Originally posted on sciy.org by Ron Anastasia on Mon 18 Jul 2005 08:41 AM PDT
060 rh. Re: Questioning Neo-Darwinism
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rod Hemsell <rodhemsell@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Questioning Neo-Darwinism
To: scienceandspirit@sriaurobindocenter-la.com
Message - 060/149
Don,
I am here, observing this newly launched discussion with interest. I
ï¬nd most attempts to either deï¬ne or explain the laws of nature
simplistic, but I don't recall the speciï¬c comment you are referring
to. However, it seems that the metaphysical questions raised by
Sheldrake and Marghese are the necessary ones to ask if one isn't
satisï¬ed with scientiï¬c explanations. Science doesn't usually attempt
to answer those questions because it wants to base its proofs on
empirical observation. Adaptability through mutation can be observed
and the theory proven. For us the more interesting mystery is that the
principle of adaptability exists and shows itself in such an inï¬nitely
amazing array of purposeful natural design. It seems to us that such
purposeful adaptability is virtually synonymous with "intelligence" or
"consciousness". Since consciousness in humans can be explained as the
emergence of such a purposeful adaptation at the top of the ladder,
along with will and intentionality, we seem to have in our possession
the principles that explain everything. We got to this point a thousand
years before both Madhva and Newton, and Heidegger and Sri Aurobindo
both recaptulated the entire metaphysical discussion with reference to
their respective traditions: Greek and Sanskrit: phusis/logos;
purusha/prakriti.
The metaphysical mind isn't satisï¬ed with scientiï¬c reductions and
the scientiï¬c mind isn't satisï¬ed with metaphysical reductions. And
they are both right to be unsatisï¬ed. It apparently is taking quite a
"long" or "huge" period of time/intensity to pursue each path to the
point of convergence, which ultimately requires a breaktrough into the
integral or supramental structure of consciousness, as we know. And
that way of being is not just mental and abstract but material and
continuous with all planes, ie. integral/supramental. Anything less
seems to be simplistic, but the best scientiï¬c and/or metaphysical
thinking at least tries to recapitulate the whole ï¬eld of its
consciousness and arrive at a comprehensive theory. Even that attempt
has to remain relatively simplistic, but it has a chance of being
adequate, ie. great fun.
Your attempt to do both science and metaphysics is pretty ambitious, but it could be hugely fun.
Attachment: