Magic and Mystery
Victor MacGill's website
|
|
Chaos
and Complexity Magic and Mystery Victor MacGill's website |
|
|
My first book.. |
 
Theosophy and Complex SystemsHere is an email I received from Wayne McLeod, who asked me an interesting and challenging question. I post this with his permission.Hello Victor: I am very puzzled at how anyone knowledgeable on natural laws could also entertain notions of spiritual cause, as you seem to do with your involvement in Theosophy. Perhaps that is because I am totally unfamiliar with Theosophy and it might have a way for spiritual belief to embrace rational science. If so, please explain the connection. Thanks, Wayne Macleod and here is my reply: Thank you for the thought provoking question. It has been really useful for me to think this through more fully. I can clearly see the apparent contradiction between science and theosophy and I would in fact agree with many objections that might be raised saying the two are incompatible. My mother was a Theosophist and my father became a Buddhist after finding a book in the library of the Theosophical Society, but I was brought up in a foster family following a mainstream Christian religion. It has come to me as a pleasant surprise to find Theosophy has become meaningful for my many years later. One of the central philosophies of Theosophy that attracts me to it, is its insistence that there is no dogma that one needs to believe to be a Theosophist. There is no set truth to be found and there is an understanding that over time any given wisdom will need to be dropped or at least recast in some way to be relevant to people in a later age. Of course, there is a clear Theosophical literature, and for many Theosophists, it may well have become a dogma, even with the insistence that it should not be so. I long ago gave up the idea that I would find one particular philosophy or religion that would perfectly fit with who I am. I am attracted to many aspects of Buddhism, and even to the Christianity I was brought up with, but it has become very clear that I will find some things I need in some places, and others in other places. All philosophies will have something that is not quite comfortable. There are some aspects of the Theosophical literature that I feel comfortable with, such as the descriptions of the various bodies and their levels, which seem to be quite well described and appear compatible with other models, such as spiral dynamics etc. Other aspects, I either don’t agree with, or find irrelevant, such as the rounds and races, that isn’t very popular in Theosophical circles anyway from what I have seen. Karma and re-incarnation are presented quite differently to how I might look at it; I feel it is not as black and white as presented. Theosophy allows me to be comfortable having parts with which I am not comfortable. In my personal life I have had experiences that leave me in no doubt that there is some form of existence after death. The best explanation I have that makes sense to me at the moment is the idea put forward by Immanuel Kant that there exists an overall field of consciousness within which we have somehow evolved to have a mind that creates time and space as a way of experiencing that consciousness. Other reasons for linking myself with Theosophy is that in Dunedin, where I live, I find no other group of people where I fee I fit as much. There is a very enthusiastic positive community that grows in strength and I find a great support. It is definitely for people who do not fit the mainstream mould. That does tend to mean there are two types of people attracted. There are people, who are outside of the mainstream, who could exist within it if they chose, but choose to explore other realities and there are others who come to the society because they do not fit in to the mainstream. We have a speaker every week, usually from amongst our membership. It is a forum where there is a willing and eager audience for what I have to say, coming from a strongly scientific background. It also means we have speakers sometimes who talk about things, such as the role of aliens in our world today, that just don’t appeal to me. There are therefore a wide range of interpretations of what Theosophy could be, and it is for each group to shape their own organisation as they feel fit. I feel comfortable about how we do it locally. I have the privilege of being the president of our local branch, and so have some influence over our interpretation of Theosophy and there has certainly been a shift since I became the president to widening the scope of our interests. I like that fact that I can talk in a theosophical society about complex systems etc and not feel as though I am compromising myself, but then go to a complex systems conference and talk about how I see the world and my last paper presented was actually specifically about creating a spiritual philosophy from complex systems principles – again without compromising myself. I find complex systems bridges the gap between science and spirituality in a way I have not found anywhere else. You might like to read the paper through the link here which gives more detail as to the links between the concepts of complex systems and spiritual philosophy. Complex systems talk of a world where there is a connected wholeness, where order and chaos are finely balanced in a dynamic dance from which emerges greater complexity, organisation (and I would add consciousness). Though difficult, I find it reassuring that complex systems tells us that catastrophe and collapse is a part of the necessary flow of life rather than, for example, the wrath of a displeased God. Chaos is necessary and unavoidable if we are to have novelty and renewal and life is to proceed. Network theory emphasises the need to work together and support each other for mutual benefit and warns of the dangers that might lead to the collapse of a system and how to face that collapse should it happen. Complex Systems tend to form hierarchies of increasing complexity, which suggests that consciousness also structure s itself hierarchically and that we can grow in consciousness as we keep reaching higher levels. I work towards living a good full life. I like Ken Wilber’s Integral Life Practice, which says a good, well rounded, effectively functioning human being will be addressing all the different aspects of life. He cites nine aspects: body, mind, shadow, emotions, ethics, relationships, soul. Each of them need to be strong and well balanced for us to live a well rounded life. I don't always like what Ken WIlber says, but he outlines a way of seeing the world that makes sense in today's world. His reply to this: Thanks for your thoughtful reply, although I am still in doubt on howit fills the divide between rational and spiritual belief. After all,1if emergence results from the interface of chaos and order, chaos is animportant part of Creation. Therefore, should we think of chaos asbeing part of the spiritual force that made the universe, if a1spiritual force is imputed? To relate chaos with a Creator, spiritualor otherwise, seems to be a contradiction in terms, but if it is due tonatural laws explainable mathematically, might not the forces or orderbe the same? Since I fail to see anything spiritual underlyingmathematical explanations I have difficulty understanding amathematician’s involvement with spiritual belief. This might sound like I am an atheist but actually I have a pantheistbelief, which holds the Universe itself to be “God”. Pantheism ispretty close to Nature worship without the worship. It is not atheismbecause a Higher Power is seen to exist, only we do not need to inventa spiritual existence outside the Universe for that belief. Attached is an essay of mine, titled Cosmos Theology, presenting theseviews. It leads to some conclusions on modern society that you mayfind objectionable, but if you can overlook that I think it is anotherworthy addition to your list of Systems Theory philosophies. Best regards,Wayne Macleod and my reply Thanks for permission to use your question. and thanks for your reply. I do not have any problem with your comments in your email. I certainly see chaos as a totally necessary part of creation. I do not see the universe as having a creator, particularly in the anthropomorphic sense that God is usually presented as. Equating God and nature is quite reasonable and certainly in our Theosophical Society in Dunedin, and I think I can say generally in New Zealand (I am not so acquainted with the society in other countries) your views would not be seen as inconsistent with the beliefs of Theosophy. There is no specific mention of a God in Theosophy, but if a person finds such a concept useful, there is not a reason to deny that either. I would see things a little different to you still, and I would be interested in your comments. I would say that the universe has a part within time and space and a part beyond time and space. the part beyond time and space I tend to see as pure consciousness and is unmanifest. All that we know and experience within time and space has come from beyond time and space. How can we define pure consciousness or understanding, when all we have to go on is our world as we experience it within the space time continuum. James Lovelock said an interesting thing. He said if life exists anywhere on earth, it has to exist everywhere. There is something that just feels right about this and to me it suggests that the pure consciousness provides the framework for life in this world and all the processes of chaos, emergence negentropy etc. are only possible because there is this underlying consciousness that it comes from. It is all natural and all happens within the universe, but the way our world comes into being from beyond the space time continuum could be described as creation. I think a lot of quantum mechanics is pointing in this direction. I skim read the paper and there is much there I agree with and would be more than comfortable having the information presented at our Theosophical Society. Two parts do stand out. One is the racial emphasis. we have evolved a suspicion for the outsider for obvious reasons, but just like our use of violence it is something that has been vital to our survival that now hinders our further progress. Interestingly a lot of the original Theosophical writings talked about different races occupying different levels of consciousness, but this is not given emphasis today. The other, which is more of a personal opinion is that we are not evolving towards creating a church or any other set of beliefs for people to fit in to. People have a need to find their own solution that gives them meaning. Especially with the internet and communications as they are, communities will be self emergent. people will find what they need for themselves. There is a place for open organisation that do not put requirements on those who chose to be a part and they will self regulate as does wikipedia, facebook etc. Loose, flexible self-organising confederations are more likely than a structured church. I am more inclined to trust natural human processes to be the motivating power of evolution. Selecting gifted people has all sorts of inherent problems. Cheers Victor |
|
|
||
|
|
||
