a reply to: Riffrafter
One thing I love philosophically is the further you delve into studying things at a quantum level, the faster the physics crashes headlong into
It's also surreal. We (humankind) are clearly coming closer to an understanding of how we work - and yes, it goes all the way not merely into
metaphysics (which is just a term for "what is real"), but can legitimately lead one to believe that mind - consciousness - can work differently if
our social-context afforded a more natural expression of Human affectivity.
My theory is (influenced by the views of the biophysicist Mae Wan Ho) is that Human behavior - mind - is regulated by how the individual understands
and regulates the flow of energy/information through their system. In other words - in an incoherent context - the "mechanics" of the natural external
world, as well as the mechanics of the flow of our phenomenology, may present a "dualistic" reality. Entropy is great. On the other hand, seeking a
more correlated awareness of external contingencies - knowing what is good for you and consciously supporting - may reduce entropy, and so, perhaps
even lead to a state of zero-entropy (as Ho believed).
There's like a clockwise/counter-clockwise logic - with one direction yielding a separation of self from world, a sense of being an "individual ego" -
however much of an unreal abstraction that is - and this derives from the "stress" that is acting upon the processing of information through the Human
Now imagine a different context - one where nurturing is primary - and what do you get? A totally different flow of phenomenology - more relaxed, less
stressed, more spontaneous, simply because the organism is not being primed by past experiences to have negative expectancies towards the environment.
In my mind, there probably was a "garden of eden", and the departure from that state has everything to do with capitalism, commerce, private property,
People always think of this as if it weren't a phenomenon of nature. A self-organizing structure - creating cities, etc. This is pretty incredible.
Yet, it can be difficult - as it has been for most anthropologists - to recognize that using-the-other to regulate your affectivity is how the
brain-mind evolved. Each structure (organism) literally inter-included itself within the structure of others - which is what socializing is.
Fast-forward to around (atleast) 12,000 years ago, and you have the start of the agricultural era - something, in my mind, mistakenly considered as an
incredible achievement - as opposed to a structural drift from the ecological background that supports human interinclusivity.
Is reality different when we don't experience one another as strangers? Quantum biology would suggest "yes". Thought may have more considerable powers
than we currently experience - where our minds are often considered to be "virtual' and unreal relative to the physical. Even though, as we know, mind
can regulate body.