PubNotes: The Nature of Occurring Paradigm Shift and Values

By Norm Hirst
Copyright (c) September, 2007

Here we begin a new series of newsletters called PubNotes.

As the Institute of Noetic Sciences has documented, in their published 2007 Shift Report, a change of consciousness is sweeping through the world. This is a new paradigm developing. As usual with new paradigms there will be a period of chaos. Ultimately the chaos will yield to a new order.

Meanwhile there is cause for hope; there are many new ideas and understanding to help us sail through the chaos. New paradigms usually occur when there is a growing accumulation of unsolvable problems. Today there is such an accumulation. New paradigms bring new ways of thinking. Today there is a new and different science revealing unprecedented understanding of values and value processes. Such understanding shows how the "unsolvable problems" can be resolved.

What follows is a description of some of the topics PubNotes will be about; and of course, as we go deeper, new topics will arise.

What I want to share is not suitable for normal dialog. There will be moments when we should stop and ponder/reflect. I will speak of topics that I understand – after years of pondering! I am reminded of discussions in Schultz’s Beer Garden near the University of Texas. Discussions were of such quality that we called Shultz’s, "Philosophy Department Headquarters". I will tell my story in PubNotes. Each note will be another day in the bar having left space to ponder between notes. My favorite beer is John Courage. I could get it in Connecticut. I can no longer find it. We proceed with courage.

Fifty-two years ago, studying physics at MIT, I realized that in the future the most important problems were going to involve values; physics would not solve them. “I realized” is an understatement. What I experienced was a soul altering force.

The next semester Robert Hartman came to MIT as a visiting professor; a renowned philosopher working to create a science of value out of philosophy. He pointed out that if we could bring Plato back to life he would understand our philosophy books, but our science books Plato would find utterly bewildering. "That," said Hartman, "described the crisis of our time." I took Hartman’s course. He became my teacher, my mentor and my friend.

Now, what might he have had in mind as a “science of value”? In his time there was a clear distinction between empirical philosophy and science. In the time I was studying and working with Hartman there was still such a distinction, perhaps a dying remnant.

Before Newton there was only philosophy. Based on new mathematics, Newton provided a new basis for inquiry. That became known as science. Science replaces the analytics of language with the synthetics of formalisms. Mathematics is a formalism, but by no means is it the only formalism.

You may need to ponder. “Analytics of language” and “synthetics of formalisms”! These are not difficult ideas. They are just so damned different. I am reminded of some experiments done a few decades ago. Mathematicians tried teaching transfinite arithmetic to first graders. First graders latched right on to it. Adults have problems with it. (This topic might require several days in the bar. It might require Scotch!)

Bertrand Russell stated that philosophers know what they are talking about; they just don’t know what they are saying. Mathematicians know precisely what they are saying; they just don’t know what they are talking about. It takes both to make a science. But even that doesn’t get to the full depth of it. Inquiry by formalism reveals ideas that we would never encounter in experience. The foundational ideas of physics would never be known except by formal inquiry. Electromagnetic waves were discovered on the basis of Maxwell’s differential equation relating electricity and magnetism. My favorite formalism is the square root of minus one, an unreal mathematical idea that now plays a major role.

Hartman fully appreciated all this. He knew that if we were ever going to save ourselves we needed a formalism for values. On the basis of the formalism he developed the Hartman Value Profile (HVP); a test of value perception. It does not reveal your own personal choice of values but it does reveal how you use them. We are all different!

No, this is not just Hartman’s idea. The HVP has been validated and used in most societies on Earth to day. Has the formalism revealed anything we would not detect in ordinary experience? Yes. I will mention two examples.

Measurement is all the rage today. I was asked what the value formalism says about metrics. The full set of metrics includes finite numbers and at least two levels of transfinite numbers. The finite numbers only apply to the lowest level of values. Any project subject to measurement can only deal with the lowest values. Such measurement is destructive of values and life.

Similarly, General Petraeous is being considered as the ultimate authority on continuing the Iraq war. No doubt he should be considered the ultimate authority on military operations since war is based on the logic of force. But war is in a domain of living where value processes are operative. We should be asking if military operations are the best option. That is a question for folks with an entirely different expertise than that of a military general.

Back at MIT, I fully agreed with everything I learned from Hartman, but still I was troubled. There was nothing in our knowledge to support Hartman’s ideas. Given our dominant worldview of matter, determinism, reductionism and what we mistakenly thought of as protocols for science, there was neither place nor need, for values. I accepted the task of finding support for values.

It was a bleak task until the 70’s. Then there occurred experiments casting doubt on our worldview. Today, the last two decades have totally invalidated our worldview. The Institute of Noetic Sciences has published a 2007 Shift Report documenting that there is a change in consciousness, a new paradigm, occurring all over the world. (www.ions.org)

What's coming:

Life is fundamental - not matter. Empty space is filled with zero point energy, energy from quantum fluctuations at a temperature of absolute zero. This energy is called the Dirac Sea in honor of the physicist Paul Dirac. Living entities, such as you and I, are connected through the Dirac Sea; all life is oneness.

As we learn how living entities function, it turns out that it is nothing like we thought. Living entities are not machines, nor machine-like. Their workings are not subject to cause and effect, and they are not carrying out calculations. Living entities are capable of initiating their own acts based on values. They live in societies that give them maximum freedom within coherence conditions required by life. That is true even in the cells in our bodies. It is true of the molecules in cells, and, in nature. It is true of us on the living earth.

Unfortunately, some people are so limited in their understanding of living processes they don’t trust freedom. They insist on control. But living entities are autonomous. Controlling them with force, shock and awe, confinement and such may appear to be a way to control living entities, but we're learning the inner life force is stronger and actually cannot be controlled. A lifetime of learning, the living entities identities and the fundamental will to act autonomously cannot be predicted when force is imposed. Force is a bankrupt notion.

Matter as fundamental, determinism and reductionism have lost their dominance as a worldview. This will take several days in the bar celebrating. We will switch to Champaign.

What's Life-itself, Norm?

Life It Self: by Norm Hirst
Copyright (c) 2006, November

The phrase “Life It Self” came to our attention as the titles of two books by Robert Rosen, a mathematical biologist. The book titles are “Life It Self” and “Essays on Life It Self”. I believe that Rosen meant the phrase to mean life in all its forms. In any event, that is what we intend by it. We mean that which is essential and common to life in all its forms.

It is common today to emphasize a carbon base as if all life has a carbon base. If we speak of the ecosystem as living it must seem strange since the ecosystem is not carbon based. Worse yet, if we speak of the economy as living that must seem absurd. God forbid we should mention that the cosmos might be living! A carbon base is not a requirement for life. All that can be said for it is that everything we assumed to be living has a carbon base. But now, I have read that sulfur based life forms have been found at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. Clearly we need to expand our definition of life.

Life is an ongoing process with functional abilities missing in non-living processes. To identify the living we need to consider whether an entity functions with the functionality of life or with only the functionality of non-life. The Gaia hypothesis shows the ecosystem works with living functionality. That biodiversity is necessary for the way the ecosystem manages energy is convincing. As we ignorantly diminish biodiversity we may lose our life support. Regarding the economy I have read that some economists today are saying they can not understand economics until they learn more about how life functions. Finally the living cosmos! Thinking of matter as being fundamental may be a blunder. Rosen demonstrated that physics can not be the most fundamental science. It is a special case. We await the most fundamental science from which physics can be derived. It will be a science that grapples with the functions of life.

The living process is made up of totally interconnected and interactive organisms. An organism is a focus for coherent acts. The coherence conditions are just now being discovered beginning with quantum coherence. Organisms are powered by electron flows (electricity) and proton flows (proticity). The incredible speed of proton jumps makes organisms wholistic. Everything is functioning simultaneously. Appearances to the contrary not withstanding there are no parts. Organisms are self-creating (autopoietic). Autopoiesis requires self-reference. Self-reference creates havoc with traditional logic suggesting that traditional logic is inappropriate for life. Fortunately there are now epilogics showing that thought processes compatible with traditional logic are historical accidents. There are new and better ways to think ready for discovery

Self-reference introduces paradox. Life itself requires paradox, i.e., both poles of categorical contrasts. For 25 centuries logic has been thought of as truth preserving. Paradox has been banished from logic. New logics show that paradox does no harm. It is resolved by oscillations. It leads to creativity. Life is creative and evolutionary. Life can adapt to new realities and it can create new realities.

“Evolutionary” raises thoughts of Darwin. There is a lot of talk these days about random processes and survival of the fittest. I think these ideas are utter nonsense. When I mentioned it to my son George he asked if I had ever read “Origin of the Species”. I have not, he has! He informed me that Darwin never wrote what people think he did. I find that easy to believe. There are a lot of erroneous myths, misunderstandings and crazy ideas. Once upon a time they may have made sense. In terms of what is now being discovered they must be discarded.

First I would challenge and discard the dreary view of reality we have all inherited. I mean the view that makes matter fundamental and physics the most basic science. First there is a lifeless planet. The search for how life started was going strong fifty years ago. The only “answers” I have seen are embarrassingly ineffective. For example, lightening hit a pond of chemicals and life began. Really?! What if we reversed the question? What if the earth started as the locus of living energies that created its form in matter? As we learn more about life itself I believe the solution to that question will be easy.

Next I would discard Darwinism. Since I do not know what Darwin wrote I don’t mean to discard Darwin, only what Darwinism has become. Darwinism features a struggle for life. To me this moves our worldview from dreary to downright depressing. Life is seen as an epiphenomenon resulting from a random accident and struggling to survive. Where is the meaning? What makes the struggle worthwhile?

Now I quote from a chapter by Reinhard Eichelbeck in the book “What is Life”.

“… in nature cooperation and communication are more important than struggle and competition. This is shown by a multitude of impressive examples: social associations, symbiosis, cooperation between animals and animals, animals and plants, plants and plants and plants and fungi can be found in all spheres of life everywhere in the world.”

Let’s all give up the notions of struggle and competition and enjoy our lives. No, you don’t have to give up sports. Sports are supposed to be games. Games are autotelic. That means winning or losing shouldn’t have consequences beyond the game. Competition to determine if someone is guilty of a crime is obscene. Cooperation is how the courts should work. I have read that in Italy prosecutors and defense attorneys are expected to cooperate in determining truth. In adversarial systems winning depends on factors that have little to do with guilt or innocence.

Now I plan to go on to a series of pubnotes dealing with different ways in which life itself functions. Based on past misunderstandings there are many crazy oughts that imprison us and diminish our lives. Life is the highest value, yet it is destroyed and trashed as if it hardly matters.