Thursday, July 27, 2006

Creativity Unleashed

This paper seeks to encourage others to engage with the process of creating the parameters for the next paradigm. The ideas put forward as possible parameters are less important than the need to recognize that the next paradigm will best be built from a wide social and cultural base. The "other" can then become our salvation rather than being seen as a threat.

Creativity Unleashed, or Who’s Gonna Let the Dogs Out?

How is it that society will come to understand more constructive ways to relate to the conditions of our existence? This paper seeks to illustrate the manner by which fixed belief systems inhibit our creativity and ability to change the expressions of our consciousness. In particular, a notion will be advanced that Satan and Lucifer are G-d’s necessary helpers and are pitted against each other, rather than against G-d.

The current occupant of the White House has said; "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists." This is a call for eternal war, and cannot be considered positive for the development of culture or society. Also, in a little noticed statement, the US Sec. of Defense, Donald Rumsfield, said that; " the "unknown unknown" is the thing that keeps me awake at night". The only work that I am aware of, that deals with the subject of the "unknown unknown" is found in a book called "Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method". Here Henry Bauer makes a strong case that use of the scientific method alone does not provide the necessary ingredients for the formation of valid science. Of greater necessity is having a community of searchers that have a common language and boundary conditions. He uses the puzzle analogy of Michael Polanyi to show how the scientific community working together produces the solution to the puzzle.

Normal science deals with elements found within the boundaries of the dominant paradigm. That is the known and the known unknown. Elements outside those boundary conditions are often denied existence. Henry Bauer calls them the unknown unknown. To better understand the meaning of the known, the known-unknown, and the unknown-unknown, consider a square. The lines represent the boundaries of a puzzle. These boundaries represent our corollaries and assumptions. Inside the lines are puzzle pieces. The pieces that fit together are considered to be the known. The pieces inside the lines that don't yet fit together are considered to be the known-unknown. Everything outside the lines is considered as being the unknown-unknown and also, unfortunately, irrelevant.

Henry Bauer's use of the puzzle analogy is helpful although it is less than consistent. On one occasion it is treated as a fixed entity as when he says; 'Actually and ultimately, there is only one way to fit all the pieces together.' This implies that the puzzle is all of reality. On another occasion he talks about the puzzle growing. He seems to feel no need to explicitly state what is implicitly recognized through nearly everybody's experience. That is to say, the first thing that a puzzler does is to put together the boundary pieces. Yet the edge pieces define the puzzle and not the edges of reality. In a picture puzzle the edge pieces are the easy ones while in real life the boundary conditions are the most difficult to define. Indeed without boundary conditions we hardly have a puzzle to solve. The following statement of his provides another indication that Henry Bauer confuses the puzzle with reality.

"Every now and again, though, something happens....and then we have "revolutionary" science, or a Gestalt shift in some part of the puzzle.....The players thereby can never claim absolute finality for any part of the picture, and yet as larger and larger areas are completed, it does become less and less likely that major Gestalt shifts or minor rearrangements will need to be made-the less likely, the more there are links to surrounding areas of the puzzle."

Any credible scientist would concede that boundary conditions limit the extendibility of any given model, rather than considering them as the limits of reality itself. Currently existing paradigms deal with the known and the known unknown. Frontier science is liable to contain greater obvious error, but it represents the only way to deal with the unknown unknown. Its error or truth cannot be judged reliably by existing paradigms, as its conclusions lie outside the boundaries of current paradigms.

It seems to me that the strongest single determinant regarding the succession of paradigms lies in the aesthetic. The Copernican system was aesthetically more pleasing than the old Ptolemic system, yet at the time could not be said to predict events any better than the old system. Contrast this with this statement of Henry Bauer.

"The filter and puzzle model describes how the practices and institutions that have evolved in science sift out bias, error, and fraud under the scrutiny of the scientific community and the control of the prevailing paradigm."

It seems that most unbiased observers would see that while the current paradigm may sift out some bias and error, it will at the same time institutionalize other forms of bias and error. Those in "control of the prevailing paradigm" certainly felt justified in inhibiting the work of Galileo. In Galileos time the forces restricting science's pursuit of truth were religious, today those forces are economic and political. A Gestalt shift however, involves the replacement of one puzzle with a new puzzle; not simply the rearrangement of existing pieces. Previous rationality may now become irrationality, and vice-versa. Before Coperinicus it was considered irrational to believe the sun to be the center of the solar system, after conversion the opposite became true. How prudent is it then, given historical precedence, to be totally invested in current conceptual structures?

Consensual representations (OwenBarfield) form the relative truth structures at any given time within society. . While Truth may be Absolute, our understanding of Truth is never absolute. Any claim to understanding is mediated by words that form the interpretation of intimations of the comprehensive, (Karl Jaspers) or the ineffable (Abraham Heschel). Communication is also limited by the mutual understanding of the language used. As such, expressions of the Absolute will always maintain some distance from us.

Experience shows that when relative truth is promoted as being Absolute Truth, pathological response patterns are often the result. It is a false security thereby derived, as working with rigid or frozen categories surely inhibits a person’s connection to the ineffable (Abraham Heschel) or the comprehensive (Karl Jaspers).

Creativity is found in reformulating the information content within and between categories or, our ‘forms of structure’ (Aristotle) or ‘forms of understanding’ (Kant). Our current forms of understanding are rooted in a hard dualism via the Greeks and Descartes. This has been a legitimate stage to go through in that it has greatly assisted us in improving our analytical abilities. Still, it is time we used our innate creativity to better transcend the limits of dualism. Creativity can be used to reframe the boundary conditions of our puzzle. The "unknown unknown" can then become part of the known and the known unknown. That is, some of the "unknown unknown" can be brought within the boundary conditions of the puzzle (the known and the known unknown).

When boundary conditions change, (a rare event) the expert classes must redefine their relationships to society. Therefore, Mr. Rumsfield’s true fear is more likely, not the "unknown unknown", it is rather that the "unknown unknown" might become part of the known and known unknown. It may however also be the case that Henry Bauer and Mr. Rumsfield deal with the "unknown unknown" issue so as to signal and inspire other thinkers. Indeed in times past, members of the expert class would sometimes present exaggerated versions of orthodox positions so as to inspire students to examine new approaches to a given problem. (Beral Lang, Philosophical Style)

It is safe to say that most people are not happy with where society is at, or their place in society. Many search for the root causes of this dilemma, yet circumstances suggest we are far from identifying these causes. Our personal crusades may mask root causes rather than identifying them. Look at any panel of "experts" convened to address our larger problems. One person will cite breakdown of the family, another will cite lack of love, and the others will claim still different elements as the root causes. The primary cause expressed will always reflect the profession of the speaker. Each person will have valuable things to say; yet all will be far from the root causes. I fear that many "experts" exist to fill some "basic fault" or gap between perception and reality. (Morris Berman, 'Coming to our Senses') If this is the case then most experts will probably feel threatened if deeper causes let alone the "root causes" are brought up. Still there is a place for everyone in existence. Job descriptions and the means of value creation can change. Initiative is required to define our places in society, and our problems may be the best spur to initiative there is. I propose a toast to our problems: May we always have problems, never insurmountable, yet always a challenge.

At this point in our history many problems seem insurmountable. Whether the problem is resource depletion, environmental degradation, epidemics, fear of the other, or any other problem, the dilemma is inherent in our outlook rather than the potentials of reality itself. To be caught on the "horns" of hope and despair is a melodramatically paralyzing response better replaced with a personal absorption of the dilemma, which if lived with long enough can yield a personally meaningful response. While the solutions presented here (always partial and incomplete) may seem surreal and outlandish, be assured ancient "truths" are appealed to for the foundation. It is simply the case that "truths" are layered by rhetoric and myth making over time. One initial task is to cut through the rhetoric and reclaim more of the substance of the myths.

It makes sense that, over time, our guiding institutions will shape the forms of structure (understanding), so as to promote interests of the institutions. For example, while the early Hebrews considered Satan to be a roadblock or impediment to righteousness, a later Christian interpolation cast Satan as the representative of some external enemy. Casting Satan as an external threat then provides obvious benefits to the guiding institution, so as to rally the community under a perceived threat from the "other". Misdirected focus surly contributes to the loss of original information content (substance) within the category that we call Satan.

Our current dualistic system for understanding inhibits critical self-examination and promotes an unjustified sense of righteousness. The good vs evil agenda provides an all to simple target and shield for everyone involved. Culture and society can flourish only to the degree that our systems of understanding treat the "other" as a necessary element rather than as a threat. Towards this end, I would like to present a re-interpretation of a few categories that have been stripped of their substance over time. The following (abridged) system for understanding reality seeks to overcome some current limits of thought and speculation. Abraham Heschel, in his book "God in Search of Man", said that all experience contains elements of both law and spontaneity (order and liberty). Higher-grade experience happens when order and liberty are balanced and support each other. A low-grade experience will result when one dominates the other. Order without liberty produces a shallow and sometimes negative expression of order, and vice-versa. The following diagram serves to illustrate the effects of balance or lack thereof between order and liberty.

Imagine this figure in 3-d with an inverted tornado overlaid on it representing ones experience and history.

This figure implies that we all have both positive and negative elements to our being, and a focus on the positive will produce better relations.

Mr. Heschel claimed that there are three types of people. The first type seeks self-salvation. For the second type the Self is the problem, so that he will seek self-abdignation. The third type simply seeks fellowship. The salvationist will tend to do what he is told under the mistaken assumption that that is the way to claim his prize. People, for whom, the Self is the problem; expend their energy trying to transcend the limits of existence. Both are Self-centered and seek to relate oneself toward ones conception of reality, rather than to reality itself.

This version of Mr. Heschel's analysis changes his terminology so as to brighten the contrast of these images and to show substance within forms that many people consider to be empty of substance. First of all, there is no battle of Good versus Evil. In fact, if we allow that G-d is unnamable or beyond categories, then the battle is not between G-d and Satan at all. It is rather between different tendencies of expression, which educate through contrast. To illustrate, let us call order without liberty the static principle, or Ahriman (Satan). Under this principle you will do as you are told, and consider that the relevant authority structure is telling the "Truth". Next, let's call liberty without order the principle of indiscriminate change, and further, label this as Lucifer. This principle (idea) dispenses with received authority, replacing it with a, self-contradictory and absolutist demand for relativism. According to these measures, dogmatic orthodoxy is the tool of Satan, while rebellion from conventions is to be influenced by Lucifer. This can be brought into a modern secular context by considering "Type 1" and "Type 2" personalities. Type 1 personalities generally submit to the conditioning pressures of their parents and society, while Type 2 personalities tend to rebel from conditioning. While many people are not at the ends of the continuum, the rhetorical advantages are clearest at the ends. There is also a Type 3 personality, neither beholden to, nor disdainful of current conventions. Our job is to encourage first in us, then in our children, Type 3 personality expressions.

My contention is that a more balanced relation between order and liberty will deepen the possibilities within our categories and thereby better illustrate the substance contained within our forms. The quality of our experience is a direct reflection of the balance, or lack thereof, between order and liberty. This results in the strange corollary that Ahriman and Lucifer are G-ds necessary helpers. They serve to provide opportunity for discernment and a functional background on which we may find the value and effects of applying free will.

While consciousness is less developed, as with young children, it is reasonable for order to dominate liberty. As consciousness grows elements of liberty become more relevant, and if repressed will produce negative expressions of both order and liberty. The repressor will demand total obedience, while the liberator demands total repudiation.

In time consciousness will recognize the imperative to balance order and liberty. Then, rather than doing what we are told (Ahriman) or doing what we feel like (Lucifer), we will do the right thing and the Christ will rise from within us, sweeping the garbage of Satan and Lucifer out of our heads and allowing us to become effective co-creators with G-d. We can celebrate difference as an element that makes for a rich culture. Conversely, we can allow nasty operators to continue to create monsters that "must" be subsequently destroyed. An Old Spanish proverb says; take what you want... Then pay for it. All the fortunes in the world could never pay for the deceits of the ages. (Talk about family secrets, Diane Rheim. Dec 6,PRI) Still, the Grace of G-g rains down upon the just and the unjust alike, and the Glory of G-d will find expression. That is, the Grace (voice of the ineffable) will produce the Glory (harmony of greater understanding.)

In G-ds Love, Sounder


Blogger Dr. Lenny said...

boundary conditions - hmmm. From zero to infinity and beyond.

Putting liberty converse to order (as opposed to chaos) places some insight into the paradigm shift - or shall i call it a paradigm rotation. Symmetry is aesthetics for chemistry - crystals are enabled as regular reproductions of similar sequence patterns. Isn't it interesting how sacred geometry seems to reflect group theory. I would guess that nonsense DNA is really a liquid crystal form of mass that operates photosynthetically to supplement (or even replace) food energy. The latter is unlikely because of the mass balance, but we may just have a basic concept wrong - food provides mass, but not energy in useful form - light provides the energy, but it just happens to have the same mathematics as food to energy - just an inverted symmetry - as though our mathematician dropped a sign or something.

It seems to me that the discussion at Rigorous Intuition has lit from the known universe into exploration of these unknown unknowns. Being open to the 'seeing is believing' theory of nature - i begin to question whether the body of science is a figment of the imagination of some very bright people who were looking as five dimensional space in only four dimensions? Or eight, as i think the case may be.

At any rate - i enjoyed the thoughts and gave a plug at the zone. we may have to take all assumed knowledge thru the bullshit filters before we use it as building blocks, but identifying historically who bought in and who really worked science honestly in the time period from 1900-1929 may be a key in helping sort fact from fiction.
It has been good to post with you.


9:44 AM  
Blogger Sounder said...


The next essay to be posted will be called Building a Better Bullshit Filter.

Thanks for the idea, and please feel free to provide source material or ideas that may advance our project.

The invitation is open to all. Also if your editing skills are better than mine, feel free to help out.

3:38 AM  
Blogger Rambuncle said...

I see this post is old, but I came by after your recent comment on the bottom of the "Just a Drive-by" thread at RI.

Have you read "Science and Sanity" by Alfred Korzybski(AK from now on)? If you have, you may see that I am not explaining his ideas very well, but I'm trying.

The most important idea in the book is that the way we think is influenced by the way our language is structured(I only speak for English. It is the language he addresses, and the one I speak). The very structure of how we talk is based on identity, which is the root from which dualism comes. When we label something, we are identifying what characteristics that object has, what it can do, and what it can't do. When we label an object, for example a chair, we identify its form and uses. What we do not identify is the chair itself, which has many unique characteristics(the chair I am sitting in has wheels) separate from the simple identification of "chair." When we start treating all chairs the same, we miss the things that make every chair unique.

The same labelling gets attached to humans, which is more pernicious. Say someone has gone to jail for theft. We then call that person a thief. When we identify them, we attach a lot of associations to them, while at the same time misses a lot of others. Someone may have stolen in the past, and it is valid to say that, but to label them a thief is to limit their existence in our mind.

AK has a few ideas on how we need to change the way we speak/think. One of his main points is removal of the "is of identity." A leaf isn't green, it seems/looks/appears green. Someone isn't a thief/criminal, they have stolen/committed a crime. Jesus Christ isn't the only path to salvation, I/you believe he is the only path to salvation. When we speak in less absolute terms, the structure of our thoughts moves to less absolute terms. Once we have broken out of our rigid thought structures, we are better able to assimilate new information and adjust our view of things without the concomitant cognitive dissonance.

Another of the main ideas of the book is timebinding. All objects are changing, especially biological objects. We completely shed/regenerate our skin every seven days(I believe that is the time period, could be longer). Who is to say that Rambuncle[10/27/2006] is the same as Rambuncle[10/27/2005]. I'm not. I've grown older, got some new cuts and scrapes, have learned new things and said/written new things. This puts our previous actions in perspective. Previous actions are used as the base for predictive models of what people will do, but they do define the person, or doom them to some static label(ie thief). I should get back to work so I'll just end this line of thought right here for now.

In relation to dr. lenny's comment - AK's book was published in 1933, and one of the main influences on him was Quantum Physics/Mechanics. The "vagueness" of the quantum world is what drove him away from the concreteness of our current language, towards a broader understanding of everything. Our language is still influenced by our primitive understanding of the world.

9:55 AM  
Blogger Sounder said...

As I read and re-read your post I am quite gratified to see other people with sensibilities similar to mine.

Thank you much for the advice to examine Alfred Korzybski work. It sounds quite applicable, so I hope to read the material and maybe we can find opportunity to discuss implications.

3:46 AM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

Sorry to put this under your blog entry, but I really wanted to make sure you read it:

At first impression, The Dymamic Unity of Reality does appear to be some sort of "patching" effort on the holes in the faulty foundations of physics, as you put it, but I've just spent a few hours over there and I've changed my mind--these guys are onto something! In fact, the head guru, Geoff Haselhurst, is a lot like Bibhas De in his focus on the wave structure of the universe, but differs from De in that he's a lot less harsh toward the professional charlatans acting like the rock stars of the physics world.

Haselhurst does toss out the entire alleged wave/particle duality in physics, but he keeps a lot of the work of Einstein, Feynman, and even Lorentz intact, once you accept their common errors in perspective. Where Haselhurst is truly unique is that he reconciles the great irreconcilables in physics--everything is explained by and subsumed under the Wave Structure of Matter Theory. (Tom Bearden really needs to read this--Lorentz & Tesla are, apparently, not "mortal enemies.") Haselhurst is also not exactly alone in this "new" view of the universe:

As Carver Mead wrote (Professor emeritus at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech):

"It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics."

"The quantum world is a world of waves, not particles. So we have to think of electron waves and proton waves and so on. Matter is 'incoherent' when all its waves have a different wavelength, implying a different momentum. On the other hand, if you take a pure quantum system - the electrons in a superconducting magnet, or the atoms in a laser - they are all in phase with one another, and they demonstrate the wave nature of matter on a large scale. Then you can see quite visibly what matter is down at its heart."
(Carver Mead Interview, American Spectator, Sep/Oct2001, Vol. 34 Issue 7, p68)

So, go back and give this another look, Sounder--I think you're going to appreciate it immensely. There's a portion of one of the forums where they completely demolish the very idea of duality, maybe here, no, that's good shit, but it's here, in the thread with this comment from galaxy*19:

...Indeed, we are infinite, no matter what scales arise to distract us from this.

And time is meaningless because the universe is cyclic, spiralish if you please, and has no beginning or end either. Infinitely connected means that it is all One.

The interesting thing, the most mis-leading thing about our universe, is it's dualities, and the way they strive to be balanced. Everything must balance, just like an equation, in order for it to be True.

I prefer to think of the equation as looking like Infinity = Infinity = Infinity, surely a something = something = something. See, and the nothing exists in the spaces between. Without the void emptiness of space, we would not have the 'something' at all to recognize.

Now, if that doesn't look like something you've written, I'll be a monkey's uncle (oh, yeah, well maybe nephew...)

10:21 PM  
Blogger Elaine Supkis said...

Hi, Sounder, just visited your blog as you suggested.

I talk a lot about cosmic/astronomic matters, growing up in many observatories kind of rotted my brains. Here is a quote from the end of the article link above, all about how many things in nature make mirror images of each other, what this means concerning our own universe and its mirror and why this means the universe won't fly apart helplessly but is actually making a big circle and coming into a big collision with its mirror, aka, Big Bang 2.0.

I put up on my blog the video made by NASA showing two major galaxy concentrations where millions of galaxies are clumped together (hahaha, they are supposed to be flying apart like crazy! Yeah).
Do note the shape of both of these huge cluster's centers. Each one has a mirror polar opposite. There is this VOID in the center of each of these things. What if this is the model of the Big Bang? And we are riding on the outer surface of one of the twin bubbles? If we go through Nature's creations here on our tiny planet, we see the same impulse: things mimic each other, they mirror themselves outrageously which is why we have two arms, two legs, two eyes, etc. We have one heart and this displacement interfaces with other forces within and without our bodies. Trees like to be symetrical, sea shells are symetrical, the planet is symetrical with a north pole and a south pole. The Moon is round, too and so is our sun! And so on.

So I propose, the Universe is also symetrical. And like all systems we see, it is compact and tends to curve. Mother Nature isn't masculine, She likes round things. Curvaceous. Repeticious. Suspicious, too, for that matter.

And if there is 'dark matter' you can bet there is 'white matter' which we can't see...yet.

Hope to see you at my own blog in the future. Also a hint: the more you post, the more Google will find you and put you on their front page of search engine requests. About 60-80% of my regular readers came to me via google.

9:14 PM  
Blogger Elaine Supkis said...

As for the last seven decades being the dark ages of theoretical physics'...heh. I grew up in the middle of all that...and my grandfather, Edison Pettit, used to say, 'We have been looking at the universe with out of focus spectacles.' And his life work was to improve the mirrors with which we 'see' and my father tinkered with the glass grinding process (in Rochester and Cologne, Germany) trying to find better processes for producing better images, coming up with the multiple-mirror array and way back in the stone age, we went to Congress asking for orbital telescopes.

People often forget, the first one wasn't the Hubble, it failed and fell into the Atlantic and Congress almost killed the entire concept! Boy, did we have to beg for another whack!

Once we got better 'spectacles' we saw the universe was a fabulous spectacle! We still are digesting the raw data! Everyone rushes to shove it into some box or another. Fearful of simply accepting things as they come in and waiting for more information, physics gets stretched and twisted to 'explain' things we can't really understand yet!

As I said for many years (helps to drink some wine, first, heh), 'No matter what we think, when we get closer to anything, it always ends up shocking us completely!' Namely, we project a lot of ideas upon things that have a stubborn reality we can't see until we get to see it better. And I can't wait for better systems to come online! Wow.

9:32 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

Funny thing happened on the way over of those strange synchronicities that are happening so frequently now that they're not even strange anymore. I came today to ask you for that link you gave me long ago called (to the best of my recollection) Goethe & the Ahrimanic Principle, because this slow-burning epiphany has finally become manageable enough to negotiate those waters. The first time you gave it to me I wasn't ready for it--I had a lot of reading to do and, more importantly, a lot of processing of things that have been bouncing around inside my head for 30 years and more. The funny thing, the almost to be expected synchronicity is that you just happened to be talking about the thing I needed.

I would ask what the odds of that happening are, but then I'd have to talk about the one thing that Einstein found to be even spookier that non-locality (action at a distance, quantum entanglement, you know): the chicken & egg of math & the universe. Paraphrasing--yes, I'm too lazy to go find it, Einstein worried how it could be that mathematics, which he believed to be invented, not discovered, by the mind of man could be found everywhere in the universe, to the point where one could say that the universe itself was mathematics.

From there, of course, one could go in all sorts of interesting directions, including retro-causation (the theoretical framework for which Einstein himself "invented" when he spoke of time flowing in both direstions), Goswami & Wheeler's delayed choice (where we create reality through unconscious acts of consciousness--the opposite of Nietzsche's Will to Power--I believe you once called it congealed consciousness, a phrase I really love), and even Bohm & Sheldrake's formative causation (more on that in a bit.) I've been down all those roads, however, and while they're all quite interesting, especially the last one (for me at least) and even possibly true, at least as far as their truths mean anything beyond the joy of thought puzzles, there is another path that's much closer to Einstein's original "origin of math" question: that Nature contains certain shapes (a very inclusive term) which have an existence quite apart from our perception of their existence and which therefore approach a kind of absolute truth (the forbidden word, I know).

Consider for a moment two examples of what I'm getting at here. One is described in the work of organic architects, people like Eugene Tsui, Peter Vetsch, Roger Dean and Joseph Feigelson. What these visionaries have done is to recognise the enduring patterns in nature and essentially copy or even translate them for human needs for the benefit of humanity, not their own enrichment. Here's an explantion of how this works: at Feigelson's n'KoziHomes website you find a page called About Domes, within which there's a page entitled
The Five Solids as found in Nature where you'll see a set of drawings that Ernst Haeckel made in 1862.

Using these shapes, specifically the Icosahedron, Feigelson was able to design a type of housing that has tremendous ramifications for all of humanity. While he's focused right now on Africa, the cradle of the world's sorrow, the lessons--I should say the value of those lessons--that he has learned by simply observing nature are universal. Not only do his (which is to say Nature's) designs provide habitats which produce their own energy & water, with no greenhouse gases (45% of which come from conventional architecture) or waste water or any other ecologically unsustainable by-product, but they also provide livelihoods and a new, call it organic pattern of social structure. For details on this, see the SMADEV concept.

The last thing at Feigelson's n'Kozi site, his fun page, points us to my last example of a timeless truth outside of ourselves. If you click on this tab, you'll see a graphic presentation of something that many of our philosophers & scientists have declared impossible but which Nature shows us everyday: order out of chaos, even ex nihilo.

The reason we can't see the everyday truth of this is because we are constrained & contained by the arbitrary categorization of our thinking. We don't allow natural philosophers to describe our search parameters anymore; instead we have scientists who are themselves bound by the limitations of their creed. The great Viktor Schauberger understood on a deeply untuitive level the categories which exist in Nature. He understood this so well, so intimately that even though he was not trained as a physicist, even lacking the vocabulary that processes (and passes for) thought, he was able to design devices which copied Nature's own engines. Devices which purified water & rejuvenated ruined soil.

Naturally, science wasn't having any of it (nor the political ends it serves). When Schauberger published his one and only book, Our Senseless Toil: the Source of the World Crisis (1933), complete with plans to save the dying Rhine & Danube rivers, he was summoned to Berlin to meet with another, very different Austrian, that fookin' Hitler. It is claimed by some that Hitler was intrigued by Schauberger's ideas, including passages like this one:

"It is possible to regulate watercourses over any given distance without embankment works; to transport timber and other materials, even when heavier than water, for example ore, stones, etc., down the centre of such water-courses; to raise the height of the water table in the surrounding countryside and to endow the water with all those elements necessary for the prevailing vegetation. Furthermore it is possible in this way to render timber and other such materials non-inflammable and rot resistant; to produce drinking and spa-water for man, beast and soil of any desired composition and performance artificially, but in the way that it occurs in Nature; to raise water in a vertical pipe without pumping devices; to produce any amount of electricity and radiant energy almost without cost; to raise soil quality and to heal cancer, tuberculosis and a variety of nervous disorders... the practical implementation of this ... would without doubt signify a complete reorientation in all areas of science and technology."

But the reception he got there tells another story. In one of Frank Germano's Schauberger pages, where he quotes liberally from the work of Callum Coats, we learn:

Thirty minutes had been allocated for the discussions, which Prof. Max Planck had been requested to attend as scientific adviser shortly before he was rudely deposed from his position as Privy Counselor. This exchange of views eventually lasted 11 hours, during which Schauberger explained the destructive action of contemporary technology and its inevitable consequences. He contrasted this with all the processes of natural motion and temperature, of the vital relation between trees, water and soil productivity, indeed all the things he considered had to be thoroughly understood and practiced in order to create a sustainable and viable society.

When Viktor had finished his explanations (including the brutal admonition that Hitler's poisonous Reich would be lucky to last 10, much less 1000 years), Max Planck, who had remained silent, was asked his opinion about Viktor's natural theories. His response was the remarkable and revealing statement that "Science has nothing to do with Nature".

After this meeting, Schauberger's plan for fixing the great rivers of Europe, including his book and all the submitted sketches were destroyed by the Nazis (not for the last time.) Late in the war, when things began to fall apart for the master race, the 58 year-old Schauberger was forced to work for the SS to develop new sources of energy. When the war ended, again Schauberger's work vanished; this time, however, it wasn't the Nazis who were responsible. The mystery of the wartime patents remains a mystery--not satisfied with confiscating everything Schauberger had accomplished up to this point, the Americans "invited" the old man (and his son, Walter, and his trusted machinist, whose name escapes me) to be their guest in Texas in 1958.

Held a virtual prisoner (again), Schauberger was forced to demonstrate the practical applications of his vortex theories (modeled on those patterns in Nature he saw), at which point, having seen enough, the defense contractors representing the US government who were his "hosts" promptly destroyed the experimental models and forced Schauberger to relinquish all of his intellectual property before allowing him to return home. By all I mean everything--not just sketches & models, but the theories themselves which he was under severe threat never to discuss with anyone for the rest of his life. He died five days later.
Curiously (or maybe not, depending on your view of how the military-industrial complex works), Schauberger's work seems to have died with him. True, Coats and others (notably in Ireland, Sweden & Finland, as well as the Group of Nine in Germany and his own family's Pythagoras Kepler System in Austria) are trying to resurrect what has been lost, destroyed and/or suppressed, but the US government, which has the majority of his work completely sealed all these years later (for national security reasons of course) refuses to release any of it and the scientific "community" (orthodoxy?) remains adamantly incurious. Strange quality for scientists, wouldn't you say?

What I'm getting at here isn't just the suppression of science; it's the inability of our established institutions to (quite literally) see the forest for the trees because of their categorical blinders. This is why Jaap Bax spent all that time doing morphological studies of crystallography--this is why he was determined to reconcile our vapid, self-destructive and thoroughly reductionist mechanistsic/materialist model of science with the far more intuitive (but admittedly less disciplined) approach of holism.

Sounder, you write:

At this point in our history many problems seem insurmountable. Whether the problem is resource depletion, environmental degradation, epidemics, fear of the other, or any other problem, the dilemma is inherent in our outlook rather than the potentials of reality itself. To be caught on the "horns" of hope and despair is a melodramatically paralyzing response better replaced with a personal absorption of the dilemma, which if lived with long enough can yield a personally meaningful response. While the solutions presented here (always partial and incomplete) may seem surreal and outlandish, be assured ancient "truths" are appealed to for the foundation.

Now (and I promise I'll stop here) consider that quest you're on in terms of practical applications. You're a carpenter-philosopher, man! Imagine for a moment the empowerment in Feigelson's SMADEV concept, where the skills of the builder are taught as an integral part of the process itself, so that they in turn can teach other builders the skills necessary to shape their lives. Consider this application of Schauberger's vision to those hope & despair camoflaged problems you describe:

Just one example of the results of destructive technology mentioned in Coats' book is the loss of topsoil. Ever since the first metal plow sliced through it, the living skin of Earth (topsoil) has been turning to powder and blowing in the wind. Today's massive machinery has accelerated the loss. There are, however, methods for rebuilding a healthy, crumbly, juicy soil that will at the same time produce vitalized (and tasty) food.

Callum Coats cites a spectrum of Schauberger's improvements to agriculture, and also touches on the work of other researchers such as John Hamaker, who wrote a book called the Survival of Civilization with Don Weaver. Hamaker is an engineer who pioneered soil remineralization with rockdust. This has nothing to do with chemical fertilizers. Instead, igneous rocks which contain a broad range of minerals are crushed into finely ground dust through a relatively cold process. As Schauberger often pointed out, hot processes dissipate energies, but certain cold processes can actually enhance energy in a substance. Quality rather than quantity is crucial; the energetic effect enhances life processes that build soil. For example, one man who used a light dusting of rockdust for a decade increased the depth of his topsoil from four inches to about four feet.

This last one was from Life-Enhancing Agriculture, a review by Jeane Manning of Living Energies: Viktor Schauberger's Brilliant Work With Natural Energy Explained, by Callum Coats. Philosophy is not idle speculation (in the right hands).

Now, about that link...(and thanks for the patience, Pal!)

11:56 AM  
Blogger The Way It Can Be said...


There's enough here and in the comments to keep someone busy for weeks just really reading and absorbing the ideas..

However, to add some quick splashes..

I don't think I've seen anyone make good use of anything that Donald Rumsfeld said before.. must be part of that dialectic you've referred to? :)

At the risk of adding to our already large reading list.. there's a book from 1979 by Douglas Hofstadter called "Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid".. One breakthrough that is elaborated on is Godel's formal proof that no system can be fully explained from within itself - you always have to go outside of a given system. Sounds a lot like something a Zen master might say because at some point, maybe even quickly, you run out of systems to step into.. or out of..

Regarding the observations on the place of angelic beings or other such entities - it also gets to the question of evil. As in, how can God allow evil to exist even in the context of karma.

One way to explain it is to say that everything is a result of someone's desire, "god" makes it happen as in "your wish is my command", where god has no will only a desire to create and love, and angelic beings like Lucifer are incredibly powerful co-creators in whose orbit we have voluntarily fallen.. and all time and its events are desired and all have happened and we select the path we follow.. etc.. etc..

...that's enough.. :)

5:53 AM  
Blogger Brainpanhandler said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:37 PM  
Blogger Brainpanhandler said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:52 PM  
Blogger Brainpanhandler said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12:04 AM  
Blogger Brainpanhandler said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8:56 AM  
Blogger Fructedor said...

Hi Sounder - you're right, I hadn't yet visited your page - for quite a while now I've been running with all sorts of stuff that calls me on, and I don't always pay attention - thanks for the reminder - I've read your first piece, and it's as clear as spring water, IMO. I really dig this -

"Then, rather than doing what we are told (Ahriman) or doing what we feel like (Lucifer), we will do the right thing and the Christ will rise from within us, sweeping the garbage of Satan and Lucifer out of our heads and allowing us to become effective co-creators with G-d."

Reading this at Easter time is a pleasant surprise and certainly no coincidence.

Also, concerning Donald Rumsfeld and his ilk, I'm astounded that they get any sort of sleep at all.

You mentioned the throne you're building for the Dalai Lama - it made me think of Carl Jung's story about how, over the years, he built a miniature village from the stones on the shore of the lake near his home. This is profoundly creative work, the motives for which may be difficult to explain to others - but it's an essential affirmation of our existence as co-creators. I suspect that this sort of enterprise is just the beginning of our exploration of the power of co-creation. It's what we're here for.

Thanks man and Happy Easter


6:18 AM  
Blogger barb michelen said...

Hello I just entered before I have to leave to the airport, it's been very nice to meet you, if you want here is the site I told you about where I type some stuff and make good money (I work from home): here it is

11:56 AM  
Blogger Deb said...

Hello Sounder, I'm just going to blurt this out.

Religion is the brain child of Satan.

It's no wonder that we have been poisoned by this slap in the face of God. The lie created chaos. How do I know? If you believe NDW hears who he says he does, and you believe Satan exists, it is reasonable to entertain the idea that I hear who I say I do--Satan. No joke. (And there is only one, by the way. There is no separate Lucifer or league of mindless minions.)

We've been tricked by the master. So fooled that I'm not sure how to present what I've learned in a way that will be considered lucid.

Anyway, you're on the right track.
God is blessing you, as God is blessing all of us.

xo Deb

7:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home