|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 30, 2012 10:12:55 GMT 10
SYSTEMS THEORY: in relation to our Self and our place in the universe
Philip Carter, Past National Secretary — Friday, 9 October 2009 The Theosophical Society, City of Greater Newcastle Lodge Theosophical World View:As with the pilgrim in the “Flammarion Woodcut” [above], tonight we will seek to lift the veil between this world of form and its underlying reality of ideals and wheels within wheels. According to the Douglas Adams, in The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the answer to life, the universe and everything, is, 42: Rather, I suggest the answer is One. There are, however, innumerable ways of arriving at that answer. As Theosophists, our world view is stated to be: The Mystic Tie:This is a fractal depiction of the Tree of Life [above], with the same pattern repeated throughout. A theme to which we will be returning shortly According to that worldview We are not alone, indeed we are all One: This is the great truth underlying all religions. There is a unity of all that is, a Brotherhood of all sentient beings. What is essential in each one is not only of the same kind but is of the exact same identity as that which is essential in all. The mystic tie which binds us all is the Tree of Life, the One Life, the same light shining through each of us; appearing different simply because of differing relationships and habits. Perhaps too, as in the Biblical allegory of seeing, ‘through a glass, darkly’ (I Corinthians 13:12), that Light we share may appear either brighter or dimmer when perceived or expressed through vehicles which are more or less focused on that Truth; nevertheless, it is the One Life. A corollary of this oneness, suggests a caution against judgment. Each of us, in different contexts can variously be or has been a child or a parent; a teacher or a student; a fool or a sage and a follower or a leader. Depending on circumstances, we can each be happy, angry or sad; clumsy or adept; a hero or a coward. Here we face a paradox: We are One, yet the constant message through our senses and reinforced by most languages is not one of unity but of separateness. Put simply, my senses scream at me saying, ‘I am not you,’ while a deep conviction at the core of my being whispers knowingly, ‘there can be only One.’ Rastafarians have developed their own patois to try to avoid the glamour of language in this regard: For instance, instead of saying, ‘you and I’ they are likely to say ‘I and I’, which can be very confusing and sounds terribly naïve. Ironically, Rastafarians often have a strong sense of ‘them and us’ (with Rastafarians being the new Israel and everyone else being wicked Babylon), so their's, it seems, is a paradoxical unity.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 30, 2012 21:25:07 GMT 10
Systems Theory:Even within basic systems there are complex interactions If simply playing with words is not enough, how then can we make sense of this paradox? I suggest we need to consciously adopt a new perspective, paradoxically grounded in the Ancient Wisdom. This is the perspective provided by Systems theory (answers.com): Systems theory is interdisciplinary theory about the nature of complex systems in nature, society, and science. More specifically, it is a framework by which one can investigate and/or describe any group of objects that work in concert to produce some result. This could be a single organism, any organization or society, or any electro-mechanical or informational artefact. Systems theory first arose in the field of Biology. It enabled such disciples as Ecology and found application in all life sciences and elsewhere These dynamics are at the core of our subject tonight. This perspective, however, only provides a proximate understanding of reality, more apt than earlier, purely reductionist ones but by no means does it provide a complete picture. Indeed, one thing this perspective suggests is that such a complete picture is beyond our comprehension. At any time, our understanding tends to be modelled on and limited by the technology of our age: From levers and pulleys, to clockwork, to steam, to computers, and now to an apprehension of the complexity of systems within systems. At best our understanding based on such models can only ever be a rough approximation.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 2, 2012 6:22:10 GMT 10
By way of analogy, consider the level of our consciousness. Typically, my mind encompasses that system identified with my body. Going within, that system (my body), we find it to be composed of many systems we think of as organs, each composed of countless individual systems we call cells, each going about its business with little input from ‘me,’ but together maintaining ‘me.’ Stepping back one level, we find these cells are virtually identical with the many independent, single cell organisms one may observes under a microscope. Once we saw nature largely in terms of competition co-operation but now recognise that co-operation and symbiosis also prevail. This co-operation finds its ultimate expression in multi-celled organisms such as ourselves. As such, we are physically composite creatures, but this is rarely reflected in consciousness at this level. This is because ‘I’ am not identical with my body. The system which is ‘me’ encompasses and exceeds all of its sub-systems. In a sense there is a consciousness in each cell, but there is a vast quantum of difference between consciousness at that level and my consciousness. Perhaps, in moments of transcendence, a liver cell, for instance, may experience a vague apprehension of being part of a greater whole but it could not possibly have any meaningful idea of even my most mundane activities: Such as putting on my socks of a morning or feeding the cat. Conversely, in moments of introversion I may become aware of some inner workings of my body — pains, pressures or rumblings and be reminded for a time of that system of which I am, in effect, God. Similarly, our systems are sub-systems of greater systems: families, congregations, mobs, societies, the planet and beyond. Sometimes, we transcend our personal sphere and enter the egregore or group mind and may gain some apprehension of the unity of which we are a part and oft times share in the mood of that level of consciousness. Some of these greater systems to which we contribute are relatively loosely organised, and frankly “dumb”, and the system soon dissipates, such as with the crowd mentality of a mob, leaving those who allowed themselves enter into and to be caught up in it wondering how they could ever have been party to such base crimes, so uncharacteristic of their individual selves. Others, such as the planet, constitute complex systems whose minds far surpass our understanding. All we can hope for is those moments of transcendence when we apprehend the mystic tie. Beyond that, we can have no meaningful understanding of the planet as a whole, let alone the universal mind.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 2, 2012 6:37:17 GMT 10
Contemplating issues beyond our comprehension has been said to develop the mind. Even if true, such contemplation only constitutes a mental exercise, not understanding, as such. At the most, I would venture to suggest that, as we experience memory, intelligence and will at our level of being, it is likely that such qualities are writ large in the universal mind and with that likelihood we may be content. At the limits of our genius, the most we can say is, as Einstein wrote: A human being is a part of a whole, called by us 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The Turning Point:Fritjof Capra first came to general notice with his book The Tao of Physics, which popularised the notion of ancient mysticism, especially Eastern mysticism, and modern Physics sharing a common ground. Consistent with this theme, The Turning Point (1982) gets its title from the “I Ching” and further unfolds that notion. Capra’s "Turning Point" involves a new appreciation of the importance of synthesis and holist approaches, complementing the analytical, reductionist approaches which formerly prevailed. I remember as a child, having a desire common among children, to work with animals. Accordingly, my mother took me to a Sydney university to visit an elder cousin, Clive, who was studying to be a Vet. His speciality at the time was the conservation of Cape Barren Geese and I was horrified to be shown foul vats of fowl being boiled and condensed, to determine their fat content. This was not what I had in mind in wishing to work with animals! Nor, I suspect what Clive had in mind when he embarked on his studies. Later, he was instrumental in developing antibiotics and procedures to enable more efficient, i.e., more crowded, housing of battery hens. A few years later I was reminded of Clive’s geese when reading Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, with the wizard Gandalf, declaring, “He that breaks a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.” In the field of Biology, the science of life, Fritjof Capra similarly remarked, “...biologists have developed very curious ways of dealing with living organisms. As the distinguished biologist and human ecologist René Dubis has pointed out, they usually feel most at ease when the thing they are studying is no longer living.” Or, as Loren Eiseley said, “Man is always marvelling at what he has blown apart, never at what the universe has put together, and this is his limitation.” The problem being, as Capra stated (p.286): The mechanistic view is justified to some extent because living organisms do act, in part, like machines. They have developed a wide variety of machinelike parts and mechanisms — bones, muscle action, blood circulation, and so on — probably because machinelike functioning was advantageous in their evolution. This does not mean that living organisms are machines. He also stated (p.108): When scientists reduce an integral whole to fundamental building blocks — whether they are cells, genes, or elementary particles — and try to explain all phenomena in terms of these elements, they lose the ability to understand the coordinating activities of the whole system.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 2, 2012 11:14:47 GMT 10
Getting back to Capra’s work, the systems with which I am most interested tonight are those which are open and organic, (as distinct from closed and mechanistic systems, which tend towards entropy and collapse). Capra wrote (pp.286/7): The systems view looks at the world in terms of relationships and integration… Examples of systems abound in nature. Every organism — from the smallest bacterium through the wide range of plants and animals to humans — is an integrated whole and thus a living system…
Although we can discern individual parts in any system, the nature of the whole is always different from from the mere sum of its parts. He tells us (pp.288/9): The first obvious difference between machines and organisms is the fact that machines are constructed, whereas organisms grow. This fundamental difference means that the understanding of organisms must be process-oriented…
Machines are constructed by assembling a well-defined number of parts in a precise and pre-established way. Organisms, on the other hand, show a high degree of internal flexibility and plasticity. He then goes on to say (pp.289/290): The two principal dynamic phenomena of self-organization are self renewal —the ability of living systems continuously to renew and recycle their components while maintaining the integrity of their overall structure — and self-transcendence — the ability to reach out creatively beyond physical and mental boundaries in the process of learning, development, and evolution. Of organic systems, Capra says (pp.291/2): Living organisms… are open systems, which mean that they have to maintain a continuous exchange of energy and matter with their environment to stay alive. This exchange involves taking in ordered structures, such as food, breaking them down and using some of their components to maintain or even increase the order of the organism. This process is known as metabolism. It allows the system to remain in a state of non-equilibrium, in which it is always ‘at work… At the same time these self-organizing systems have a high degree of stability, and this is where we run into difficulties with conventional language. The dictionary meanings of the word ‘stable’ include ‘fixed,’ ‘not fluctuating,’ ‘unvarying,’ and ‘steady,’ all of which are inaccurate to describe organisms. The stability of self-organizing systems is utterly dynamic and must not be confused with equilibrium. It consists in maintaining the same overall structure in spite of ongoing changes and replacements of its components. Moreover (p.293): Self-renewal is an essential aspect of self-organizing systems. Whereas a machine is constructed to produce a specific product or to carry out a specific task intended by its designer, an organism is primarily engaged in renewing itself; cells are breaking down and building up structures, tissues and organs are replacing their cells in continual cycles… All these processes are regulated in such a way that the overall pattern of the organism is preserved, and this remarkable ability of self-maintenance persists under a variety of circumstances… A machine will fail if its parts do not work in the rigorously predetermined manner, but an organism will maintain its functioning in a changing environment, keeping itself in running condition and repairing itself through healing and regeneration…
Even though they are capable of maintaining and repairing themselves, no complex organism can function indefinitely. They gradually deteriorate in the process of aging and, eventually, succumb to exhaustion even when relatively undamaged. To survive, these species have developed a form of ‘super-repair.’ Instead of relacing the damaged or worn-out parts they replace the whole organism. This, of course, is the phenomenon of reproduction, which is characteristic of all life.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 2, 2012 11:23:06 GMT 10
The process involves dynamic feedback, of which Capra says (pp.293/4): Fluctuations play a central role in the dynamics of self-maintenance. Any living system can be described in terms of interdependent variables, each of which can vary over a wide range between an upper and a lower limit. All variables oscillate between these limits, so that the system is in a state of continual fluctuation, even when there is no disturbance. Such a state is known as homeostasis. It is a state of dynamic, transactional balance in which there is great flexibility; in other words, the system has a large number of options for interacting with its environment. When there is some disturbance, the organism tends to return to its original state, and it does so by adapting in various ways to environmental changes. Feedback mechanisms come into play and tend to reduce any deviation from the balanced state. Because of these regulatory mechanisms, also known as negative feedback, the body temperature, blood pressure, and many other important conditions of higher organisms remain relatively constant even when the environment changes considerably. Negative feedback maintains a dynamic equilibrium, as with a thermostat maintaining a constant heat, by cutting off energy upon reaching a particular high-point and turning it back on when it reaches a pre-determined low-point. Positive feed-back works contrary to equilibrium and results in acceleration of either decline, as with heat stroke, or progress as with information growth or indeed evolution. To elaborate we sometimes hear of vicious cycles where one bad thing leads to another, pulling down a situation until it collapses. Less often mentioned (and perhaps this says something about our usual focus) are virtuous cycles where good things lead to other good things and growth occurs. As an aside, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Golden Ratio (1.6180339887), expressed within the relative dimensions of the pentagram and often through life forms, was associated with many virtuous cycles. (Vicious Cycle) Sleep cycle (Virtuous Cycle) staff / customer satisfaction
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 2, 2012 11:28:29 GMT 10
Where do we fit into all this? As examples of growth, we have made a quantum leap to be as we are physically. Beginning as a couple of minute gametes, we developed into our complex physical selves — A transformation no less remarkable than that of a caterpillar into a butterfly. I expect spiritually we have advanced similarly and can expect further stages to be beyond our present comprehension. Capra suggests (p.307): Since we too are born and are bound to die, does this mean that we are parts of larger systems that continually renew themselves? Indeed, this seems to be the case. Like all other living creatures we belong to ecosystems and we also form our own social systems. Finally, at an even larger level, there is the biosphere, the ecosystem of the entire planet, upon which our survival is utterly dependent. He describes this greater whole, with reference to James Lovelock’s Gaia hypotheses, saying (p.308): The planet is not only teeming with life but seems to be a living being in its own right. All the living matter on earth, together with the atmosphere, oceans, and soil, form a complex system that has all the characteristic patterns of self-organization…
The earth, then, is a living system; it functions not just like an organism but actually seems to be an organism — Gaia, a living planetary being. Her properties and activities cannot be predicted from the sum of her parts; every one of her tissues is linked to every other tissue and all of them are mutually interdependent; her many pathways of communication are highly complex and nonlinear; her for has evolved over billions of years and continues to evolve. Looking within, he says (p.305): The new insight of subatomic physics also seems to hold for the study of living matter: the observed patterns of matter are reflections of patterns of mind. Capra then refers to the works of Gregory Bateson, saying (pp.315/7): Bateson’s criteria for mind turns out to be closely related to those characteristics of self-organizing systems which I have listed above as the critical differences between machines and living organisms. Indeed, mind is an essential property of living systems. As Bateson said, ‘Mind is the essence of being alive.’ From the systems point of view, life is not a substance or a force, and mind is not an entity interacting with matter. Both life and mind are manifestations of the same set of systemic properties, a set of processes that represent the dynamics of self-organization…
Bateson’s concept of mind will be useful throughout our discussion, but to remain closer to conventional language I shall reserve the term ‘mind’ for organisms of high complexity and will use ‘mentation,’ a term meaning mental activity, to describe the dynamics of self-organization at lower levels…
In the systems concept of mind, mentation is characteristic not only of individual organisms but also of social and ecological systems… Our attitudes will be very different when we realize that the environment is not only alive but also mindful, like ourselves.
The fact that the living world is organized in multileveled structures means that there are also levels of mind. In the organism, for example, there are various levels of ‘metabolic’ mentation involving cells, tissues, and organs, and then there is the ‘neural’ mentation of the brain, which itself consists of multiple levels corresponding to different stages of human evolution. The totality of these mentations constitutes what we would call the human mind.
In the stratified order of nature, individual human minds are embedded in the larger minds of social and ecological systems, and these are integrated into the planetary mental system — the mind of Gaia — which in turn must participate in some kind of universal or cosmic mind.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 2, 2012 11:44:49 GMT 10
As Above, So Below:All this is pretty intriguing, but what is truly wonderful is the realization that the hermetic axiom, “As above, so below” finds full expression in the realm of Systems Theory, as does the Biblical notion of us being made in God’s image. This point may need some explanation: The one mind which shines through each is expressed at all levels of being — The entire rank and file of all that is. Systems not only interrelate, they intersect and interpenetrate. The analogy with a hologram has been used to give some idea of this truth. If a hologram is broken, each part will contain the original image, albeit, less precisely defined. As Capra said (p.88): If any part of a hologram is illuminated, the entire image will be reconstructed, although it will show less detail than the image obtained from the complete hologram. In Bohm’s view the real world is structured according to the same general principles, with the whole enfolded in each of its parts. (Mandelbrot) The same pattern repeated ad infinitum One might also use the analogy of self-reflections between multiple mirrors; refer to the complex fractal images, in which the whole image is replicated within and beyond any one level of observation; or relate to the DNA in each of our cells, having the potential to create a clone of the organism of which the cell appears to be but a part. Thus not only are you me, we are him and her and are all truly one with "'God." Reminding us of the Pythoness at Delphi, having said. “Oh! Man, know thyself and you will know the universe and the Gods.” THE END ( Gnothi seauton, Greek or Nosce te ipsum, Latin = Know thy self) BTW, Nosce te ipsum is my SRIS motto
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 2, 2012 11:51:43 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 2, 2012 12:00:13 GMT 10
|
|