Big Brother is Watching!

White Rock, February 28th, 2001


The Following email received from a young scientist and webfriend, along with the attached response, seems to me to capture the essence of why the findings presented on this website ( ) tend to be difficult to share within the scientific community, a community which is by no means ‘homogeneous’ with respect to the conceptual foundations of science they embrace, … foundations which philosophers such as Henri Poincaré believed can never be considered ‘correct’ but must be viewed as ‘conventions’ selected for ‘convenience’ relative to ‘purpose’ (economic, social or other).


 * * *

Subject: Thoughts
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 22:41:06 -0500

Hi Ted,


Thanks for the article*. I went back to the website and read the article.


[[ i.e. *ISIS (Institute of Science in Society) No 7/8 February 2001, The New Thought Police Suppressing Dissent in Science.  Mae-Wan Ho and Jonathan Mathews report on the seamless way in which the corporations, the state and the scientific establishment are co-ordinating their efforts to suppress scientific dissent and force feed the world with GM crops.   ]]


I've forwarded a message to the David Suzuki Foundation

[]. They too are concerned about some of the things

mentioned in the article.


The whole thing smells of Orwell's 1984...


...Your mind has the right to remain silent.

Anything you think, believe or question

can be and will be used against you...





 * * *


Dear Dirk,


I think your Orwellian allusion is very appropriate.


Starting from age 6 years, I have been awarely (‘immersedly’) trying to understand the way human community ‘works’, in what way it is ‘healthy’ and in what way ‘troubled’, and how this comes about.  This to me, has been a ‘bigger’ subject than science but I have appreciated the legacy which science has given us, in terms of tools of inquiry, … a legacy which is far bigger than the selective sampling of tools currently being used in ‘the mainstream’ of science.


Right now, I and my sisters are tending to our mother who is seriously ill, and some of the same themes and patterns I have been working on for years have been resurfacing in connection with our attempts to secure appropriate treatment for her.  For example, the doctors who are in the mainstream of medicine, who are focusing on ‘causal’ principles which seek to identify those physiological subsystems which are ‘not working correctly’ (and whose ‘incorrect’ behaviours must be suppressed or stimulated) will not work ‘together’ with the doctors of naturopathy who are focusing on remedies and procedures which seek to bring the psychosomatic system/subsystems back into coresonant ‘rhythm’ and balance. 


While my mother was in the hospital (she is currently at home), we wanted and she wanted to take an acupuncture treatment which was indicated as beneficial for her complaint (gastric dysmotility  aka ‘gastroparesis’, ‘neuropathic pseudoobstruction’), not only by anecdotal reports amongst naturopaths and their patients, but also by formal research at respected medical research facilities.   Meanwhile, the doctors and medical system here project a strong aura of intolerance to anything but the causal approach to medicine (even though they concede the ineffectiveness of causality oriented drug-based ‘cures’ in treating arrhythmias), and they do not want to confuse or dilute the clarity of their causal diagnoses and their prescribed treatments with the ‘fuzzy’ harmony-restoring practices of naturopathy.   Permissions from the doctors and the hospital administration were needed for the acupuncturist to give a treatment at the hospital and this proved difficult (our requests went unanswered, presumably because they were considered a low priority).


So, rather than ‘teamwork’ between the naturopaths whose ‘science-art’ is oriented to ‘outer-inner harmonic balancing’, by treating the patient as a unique individual, administering natural substances and manipulating the body’s rhythmic neural and energy flow-systems, … and the mainstream medical doctors whose ‘science’ is oriented not to the unique particulars of the individual but to the ‘workings’ of body components (‘the correct causal working of the body’s sub-systems’) where illness is seen to be curable by bringing the working of the components back to ‘correctness’ by drugs and surgery, we have a kind of ‘dogma of cause’ and ‘heresy of harmony’ based division of labour..  Moreover, to make it known that one is ‘open’ to the heresies of naturopathy is to potentially jeopardize one’s relationship with one’s mainstream physicians, not a comfortable thing to do while one is putting one’s canoe into the ‘white waters’ of risky passages such as surgical interventions where one’s survival is temporarily in the hands of one’s physicians.


Trying to understand what is ‘at the bottom’ of widespread ‘dissent in science’ wherein the mainstream of science (in symbiosis with business interests and government regulation) sees certain alternative practices as ‘heresy’ has been at the center of my intensive ‘bootstrapping efforts’ of the past six years.   An understanding has become clear in my mind, but it is not so clear how to articulate and share this understanding ‘in a nutshell’, … as it is an understanding which has been holographically resolving over many years.   In fact, it seems to me that the potential for science as an overall community to ‘get to the bottom’ of its own internal dissent, which has Nobel scientist fighting against Nobel scientist in the same discipline, is to keep the lines of communication as open as possible, so as to give the upcoming generation the opportunity to consider all possibilities and thus bring in a ‘bigger view’ of science capable of resolving the contention.


The problem is, as Mae Wan Ho and Jonathan Mathews point out, is that efforts are growing to suppress rather than encourage scientific dissent.  The ‘judgment’ is being made in some sectors of the scientific establishment, that certain types of science are ‘heresy’ and deserve to be eliminated.   Such an attitude implies ‘the end of science’ as exploration into the fundamental principles of ‘the way the world works’ and a continuing on only in the context of new technologies based on existing scientific principles judged to be ‘the correct principles’.   Much technology has already been ‘built’ on top of these ‘assumed correct’ scientific foundations and this ‘construction’ has brought together powerful economic forces that have no intention of ‘sawing off the limb on which they are standing’, particularly when so much technology and global economic structure has been built on, and is currently planned for construction on top of that limb.


My independent investigations presented in the website pages have been examining the ‘loose threads’ in the conceptual underpinnings of science, the many questions which have been around since antiquity and which have resurfaced at the end of the nineteenth century in the terms of relativity, quantum theory, chaos and complexity.   For example, relativity says that our models cannot depend upon ‘fixed things’ and their assertive kinetics because these are ‘observer-dependent’ but our models must instead be based on ‘matter-transcending’ concepts such as ‘the geometry of space-time’, the same for all observers, and similarly, quantum duality says that we cannot afford to give up information about ‘space-matter relationship’ as we do when we visualize things in the discrete terms of ‘independent particles’ and their kinetics.


Mainstream science, as Doug says, has over the past fifty years been largely reduced to ‘mainstream techology’, since it has got the profitable technology bit in its teeth and rarely looks back to explore the implications of the ‘loose threads’ in science such as the space-matter geometrical relationship.  Today’s mainstream science is oriented to building technology on the basis of the ‘standard’ scientific model of ‘assertive behaviours of independent causal agents’ rather than the ‘container-constituent-coresonance’ model implied by relativity and complex systems.   In other words, mainstream science is putting into the primacy the search for ‘explicit solutions to the approximate problem’ rather than basing scientific development on ‘approximate answers to the actual problem’ wherein the relativistic ‘participation of space’ is taken into account. 


By NOT taking into account ‘the participation of space’ and by building upon the ‘clean and explicit’ assertive behaviours of independent causal agents, the constructions of the scientific-technologic-commercial complex implicitly take space to be ‘empty’ and non-participating.   This major omission, relative to our experience, was cited by Einstein as one of the hardest things for scientists, conditioned to mentally modeling physical phenomena solely in terms of ‘material-causal transactions’ out of the context of the participation of space, … to assimilate into their thinking.  His frustration re this issue shows up frequently in his writing, as his following comment indicates;


"This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g(mu,nu), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty.  . . . The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of 'all' mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events. . . .Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities."

[Einstein, Albert, ...'Ether and the Theory of Relativity': An Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden]


While it is evident from our experience, is that ‘the shape of space’ presents opportunity to the constituents of space (assertive agents) and that the geometric configuration of this dynamical opportunity space ‘gates’ and modulates the patterns of assertive behaviour.   When a group of drivers on the freeway ‘reference’ directly to the ‘shape of dynamic opportunity space which they simultaneously, reciprocally co-create by their movement, they cultivate a harmony and flow which is impossible to describe in terms of  non-participation-of-space mainstream science terms of ‘the assertive behaviours of independent causal agents’ since this phenomena concerns the interference between the form of multiple ‘inclusions’ in space and their codynamics with the enveloping, dynamically transforming geometry of inter-agent space.   Clearly, the notion of causal agent ‘kinetic trajectories’ and ‘transactions’ is too dimensionally limited to deal with inner-outer volumetric form interference.   In fact, mainstream science’s dependency on split-apart Euclidian space and absolute time precludes dealing with the unbounded dynamically transforming geometry of space-time which envelopes the ‘material kinetic agent ‘inclusions’ within it.   As Henri Poincaré says, scientific models which reference to absolute ‘time’ are approximating physical phenomena so as to avoid having to deal with prior history influencing current phenomena, as our experience tells us it does, … historical influence which is captured in the dynamically transforming geometry of space-time in ‘relativistic’ scientific models;


"First, with respect to time [the first ‘approximation of convenience’ of mainstream mathematical physics].  Instead of embracing in its entirety the progressive development of a phenomenon, we simply try to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding.  We admit that the present state of the world only depends on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the recollection of a more distant past.  Thanks to this postulate, instead of studying directly the whole succession of phenomena, we may confine ourselves to writing down its differential equation ; for the laws of Kepler, we substitute the laws of Newton."


What Poincaré is saying is that by referencing to absolute time, we strip out of our scientific models, the ability to deal with the simultaneous, reciprocal relation between the kinetic co-dynamics of the included material agents and the shape of dynamic opportunity space which gates and modulates the patterns of the kinetic codynamics, … a feature of physical phenomenology which demands that we account for the participation of the enveloping, unbounded space-time ‘substance’ which ‘mediates’ the kinetic codynamics of its inclusions and induces simultaneous harmonies as in our solar system.


Because mainstream science regularly (and unquestioningly) imposes this ‘approximation of convenience’ in its modeling of physical phenomenon, it preconditions its view of social health and harmony to one based on ‘the correct working’ of the numerous subsystems (ignoring the participative role of space and the fact that the codynamics of these subsystems simultaneously, reciprocally transform the enveloping ‘dynamical opportunity space’ which gates and modulates the continuously evolving codynamical patterns.)   From this point on, the ‘problems’ being solved via these mainstream science models are no longer ‘real problems’ but are instead simplified approximations to the real problem which deliver ‘clean causal solution approaches’ rather than ‘fuzzy’ ‘container-constituent interferential geometry’ (approximate) solutions to the ‘real problem’.   The approximate solutions to the ‘real problem’ avoid the intermediate imposition of Euclidian space and absolute time abstract reference framings, and are ‘approximate’ in a dynamical sense; i.e. they simultaneously, reciprocally adapt in such a manner as to maintain harmony between the containing space and the constituent inclusions, as is natural when dealing with evolutionary systems.


Mainstream scientific models based on material-kinetic causal transactions, then, deliver solutions aimed solely at the material-kinetic causal aspects of the dysfunctional system and fail consider the simultaneous, reciprocal relationship between the enveloping geometry of space (opportunity for kinetics) and the kinetic subsystems.    For example, mainstream science models for managing freeway traffic flow can deal only with the kinetic behaviours of the constituent vehicles, however, achieving harmonious flow requires a direct referencing between the kinetic constituent and the ‘shape of dynamic opportunity space’ which the constituents are ‘co-creating’.   That is, to achieve harmonious flow, the movements of the constituents must respond to the ‘shape of dynamic opportunity space’ which they are simultaneously, reciprocally co-creating. 


What mainstream science calls ‘harmony’ (or ‘health’) is not natural harmony but  ‘the absence of dissonance’ as achieved by ensuring ‘the correct behaviour’ of the components of the system.   This is a ‘fault intolerant’ approximation of ‘harmony’ which is impossible to achieve in natural (evolutionary) environments where ‘space is a participant in physical phenomena’.  In order to achieve this degenerate type of harmony, one must abandon the notion of ‘relativity’ and specify the ‘correct behaviour’ of the kinetic constituent and ‘enforce’ an ersatz harmony on this basis.   In an evolving system, such non-relativistic specification is not only arbitrary, but implicitly ‘goes to war against’ evolution.  In terms of ‘fault tolerance’ and ‘the participation of space’, the kinetic behaviours of the constituents of space are often perturbed by unpredictable external influences which puts them ‘out of step’ with respect to the codynamics in which they are participants.   In the fault-tolerant systems of nature, the constituents will co-creatively re-establish container-constituent-coresonance unlike the situation in the fault-intolerant models of  mainstream science where those constituents escaping the unpredicted perturbation continue on with their ‘correct behaviours’.


For example, in the case of the airforce aerobatic team which co-creates an inverting triangular prismoid, where three pilots in a common plane fly towards a virtual near-collision point, co-forming a shrinking triangle which inverts and turns into an expanding triangle, and where the fourth pilot, travelling along an orthogonal through the virtual center of the triangle, ‘threads the needle’ just before the shrinking triangle ‘vanishes’, … if he or any of the pilots are perturbed by a gust of wind which does not effect the others, all constituents will naturally ‘adjust’ so as to sustain their harmoniously co-created shape of space.   In other words, the airforce aerobatics team emulates nature and exemplifies the fact that systems of kinetic constituents in nature manifest a ‘fault tolerance’ by referencing directly to the shape of the opportunity space they are co-creating, while systems of kinetic constituents in the models of mainstream science are ‘fault intolerant’ because the constituents are approximated as ‘independent causal agents’ which reference their kinetics to the abstract rational notions of ‘euclidian space and absolute time’.  Similarly,  the ‘harmony’ of mainstream scientific models is an ‘ersatz harmony’ (an ‘absence of dissonance’)  which is achieved when all constituents are ’behaving correctly’ while the harmony in nature is ‘container-constituent-coresonance’ which comprehends the ability of the constituents to reference their kinetic behaviours directly to the ‘shape of dynamic opportunity space’ they are co-creating and bypassing the ‘frightening ghosts’ of inertial reference frame and absolute time (as Einstein called them) from which the ‘correct behaviours’ are rationally constructed, an imposed approximation of convenience  which gives the kinetic agents their artificial sense of ‘independence’ .


The ‘independence’ of the kinetic constituent of space, based on artificially referencing constituents to the abstract frame of Euclidian space and absolute time, together with the notion of  ‘correct behaviour’, form a tautology which compensates for splitting apart the natural reciprocal relationship between the ‘containing space’ and the ‘kinetic constituent’.   Meanwhile, the containing space and the constituents are ‘coevolving’ and this means that one must speak of ‘natural behaviour’ (co-creating coresonance between the codynamics of the constituency and the simultaneously transforming reciprocal shape of dynamical opportunity space) rather than ‘correct behaviour’ according to laws and rules specified in terms of Euclidian space and absolute time.   For example, the nation which has achieved affluence and power by environmentally ‘dirty’ approaches may, after its rise to power, subsequently declare these approaches to be the ‘cause’ of dissonance in the overall ‘system’ of environment and community and assert and police ‘the correct behaviour’ of others on this basis.   Those in power can thus continue to act without concern for the reciprocal effects of their actions on ‘opportunity space’ impacting everyone.   The power and affluence gained at the expense of closing down opportunity for everyone is typically retained and used to force those who stayed in more harmonious modes, to stick to ‘correct behaviours’, which deny them an equal opportunity to acquire power and affluence.   Those in power who no longer need to utilize ‘incorrect behaviours’ tend to regard others who attempt to as ‘dissidents’ who are spoiling things for everyone.  Thus, systems based on the mainstream scientific model of ‘correct causal behaviour’ leads to a ‘degenerate harmony’ (absence of dissonance) based on the enforcement of ‘correct behaviours’.


Richard Feynman, a physicist very much interested in the ‘loose threads’ in science made the same observation as Henri Poincaré in regard to taking the approximate models of science too literally and applying them beyond their usefulness (imposing on our science what we cannot impose on nature), characterizing such over-extended application as 'cargo-cult science';


“I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head to headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas -- he's the controller -- and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land” (Cal-Tech Commencement address).


So the conflict in science today seems to arise from questions of the viability of the approximate models used by the mainstream which ignore the participation of space.


But why should the exploring of larger scientific concepts which may have the potential to resolve such contention in science be regarded as ‘heresy’ and suppressed?


My current experience in dealing with the medical community supplies the same answer to this question as has been coming out of my past six years of ‘bootstrapping’ and I have tried to articulate the imagery of this answer, which continues to ‘resolve’, in the essay ‘Helping Nature do its Thing’ ( ).


To bring this imagery into the mind, … the ‘geometry of scientific contention’ which seems to be woven into all scientific disciplines including ‘geophysics’, the discipline I worked within for 32 years, one can consider the often vicious HIV – AIDS debate where the ‘dissenting’ camp has an ‘interferential’ model for AIDS (a model which includes the participation of space) while the mainstream medical establishment clings to a purely ‘independent causal agent’ rationale.   The mainstream faction, in this case, is so convinced it has the ‘right answer’ in terms of ‘explicit cause’ that it considers the dissenting view as scientific ‘heresy’ (as the cause of unnecessary and troublesome dissonance) and has gone so far as ‘signing petitions’ as if to establish the legitimacy of scientific theory by ‘majority vote’ (seeing ‘harmony’ in science as the enforced absence of dissonance as in the mainstream scientific model) rather than by open consideration of multiple hypotheses.   But as Mae Wan Ho and Jonathan Mathews suggest, new concepts in science are rarely readily accepted by the scientific mainstream, and today the acceptance of new concepts is further troubled by the scale and speed at which ‘science-come-technology is mining the depths of the ‘last version’ of scientific theory and building economic structures upon it.


With respect to resistance to new concepts, Sir Alexander Fleming’s discovery of anti-bacterial penicillin in bread mold was presented to the scientific world in 1929 but not at all accepted until the intensity of demand from World War II opened the door to it.  


Paradoxically, ‘anti-biotics’ has become a controversial development which ‘epitomizes’ the split in scientific inquiry because the ‘strategy’ of eliminating the ‘causal agent’ is the at the very core of mainstream scientific thinking; i.e. an ‘invasion’ of  ‘bacteria’ from the outside is seen as ‘the cause’ of the illness.  Modern, non-mainstream research, meanwhile, has been pointing to a model which seems to fit the data far better, that bacteria in the body is the ‘result’ of the illness rather than the ‘cause’ (i.e. the presence of bacteria is a ‘symptom’ rather than a ‘cause’).  For example, we have over 400 species of bacteria in our gut and gastric problems emerge when this diverse community ‘gets out of balance’ and becomes dominated by blossoming of populations of species which were helpful rather than harmful when they were non-dominant collaborating members of the mixed species bacterial community in the digestive tract.


What’s at stake here is that by seeking to eliminate the bacteria seen as ‘cause’, we may have had our ‘ladder up against the wrong wall’ and are ‘fighting the wrong enemy’.   In fact the very notion of ‘curing’ by ‘fighting the cause’ is at stake and the evidence is that we should be ‘curing’ by restoring balance to our inner-outer bacterial ecology.   This was, in fact, the message given to us by Louis Pasteur on his deathbed in saying; …  “Claude Bernard was right, the microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything.” (an issue which had also made Pasteur a long time opponent of the theories of Antoine Béchamp)  In effect, Pasteur was ‘confessing’ that he also felt that instead of the body being invaded by hordes of germs from ‘without’, the body’s internal ‘terrain’ or ‘soil’ was catalyzing an unbalanced development of germs from ‘within’.   The implication is that we need to be cultivators of ‘terrain’ where there is opportunity for diverse species to flourish in a collaborative ‘ecological’ sense, as commonly occurs in nature, rather than allowing the environmental terrain or ‘soil’ to become ‘intolerant’ and to opportunize a select few whilst disopportunizing diverse others.


Clearly, if there is validity in this view, the resolution we get from killing off the ‘dominant’ bacteria may give us respite from the symptoms but will not address the tendency for imbalance in the ‘playing field’ which opens up opportunity for the bacteria to flourish in the first place .   If one thinks of the typical ‘vicious circles’ that develop in complex systems, in fact, a likely model is that a particular type of terrain imbalance opens the door to the flourishing of certain bacterial strains and the flourishing of those bacterial strains amplifies the terrain imbalance and so on, … leading to the selective growth of particular strains of bacteria to the point of a disruptive dominance.  That is, bacteria, like the rainforest, may ‘create their own climate’ and the smoothly harmonious climates based on a diverse bacterial ecologies seem to be associated with ‘health’..


In modern mainstream science, departures from the ‘causal agent’ based model seem increasingly to be regarded as ‘heresy’.  As John Polyani, Nobel Laureate in chemistry commented in 1990, at a McGill University commencement address;


“At the heart of science lies discovery which involves a change in worldview. Discovery in science is possible only in societies which accord their citizens the freedom to pursue the truth where it may lead and which therefore have respect for different paths to that truth,"


[[For a look into an interesting heresy in science, suppressed by the mainstream of science for the past 150 years, …. see Christopher Bird’s ‘To Be or Not To Be: 150 Years of Hidden Knowledge’ at from whence the  above citation of John Polyani was taken.]]


After studying this question of conflicting ‘camps’ in science --- the mainstream camp which embraces the ‘causal agent’ model and the non-mainstream camp which believes that ‘the causal agent is nothing, its containing space is everything’, I no longer have difficulty in understanding why the mainstream camp sees the ‘natural balance’ camp as ‘heretical’. 


The notion of ‘heresy’ comes from applying the same ‘conceptual geometry’ of ‘causal agent’ at the social system level.   That is, the mainstream view sees the ‘germs’ of conceptual change (dissenters or ‘trouble-makers’) in the community as ‘the cause’ of social ills rather than as ‘results’ of imbalance in the social system.   Just as one would use ‘anti-biotics’ to kill and suppress ‘germs’ seen as ‘cause’, by the same conceptual theory, one would use anti-dissentic treatments to suppress heretical dissent, as is evident in the current state of affairs, so well presented by Mae Wan Ho and Jonathan  Mathews.


And, again, if the ‘dissent’ is not the ‘cause’ of social illness but is instead the ‘result’ which has been induced by imbalance, we will be getting ourselves into the same problem on the social front as on the bacterial front by the application of ‘anti-dissentic’ treatments; i.e. we will be taking over the social body’s natural healing qualities and substituting artificial agents of control to force ‘correct behaviour’, in line with the ‘causal agent’ theory.   The ultimate outcome will be the cultivation of ‘anti-dissentic resistant’ dissenters which will ultimately reach epidemic proportions in the ‘social body’ which will no longer have any natural healing capabilities, having replaced it with a strategy of intervening with technological ‘anti-cause’ (control tactics rather than natural ‘healing’)


Conflict between advocates of these two scientific views; one which puts the terrain in the primacy over the causal agent (space-over-matter) and the other (mainstream) view which puts the causal agent in the primacy and ignores the role of the containing space (i.e. the opportunity-modulating containing space) has been around since ancient times and surfaced in the different models of Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton.


If you were to ask Kepler about the ‘health’ of the solar system, he would say that (i.e. he implicitly said that) it depends on the planets collaboratively creating their own harmonic opportunity space for their kinetic behaviours (i.e. container-constituent-coresonance) while if you were to ask Newton, he would say (i.e. he implicitly said that) it depends on each planet moving correctly so as not to engender instability in the overall system (the social analogue of the Newtonian view is clear; i.e. that there is a ‘correct causal behaviour’ and that is a behaviour which does not disturb the stability of the system).   But in Kepler’s model, the stability of the system, rather than coming from the ‘correct behaviour of the individual seen as ‘independent agent’, comes instead from ‘outer-inner’ spherical coresonance across the nested ‘spheres of revolutions’ of the sun and planets, a ‘volumetric’ model which is dimensionally higher than, and ‘includes’ as a lesser, (mathematically) degenerate case; i.e. the model of the system as the sum of the kinetic behaviours of the planets seen as ‘independent causal agents’.


In other words, we use the analogous geometry of Kepler’s model when ‘driving friendly’ on the freeway instead of ‘driving correctly’, … when we tap into our awareness that our assertive movements simultaneously, reciprocally transform the shape of space in such a manner that it opens up opportunity presenting to others or closes down opportunity and, armed with this awareness, move collectively to as to cultivate our own balanced collective opportunity (as in the geometrical notion that the ‘rainforest creates its own climate’).   Again, we have the option to see dissonance in traffic flow and accidents as being ‘caused by’ people who are not ‘driving correctly’ (which is always true in the degenerate mathematical sense) or, as being induced by imbalances in the ‘terrain’, … imbalances in the cultivation of ‘opportunity space’.  So what we do in the spirit of ‘anti-biotics’ is to develop ‘cures’ based on treatments for ‘anti-incorrect driving’ and control-type intervention may indeed result in short-term ‘relief’ from dissonant traffic flow and accidents, but we will then have removed the ‘natural healing’ capacities of the system (the conscious cultivation of balanced opportunity space) rather than dealing with the deeper source of the dissonance (driving independently and ignoring the simultaneous, reciprocal transformation of opportunity space and the balance of opportunity space needed for harmonious flow).   As Francis Fukuyama says in his book ‘Trust’, … those who cannot trust each other to co-create harmony condemn themselves to manage on the basis of formal rules and enforcements (rather than using rules and enforcement in a ‘safety net’ mode rather than as a basis for managing.


At the base of it all, mathematical physics, which has been very influential in science as a whole and therefore in our science-oriented social mechanisms, as Henri Poincaré pointed out, describes phenomena in terms of the assertive behaviour of the constituents seen as ‘independent causal agents’ and does not go so far as to include the relativistic ‘participation of space in physical phenomena’ as needed by sciences such as evolutionary biology.  Poincaré died in 1912 but had already alluded (e.g. in ‘The Relativity of Space’) to the fundamental implications of relativity (implications which impact the conceptual base underlying the foundations of mainstream science) which are still not mainstream in 2001 and which are often scoffed at by physicists and scientists well satisfied with the technology building virtues of the ‘causal agent’ model.


So, I agree with you, Dirk, that what is happening does ‘smell’ of Orwell’s ‘1984’ and you and I are amongst those who, if we are heard at all, may be seen as ‘heretics’ by those in mainstream science who are gung ho ‘on the path’ to finding ‘solutions’ without stopping to questions the conceptual underpinnings of their ‘strain’ of science, even though the ‘loose threads’ of relativity theory, quantum duality, chaos and complexity, continue ‘on the loose’, inducing dissonance in the aftermath of our simplistic ‘cures’.


The more noise made by ‘scientific dissidents’, the more they are seen in terms of ‘trouble-makers’ and as threats to system stability, and the suppressive response by the mainstream is not ‘malicious’ but well-intended action which simply ‘holds true’ to their mainstream scientific conceptual models, wherein ‘dissonance’ is seen as instability  ‘caused’ by ‘agents-of-dissonance’.    The ‘medicine’ for maladies seen through this conceptual model come in the form of  ‘anti-dissonance’ remedies and treatments.  In the face of more and more disruptions of dissonance from different ‘species’ of dissenters, the conclusion is, rather than that there is something wrong with the mainstream conceptual model, that mainstream solutions need to be more powerful than ever to counteract increasingly resistant strains of dissonance.


Since natural healing remedies are abandoned in this process, an ‘end-state’ may be approached where ‘healthy’ is no longer seen in terms of naturally emergent ‘container-constituent-harmony’ but is instead seen in terms of ‘absence of dissonance’ and the ability of the scientific ‘cures’ to ‘suppress dissonance’.   Since the development of these anti-dissonance solutions is well-intended, … the ‘dissonance managers’ may rightly contend that these programs emanate from ‘love’ as exemplified by the love of a ‘big brother’ for his ‘less capable’ siblings.


The ‘less capable’ seems often to be intended in the context of ‘rationality’ which is not surprising coming from a culture which ‘worships at the altar of science and rationality’ and this leads to the selective exclusion, by our social systems, of the so-called ‘less performant’ (in the context of rationality) in the fields of education, business and government.   Meanwhile, the gift for collaboratively opening up opportunity for one’s fellows in a ‘container-constituent-coresonant’ fashion, as in the group of ‘friendly’ freeway drivers who ‘cultivate’ harmony in the shape of dynamic opportunity space into which they are kinetically asserting, transcends rationality (includes rationality as a dimensionally degenerate form, the reduction of volumetric inner-outer coresonance dimensionally downwards to the kinetic transactions of causal agents).  Similarly, the air force aerobatics team may use rationality (causal agent technology) to ‘get in range’ for their volumetric co-harmonic (e.g. where each of four pilots becomes the apex of an inverting triangular prismoid) but such ‘harmony’ is guided not by ‘independent causal agents’ but by putting ‘causal agent controls’ (rational controls) ‘in the service’ of the evolving shape of the geometric volume (where the shape of space forming out of the team codynamic is in the primacy over the Euclidian space and absolute time based ‘causal agent kinetics’).


That the notion of ‘less performant’ is tied directly to ‘less rational’ in many of the circles of power in our culture is evident from the philosophical advocacies of people such as Barbara Marx-Hubbard.   Hubbard has been a keynote speaker at international conferences on social transformation, such as the '2000 International Conference on Science and Consciousness', in Albuquerque in April 28 - May 3, 2000, ... where she was billed as 'futurist, visionary, author, US Vice Presidential nominee, founder of the Foundation for Conscious Evolution.   As keynote speaker at Mikhail Gorbachev's State of the World forum in San Francisco, in 1996, she called for "substantial reductions in the population." “Society, …” she said at the Gorbachev forum, "cannot afford ... from an environmental standpoint, or from the standpoint of tearing apart of the social fabric -- the economic growth that would be necessary to promote jobs for all in the conventional sense, and the inequalities which have come to accompany that growth."   In her book, "The Book of Co-Creation," she writes "out of the full spectrum of human personality, one- fourth is elected to transcend. ... One -fourth is destructive (and) they are destructive seeds. In the past they were permitted to die a 'natural death.' ... Now, as we approach the quantum shift from the creature-human to the co-creative human -- the human who is an inheritor of God-like powers -- the destructive one-fourth must be eliminated from the social body. ... Fortunately, you are not responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of God's selection process for Planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are riders of the pale horse, Death." (Revelation 6:8)


It seems that the holy scriptures in western religions are too often being interpreted to support the view that the sustaining of the ‘health’ of our society depends directly upon ‘rational structure’, … i.e. that health is not a naturally emerging property of space-time (container-constituent-coresonance) as Kepler, Poincaré and Einstein conceived of it, … but emanates instead from ‘rational smarts’.   It is difficult to map back from these ‘purificationist’ and ‘exclusionary’ philosophies based on the primacy of rationality to the tolerance and inclusionality in the ‘lived models’ of the prophets such as Jesus.


Meanwhile, as a culture, we continue with our ‘unnatural selection’ based on rational muscle power (muscle-bound power which precludes collaborative harmonizing in many cases, it seems) which too often is at the expense of ‘excluding’ those gifted in the cultivation of ‘container-constituent-coresonance’ (cultivating balanced opportunity space for their fellows).   Those who would put ‘container-constituent-coresonance’ in the primacy over rationality, … like the person playing team pool who sacrifices the quality of his ‘shots’ (kinetic transactions’) so as to cultivate ‘shape’ (the opening up of opportunity for the future kinetics of all constituents in his community of billiard balls), … are increasingly seen as ‘less performant’ based on the fact that they sacrifice their personal ‘shot-making scores’ to cultivate balanced and sustainable harmony in the shape of dynamic opportunity space for the full constituency.  


As a group, and with ‘good intentions’ based on the ‘shots-over-shape’ conceptual model, … and as the system is progressively troubled by ‘dissonance’ and ‘instability’, the mainstream seeks to achieve a ‘cure’ by purification, … by progressively excluding the ‘less performant’ (in the narrow sense of ‘rationality’) and by recursively distilling out and differentially empowering those who would put ‘rationality’ into the primacy.   This ‘death-of-harmony spiral’ became evident in the corporate environment I was working in and as the purifying ‘downsizings’ proceeded, there were less and less ‘shape-over-shots’ players left to provide a footfold for needed transformation and that was the prime factor for my leaving that environment six years ago.  Meanwhile, many other ‘heretics’ like myself either ‘ejected’ voluntarily or were forcibly ‘excluded’ and they have been enriching and strengthening the ‘harmonic health ethic’ in the community at large.   While the media does not report on the growth of the ‘heresy for harmony’, the alternative media, including many internet sources, provides the raw data for a view of what’s happening.  An example is the following excerpt from an article in ‘The UTNE READER’ (Nov/Dec, 2000) entitled  5 Signs of the Coming Revolution


  * * *

“Beyond the empty campaign rhetoric that passes for public debate today lie the seeds of a dramatic cultural and political transformation.  In 50 years, America will be a very different place.  And surprise!  It might be better than you dare imagine.  Here’s why. . . .



1.         The Resurgence of Citizen’s Movements ---  Paul Hawken   

2.         The Graying of America (of the developed world societies) ---  Gay Gaer Luce

3.         The Rising Challenge to Corporate Control of Our Lives  ---  David C. Korten

4.         Our Rediscovery of the World’s Mysteries  --- James Redfield

5.         A New Connected Generation ---  Margaret Wheatley


[[* The following excerpt is from ‘The Resurgence of Citizen’s Movements’]]


“In the United States, more than 30,000 citizens’ groups, non-governmental organizations, and foundations are addressing the issue of social and ecological sustainability in the most complete sense of the word.  Worldwide, their number exceeds 100,000.  Together, they address a broad array of issues, including environmental justice, ecological literacy, public policy, conservation, women’s rights and health, population growth, renewable energy, corporate reform, labor rights, climate change, trade rules, ethical investing, ecological tax reform, water conservation, and much more.  These groups follow Ghandi’s imperatives.  Some resist, others create new structures, patterns and means.  The groups tend to be local, marginal, poorly funded and overworked.  It is hard for most groups not to feel justified anxiety that they could perish in a twinkling.  At the same time, a deeper, extraordinary pattern is emerging.


If you ask these groups for their principles, frameworks, conventions, models, or declarations, you will find that they do not conflict.  Never before in history has this happened.  In the past, movements that became powerful started with a unified or centralized set of ideas (Marxism, Christianity, Freudianism) and disseminated them, creating power struggles over time as the core mental model or dogma was changed, diluted, or revised.  This new sustainability movement did not start this way.  Its supporters do not agree on everything --- nor should they --- but remarkably, they share a basic set of fundamental understandings about the earth, how it functions, and the necessity of fairness and equity for all people in partaking of its life-giving systems.


This shared understanding is arising spontaneously from different economic sectors, cultures, regions, and cohorts.  And it is spreading throughout this country and the world.  No one started it this worldview, no one is in charge of it, no orthodoxy is restraining it.  I believe it is the fastest-growing and most powerful movement in the world today, unrecognizeable to the American media because it is not centralized, based on power, or led by charismatic white males.  As external conditions continue to worsen socially, environmentally, and politically, organizations working towards sustainability multiply and gain more supporters.”


My own view on ‘revolution’ as follows from ‘relativity’ and its direct referencing to the ‘shape of space-time’ is that ‘we are where we are now’ and it is the cultivation of this ‘now’which is what really matters.   In this view, we do not have to have a revolution which ‘brings down the old edifice or anything else’.   Nature works by new things growing up and ontogenically subsuming the old as in Alan’s painting ‘Open Endings’ and there is no reason to visualize social systems any differently, and there is particularly no reason to conceive of ‘revolution’ in terms of  ‘eliminating what’s wrong’ as this would be to replicate the flawed scientific philosophy which the ‘revolution’ seeks to overcome.   In other words, it is not necessary to organize the ‘heresy of harmony’ dissenters into an army of dissident activists, … it is enough to become aware of the natural growth of the ranks of ‘heretics for harmony’ so that the harmony of the movement can be inductively nurtured by the ‘light’ of our collective consciousness in the manner that a hurricane is inductively nurtured by the warmth of the light of the sun.


‘Big brother’, the collective ‘mainstream scientific’ conscience of our culture, may feel that his ‘less performant siblings’ are incapable of taking care of themselves, but big brother might do well to reflect on his own mother, nature, who works by inclusion and the celebrating of diversity rather than by exclusion and purification, and who ‘trusts’ in her constituency’s ability to spontaneously coresonate, … to ‘jam’, …  in spite of their respective gifts and/or penchant for rational control-based systems management.


As for my mother’s health, mainstream medicine’s drug and surgery based attempts to ‘enforce correct causal behaviours’ in her constituent systems and produce an ‘absence of dissonance’ (while most often delivered with much appreciated good intent and caring) have stopped short of re-awakening the natural multisystem interferential harmonic pumping rhythms of the digestive tract.  She is now at home and we are working on several ‘natural’ approaches to overcome the arrythmia and induce a return to harmony.  At the same time, one cannot help but think of what might be accomplished, together, in a medical science which would comprehend ‘container-constituent-coresonance’ (the participation of space) rather than focusing solely on ‘correct behaviours’, not only on the part of the psychosomatic constituents of the patient, but on the part of fellow scientific researchers.






 * * *


... Return to Goodshare's Welcome Page, ...