The Topography of Eden: a map of conscious creation

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/d7bb0ad2c55b1ee4.gif[/atsimg]

figure 1 larger version


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/0f085b1ed75aba41.gif[/atsimg]

figure 2 larger version


full paper in PDF

Abstract:

Human consciousness is a causitive field that exists both internal and external to the body. Philosopher Ken Wilber's Four-Quadrant Map of Existence is used as a basic framework for understanding the nested and holographic nature of consiousness. The map of consciousness is expanded upon using Rupert Sheldrake's theory of Formative Causation. The action of the Morphogenetic Field is described as "past forward" and "future backward", creating two seperate minds which interact in the present moment. These two minds are further defined as the reactive mind and analytical mind as described in "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard. A comparison is made of the resulting conceptual map and the Genesis 1-3 creation narrative.


Works Cited
Hubbard, L. Ro. Dianetics : The Modern Science of Mental Health. . Los Angeles, Calif.: Bridge Publications, Inc., 2007.

Sheldrake, Rupert. A New Science of Life : The Hypothesis of Formative Causation. . London: Blond & Briggs, 1981.

Wilber, Ken. Sex, Ecology, Spirituality : The Spirit of Evolution. . Boston: Shambhala : Distributed in the U.S. by Random House, 2000.




[edit on 16-12-2009 by tgidkp]

The Topography of Eden:
a map of conscious creation

Science is continually stabbed in the back by Causality. Cause. After all, how exactly does anything come into being? By what process does an acorn know to become an Oak tree? The chicken or the egg? Cause.

Oh sure, science feels okay about billiard balls knocking one another around. But you should watch the poor old men scramble as they try to explain to you why the needle of a compass points North. They will tell you something about an invisible “field” which contains some mysterious type of information called “electromagnetism”: some parts of the field have “positive force”, some parts of the field have “negative force”, and the interaction of these two invisible forces have a direct influence on the physical world. For an institution that doesn’t like God very much, they certainly seem to rely heavily on mysticism. Instead of “good” we must say “positive”; instead of “evil” we use “negative”. No matter the mythology: in the end the needle points North because of the ongoing war between the Jedis and the Sith Lords.

It would be silly to question the usefulness of electromagnetism. It would be equally foolish to not make a legitimate study of all such invisible fields which have consequence in the physical realm. Our thoughts and behaviors and the motor control of our bodies are directed by an invisible force called “mind”; and yet science of the mind remains relegated to the fringes of psycho-quackery and faith. How might we quantify a subject that encompasses our own powers of perception? Is there an existing framework that we might look to? We are searching for cause, and cause can be found only in the conscious act of Creation. We will first outline a working science of consciousness. Later, with more refined definitions in hand, a comparison will be made to the familiar story of Adam and Eve with the objective of discovering the true nature of sin and its impact on consciousness.

I. A Spectrum of Consciousness

Reality, in the modern conception, appears as a tremendous hierarchical order of organized entities, leading, in a superposition of many levels, from physical and chemical to biological and sociological systems. Such hierarchical structure and combination into systems of ever higher order, is characteristic of reality as a whole and is of fundamental importance especially in biology, psychology and sociology. (Wilber 57)

Electromagnetism and morality share a common aspect: they both describe an infinite array of possible states. There is not only hot and cold, but also warm. Every single aspect of our living experience (physical, sensible, and social) can be described as a degree of intensity along a given spectrum. It follows, then, that consciousness itself can be described as a spectrum. The modern philosopher Ken Wilber in his book “Sex, Ecology, Spirituality” has produced a comprehensive map of conscious experience. Wilber himself refers to his map as a “theory of everything”, and to his credit, one would be hard pressed to find an aspect of the physical, sensible, and social universe that is not included in it.

Given the level of complexity of the universe, one might expect that Mr. Wilber’s theory of everything would be convoluted so as to be incomprehensible. To the contrary, his grid of experience is unexpectedly simple. Wilber asserts a single underlying principle of organization within all systems of the universe: the inside and the outside. At a given level of the hierarchy, a particular system can be seen as an outside to systems below it, and as an inside to systems above it; thus the status of a given system changes as one passes through its level in either the upward or the downward direction. (Wilber 59)

It is simple to understand, really. For example we will compare the solar system and the milky way galaxy, two separate levels of the cosmos. The galaxy is higher than the solar system, and so the solar system is contained inside of the galaxy. Conversely, the solar system is lower than the galaxy, and so the galaxy is outside of the solar system. What must be understood here is that within our conscious map, all things are contained inside other things in a similar fashion to nested Russian dolls. This nesting upward and downward, inside and outside, is called a “nested holarchy”. Wilber goes on to correlate the conscious state of the system to its location within the nested structure. “The greater the depth of [the nested structure], the greater its degree of consciousness.” (Wilber 65)

Fortunately, this theory can be verified directly by personal experience and found to be true. If we consider a structure lower than and internal with reference to the Self, for example a cell in the heart, we can easily understand that the conscious state of that cell is lower than the conscious state of the body; also, that the conscious state of the cell is contained within the conscious state of the body. Next we will consider a structure of organization higher than and external with reference to the Self, for example society and its protocols: the conscious state of the self is lower than and internal to the conscious state of society. Ken Wilber has transcribed this information into a four-quadrant grid (see figure 1) representing the four states of conscious experience: internal upward, internal downward, external upward, and external downward.

II. Lower = Past; Higher = Future

Chemical and biological forms are repeated not because they are determined by changeless laws or eternal Forms, but because of a causal influence from previous similar forms. This influence would require an action across space and time unlike any known type of physical action. (Sheldrake 93)

It is interesting to consider that a cell of the human heart, and the protocols of society, have a conscious state at all. Normally, we are accustomed to the egocentric idea that our own mind, and the minds of other individual humans, is the only “real” conscious entity. This fully individuated concept of the mind is excusable. Does it make sense to understand society as a unified conscious unit, capable of thought independent of its constituent people? Another similar question: Is the human mind nothing more than the collective conscious state of the cellular structure of the body? Indeed, both may be true. The functioning of mind, the way that information is stored and processed, changes as consciousness passes from lower nested to higher nested perspectives. The human mind is at the intersection of these higher and lower minds, and their playground is time. We will look to the controversial biochemist Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of the Morphogenetic Field for further understanding of the interaction of the two minds, why they behave differently, and how they are related through time.

Each individual step, or nested structure, within the conscious spectrum can be referred to as a “morphic unit”. The word “morph” is in specific reference to the form or shape of a thing: we are interested in shape. The human body is a morphic unit; the heart cell is a morphic unit; and smaller still, a water molecule is a morphic unit. The shape of a thing, a body, is a resonant field into which lower nested morphic units coalesce. In other words, we can imagine a number of hydrogen and oxygen particles randomly floating around and then, suddenly, when they come under the influence of the morphic field of the water molecule, the individual particles coalesce into the appropriate shape of water. The morphic field of the water molecule causes the lower nested morphic units to come into a specific form. (Sheldrake) Similarly, the morphic field of the body holds the internal organs in place. But we run into a snag when we move upward in the holarchy from the body into the higher nested system of society: society has no well defined form. The form of society is indeterminate.

A scale of indeterminacy can now be overlaid onto our nested system of inside/outside and lower/ higher. We can say that morphic units which are lower in the nesting structure are highly determinate; indeterminacy increases as the nested levels increase. Consequently, a higher conscious state contains a higher level of indeterminacy. Indeterminacy is the principle of change. (Sheldrake 63) A form or structure can only exist as long as it has a certain stability and resistance to change. Change is a function of future time. Stability and form is a function of past time.

In the simplest possible terms we are saying this: along the spectrum of consciousness, lower nested units exist in the past, higher nested units exist in the future, and the Self finds itself in the present. Again: the lower mind resonates forward from the past; the higher mind resonates backward from the future. A modified map of consciousness, which includes this new information, has been prepared to assist the reader with the concept model (see figure 2). We must address both of these statements separately.

Sheldrake explains the past resonating forward thusly: “By morphic resonance the form of a system, including its characteristic internal structure and vibrational frequencies, becomes present [in time] to a subsequent system with a similar form. It is not attenuated by the lapse of time or by distance. The morphic influence of past systems might simply be present everywhere.” (Sheldrake 96) Here is our first clue about the functional nature of the lower mind: it behaves on the principle of associative identity. The fields of the lower nested structures, in order to ensure their survival into the future, are concerned with one thing only and that is to preserve the integrity of their own form. A=A=A.

We then return to the problem of the indeterminate nature of the morphic field of society. As stated earlier, higher morphic fields (water molecule) cause the lower morphic units (hydrogen and water) to coalesce into form. Likewise, the morphic field of society holds the minds of its persons in place. This movement from indeterminate to increasingly determinate morphic units shows that the action of the total morphogenetic field is backward through time. There is a miniature omega-point pull of the future end state of the morphogenetic system. Scientists recognize the existence of direction toward future functions and that the purposeful aspect of organisms is incontrovertible. (Wilber 83)

This is all to lay claim to the idea that, whereas the lower mind is concerned with maintaining identity (A=A=A), the higher mind is capable of assigning meaning and thus determining the future state of the system (A=B=C). There would thus be two types of long-term memory: motor memory, or habit memory, given by morphic resonance; and conscious memory, given by direct access of the conscious self to its own past states. Habit memory moves forward from the past. Conscious memory moves backward from the future. (Sheldrake 202)

III. Two Types of Mind: Reactive and Analytical

The human mind can be considered to have three major divisions. First, there is the analytical mind; second, there is the reactive mind; and third, there is the somatic mind. (Hubbard 59)

The final stop along the path of correlating consciousness studies to the biblical Creation myth comes from the author L. Ron Hubbard, creator of the Scientology religion. In his first published work, Dianetics, he unequivocally states that the source of all of man’s ills is the reactive mind, “if there ever was a Devil, he created the reactive mind.” He gives definition of the reactive mind as follows: “The reactive mind thinks in terms of full identification, which is to say, one thing identical to another. It can be stated, in operation, to have just one equation: A=A=A=A=A.” (Hubbard 83) Additionally, “cells, not the individual, are evidenced to record pain. And the reactive [memory] bank is composed only of cells. Pain is not recorded as a memory; it is a cellular trace of recordings impinged deeply into the very structure of the body itself. This low-level cellular recording begins at fertilization in the cells of the zygote.” (Hubbard 168)

What Hubbard is here calling the “reactive mind” is the same as what has been earlier referenced as the “lower mind”. The reactive mind is the morphic field of the lower-nested consciousness structures. The reactive mind is the mind of the internal cellular structures of the body. The reactive mind is concerned with one thing only and that is to preserve the identity of the lower/internal/past/habitual structures. Most importantly, Hubbard tells us that the method of preserving identity (A=A=A) is a hard-coded memory within the cell of either PAIN or PLEASURE.

Hubbard then defines for us the “analytical mind” simply as the person, themselves, without the abberative influence of the reactive mind. We will equate this to what we have discussed earlier as the “higher mind”, or the morphic field resonating backward from the future omega-point. The purpose of the analytical mind is to evaluate situations and in so doing, determine the future state of the conscious system.

As stated earlier, the human mind is an interplay of the lower and higher minds on the playground of time. Hubbard reaffirms this idea and establishes the interaction of the two minds as an inverse relationship or trade-off: only one of the two minds can be dominant. The action of the analytical mind during a moment of intense pain is suspended. In fact, the analytical mind behaves just as though it were an organ to which vital supply is shut off whenever shock is present. When a man’s consciousness is reduced, the reactive mind is cut into the circuit just that much. (Hubbard 72)

If the reactive mind becomes too powerful, it can completely overthrow the analytical mind. In terms of self-preservation, this is incredibly effective: the reactive mind will drive the creature away from painful situations and toward pleasurable ones. However, Mr. Hubbard unapologetically states that if the reactive mind is permitted to overrun the analytical mind with its pain-memories, the creature will die. The specific problem is presented in the associative identity functioning (A=A=A) of the cellular memory. If a person is bashed in the head with a ball-bat and simultaneously given an ice cream cone, then forever-after when the reactive mind is presented with an ice cream cone, it will recall the pain of the ball-bat. The ball-bat equals the ice cream cone. A=A. identity. pleasure/pain. lower mind. Eve.

IV. Eve Partakes of Pleasure and Pain

We will now make a comparison of our working map of consciousness to several excerpts of the Genesis narrative. To the extent that either or both of them represent true principles, we will expect to see similarities; perhaps, even, new and meaningful metaphors will unfold.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” – Genesis 2:16-17

Conscious experience is manifested backward through time through the morphogenetic field, from the future omega-point. As the morphic fields coalesce downward, the analytical mind is formed. This organizing action could be likened to the strict hierarchical structure outlined in Genesis: that God created man. Eve is then created from an internal portion of the body, or the rib. This is sufficient to draw parallels to the lower than and internal nature of the reactive mind. What is being stressed here in the Genesis 2:16-17 verse is that man specifically was given the command to not partake of the fruit. The command does not apply to Eve, in fact, pleasure/pain is her purpose.

As we have seen, the function of the reactive mind is to associate pain and pleasure with given stimuli and thus Eve is not out of bounds by partaking of the fruit: it is her job. The sin is committed by her tempting Adam with the fruit and by Adam partaking of that knowledge. By partaking of the fruit, the indeterminacy of the analytical mind (A=B=C) begins to function under the same determined premise as the reactive mind (A=A=A). As a result, the decision making capacity of the analytical mind is lessened and the evolutionary push of progress from the past to the future is stifled. In this backward functioning of Adam, man can no longer see a clear path into the future; the acorn will never become a majestic oak, destined to remain an acorn forever. There is no chicken and egg; only eggs, forever.

To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.” – Genesis 3:16

Eve, as the reactive mind, maintains the identity of her lower level morphic units by an associative storage of painful stimuli. Because pain is recorded on a cellular level, the recording of painful memory begins immediately after fertilization. Thus the body is literally generated by the painful memories of the reactive mind. The body is born in pain.

…but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden…' - Genesis 3:2

If Adam and Eve represent the conjoined mind then their dwelling place, the Garden, must be likened to the body: the body is the home of the mind. It has been shown that the lower levels of consciousness are nested inside and downward relative to the body and so we can say that the lower mind is in the middle of the body. Partaking of the forbidden fruit, then, is allowing the functioning of the lower mind to dominate the higher mind.

this is my final paper for the class "Literature of the Sacred: The Genesis Creation Myth".

i am posting it here for review and discussion.


thank you for your time.

reply to post by tgidkp

Thank you for sharing your work...
...I have had cause to reflect on this subject.

Please allow me to express my initial reaction.

The fall of man was not just a change in man as you have well described...
...but also the loss of an external alliance.

A.W.Tozer put it this way...

"From man's standpoint the most tragic loss suffered in the Fall was the vacating of this inner sanctum by the Spirit of God. Man by his sin forfeited this indescribable wonderful privilege. Christ, will enter only by the invitation of faith. "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me". (Rev. 3:20).
www.christinyou.net...

The human condition really is man attempting to fill the void left by this loss with a multitude of obsessions and substances.

Salvation history from a human perspective is really the record of this loss and how it can be realized now and fully regained in New Creation.



[edit on 16/12/09 by troubleshooter]

reply to post by troubleshooter


thank you for your feedback.

granted, the eden story is all about God; so i do recognize the ground i am walking on. but none of the authors i have referenced speak of a God (proper). the closest that they come is an "omega point" which resonates "backward from the future". this is probably only a semantical point, but i feel it is valid: people have every right to question the idea of an omnicient being as it has been sold over the ages.

on the other hand, i believe that there are ways of quantifying and studying consciousness which can be meaningful and even technologically productive, while avoiding the negative connotations or religion. that is what i have tried to do with my paper.

i just want everyone to play nicely together for once, ya know?

so, to reinterpret what you have said into the new terminology, we can say this: man, himself, cannot generate his own future state, as the future state of any system is determined by bodies larger than and indeterminate from his own perspective (such as society). man tries to propagate his own solid bodies into the future, not realizing that the future is not made of solid bodies, but rather, of bodies that are indeterminate from his own perspective.

we (humanity) are alright with evolution pressing itself forward from the past, but we seem to freak out a little at the thought of a "future state" emanating backward. but do your internal organs freak out about the thought of YOU? *you* are the "future state" of your internal organs, and your intelligent choices resonate backward in time toward them.

it really is a pretty simple concept, and has significant implications. it is the sort of thing that i want to shout from the rooftops, but i think i dont have much of an audience. boo hoo.


thanks, again!

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

thank you for your feedback.

granted, the eden story is all about God; so i do recognize the ground i am walking on. but none of the authors i have referenced speak of a God (proper). the closest that they come is an "omega point" which resonates "backward from the future". this is probably only a semantical point, but i feel it is valid: people have every right to question the idea of an omnicient being as it has been sold over the ages.

on the other hand, i believe that there are ways of quantifying and studying consciousness which can be meaningful and even technologically productive, while avoiding the negative connotations or religion. that is what i have tried to do with my paper.

i just want everyone to play nicely together for once, ya know?

so, to reinterpret what you have said into the new terminology, we can say this: man, himself, cannot generate his own future state, as the future state of any system is determined by bodies larger than and indeterminate from his own perspective (such as society). man tries to propagate his own solid bodies into the future, not realizing that the future is not made of solid bodies, but rather, of bodies that are indeterminate from his own perspective.

we (humanity) are alright with evolution pressing itself forward from the past, but we seem to freak out a little at the thought of a "future state" emanating backward. but do your internal organs freak out about the thought of YOU? *you* are the "future state" of your internal organs, and your intelligent choices resonate backward in time toward them.

it really is a pretty simple concept, and has significant implications. it is the sort of thing that i want to shout from the rooftops, but i think i dont have much of an audience. boo hoo.

I know how you feel...
...I have discovered things about life that I want to shout from the rooftops too...
...but no-one willl hear you until they are ready.

I have read Sheldrake's books...I like him...
...I have read Hubbard too but I didn't like him.

What you are describing from my perspective is the husk that remains of humanity once the Spirit was vacated...
...Paul describes it as 'the natural man'...
...and I can understand that you can't really include this in your current discussion...
...because it only known by revelation and only by those who receive it.

I heard in your discussion the echo of past ideas thought on my way to where I am now.

The Spirit has returned to my husk of humanity and that is what I am shouting now.

Originally posted by troubleshooter

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

thank you for your feedback.

granted, the eden story is all about God; so i do recognize the ground i am walking on. but none of the authors i have referenced speak of a God (proper). the closest that they come is an "omega point" which resonates "backward from the future". this is probably only a semantical point, but i feel it is valid: people have every right to question the idea of an omnicient being as it has been sold over the ages.

on the other hand, i believe that there are ways of quantifying and studying consciousness which can be meaningful and even technologically productive, while avoiding the negative connotations or religion. that is what i have tried to do with my paper.

i just want everyone to play nicely together for once, ya know?

so, to reinterpret what you have said into the new terminology, we can say this: man, himself, cannot generate his own future state, as the future state of any system is determined by bodies larger than and indeterminate from his own perspective (such as society). man tries to propagate his own solid bodies into the future, not realizing that the future is not made of solid bodies, but rather, of bodies that are indeterminate from his own perspective.

we (humanity) are alright with evolution pressing itself forward from the past, but we seem to freak out a little at the thought of a "future state" emanating backward. but do your internal organs freak out about the thought of YOU? *you* are the "future state" of your internal organs, and your intelligent choices resonate backward in time toward them.

it really is a pretty simple concept, and has significant implications. it is the sort of thing that i want to shout from the rooftops, but i think i dont have much of an audience. boo hoo.

I know how you feel...
...I have discovered things about life that I want to shout from the rooftops too...
...but no-one willl hear you until they are ready.

I have read Sheldrake's books...I like him...
...I have read Hubbard too but I didn't like him.

What you are describing from my perspective is the husk that remains of humanity once the Spirit was vacated...
...Paul describes it as 'the natural man'...
...and I can understand that you can't really include this in your current discussion...
...because it only known by revelation and only by those who receive it.

I heard in your discussion the echo of past ideas thought on my way to where I am now.

The Spirit has returned to my husk of humanity and that is what I am shouting now.

Have you ever been so happy that you cried? I used to laugh at the thought of women crying because they were so happy. I am now completely aware of how they feel. I have learned so much about reality (EVERYTHING and NOTHING) in the last two years and I can barely contain it within this body. It is very difficult viewing reality in a much different way than the majority. The human condition has really affected me in so many ways but at the same time I am the sum of all my parts.

Thank you for the absolutely fantastic read!

reply to post by tgidkp


Well, your quoting dianetics, and LRH so I have no choice but to call it all bunk, and a huge load of poopoo.

Originally posted by troubleshooter
...I have read Hubbard too but I didn't like him.

Originally posted by SpacePunk
Well, your quoting dianetics, and LRH so I have no choice but to call it all bunk, and a huge load of poopoo.

fortunately i, myself, read dianetics and a whole slew of other scientology books before i was exposed to the scientology "underbelly". i can only agree that much of what Hubbard has written, particularly with reference to Xenu, is disagreeable. i knew when i wrote this paper that Hubbard would come under question.

however, for myself, Hubbard has produced some of the most enlightening texts i have ever read. i am always frustrated when people dismiss the subject of scientology. how do you know that LRH didnt write up the "crazy stuff" as a preventative measure to keep lower level thinkers out.

congratulations, spacepunk, for being a low-level thinker. any further criticisms of LRH will not be heard.


focus on the content, folks!!!

Originally posted by tgidkp


however, for myself, Hubbard has produced some of the most enlightening texts i have ever read. i am always frustrated when people dismiss the subject of scientology. how do you know that LRH didnt write up the "crazy stuff" as a preventative measure to keep lower level thinkers out.

congratulations, spacepunk, for being a low-level thinker. any further criticisms of LRH will not be heard.


focus on the content, folks!!!

Oh, c'mon. This thinly veiled scientology bunk is getting old. Name one text he ever wrote that was 'enlightening'? The fact is the guy was psychotic, a congenital liar, and an outright fraud.

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, the content has been focused on, and found to be lacking... particularly where reality is concerned (oddly enough). All this reactive mind/analytical mind stuff is patently scientology. So, tell ya what, june bug, go report back to David Miscavige, and tell him that you have failed.

If you are really submitting that for a class then your teacher needs to beat you savagely. It's as if someone taking a paleontology class submitting a paper based on mythological dragons.

i have made a final draft of this paper which is a tiny bit easier to read and is a smaller filesize.


PDF: Topography of Eden, a conscious map of creation