relative to this man-made locally-forced organisational schema, wherein one must give up one’s natural spatially-orchestrated ways by giving precedence to the demands of the locally-forced (intellectually-driven) man-made economy and social organisation (unless one is a Nenet or a member of these still-persisting hunter-gatherer tribes).

Permanent settlements, cities and sovereign statism are all human ‘declarations of independence’ from the dynamics of the common space that they/we are included in.   This inversion would see the dynamics of men starting from the LOCAL ‘central authorities’ of these notionally LOCAL systems with their self-imputed ‘local agency’ (there is no such thing as ‘local’ in the energy-field-flow that is ‘nature’).  The economies that are notionally ‘locally-forced’ from out of these settlements, cities and nation-states are like the ships discussed above.  While they are shaped by the dynamics of space they are included in, their captains can use ‘idealisation’ to drive them out of their habitat-inhabitant resonance zones.

In this ‘local settlement’ based inversion, the ‘gatherer’ of fruits, berries, grains becomes the ‘farmer’.  He takes the trees, shrubs and grasses, the result of millions of years of natural evolution and puts them in a imaginary line bounded rectangular area he calls a ‘farm’, plants them in straight lines, and then claims that ‘he is producing these crops’; i.e. that these crops are locally-forced by him.  By his idealisation-born obsessive compulsive rearranging of things (as with the shuffling of deck chairs on the Titanic), he sees himself as ‘where the buck starts and stops’ relative to the authorship of ‘production’.  And so it is for the entire modern system of production, which seems to have misplaced the awareness that man is himself one of nature’s crops, a ‘strand-in-the-web-of-life’.  His alleged ‘superiority’ over the rest would appear to be by way of his own run-away ‘idealisations’, which, however far they may take him, are not capable of having him rise to primacy over the dynamic natural space he is included in and which produced him.

In short, the power of ‘idealisation’ does not ‘out-rank’ the power of nature-born reality.  As Emerson suggests, our human capacity for ‘idealisation’ is a tool that appears to have ‘run away with the workman’.  The notion of ‘free will’, ‘local beings’ and ‘local-forcing-agency’ are ‘idealisations’ that depend on absolutisms such as ‘absolute space’ and ‘absolute time’ and the absolute separation of ‘matter’ and ‘space’.   The aesthetics of square building and linear alignments of trees in an orchard are human aesthetics that seem to ‘stand alone’ and are ‘complete in a kind of self-satisfying way’ as in the perfect solids of Plato who related the ‘cube’ to ‘earth’ because of its self-standing solidity.  Meanwhile, these regular patterns do not speak to the morphology of the form; i.e. snowflakes have a crystal structure that is a frozen record of the ambient spatial dynamics that they experienced (changing thermal energy fields); i.e. they were spatially forced.  The same is true of the hexagonal cells of honey bees and soap bubbles (the inertial back-pressure of a growing cluster of soap bubbles will convert the bobbles from spheres to hexagonal cells).   The observer tends to idealize the crystals as local units of structure which implies ‘local forcing’, disregarding their natural (‘real’) spatially-forced origins.  The hexagonal cells of bees is not ‘locally-forced’ by the bees ‘knowledge’ of ‘hexagons’ any more than soap bubbles need to know how to change themselves into hexagonal cells.  A single bee or similar insect, making a safe place for its larva, will construct something vaguely spherical, but many bees working in close quarters will discover, like the soap bubbles, that packed spheres squish down into hexagonal cells (with an associated efficiency of halving construction materials by avoiding duplication of walls and eliminating the 37 percent waste space that resides in the unused space between packed spheres).

To unceremoniously rip trees, shrubs and grasses out of their natural ecosystemic relationships and put them in neat linear rows on ‘farms’ may be useful for man but it cannot be understood as an ‘improvement’ over nature’s ordering schema wherein their spatial-forced morphological origin takes precedence.  Likewise, man can idealise the regular structures found in crystals out of the context of their morphological (spatially-forced) origins, making use of the associated efficiency and stability properties in man’s own locally-forced (bottom-up constructed) versions, but such ‘bottom-up’ construction approach as parroted by man should not be confused with nature’s approach wherein habitat-inhabitant relational tension is the (spatial-forcing) parent of the precipitate forms..

Where and when such idealisation is confused for (nature’s) reality, it amounts to an ‘anthropocentric politicization’ of science.  Western ‘first order’ idealisation (interjecting local-forcing as a synthetic locally re-initializing substitute for the habitat-inhabitant relation) is something Newton built into ‘Newtonian physics’ to get rid of the problem of ‘relativity’ of motion (the ‘three-body problem’), by invoking the synthetic, ad hoc notion of ‘local force’.  Such idealisation that has by now taken our minds captive and has us understand dynamics as if everything is the result of ‘local causal agency’ is condemning our society to continuing, intensifying dysfunction.

The spatial relations in the world population wrap around the globe and back into themselves (they are ‘self-referential’) so that when tension develops, it is spatial-relational in origin, and it is the source of periodic violent adjustments as in earthquake and avalanche phenomena.  The spatial relational sourcing takes precedence over the ‘local causal agent’, the sand grain that ‘triggers’ the avalanche, the ‘skier’ that triggers the avalanche and/or the ‘smoker’ that triggers the forest fire.  Our justice system, based on the idealisation that would have us see the origin of dynamics in terms of ‘local  causal agency’, seeks to rectify matters by eliminating the local causal agents that ‘disturb the peace’.  The ‘peace’ that prevails thanks to a powerful ‘police force’ in a region where diverging growth of affluence and poverty set up powerful spatial-relational tensions, is a peace that will continually be disturbed, in the manner of avalanches and earthquakes deriving from tensions in the earth.  A social response by way of building up the police force without attending to the ‘real’ source of the disturbance is to confuse the idealisation (local-forcing) for reality (spatial-forcing), a confusing that leads ultimately to ‘war’ or ‘revolution’ as the proponents of ‘local forcing’ on both sides harden their problem identification, attributing it to  innately LOCAL origins; i.e. ‘locally incarnate evil’.

Today, an awareness of the anthropocentric ‘politicization of science’ is resurfacing (as is suggested in the title of the Forbes-Stammler article mentioned above).  As recent as the nineteenth century, during the ‘rise of Darwinism’, the ‘politicization of science’ was a hot topic.  For example, as Mark Lawley writes in ‘The History of Nature’ [i.e. of our notions of nature] at http://ralph.cs.cf.ac.uk/hon/HON.pdf

“Comparative anatomy, embryology, and the concept of evolution were imported from France, and enthusiastically adopted and endorsed by the Dissenting classes as ideological justification for their own political agenda and socio-economic advancement. These biological sciences, and the horrors of organic alchemy promulgated as theories of evolution, describing how and proposing why living forms change with the passing of time, appalled the upper, Anglican, Tory class, which saw these notions as threats to their inherited privileges and influence. The ruling class felt more comfortable with an unchanging world ruled by celestial force rather than self-determination, with compliant lower classes genuflecting to higher earthly and heavenly authorities instead of being diverted by radical notions of organic development, social change and self-advancement.”

The notion of ‘evolution’ as incorporated in Darwinism, inverted the primacy of ‘spatial-forcing’ and ‘local forcing’, putting the latter into what others (Lamarck) would say was an ‘unnatural’ precedence (and basically ‘discarding’ the former).  But that was not the only way to formulate ‘evolution’.   There was also the scheme of Lamarck which, in common with Darwinism, departed from the notion that God had created species as invariable entities so that our job (the job of the naturalist) was simply “to identify, describe and classify the Good Lord’s imaginative largesse.”

The evolutionary notions of Lamarck are undergoing resurgence perhaps because Lamarck’s theories never depended on the notion of ‘local agency’ as did Darwin’s theory.  Lamarck insisted that there was only one physics and that organisms were only differentiated from material objects by their manner of organisation WITHIN the flow of “les fluides incontenables” (the fluid-flows that force change on entities contained within them that cannot themselves be contained) or ‘spatial flow-fields’.  Lamarck mentioned ‘thermal flow’, ‘electric flow’ and ‘magnetic flow’ and ‘possibly others’ as being the source of those evolving dynamical forms we call ‘organisms’.  Here was a notion of morphology where spatial-forcing was in precedence and which did not depend upon one-sided local-forcing coming from the deepest interior of the ‘local organism’, … an ‘organism’ whose ‘localness’ was in any case ‘idealisation’ born of observer imposed defining, name-labelling and categorizing.  As John Stuart Mill observed; “Every definition implies and axiom, that in which we affirm the local existence of the object defined.’.   When tensions (pressure differentials) arise in the atmosphere due to solar irradiation, the releases can come in periodic known as ‘storm-cells’ or ‘hurricanes’.  As with criminals and terrorists, the morphological origins of these dynamic forms are quickly forget as we define, name-label and categorize them, dressing them up as ‘local systems’, notionally equipped with ‘their own local agency’.  This reifying of dynamic forms inextricably bound up in conjugate habitat-inhabitant relational dynamics set the stage, in biology, for its departure from the religious notion of ‘celestial forcing’ wherein the precipitate forms were deemed to be ‘invariant’.

Both Larmackism and Darwinism were developed to take care of that inconsistency with observations and experience, however, while Larmarkism preserved the ‘celestial-forcing’ (‘spatial-forcing’), Darwinism put ‘local forcing’ into precedence which meant that, in Darwinism, there needed to be TWO evolutionary physics versions; ‘one evolutionary physics for the ‘animate world’ of living organisms’ and ‘a separate evolutionary physics for the ‘inanimate material objects’, a foundation that Lamarck objected to.  That is, the evolutionary physics of the animate world of Darwinism is not foundationally influenced by ‘fields’ (gravity, electromagnetic, thermal etc.) in which the living cells and organisms are ‘contained’, fields which cannot themselves be contained’ (to quote Larmarck)..  The evolutionary sourcing of change in Darwinism is purely ‘mechanical’ and ‘bottom-up’ (local internal process-forced).

Additional perspective here comes by way of the proposal by Lawley and others, that political forces have been at work in our choice of scientific paradigms, particularly in regard to ‘top-down command-and-control’ (‘celestial forcing’ by God and his chosen leaders) versus ‘bottom-up command and control’ (the ‘little people’ overthrowing the power of the collaborating duo of Church and Royalty).  Lamarck’s field-physics-forcing would have retained ‘celestial forcing’ while at the same time discrediting Church and Royalty’s claims ‘celestial-forcing’ supporting role ‘appointments’.

Explaining animal behaviours is a lot easier of one keeps ‘spatial-forcing’ in precedence over ‘local-forcing’.  The reindeer’s migration is orchestrated by the movement of the shrubs grasses and lichen that it feeds on.  If we put food for an animal on a string and kept pulling it away, the animal in following it would be ‘doing just what comes naturally’.  It would not need to know the concept of ‘migration’ nor what the planet Earth looks like overall, nor how the movements of the planets relative to the sun produce the seasons that move the plants that the reindeer follows.  Thus, there is no need to assume that the reindeer KNOWS ‘that it must migrate’ since that is our human idealisation that we impose on the reindeer, just as we impose the notion that the honey bee KNOWS what a hexagonal structure is.  That is, there is no need to assume that the reindeer’s behaviour is ‘locally-forced’ (by instinct, genetically trained neural networks, internal biochemistry or biophysics etc), and it in fact makes more sense to assume that it is spatially-forced.

It is the view of this author as expressed throughout this Aboriginal Physics Newsletter website, that ‘local-forcing’ is an intellectual construct, an idealised paradigm that we are confusing for reality.  This confusion manifests in us as ‘ego’ both on an individual and collective basis, whereby we unilaterally ‘declare ourselves to have local, independent existence’ and to possess local internal powers of origination of behaviour, as if the space we are included in is of secondary influence on our behaviour; i.e. space is notionally reduced to having only a reactive role in that it may open up to our local internally force behaviour or it may resist our local internally-forced behaviour, … but our current western habitual understanding is to deny that our behaviour is spatially-forced, … to deny that the habitat is the ‘primary mover’ and the inhabitant is secondary, in the sense that it is both animated by, and created by the dynamic space it is included in (as is the conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation between the storm-cell and the flow of the atmosphere)…

This ‘habitual understanding’ in terms of ‘local forcing’, which persists in the modern westernized global social dynamic, is not constrained to our human behaviour, we impose it on all manner of things from climate to evolution (Darwinism).  In other words, the anthropocentric politicization of science is pervasive in the modern world (as was the contention of Nietzsche), though under continuing challenge.

Nomadic peoples put ‘spatial forcing’ in the primacy over ‘local forcing’ and thus, like the sailboater, they understand their ‘local-forcing’, or ‘knowledge-drive’ (‘destination-oriented planning’) as a secondary support tool to ‘take along with them on the trip’, without ever allowing it to ‘run away with the workman.’

Modern western-culture-dominated humans, have inverted the natural precedence of ‘forcing’ (‘causation’, ‘sourcing’ of morphology and behaviour), apparently in association with our ‘putting down roots’; (permanent settlements, towns, cities, nation-states) declaring these to have local independent existence, and we have developed ‘locally-forced’ dynamics, driven out of the central control authorities of these notionally ‘local’, ‘independent’ ‘systems’, replicates of our ‘locally forced’ vision of our ‘self’.   This whole array of notional ‘local systems’ with their notional ‘locally originating behaviour’ allows us to ‘idealise’ a one-sided inside-outwards-pushing (‘local-forcing’) dynamic pseudo-reality, called ‘society’, that we typically ‘confuse for reality’.  The morphological role of the dynamic space we are included in has been stripped out of its morphological forcing role in this inverted,schema, and we have substituted idealised fundamental (‘the buck starts here’) LOCAL sourcing agents such as ‘genes’, ‘instinct’, purpose etc.  There is no problem with these idealisations as useful ‘idealisations’ so long as we do not confuse them for reality.

‘Society’, the ‘the social dynamics of humans’ is clearly not on a par with ‘the dynamics of nature’ since humans are one of the many ‘crops’ that have been parented by the dynamics of nature, thus ‘society’ is an idealisation that must not be confused for (nature’s) reality.  Farmers do not really ‘produce crops’ and just because communities put down roots and declare themselves to be ‘local, independent nation-states’ driven from out of their own central authorities, does not mean that ‘this is so’.   It is certainly a good concept to promote a certain type of leader-follower organisation, but only so long as one can establish and sustain ‘common belief’ in the foundational idealisations on which it rests (there are no grounds in nature for establishing that something is ‘local’ or ‘independently existing’ or ‘equipped with locally originating (internal-process-driven) behaviour’.  It is all ‘idealisation’.

This is the imaginary foundation of our modern urbanized and sovereign statized social dynamic.  That it has had us ‘split off’ and ‘disconnect’ from our natural quest for resonant habitat-inhabitant relations is evident in ‘environmental issues’ which have accordingly arisen.   Nevertheless, we persist in confusing idealisation for reality.

[[e.g. if the earth’s axis should reorient and the bulk of the world’s human population found itself situated at the freezing poles, what a challenge there would be to re-locate all the permanently positioned ‘sovereign states’ which had unilaterally declared their independent existence and claimed locally-forced responsibility for their ‘success and prosperity’, and as the peoples of the world migrated away from the newly-in-effect polar regions towards more moderate regions, would they continue to claim that their migrating behaviour was locally (internal-knowledge) forced, that they were moving ‘because we are intelligent beings that exist locally and independently who realize that this move is a good thing for us to do’?  Or would they finally concede that everything in nature is spatially-forced?]]

It appears that when we threw out ‘celestial forcing’ together with God, as in Darwinism, we threw the baby out with the bath water.  In other words, space as the ultimate source of the world dynamic and the dynamical forms that gather and regather within it can be accommodated as a science-consistent revision of the western notion of God that recalls Aboriginal belief traditions and Taoism, Buddhism and Vedanta, not to mention the Neoplatonic views of Proclus et al (God is Nature, Nature is God) that associated with early Christian thinking prior to The Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) ordained by theologians to establish by concensus a ‘uniform Christian doctrine’.  This doctrine put God, the ultimate ‘forcing source’ outside of Nature so that his influence was seen as coming into the world by way of the ‘local objects and invariant organisms’ that He had created, leaving no sourcing-forcing role at all for the energy-charged field-flows of ‘space’; i.e. essentially reducing ‘space’ to an empty void (rather than energy-field-charged medium) which contained His created forms and provided them with a non-participating spatial theatre of operations.  Instead of simply ‘stepping across’ to a more naturally grounded ‘celestial forcing source’, as suggested by Lamarck, ‘les fluides incontenables’, the energy field flows; thermal, electromagnetic, gravity “that contained the organisms but which could not themselves be contained, … ‘fields’ that we know permeate nature were given a ‘pink slip’ by Darwin, in favour of descending down and inside of the forms, reified as local and independently existing, to come up with a ‘local forcing’ source for their evolution and for their behaviour.   Lamarck’s field-driven morphological notions see ‘fluids’ or ‘field-flows’ as being the source of organisation that gives rise to the organism and the evolving of his internal and external form.  While heredity played a secondary role, spatial-forcing was primary.

“Lamarck no longer conceived of the body as a functioning machine, but as a material mass whose organisation is orchestrated under the action of fluid movement.  He tied together the movement of organic fluids and the organisation of the body.  These fluid dynamics are no longer constrained to the role of supporting diverse physiological functions, but are the cause of the organisation of the parts in which they are contained, which respond in turn to the fluids. “  … “Lamarck  conceived of this ‘cause excitatrice’ (source of excitation in the organism) to be ‘external’ to living organisms, to pre-exist them and to be everywhere pervasive in their environment.  It is owing to this that he refers to the ‘fluides incontenables’ [fluides that are contained within the organism but which cannot themselves be contained] and names three, thermal flow, electrical flow and magnetic flow, but he supposes that others exist as well.”

Perhaps it is human ego that has us cling the notion of ‘local self-determination’ as in Darwinism, banishing ‘fields’ and their ‘spatial-forcing’ capacities to the ranks of the unemployed, so far as ‘evolutionary theory’ is concerned.  This is rather curious since ‘fields’ are amongst the most amazing phenomena in nature, and we seem to be some of nature’s most amazing offspring (according to us), … so how do we manage to ‘keep fields out of having any primary role in evolution’?.     .

In any case, an opportunity was thus missed (excluded) to equate God, the ultimate creative ‘sourceror’, with the energy-charged field-flows of space, which could have united Christian belief with the beliefs of Aboriginals, Taoists, Buddhists, Vedanta and modern physics (relativity, quantum wave theory, space as energy-charged field-flow).  Instead of being constrained to attribute ‘outbreaks of violence’ to ‘local sourcing’ as in ‘local incarnate evil’ (both sides of a conflict having this same option), we could more reasonably attribute it to ‘spatial forcing’ as associates with spatial-relational tensions which can build, as are the source of avalanches, earthquakes, forest fires and storms in the atmosphere.  Such a view, which restores celestial-forcing to a natural precedence over local-forcing would expose the folly of spiralling conflicts based on the mutually opposing impressions of local-forcing by locally incarnate sources of evil.

But never mind, … the restoring to primacy of ‘celestial-forcing’ is coming up for review again, all over the place; i.e. God is Under Review.

* * *