Glad to see yet another scientist embracing an enlightened perspective on the question of Life. Thank you for sharing.
I easily imagine you are aware of Michael Levin's work on the question. In this connection, I would like to share a discussion where Levin's top-down conception is described not only to highlight some promising signs of an evolving scientific outlook in the direction of the spirit, but also - even more importantly - to present and discuss a spiritual scientific understanding of life that goes very much in parallel with what you have delineated in your post:
Thank you for reading. I’m aware of Levin’s work (still didn’t go through this video, though), and even suspect that he might (at least in part) be sympathetic to this worldview. But even if so, he isn’t in a position where he can make this too explicit. Moreover, there is a methodological hurdle in the present scientific mindset difficult to overcome that tells you something on the lines: “This is all fine and well, but how can we prove this empirically? How is this supposed this to change this my everyday life in the laboratory?” I don’t think he knows the answer, it takes a change of methodological perspective not easy to sustain in the long term (a topic I might take up in one of the next posts). And even if he would, people would put him into the corner of the weird PSI-paranormal woo pseudoscience and then he is done. I wouldn’t go down this rabbit hole either. He would probably throw overboard his chance to get the Nobel. Having said that, yes, I agree that ultimately his research reflects the “formative forces of the Cosmos” while his approach (as any other’s one nowadays in the orthodox scientific community, especially allopathic medicine) is “still cemented in planar intellect, a horizontal slice within the vertical hierarchy, that simply tries to spread its patterns into all levels.” This is what I also stated in the conclusive notes almost with the same imagery. So, things are a bit more complicated in the practice and I don’t criticize him for his still conservative views (but much less conservative than the average of his colleagues.) Anyway, overall I agree..
However, for the time being, the technical details are not essential.”
Yes, true, but down the line, I personally think virtually every single step of every area of science will RADICALLY change as the integral view is more and more integrated into the world of science (apologizes if this scares more people away)
It will go beyond what we now call “first person” as it will include not only subliminal AND “higher mind” intuition but knowledge by identity (the supramental).
It will see ALL levels all at once. I wonder even if the quantitative methods will one day no longer be needed, as various parapsychological “Siddhis’ will over the centuries become the norm.
But I do agree - for now, these technical details can be set aside!
And that kind of 'science' won't have much in common with what nowadays we call science. Probably they will look back at present science as a primitive religion. The problem is that nowadays we perceive that future science as something of the past, as a sort of ancient superstition. That's where we got stuck and is worth working on.
Glad to see yet another scientist embracing an enlightened perspective on the question of Life. Thank you for sharing.
I easily imagine you are aware of Michael Levin's work on the question. In this connection, I would like to share a discussion where Levin's top-down conception is described not only to highlight some promising signs of an evolving scientific outlook in the direction of the spirit, but also - even more importantly - to present and discuss a spiritual scientific understanding of life that goes very much in parallel with what you have delineated in your post:
https://metakastrup.org/viewtopic.php?t=892
Thank you for reading. I’m aware of Levin’s work (still didn’t go through this video, though), and even suspect that he might (at least in part) be sympathetic to this worldview. But even if so, he isn’t in a position where he can make this too explicit. Moreover, there is a methodological hurdle in the present scientific mindset difficult to overcome that tells you something on the lines: “This is all fine and well, but how can we prove this empirically? How is this supposed this to change this my everyday life in the laboratory?” I don’t think he knows the answer, it takes a change of methodological perspective not easy to sustain in the long term (a topic I might take up in one of the next posts). And even if he would, people would put him into the corner of the weird PSI-paranormal woo pseudoscience and then he is done. I wouldn’t go down this rabbit hole either. He would probably throw overboard his chance to get the Nobel. Having said that, yes, I agree that ultimately his research reflects the “formative forces of the Cosmos” while his approach (as any other’s one nowadays in the orthodox scientific community, especially allopathic medicine) is “still cemented in planar intellect, a horizontal slice within the vertical hierarchy, that simply tries to spread its patterns into all levels.” This is what I also stated in the conclusive notes almost with the same imagery. So, things are a bit more complicated in the practice and I don’t criticize him for his still conservative views (but much less conservative than the average of his colleagues.) Anyway, overall I agree..
However, for the time being, the technical details are not essential.”
Yes, true, but down the line, I personally think virtually every single step of every area of science will RADICALLY change as the integral view is more and more integrated into the world of science (apologizes if this scares more people away)
It will go beyond what we now call “first person” as it will include not only subliminal AND “higher mind” intuition but knowledge by identity (the supramental).
It will see ALL levels all at once. I wonder even if the quantitative methods will one day no longer be needed, as various parapsychological “Siddhis’ will over the centuries become the norm.
But I do agree - for now, these technical details can be set aside!
And that kind of 'science' won't have much in common with what nowadays we call science. Probably they will look back at present science as a primitive religion. The problem is that nowadays we perceive that future science as something of the past, as a sort of ancient superstition. That's where we got stuck and is worth working on.