👈 || UNSAYING | CONTEMPLATION | TRADITION | MEDITATION | DISCUSSION | BACK MATTER || 👉

I note a disturbing trend with modern science. It embarked on an expectant voyage of discovery that has been tremendously successful in certain areas of knowledge, but its strict causal determinism is at odds with the living world, and it is showing. Science is floundering, seemingly unable to proceed, while trumpeting every small discovery as if it is a tectonic shift that will forever change our lives.¹ Yet, every announcement of new discovery is always expressed in the conditional, as if the hopes and dreams of scientists never reach the level of any substance. They are building a mythology of future things that will be accomplished, but never other than just not yet.

But that is not the trend that disturbs me the most. It is not that they take what is possible as if it is their greatest accomplishment, it is that they believe the myths that they are spinning, and that is terrifying. What will come, when those who tout themselves as seekers of the truth, spin myths for us all to believe?

Whereas religion ascribed its understanding to a supreme being, scientists do so to a faceless avatar called “Science.” And the rank-and-file of their trade revel in their own growing mythology. We have not overcome the intellectual weakness of being human in either case.

What is holding them back is this idea from the Sixteenth Century that everything is a mechanism, every action is caused, order suddenly arises out of chaos, and that everything that has, or will ever, happen, is the result of ‘natural’ laws that (pre)determine it all.

The alternative to this mess is what I describe as the universal spontaneous creativity of responsive naturing that is obvious everywhere, once it is pointed out to us — unless you are so wedded to the idea of causal determinism you cannot even entertain an alternative, no matter how logically consistent and widely evidenced it may be. Such an individual cannot break free of their blinders to see a way out of the morass that has engulfed modern Science.

When someone asks “What proof is there that this activity is ‘responsive naturing’?” they expose themselves as being stuck in the paradigm of causal determinism, which structures all knowledge in dualistic terms of entities that cause results through their activity, and asserts that order, such as that of the human body, somehow magically arises out of chaos.

In the absence of the existing paradigm structuring their thoughts, they would intuitively turn to their own contemplative experience in order to see for themselves whether or not ‘responsive naturing’ is an adequate description of what arises for them in every moment of their life.

But it is easier for one steeped in causal determinism to believe in a supreme being that creates everything, than a reality in which there are no entities whatsoever, because an entity that creates all things at least fits the causal model of reality.

This makes evident the problem we have engaging with any truly new paradigm — we have great difficulty evaluating it on its own terms. We find ourselves unable to think in a way that is sufficiently different than that of our existing paradigmatic understanding, no matter how limited or broken we know that understanding to be. And of course, any effort to try to understand a new paradigm can be quickly doused by our own hubris.

So when a causal determinist hears the term “responsive naturing” they can only understand its meaning to be a characterization of some entity’s activity, and not spontaneous activity that continuously manifests without any entities involved whatsoever, just like the role Time has in the old paradigm. Time has no beginning, no end, and no entity responsible for its motion. Yet, even so, the connotation of ‘Time’ as being an entity sufficiently frames the unfolding of time in our lives as an activity of that hypostatized entity, thus making it fit our causal determinism. So, while this connotation is baseless, what it points to cannot be clearly seen to be what it is — just activity without a cause.

Synchronicity is no more baffling or mysterious than the discontinuities of physics. It is only the ingrained belief in the sovereign power of causality that create intellectual difficulties and makes it appear unthinkable that causeless events exist or could ever occur. But if they do, then we must regard them as creative acts, as the continuous creation of a pattern that exists from all eternity, repeats itself sporadically, and is not derivable from any known antecedents.⁠² (Carl Gustav Jung, psychiatrist and psychoanalyst)

There are so many ways that this new paradigm of responsive naturing diverges from that of causal determinism, some explicit, and some implicit, that it taxes one’s intellect to cross the divide, which makes it just too beyond the pale of accepted thought to even make an effort to imagine.

I am, of course, speaking of our modern ‘truth-seekers’ here, who, according to one of their own respected in-house critics, can often only “advance one funeral at a time.” An assertion that has been recently scientifically verified.

Historically, and by that I mean before the ‘scientific revolution’ beginning in the Sixteenth Century in Europe, other truth-seekers realized that our paradigmatic understanding — that is, the body of our conceptual ideas — keeps us from seeing anything beyond the limits imposed by that body of ideas. It was for this reason that they developed contemplative and meditative practices to enter into a longterm effort to come to a direct experience of this conceptual blockage, and to see how our thoughts and ideas arise, in order to free themselves from these shackles.

We have to learn to think in a new way.⁠³ (Betrand Russell, polymath philosopher, mathematician, and logician, and Albert Einstein, theoretical physicist)

Today, we can benefit from their efforts to come to a clearer paradigmatic understanding, which were reproduced over thousands of years, without the need to repeat those efforts ourselves. We can, of course, make the effort to do so, which I highly recommend, having done so myself. But the sad fact holds: although we can profit from the efforts of our ancestors, any effort we make is likely to follow the same pattern: advancing only one funeral at a time, in the case of committed causal determinists — or in other words, the oblivious.

Death is a great reset, when all our tightly held understandings suddenly fall away. But this is not necessarily the case for everyone else — all of us who see modern ‘truth-seeking’ to be a dead-end for humanity, in large part because it refuses to honor the spiritual side of our being, and chooses instead to denigrate such ‘wacky’ ideas, or to recast them in strictly causal materialist terms, so that they are like an adult wearing a child’s clothing.

For those that are not completely deceived by the paradigm of causal determinism, the following explanations may be useful for discovering what is asserted to be obvious, once one let’s the old paradigm go.

Radioactive break-up appeared to be an effect without a cause, and suggested that the ultimate laws of nature were not even causal.⁴ (Sir James Hopwood Jeans, physicist, astronomer and mathematician)

Naturing is the continuous structuring of all living forms over the course of their lifetime, which for technical reasons, I use the term saeculum to denote. A form is a structured emanation that changes over the duration of its potential lifespan — its sæculum — in ways that are intrinsically possible — its ontogenetic ‘informing’. This word, “informing” is used in its original sense of giving material form to something, or to make known in an actual sense, rather than a conceptual one.

The fact that I speak of each form as having a sæculum does not mean that I equate it with the mundane understanding of a (species-specific) lifetime. Given that there is only this Now, and thus all responsive transformation is non-durational reconfiguration, rather than being even the most infinitesimal momentary destruction and creation of change, or rather, such destruction and creation of change would itself be a non-durational reconfiguration, a sæculum can be understood as the potential path, of some perhaps unknowable complexity, through the plenum of possibilities extant Now. Complexity being the necessary prerequisite conditions of all entangled saecula which all together allow this plenum to be actualized Now. Thus, a sæculum path can be understood as the inertia — the degree of stable order — of an ontogenetic form.

A “plenum” is normally a space that is completely full of matter, but in my use of this term, it is a way of referring to the totality of form that is emanating as this active naturing Now, and not as an indication of space filled with matter, because this plenum is not of spatial placement, but rather relational entanglement. Entanglement referring to the weaving of prerequisite conditions with actualized possibilities coherently continuing Now. Note how this relation is unidirectional only, from condition to actualized possibilities, and this is the ‘arrow of time’.

Matter, in the understanding of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, was only the potential to be anything at all, which needs to be formed into a substantive entity to actually be, and his understanding is closer to the mark than is the modern understanding of ‘matter’ as something with independent existence.

This naturing then is the emanation of form having coherent continuity as its only significant existential trait, but not substance, in the sense of being an entity with its own intrinsic self-nature. This naturing is intrinsic and universal — which I denote as ‘omnintrinsic’.

Instead of independent entities, all form is the emanating of this omnintrinsic activity called naturing, and its character is responsive. Responsive to what? Responsive to the formal possibilities in a way that is coherent with the actual state of the plenum of entangled formal naturing Now. This constraint on the freedom of responsiveness in this naturing is the genesis of the coherent continuity of all emanating form, and thus of persistent order, and it is also the basis of the character of concern for all ontogenetic forms in each entangled context. There is no caused and substantial output — in a materialist sense — thus this activity is epiphanic. The epiphanic emanating is the cognitive continuation within the formal possibilities of the ontogenetic form.

And the more complex the ontogenetic form — with the universe being the most complex — the more resistant that ontogenetic form is to deflection from its presenting path. This is because different ontogenetic forms have potentially longer or shorter sæcula, and therefore varying complexity of necessary conditions and present possibilities.

Complex beings are more stable because complexity restricts the possibilities of spontaneity. This is because sæcula are comprised of deeply nested recursive organic structuring of sæcula, each with its own informing, yet also, potentially very deep levels of entanglement. And thus, much less entropy, which decreases over time. This is the origin of the ‘holding together’ that the old paradigm of chaotic activity giving rise to order cannot explain.

Modern science knows minutely how human beings develop, for example, but places the origin of that development in accidental interactions of clumps of matter over long periods of time, which are merely accidental, much like soil erosion. These accidental interactions cause ‘random mutations’ in our DNA, which today is seen as the Master Architectural Plans for being human. But DNA only includes recipes for proteins, not architectural plans. And ‘random mutations’ appears to be hyperbolic speech, as not all genes are subject to such ‘random mutations’, and this calls into question the whole explanatory edifice of the theory of Evolution.

Since the first half of the twentieth century, evolutionary theory has been dominated by the idea that mutations occur randomly with respect to their consequences. Here we test this assumption with large surveys of de novo mutations in the plant Arabidopsis thaliana. In contrast to expectations, we find that mutations occur less often in functionally constrained regions of the genome — mutation frequency is reduced by half inside gene bodies and by two-thirds in essential genes. … Finally, we find that genes subject to stronger purifying selection have a lower mutation rate. We conclude that epigenome-associated mutation bias reduces the occurrence of deleterious mutations in Arabidopsis, challenging the prevailing paradigm that mutation is a directionless force in evolution.

Thus, any reconfiguration of that which is now the case, which manifests in response to the extant conditions now, is not seen as being self-evident simply because it is being evaluated under the old paradigm. Under that paradigm, change can only be the result of some causal agent that alone can be the lawful explanation for what just happened. Yet, in saying this, we do not take into account that the legislation of such laws is never explained by Science, they are just assumed as ‘givens’ at best, or just more magical accidents that shouldn’t be disturbed. Such assumptions expose intellectual limitations, not the truth.

These laws become a ‘logical’ necessity, according to the calculus of the existing paradigm, that arise when one ignores the obvious structural requirement of coherency in the informing of these forms which is the necessary formality in a formal universe.

But there is no place for this kind of formality in a paradigm of chaotic interactions that are ‘(pre)determined’ by the ‘laws’ of nature. And so, the structural necessity of coherency is missed simply because it is counterintuitive when your model consists only of clumps of ‘matter’ acting upon each other.

The paradigm of Responsive Naturing notes that change is always coherent with both the extant conditions and the latent possibilities those conditions enable in each momentary context — and this formal reconfiguration is the essence of what I refer to as naturing.

What is emanating as this naturing? Ontogenetic forms. Forms that endure coherently. How do they endure? Through time? No. They endure thru coherent transition — the timeless transition that I am referring to as reconfiguration, and which comprises the whole of the ontogenesis of each form. There is a recognized (cognitive) coherent continuity of each form in the ever-present Now.

Coherency either holds universally, or not at all. It cannot be partially the case, with the rest being chaotic deterministic interactions. If there is no structural requirement, then there can be no structure. Scientists who are proud to have put magical thinking aside, should reconsider their working paradigm of order arising out of chaos.

Yes, it is evident that over long periods of time, much order arises, but time is not the source of order, and therefore, is not an explanation of how order arises. This is an explanation:

If Reality was not coherent, conditioned, yet spontaneously creative, in arising, in staying, and in passing away, then there could be only chaos, which is the absence of any intelligible form. Since there is intelligible form, there is no chaos, since chaos is the complete absence of order of any kind.

What could turn chaos into form, if form was held to arise “out of” chaos, as it is today? If form was only possible by the chance of indefinite chaotic activity suddenly cohering, what would make form hold together even for a fleeting moment? Wouldn’t it just disintegrate as quickly as it had adhered? Isn’t chaotic activity, by its essential nature, the absence of inactivity? Of rest? Of holding, especially that of holding together? How would this essence of chaos change in order to allow form to coalesce?

And, if instead, by chaos, these ‘truth-seekers’ only mean that what does happen is too complex to calculate, as they are heard to say today, yet also that they know that it must be only law-like deterministic interactions, so then how does any complex form arise? Yes, they say “long periods of time,” but what changes, from one second to another? What is different between the first and second moment, and the quintillionth? Is there anything other than these law-like ephemeral deterministic interactions? Where in any of this, is there the possibility of breaking the established law and building something new?

We err when we imbue form with inherent existence as an entity. We also err when we imbue the intelligibility of form with any power at all. This intelligibility gives rise to knowledge as conceptualizations of what is happening. But since there is no independent nature in form, not even in conceptual thoughts, there is nothing inherently alone and independently able to act upon some other. So where does the understanding that the intelligibles are anything other than impotent of all power come from? It is an error.

So when modern ‘truth-seekers’ declare that the universe is ruled by mathematics, there is no basis for such a declaration. That certain phenomena can be described statistically is not evidence of either the rule of law, nor the rule of mathematics. They are, instead, evidence of the formal structure of coherent continuity of responsive naturing.

Thus, noticing form is useful, and understanding the intelligibility of form is practical. But noticing the interpretative stories we tell ourselves about the intelligible frees us from the error of imbuing these storied concepts with power, such as an entity holds in the causal paradigm.

Noticing the structure of that noticing in meditation brings complete freedom, and in some circles, is known as enlightenment.

When the self-evident structures are ignored — “self-evident” meaning they do not require external causes to motivate them — you are left with the task of trying to impose disconnected structure on identifiable facets of the universe as ‘laws’ whose origins are magical happenstance. The disconnect from self-evidency is baked into the dualism that underlays the old paradigm — everything is disconnected in that view. So how do we put it back together again, as we must because form is order? No response is on hand.

And these laws of the old paradigm, as we all know, need actors to behave in certain ways. So this way of understanding requires an entity that initiates activity. These two being, therefore, an identifiable actor and a lawful activity. But where is the creativity in that?

The activity is obvious, but the identity of its source must be established according to the old understanding, if we are working under that paradigm; otherwise our characterization of the activity as a coherent response will be empty of meaning to one steeped in it. This is because only an entity can be responsive, in that old paradigm. This is not how it is in the new paradigm of responsive naturing.

In this new paradigm, the activity of responsive naturing is self-evident within that which appears, and no entity can be established. This is why, in this paradigm, there are no entities at all. This is because every manifesting appearance is impermanent — being nothing other than formal duration — and therefore there is nothing permanent upon which identity can be imposed. But form has an ontogenetic informing, so that there is an intelligibility about what occurs — yet within that ontogenetic informing is room, in the sense of myriad possibilities for what may come next, both intrinsically, and inherently, so that the response is stochastic at best, and very often surprising. But it is always coherent in its continuity.

But what of these ‘clumps’ of matter that modern ‘truth-seekers’ are so enamored of?

Life is not made of clumps of matter — they are not, in other words, golems. Living beings all have a sæculum (ontogenetic form of duration) that encompasses all of its constituent parts — which themselves are ontogenetic forms of a certain duration. Living beings can clump together, still be living beings, and yet seemingly not be part of an encompassing sæculum — a greater whole. This is a limitation of the understanding of the intrinsic naturing of everything, not of reality. Even the universe is a ontogenetic form — and has a sæculum — and it encompasses all.

A dead human body becomes a clump of ‘matter’ subject to continued degradation as the once living beings, which were the former organs and cells of the body that were interdependently active, also die and their constituent components become clumped ‘matter’.

Yet, all matter is ultimately alive — even subatomic particles have a sæculum — which gives it structured form and a lifespan. These particles are entangled into encompassing sæcula, thus the living particles become part of some larger form, and those forms can become part of larger encompassing forms, etc. Looking at it from a higher-level, such as that of a human body, this encompassing ontogenetic form is a deeply nested recursive organic structure. These structures are evident throughout the natural world. The universe, on a cosmological level, is a living being as well, and the universe encompasses and is entangled with all.

But when the encompassing form dies, its constituents are no longer formed (although they may still retain a shape, like that of a dead human body). I point this out to make the distinction between “form” and “shape.” A living human body has a human form — an ontogenetic form active within its sæculum. A dead human body has only a human shape whose ‘matter’ is clumped together.

Clumps of ‘matter’ conform to the calculus of statistical mathematics — the so-called laws of nature described in formulas — but individual beings, even those ‘clumped’ together, are still not other than the activity of responsive naturing.

Once the sæculum of an ontogenetic form has ended, there is no more possibility of creative informing of that form. But the constituent ontogenetic forms — unless at the most minimal level of complexity — are still active, except if there was an interdependency, such as that which exists within complex animate forms. Thus, even these constituent ontogenetic forms, those which are referred to as atoms, and quantum particles, still manifest individual behaviors that are stochastic in character, and thus can only be statistically modeled. But stochastic behavior is evidence of both responsive naturing, as well as the intrinsic creative character of that naturing. They are not evidence of deterministic causation.

Quantum particles, which are the least complex level of being, die, and that means the saeculum expires and the energy that they are disappears back into the eternal Now. Like spent fuel, these particles, and the energy that they truly were, become the phantom inventory of unintuitive accountants, being carried on the books of Science as ‘dark energy’, whose presence is still felt in the myriad manifested possibilities that they once gave rise to, and which were actualized.

But it is in the realm of ‘physical laws’ that we will face the stark difference between asserting the existence of ‘forces’ and ‘fields’, which Science does without explaining their origins, versus coming to understand the behavior of ontogenetic forms and their interactions, in which the behavior of that which is interpreted by Science as ‘forces’ and ‘fields’, originates.

I want to bring to your attention that Science does not actually treat forces and fields as entities, though they give their hypostatized entities a name as if they were, as I mentioned above for Time. For example, the electromotive force, which is a potential to provide energy created by a voltage is not a thing, it is a potential for action. If Science actually was asserting that it was an entity, they would be searching unsuccessfully for a subatomic particle that pushes electrons around through wires. This distinction is important, because it evidences the truth, which is not causal, but responsive.

Energy is created as ontogenetic forms are manifested out of the eternal Now. That energy nets to zero on the reasorption of that ontogenetic form. Particles being merely ontogenetic forms, for which there are no limits, other than the present deployment. This means that energy is conserved in all interactions, while reality is free to add and subtract, spontaneously manifesting, and reabsorbing, packets of energy as ontogenetic forms.

This is the coherent continuity of responsive naturing on a cosmological scale.

Wisdom is the essence of an ontogenetic form. The evidence for this is that complex ontogenetic forms develop along an unfolding succession of developments whose genesis is that of extant conditions and coherent possibilities from which each development is manifested. This means that this unfolding is wisdom because it is a particular performative entanglement of ontogenetic forms into a complex structured sæculum which has an intrinsic ontogenetic informing. Wisdom is, in other words, the attained performative ‘know how’ of how to manifest order, and this wisdom arises heuristically — in the doing. Reality, as the universe, learns as it coherently and spontaneously unfolds.

A single unentangled ontogenetic form, like a photon, is only the performative knowledge of how to manifest an ontogenetic form which is energy, and this knowledge is ‘baked in’ to the notion of responsive naturing. That is, naturing is the intrinsic and necessary performative activity of manifesting ontogenetic forms. Ultimately, everything that is manifested can only be the complex entanglement of the simplest of possible ontogenetic forms, which is the only possible unentangled ontogenetic form, and which is today described as a photon. So, one can say: all is light.

To illustrate this conceptualization of wisdom on a human level, take dancing and thinking, which are both performative activities. Jumping around randomly and having non-sequitur or random thoughts is not performative at that level, but only lower down at the level of each individual jump, or each individual thought. So, moving limbs, though it be in a haphazard fashion, is performative at the level of that single motion, but not at the level of coherent and coordinated movements such as that of a dance. Similarly, the manifesting of a thought is performative at that level, but not at the level of the valid reasoning of some coherent and directed train of thoughts.

But note the error of that phrase “dead matter” that is often used to describe the difference between life and its opposite. At any level of performative activity there is always found life, thus the simple components of clumps of ‘matter’ are not dead, but alive, as each has a performative sæculum.

It is only at the level of reactive activity, that is, for example, a non-entangled cloud of molecules of gas, that such clumps can be properly said to be non-living. The cloud is not alive in this case, as it is just a clump of gas molecules. The gas molecules are alive though.

But is a cloud of gas molecules truly a thing? Only in our interpretative stories that we tell ourselves. To be sure, they are a population of living things, like a flock of birds, or a city of humans, but that is not the same as a murmur of birds, nor a society of humans. There is, in each case, a performative difference, and a sæculum that is the potential ‘lifespan’ of even these cases where formal performative structures are found, that are not exactly what we would call a ‘living being,’ and yet they can be authentically said to have a lifespan.

Human societies and groups can certainly be modeled as ‘living things’, and what happens within them is just as much a matter of responsive naturing based upon conditions and possibilities. Thus, our present idea of life is horribly constrained under the old paradigm. I suggest that we look at all kinds of order that have a performative activity, in order to find the limits of life.

What is left is a meager collection of things going bump in the night. This cannot truly be called order. But it also doesn’t qualify as disorder, or chaotic. Instead, it seems more like raw ‘materials’. The ‘clumps of matter’ that is the air around us, that we breath, contains ‘material’ in the form of living molecules of certain types of gas that quickly becomes integrated into our human sæculum. In turn, we expel other ‘material’ that becomes the raw ‘materials’ for the entangled ‘components’ of other types of saecula.

Modern Science focuses strictly on this recycling and tries to impose the same logic on life in its full complex order. As Henry David Thoreau said, “Lichens which are so thin are described in the dry state, as they are most commonly, not most truly seen. They are, indeed, dryly described.” He was referring to how Modern Science looks at life. The performative wisdom that is evident in the creatively responsive naturing of all life escapes their view.

In the long run my observations have convinced me that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion in their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their having received it from some person who has their entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or with hot rage — if indeed it does not make them ill. Beside themselves with passion, some of them would not be backward even about scheming to suppress and silence their adversaries.⁶ (Galileo Galilei, astronomer, physicist, engineer and mythic hero of modern Science)

Let’s hope that humanity advances beyond that state before it own funeral is come.

ཨེ་མ་ཧོ། ཕན་ནོ་ཕན་ནོ་སྭཱཧཱ།
👈 || UNSAYING | CONTEMPLATION | TRADITION | MEDITATION | DISCUSSION | BACK MATTER || 👉
Share this post