Find Unconscious Mutterings and
Booking Through Thursday below.
We are well aware of the idea that life constantly
evolves. But how far does this process of evolution
go? Does it stop at life, or could it be argued that
evolution is a property of the cosmos?
For instance, if the universe began from a Big Bang, and has constantly changed from this point, does this show the property of evolution? And could a similar argument be laid down for known, and constant, change upon planet Earth?
The fundamental problem with the idea that planet Earth evolves concerns the place of life within the evolutionary process. Does life evolve separate to the planet, or is life – including mankind – part of the process of Earth’s evolutionary mechanism?
To accept the latter holds severe problems for science. It not only removes us from the top of the evolutionary tree, but would suggest a form of co-ordinated intelligence invested in planet Earth which is guiding us along.
There are, infact, many indicators that this is, indeed, the case. One of the absolutes of evolution is the idea that evolution only evolves what is required for survival. There is no surplus.
However, the massive explosion in the size of the human brain goes way ahead of our ability to use it. Our brain capacity is far greater than is required by this evolutionary law. Yet if seen as part of an evolving requirement of planet Earth, our brain size could fall into the evolutionary pattern.
French philosopher Henri Bergson would have had no problem with this idea. He believed that nature had an urge to create – a principle he called the ‘elan vital’. Such an urge would be above an individual species, placing all of nature within an evolutionary concept which could easily be seen as part of the evolution of planet Earth.
British physicist Peter Russell could have placed our big brain within this format. He theorised upon a growing planetary level of consciousness called the ‘Gaiafield’ – a self-reflective consciousness of all minds, forming a social superorganism.
In a way this is similar to psychoanalyst Carl Jung’s idea of a collective unconscious lying under the personal mind. But instead of being a species supermind, Russell would invest the property on a planetary level.
First posted, Jan 08. Continued Tues.
BLOGGER BARD
Funny Book
I don’t read many funny books. I read plenty of twisty
tales, which can be funny, but not actual humour. Then
again, isn’t it all relative? For instance, I read many works
that would be classed as pseudoscholastic – on lost
civilizations, paranormal, etc. Many ‘experts’ class their
conclusions as very funny indeed. I suppose ‘humour’
depends on the reader. For instance, I would class many
politician’s biographies as hilarious. Humour seems to be
in the mind of the reader as well as the writer.
Call back Sunday for Unconscious Mutterings.
© Anthony North, July 2009
