Schrodinger and humanist Khat

Schrodinger and humanihumanist Khat?

Schrodinger was an Austrian physicist, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, an early western promoter of Vedanta an Buddhist philosophy, winner of the 1933 Nobel Prize for Physics. He is popularly well known for his proposal of the Schrodinger’s cat thought experiment. The following from his “Science and Humanism” (1951)

“The scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and … delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good and bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not incline to take them seriously.

…So, in brief, we do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us. We are not in it; we are outside…The reason why we believe that we are in it – that we are in the picture, is that our bodies are in the picture. Our bodies belong to it. Not only my own body, but those of my friends, my dog and cat and horse… This is my only means of communicating with them.

Science is reticent too when it is a question of the great Unity – the One of Parmenides – of which we all somehow form part, to which we belong. The most popular name for it in our time is God – with a capital “G”. Science is very usually, branded as being atheistic. After what we said, this is not astonishing. If its world-picture does not even contain blue, yellow, bitter, sweet – beauty, delight and sorrow – if personality is cut out of it by agreement, how should it contain the most sublime idea that presents itself to human mind?”

Copernicus, Humanism and Narcissism

In 1543 Copernicus published his work – De Revolutionibus – which showed that the planets, including this Earth, revolve around the sun. This shook the foundations of the established Church, which had taught that everything revolved around the Earth.

How does this relate to humanism? Well only this – as I understand it their religion has everything revolving around mankind. Really? What is the basis for that belief system. The only rational underpinning that I can perceive would be a belief that man is the only point of consciousness in the universe, which would indeed set this particular species apart. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s insight is that humanity is the current apex of the evolution of consciousness (Phenomenon of Man), but not that humanity is all-in-all – its own context. Is humanism not then simply a kind of collective narcissism?

Materialism reimagined as Spirit

Michelangelo’s unfinished statues “the prisoners” show human form partly finished and emerging from the original blocks of stone. Apparantly they are unfinished, though what a metaphor… the human form was always there within the raw block of stone. Materialists would see the rock and tell us there was nothing more. But in the imagination of a Michelangelo the form was within. Does that make his David any less real than the stone from which it was carved and from which it emerged?

 

The philosophic tradition from Descartes through Spinoza and Leibniz to Alfred North Whitehead describes the duality of all – material and spirit as different aspects of reality. (To be honest I’m wrestling to understand Whitehead so any help here – a synopsis maybe – would be very welcome).

 

This is as described by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in his “Phenomenon of Man”. The evolution of material and consciousness hand in hand from the big bang, physical evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution through to ideas evolution (the noosphere, and yes Dawkins he was first and you simply clothe his ideas in the poverty of the “meme”).

 

And scientific discovery is pointing increasingly to this understanding of existence. Of course materialists have possession of the current paradigm and are managing to suppress these discoveries from the popular media. But paradigms shift, and they do so to reveal a new truth. When that happens will we truly emerge into a common consciousness? Is the emergence of Jung’s collective unconscious to the light of shared understanding what de Chardin means by the “Omega Point”?

 

 

 

 

 

Word Existing Beyond Time

“There are three principles in a man’s being and life, the principle of thought, the principle of speech, and the principle of action” Martin Buber

“everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” Neils Bohr

Bion’s womb of ideas, with matter combined
The kennel of fact, the fountain of mind

Tear out aborted materialist and atheist
the Hitlerite, Stalinist, Pol-Pot and Mauist
who’s arrogance conceives to unloose disdain
That insatiably lonely black dog of despair

Be our source the star-chamber of light
Flowing, lithe-limbed
green-golden delight
Mindful, caressing
moltenly longing
Drops coalescing

For, they wander in packs, do our thoughts
And their dress and attire is the word

.. and thought, clothed as word makes the deed

Humanism and Copernicus

Tuesday (19th February) is the 540th anniversary of Copernicus’ birth. He was, of course, the mathematician who posited that we are centred around the Sun and not the Earth. It brought him into conflict with the Church. It is our EGO’s natural assumption that WE are critically important and that all meaning revolves around us; ridiculous when contemplating celestial orbits and the expanding universe. Surely equally naive when addressing the meaning of existence – (that we humans are the centre of everything).

Humanism derives all meaning in us, we, humans and our fulfilment. In this philosophy we are the equivalent of the Earth; but it appears to me that our species on this planet with our narrow senses are only a part of something bigger. With it’s nucleus elsewhere. Effectively, for me, meaning is centred around a philosophical “Sun” rather than on our “Earth”.

Indeed, rather than emphasising the importance of ego – what happens if we accept its insignificance?

One description of life’s journey is the progress from the baby’s unboundaried “I am everything”, to the realisation of our separated triviality. The rich compensation can be the revelation of the depth and infinity of love that we are in our entangled whole.

Nirvana? The truth shall set you free. Let us be spiritual Copernicans.