"This world is indeed a living being endowed with a soul and intelligence ... a single visible living entity containing all other living entities, which by their nature are all related." Plato.
I have long held, in the recesses of my mind, the thought of a tenuous link between James Lovelock and his conception of a living, self regulating universe, and Jung with his belief in the collective unconscious.
The question is, what rules and processes can we point to in order to prove this link? Jung claimed (against all evidence) that he was a scientist. Lovelock was/is a scientist. But how can we square the triangulation (to mix terms) between science, alchemy and imagination?
Where does the morphic resonance advanced by Sheldrake feed into this equation?
And I have not even begun to work through the personality theories of Jung and Naranjo, which again suggest a link of the one with the many, and, potentially, of one path that each individual has before him/her - if he/she does but see it and choose to follow it.
And where do the akashic records sit - are they a clue or a fantasy that lead us on the wrong track?
"The nonexistent is whatever we have not sufficiently desired." Kafka
This is where the biocentrism of Robert Lanza begins to exert an influence. Lanza argues that 'there is no independent external universe outside of biological existence'. The significance of this, if we buy into its premise, is that the human biological lifeform, with its ability to theorise, hypothesise and imagine, actually creates the world, and by extension, the universe in which we dwell.
In my view, this is not to say that there are not other realities extraneous to the human lifeform, but that in our bubble, undisturbed by other realities (or by contact with other theorising, hypothesising, & imagining lifeforms) we can create our own multiverse of meaning and content.
If we are indeed about imagination, then do we have a supra imagination, or set of rules sitting above or beyond? Is this a single God, multi gods of animist persuasion, a connected universal soul, a collective set of ancient rites and archetypes still manifest and relevant, or mother nature as arbiter whether knowing or automaton like?
The universe as act of creation by humankind holds sway with me. It allows us to create links, ways of existing and ways of explaining. Jung and Lovelock are both relevant to any debate for me, but I think that, ultimately, they may be no more than story tellers in the endless narrative arc of human existence.
The question is, what rules and processes can we point to in order to prove this link? Jung claimed (against all evidence) that he was a scientist. Lovelock was/is a scientist. But how can we square the triangulation (to mix terms) between science, alchemy and imagination?
Where does the morphic resonance advanced by Sheldrake feed into this equation?
And I have not even begun to work through the personality theories of Jung and Naranjo, which again suggest a link of the one with the many, and, potentially, of one path that each individual has before him/her - if he/she does but see it and choose to follow it.
And where do the akashic records sit - are they a clue or a fantasy that lead us on the wrong track?
"The nonexistent is whatever we have not sufficiently desired." Kafka
This is where the biocentrism of Robert Lanza begins to exert an influence. Lanza argues that 'there is no independent external universe outside of biological existence'. The significance of this, if we buy into its premise, is that the human biological lifeform, with its ability to theorise, hypothesise and imagine, actually creates the world, and by extension, the universe in which we dwell.
In my view, this is not to say that there are not other realities extraneous to the human lifeform, but that in our bubble, undisturbed by other realities (or by contact with other theorising, hypothesising, & imagining lifeforms) we can create our own multiverse of meaning and content.
If we are indeed about imagination, then do we have a supra imagination, or set of rules sitting above or beyond? Is this a single God, multi gods of animist persuasion, a connected universal soul, a collective set of ancient rites and archetypes still manifest and relevant, or mother nature as arbiter whether knowing or automaton like?
The universe as act of creation by humankind holds sway with me. It allows us to create links, ways of existing and ways of explaining. Jung and Lovelock are both relevant to any debate for me, but I think that, ultimately, they may be no more than story tellers in the endless narrative arc of human existence.
No comments:
Post a Comment