... the Mystery Be #2, vw

         A few days ago, a friend brought up my last post (can it, really, have been over 2 months ago?).

         She stated that she had been thinking about Stephen Hawkins’ hypothesis (reference April 4 – Think I’ll just let the mystery be...vw). That post considered the question as to why technology has leaped so far ahead of our ability to create heathy sustainable ecosystems on our planet. She reflected that “something is missing in Hawkins’ response.” How exciting to me that someone else out there also wonders ….

“Something is missing ….”

I agree with Hawkins’ statement that, emotionally and spiritually, we have evolved very little while there has been considerable change in the physical and intellectual aspects of our existence. But the huge question is “why”.

 Last year my daughter loaned me a book which probed into the existence of “consciousness”. Galileo’s Error by Philip Goff, is a preliminary scientific and philosophical probing into Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness. It is well written, i.e., both user-friendly and intriguing.

In (very brief) summation, Goff explains the “error” and the 3 basic theories that currently revolve around the question of how scientists are dealing with the concept of consciousness, both human and universal. The book doesn’t directly deal with what’s missing in the Hawkins’ response but it certainly opens a door to further, and deepening, questions. [… and it definitely clarifies the problem brought up in Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer, which criticizes the current inability of science to address the very real existence of consciousness in the interrelationships of the Whole].

 My friend is right. There is something missing. There’s a lot missing. The whole reality of psychology and the paranormal are largely ignored in the current scientific establishment.

 Hawkins’ statement is over-simplified and I think we would have to extend our readings of his writings to see if he’s simplifying for brevity’s sake. Has he more deeply probed this question elsewhere? Goff concludes that the reality of consciousness lies a step beyond the immediate realities of the physical world, i.e., "hard" science. These realities are much more outright, and thus more accessible to theorization and experimentation. (… and this does not discount the fact that “hard” realities, themselves, can be infinitely complex to human understanding.)

            I hope, this winter to reread “Galileo’s Error.” Things usually make more sense to me the second (and 3^rd J) time around and this subject is just too interesting to “… let the Mystery be!”

... the Mystery Be #3kg

 love your musings.

 I think part of the problem is equating technology and human consciousness with biological processes, and viewing all evolution as a process of "betterment". This highlights for me another issue of poorly defined definitions! It's one of the same problems that has gotten created in the school of Evolutionary Psychology that tries to distill the complex processes of psychology down to the harder science of biological processes. It causes smart, scientific people to make stupid, unscientific extrapolations.

 I do think it's true what Hawkins points out about the inevitability of specialization as regards science and technology and the glut of information. That's a sound argument. I just don't like how we start muddling up all the ideas of evolution, as though it's a process that ought to move towards an endpoint of perfection and enlightenment.

 My experience of working towards a goal of "enlightenment" is that we have to work against many of the forces of nature, most certainly the nature of the human mind!!! That's where many views of spiritual enlightenment fail, by not realizing how hard it is to evolve oneself in this direction.

 

Saga of Pye ... vw

The runt of the litter was whelped March 28^th, 2021; Echo, OR. Echo is east of the Blue Mountains, off   I-84 on the way from La Grande to Boardman. Though smaller than her sibling stockdog pups, she apparently took what she needed from the food supply because she came plump and lively.

 Pye and her siblings were weaned May 8^th (~ 6 weeks) and she began her life’s journey from “home” on the 15^th. Her littermates were gone days before she came to live with me. She was the dirtiest small puppy I have ever seen when two nice young men handed her over in the parking lot of the Elvis Bar at the Pendleton Airport. She was grey with dry cow poop and had strings of poop on her head and rump. Ryan’s comment: “… a real ranch dog!” Thus, she came by her name, Pye, derived from cowpie.

 I find I cannot do justice in describing the emotions wrapped up in this small, squirming, teething, intense, bundle of life. I only hope my energy can keep up with her and help her grow into a loving and lovable adult dog.

p

Birds Returning ... vw

 Must Mean Spring!

Well, the bad news first! I am not so happy to see the homecoming of the ~ dozen Starlings and a few House Sparrows (English Sparrows) but these species remind me of how similar they are to homo sapiens. They are very accomplished survivalists and they like to live concentrated in groups. They breed prolifically and they tolerate, and even benefit, from close proximity to hominids.

My “Home” House Sparrows (though I hate to generalize about species) are not very good nest builders. Their nests look like the dust bunnies under my bed except the building materials are larger. [Peterson’s Field Guide describes their nest as “a bulky mass”! 

My “home” Starlings amass in numbers, perching closely together to gang up on any flicker, blue bird or wren that might happen by looking for a nice cavity in our trees (or my house) in which to shelter themselves and/or their young. Peterson’s also defines them as “garrulous”! My starlings raise two clutches a year! I really don’t know about the sparrows.

Think I'll just leave the mystery be ... Iris Dement, vw

 

            A concept that been reoccurring for me revolves around a question I’ve been thinking about for a time. “Why is it that technology and knowledge have so greatly out- distanced man’s ability to build sustainable ecosystems and human societies?”

 

            Last week I discovered Stephen Hawking’s interesting hypothesis on this question. Believing in evolution, he theorizes that, because evolution is a grindingly slow process, we have progressed (emotionally and intellectually) little beyond our cave men ancestors. While accessible knowledge has grown exponentially, as individuals we can no longer access the “whole” of the knowledge available to us. He asks if we can even imagine reading, much less studying, every book in our own city’s library. It’s incredible that not more than ~300 years ago, people could do so. Thus, he observes that we have, by necessity, come to depend on increasing specialization.

 

Steven’s theorem makes sense. Though we have made astounding strides technologically, we cannot yet cope with the task of applying this knowledge. We are not yet able to cooperate and coordinate effectively to significantly benefit ecological and social sustainability. The progression of knowledge repeatedly shows us the undeniable interrelated complexity of the “known” and the “unknown.” Again, and again, we are returned to the web of inter-connectedness and the realization of how little we know.

 

But I don’t find this situation hopeless. Even though our innate human survival instincts remain dominant in our psyches, i.e., that “me and mine” prevail, I believe we are evolving in the process. [Perhaps we can hope for a widespread beneficial mutation to put us on a fast track! J! Or a worldwide epiphany? Who knows?] As things are, however, I can’t even begin to imagine how we can coordinate an effective global unification process to save ourselves!

There have been attempts ....

The universe came into being

the moment I was born

and all things are one with me.

Since all things are one

how can I put that into words?

But since I just said they are one,

how can I say they are nothing?

The one plus my words make two

and the two plus the one make three.

If we continue this way,

even the greatest mathematician

couldn’t calculate where it will end.

It’s better just to leave things alone.”

 

Chuang-tzu (The Tao)

Scholarly translation by Stephen Mitchell

LandGifts #5vw - "Nature's Food Bank", vw

 Land Gifts vw#5 – Nature’s Food Bank

             Today as I glanced out the kitchen window, a movement caught my eye. There they were, the makers of the tracks I‘d observed on the snow for the last 2 weeks! California Quail, approximately a dozen of them at the top of the lower orchard, running around on the new snow and thrusting their little heads down (while never mussing their curved head plumes) retrieving the food they had come for.

 I suddenly realized what was feeding them. Why, it was last year’s apple harvest which had been so plentiful, so late, and with so many small-sized fruits! I hadn’t picked many; just the biggest ones, disdaining the small ones. I was too busy with other priorities; too hot, too tired.

             Now, as I watched the busy cluster of these beautiful creatures, I felt my heart healing a small weight that I had been carrying since last fall’s abundant harvest (or should I say, my non-harvest?). Having been raised by my parents, both of whom were children of the depression and a pre-social-services government, I am deeply instilled in the moral imperative of not wasting food and fiber. I had been feeling somewhat guilty for leaving so much good food on the old apple tree.

     As I watched the quail families, I understood the lesson. I am forgiven for “wasting” these apples. Nature is compensating for my deficiencies and transforming my neglect into her own bounteous food bank. Our quail families were feasting on the apple seeds, the fallen grass seeds, and maybe even on the remaining shriveled fruit lying under and being softened by the snow.

 Again, the Land Gives!