Since the mind really is, in fact, an emergent property of biosemiotic processes between human beings and the world around them (implying that mind
interpenetrates external structures) what would be the meaning of what could be termed "spiritual entities"?
Omega Point, or Eden?
Lets say one point of the evolutionary dialectic begins in "fear", and the other point is based in love. What does such a thing even mean?
Well, evolutionary speaking, the first cells were structures which discovered how to dissipate external molecules that yielded molecular units for the
reconstruction of the cells dynamical structure. The balance between internal reaction-times and movement-in-the-world is such that the organism
learns to properly "map" the outside world so that food that is detected will always prompt a path-of-least resistance type movement of the organism
to the food. This has been shown to be the case by quantum biology in that the detection of a molecule - such as glucose - is not the molecule itself,
but a electromagnetic gradient which "pulls" the organism, as it were, towards the needed substance. How can this connectivity even exist? Andres
Wagner, author of Arrival of the Fittest, posits an "internal library" of responses built within an organisms who structure, which contains or IS the
memory of its past relations with the world. Wagner's work shows the mathematical impossibility of thinking about the organism - any living structure
- as mere cause-effect, as the possibilities of reactions in any molecule-molecule reaction within the organism itself (not even taking account of the
organisms knowledge of where to move) are so large as to many times exceed the number of seconds since the Universes explosion into being 14.5 billion
So first things first: Nature is PROFOUNDLY ORDERED. More than you think - as this world compels such an obnoxious depreciation of the clarity of the
reality we life within and through, I want to impress upon the reader that the Earth as a living system is no more magical than the organism as a
living system: it is the relations that constitute the living and mentality of living: not the body.
So, how do we conceive of the Earth's "living"? Well, in terms of the cell, it is the autocatalytic closure of the membrane and the proteins which are
embedded therein are chemically adapted to respond to nutrients in the external world so that useful information can be "brought in". On the inside
itself lie relationships between molecules that are circular so that intrinsic parts of the structure of the cell are regenerated, again and again.
I would claim, as Stuart Kauffman does in Humanity in a Creative Universe (2016), that the capacities of a cell really derive from the kinetic effects
of the closure of the cell itself. What this implies is deeply fascinating: the "top", or the kinetic container itself, "feeds back" on the bottom (or
the lowest-level particular units) in such a way as to create a "channel" of information processing that becomes canalized again and again, between
the organism and the environment.
This, then, is how the Earth could be described as a real living system: the kinetic closure of our planet and the "rebounding" of the "top" of the
system against the smallest physical units (the bottom) within the system itself, such that a "channelling" is created between the top and bottom,
which is what we see as stones, rivers, trees, animals etc.
We could say, then, that the human beings evolution has been shaped in such a way as to make us "compatible" with the other elements of the Earths
Now, how does an organism grow? It first gets a 'sense' of what it needs to be, and what it becomes what it is, it finds a way to overcome the
obstacles that prevent its being. This is essentially evolution by adaptation.
Now, lets say that the Asteroid which hit Earth roughly 66 million years ago and killed off all the dinosaurs and nearly all life. Then, 35 million
years ago, another major impact killed off the majority of life on Earth.
Is it possible, perhaps, given that 35 million years ago monkeys were well evolved, that the Earth system leveraged the monkeys evolution in such a
way as to channel its semiotic processes towards what may be termed the "omega point" i.e. love?
This sounds strange and very different from what we usually think about ourselves, but think about it: the Earth has been nearly destroyed again and
again by asteroids, and it possesses a species on it which could, if it can evolve the capacity of mind, develop the technological means to protect
the planet, and in doing so, the planet has in effect evolved by adaptation to a menacing threat.
Think about how this perspective modifies how we see our selves, our religions and beliefs - when from the planets perspective, the human being
evolved to help protect the planet from being destroyed by asteroids.
If this perspective is true, it is very interesting to note that it was around 75,000 years ago that mount Toba exploded and Ash covered the planet
for nearly 5 years.
Homo Sapiens were very well evolved by then, and indeed, having evolved from a consistent background of connection with nature, probably never ever
considered the idea of itself as separated from it.
But then nature, its seems, cut the umbilical chord and threw us into a state of disconnection and trauma. By breaking the tie, Humans dissociated,
and by dissociating, lost that connection that maintained themselves in connection with one another, which is to say, fundamentally reshaped how we
related and made meaning in the world. As bad as this was for us - it may have fit within the planets "rules" - or desire: to build up a defense
against asteroids, it needs a creature that can recognize the presence of such a problem. No?
And so began "history", or rather, the Neolithic began 12,000 years ago, and mythological history began around 6,000 years ago. This history which
humans take-so-damn seriously, may be nothing more than a means-to-an-end for the planet.
Would be no more than the ontological structures which organize our biodynamism - and that they can be related to or to function as a "counter-point"
to our wishing - if it is "given" what it wants (implying a sort of ontological purposiveness) it may grant your wishes.
What this shows, given our cultures penchant for "occultism", is that without knowing the larger-picture, you may be acting in ways or doing things
that are violently out of touch with how things work - i.e. that all things self-organize and depend upon real material processes for their existence.
edit on 30-7-2017 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)