Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Evolution and the Samkhya ‘material-spiritual’

April 15th, 2015 · No Comments

http://darwiniana.com/2015/04/14/chopra-to-bennett/#comment-738775

1 NK // Apr 15, 2015 at 11:17 am
“We evolved through random events that have accumulated over time, taking 13.7 billion years since the big Bang to arrive at the most complex structure in creation, the human brain.”
Chopra wants to remove one end of the dialectical see saw and emphasize the other end. Darwinism is bullsh#t, but it has a point…there is something preposterous and absurd about biological phenomena:
“This begins to seem very bizarre stuff, and it really doesn’t take many examples of it to persuade the disinterested person that the simplest explanation is that whales derive from terrestrial quadrupeds, that birds derive from reptiles or dinosaurs with teeth, and that different evolutionary pathways, with random variations, lead to Cephalopods and vertebrates. None of this testifies to the perfection of divine design, and the modern Paleys should be embarrassed and shamed to encumber God’s wisdom with so much carelessness.”
http://www.friesian.com/proof.htm

I shouldn’t have used the term ‘god’ in my post, but it does point to what one might have believed in!!? The confusion here has been great, obviously.
But I refrain from dogmatic atheism. The question of god gets slammered by skeptics, but returns another day. How could ‘god’ deal with so many believers even as a superperson?
I can thus think of many examples of the dangers of jumping to conclusions. Thirty years ago the idea of a Google Search engine would have sounded impossible. But it can now check out millions of queries an hour. We thus can’t be sure of anything in the realm of cosmic computation.
In my piece using Bennett we get this situation in his ‘triad of tetrads’:

three components: the material-material: the material-life : the material-spiritual

This is the kind of situation Samkhya yogis discussed, with different terminology (and the standard Indic versions seem to be corrupted).
What is the material-spiritual? Actually we don’t know, but as we have said ‘consciousness’ in some form is supposed to be an example. But here ‘material’ may better be ‘phenomenal’: there is a spiritual component that is ‘material’ and able to enter the realm of matter and life.

This makes sense: the dualism of spirit/matter was always too oversimplified.
The point is the whole ‘material’ or phenomenal universe is all of a piece, with ‘spirit’/’matter’ sharing some commong denominator. Is this spirit spiritual? Clearly the real ‘spiritual’ stands beyond manifest ‘spiritual’ we called material-spiritual. The spiritual stand beyond the manifest or material or phenomenal realm.

This point is always confusing, but the path to enlightenment has always had to move through this terrain: the meditator passes through spiritual realms or mindstates, but the real ‘enlightenment’ seems to be something beyond all of that. Over and over we see spiritual meditators restate this without even quite understanding.
We should offer a polite hint that religions like Xtianity/Judaism are kindergarten ‘safety zones’ and they lead their adherents through a spiritual-material garden, under a promise of ‘salvation’, an unknown until death.

Without getting to be arrogant ‘buddhists’ we should note the constant complaint that something is missing in these kindergarten religions. I think the above is one version of the problem.
But ‘salvation’ is promised and for the multitude millions it is real enough.

Bennett’s system of a triad of tetrads always leaves eyebrows for me, but there is no question that a dodecad with a triad of tetrads has an interior structure copmplex enough for a new insight beyond the now sterile ‘material/spiritual’

———–

The issues of ‘evolution’ raised above are essential to deal with. I think that we have yet to discover the right design arguments: design should be built in. We can’t find it. But the idea of a quantum computer suddenly reminds us that nature must have way to bootstrap ‘computational biology’ and the result is quite possibly not perfect.

There is another possibility: stewards of life insider the material university. If we exist, so could such being, distantly related to our form of existence.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment