060 rh. Re: Questioning Neo-Darwinism

Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rod Hemsell <rodhemsell@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Questioning Neo-Darwinism
To: scienceandspirit@sriaurobindocenter-la.com

Message - 060/149

Don,

I am here, observing this newly launched discussion with interest. I find most attempts to either define or explain the laws of nature simplistic, but I don't recall the specific comment you are referring to. However, it seems that the metaphysical questions raised by Sheldrake and Marghese are the necessary ones to ask if one isn't satisfied with scientific explanations. Science doesn't usually attempt to answer those questions because it wants to base its proofs on empirical observation. Adaptability through mutation can be observed and the theory proven. For us the more interesting mystery is that the principle of adaptability exists and shows itself in such an infinitely amazing array of purposeful natural design. It seems to us that such purposeful adaptability is virtually synonymous with "intelligence" or "consciousness". Since consciousness in humans can be explained as the emergence of such a purposeful adaptation at the top of the ladder, along with will and intentionality, we seem to have in our possession the principles that explain everything. We got to this point a thousand years before both Madhva and Newton, and Heidegger and Sri Aurobindo both recaptulated the entire metaphysical discussion with reference to their respective traditions: Greek and Sanskrit: phusis/logos; purusha/prakriti.

The metaphysical mind isn't satisfied with scientific reductions and the scientific mind isn't satisfied with metaphysical reductions. And they are both right to be unsatisfied. It apparently is taking quite a "long" or "huge" period of time/intensity to pursue each path to the point of convergence, which ultimately requires a breaktrough into the integral or supramental structure of consciousness, as we know. And that way of being is not just mental and abstract but material and continuous with all planes, ie. integral/supramental. Anything less seems to be simplistic, but the best scientific and/or metaphysical thinking at least tries to recapitulate the whole field of its consciousness and arrive at a comprehensive theory. Even that attempt has to remain relatively simplistic, but it has a chance of being adequate, ie. great fun.

Your attempt to do both science and metaphysics is pretty ambitious, but it could be hugely fun.