The Cosmological Network - Unveiling the Interdependence of Everything
On the interconnectedness of everything.
Disclaimer: This is a long-bottocks of an article. Probably too long for a blog post. But oh well. It’s taken straight out of my upcoming philosophical hodge-podge. I don’t know what I’m talking about. However, I have tried to provide some kind of footnotes so I’m not COMPLETELY talking out of my arse. So, once again, get some food and drinks because you’re in for a wild ride! If I had to describe the following article in few words, it would be “pseudomystical nonsense.” And I am perfectly happy with that.
Introduction
There is this underlying spider’s web, which encompasses the entire arrangement of patterns that make up this cosmos. No matter how hard we think that we are separated from it, it will be futile. We will be connected in the end.
Many people fear that the point at which everyone unite on the mind level, will result in a colossal hive-mind, in which individual expression disappears without leaving a trace. That we will lose our unique points of view.
The paradox is of course that by the sheer constitution of this massive network, each knot in it implies uniqueness. We will never vanish from existence. When we merge ultimately with everything else, we become more individuals than ever before, not less.
So one wants to say, leave me out of it. But there is a difference between natural evolution of consciousness and human’s technological pursue at connecting everyone. The latter is a ghastly attempt at trying to do something we were never meant to do. Or is it?
And so I wait for the day, when we evolve past our petty differences.
The Universe as a Network
A network is a relationship between several points. Or it can be the way we think and use them as a method which enables us to control our environment.
The universe, often described as the vast expanse of space and time, can be likened to a network in its structure and function. This network, which includes the stars, planets, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy, is interconnected in a complex and intricate web that stretches across the cosmos.
Just as a network of computers connects through a series of nodes and wires, the universe connects through a series of gravitational relationships. Every object in the universe, no matter how small or large, is connected to every other body through the force of gravity.
It means that everything in the universe is part of a vast network of relationships, with each object influencing and being influenced by the others.
In this network, the stars and planets are like the central nodes, representing the “hubs” of activity and connection. They are the points around which the smaller objects in the universe revolve, just as the central nodes in a computer network serve as the hubs of communication and data exchange.
The galaxies, which are the largest structures in the universe, can be considered the network’s backbone. They provide the framework for the universe, connecting the various nodes and providing the structure for the vast network of multiplicity.
In addition to the gravitational network, the universe also contains a vast multiplicity of electromagnetic energy, including light, radio waves, and other forms of radiation.
These networks of energy connect everything in the universe, allowing for the exchange of information and the flow of energy between objects.
Just as a network of computers can facilitate communication and the exchange of information, the universe’s networks of energy and gravity allow for the exchange of information and the flow of energy between objects. It allows for the emergence of complex patterns and structures, such as the formation of galaxies and life on Earth.
So in order to get the principle of this network across to the reader, we have to start by describing not only the bodies in space and the measurements involved but the subtle “eventuation” behind it, then take it up in scale and describe the systems in which it operates.
I will try to use three different domains of systems. Those are the biological level, the social level and the meta-level. The first describes the relationship between bodies, from the micro to the macro.
The next describes the behaviour and dynamics involved in people and society. And the last will take it up a notch and describe the network in a more “wide” view.
The Little Cosmos
What we have to do, though, is create a universe of our own. We have to start with a much smaller version of it. Let’s start by imagining a complete vacuum in which there are no relative points at all. It is space, and space is all there is.
Once you add a body to it, say, a ball, you introduce a dimension. But this ball cannot even be ascribed any motion because there is nothing relative for it to move. So no motion exists, with just one ball.
But once you add a second ball, things get interesting. There is now a one-dimensional line because the balls can move related to each other. But this line can only move in one dimension because their relative positions are always in a line towards each other.
When you add a third ball, things get even more peculiar. Because now, the balls can move in a plane with respect to each other. But are the two balls moving away from the one, saying they don’t like it, or is the one ball saying goodbye to the rest? See, whenever you shift the “tip” of the triangle, it just moves the triangle. But it doesn’t have depth perception.
You can test this yourself. Take any three points in space, and move them around. All you are doing is creating a new plane in relation to the surrounding space. Wouldn’t it be great if you could have someone objective, which stands above or under us three balls, to look at the situation? And so a fourth ball is introduced. Finally, you can have a sense of depth. But the issue becomes, which one of them will be the fourth ball?
And this principle is what everything in our universe has underneath them, at least in a concept. It is a colossal network of all kinds of “balls” where we give motion to something relatively stationary. But it is only human awareness that can make this distinction in nature. The question might be asked then, is there motion outside of perception?
Note that what I’m saying is simply a way to refer to the inseparability of our consciousness and the rest of the universe. It is a way of talking. When the motion is “there”, we can draw lines like the past-present-future timeline. And say that events progress in a causal sequence through it.
And this network is also the same idea when Buddhists talk about interdependence. It means that every event implies every other event by its relations. But because we can talk and think about events as definitely disconnected from each other, for the purposes of discussion, we come to regard them as being so.
If you want to say that something is separate from this eventuation, you can do so, but whether that turns out so is still out. And it always strikes me as a funny notion. That, in a single observable universe, disconnection would be a thing. I think it is simply a matter of thinking. Now, that does not seem too random, does it?
The Case Against Randomness
So, randomness becomes a gimmick of this eventuation. For example, the randomness in computing1 is made of pre-selected sets of numbers that we call algorithms. So any calculations that occur based on these known sets of numbers are not true randomness.
Taking this further, the “computations”2 in nature are so complex that we use a similar gimmick in situations that seem disconnected from each other. A mathematician can express randomness in ways that will make one’s head spin.
But true randomness does not exist on the level of wave-particles, in so far as this network-theory is concerned. It is simply too complicated for us to comprehend. So we call it “random”. In other words, its relationship does not seem to have a clear causal connection to the events surrounding it. What follows is a case against randomness.
The universe is a fantastically complex entity, with innumerable moving “parts” that may ab initio appear to be random and chaotic. From the movements of galaxies to the behavior of subatomic particles, there is a great deal amount of activity occurring at all levels of the universe that can appear purely random.
However, despite this seeming randomness, there is evidence to suggest that the universe is not as random as it may appear. In fact, there are a number of factors that indicate that there is a considerable amount of order and structure underlying the apparent chaos of the universe.
Perhaps the most compelling evidence for this is the presence of physical laws(hereafter referred as principles) and constants that govern(hereafter referred as regulate) the behavior of matter and energy throughout the universe. These principles and constants are incredibly precise, and seem to be carefully calibrated to allow for the existence of life as we know it.
For example, the strong nuclear force, which binds atoms together in the cores of stars, must be finely tuned to a degree of accuracy that can be equated to hitting a bullseye on a target from a trillion kilometres away. Similarly, the gravitational constant that regulates the behavior of massive objects is set at just the right value to allow for stable planetary orbits and other essential phenomena.
The fact that these physical principles and constants exist, and seem to be precisely fine-tuned3 to allow for life in the cosmos, strongly suggests that there is some underlying order(I prefer the Chinese concept of - Li -, which means order but not necessarily legality) and structure that are permiating throughout the cosmos.
Another patch of evidence for the non-random nature of the universe can be found in the principles of chaos theory and nonlinear dynamics4. These principles describe how seemingly random or chaotic systems can exhibit predictable behavior, goaded by underlying patterns.
This is particularly evident in the study of complex systems like fluid dynamics, meteorology, and the behavior of biological systems. In these fields, researchers have observed that apparently random behavior seems to exhibit patterns and structures that can be identified and understood.
At an even greater scale, the study of large-scale structures in the universe, such as galaxies and galactic clusters, also suggests that there is some underlying structure and pattern5 to the cosmos. For example, simulations and observations of these structures show that they exhibit fractal patterns that are not typically found in purely random systems.
Lastly, there is also evidence to suggest that the universe is not purely random due to the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. This is a strange and counterintuitive phenomenon that occurs when two wave-particles become entangled, meaning that their physical properties become linked in a way that suggests that they are not truly separate entities.
What is truly fascinating about quantum entanglement is that when one of the entangled wave-particles is observed or measured, the other particle immediately exhibits corresponding changes in its own properties, even if the two wave-particles are separated by vast distances.
This suggests that there is some underlying connection that links entangled particles, and could potentially explain other phenomena in the universe that seem random and inexplicable on their own.
While the universe may seem random and chaotic at first glance, there is a growing consistency of evidence to suggest that there is some underlying “patterning” and order to the cosmos.
From the precise physical principles and constants that regulate the behavior of matter and energy to the principles of chaos theory and the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, there are several reasons to think that the universe is not as random as it may appear.
So all that I am saying is that these eventuations are connected even between distant and not only distant but in dimensional directions. That is to say, the relationships between macro and micro. And those components that make up a group of patterns, form what we call a system. So now we are on to describing the systems in which eventuation happens.
Group Dynamics
Buckminster Fuller, who Alan Watts referred to as a “philosophical engineer”, once said that any complex organism has, as a whole, an intelligence greater than any one of its parts. And the way he applied it to technology which gave rise to his concept of synergy, is as follows: He was talking about a chaotic complex system which can organize the behaviour of its parts more effectively than its member components could do so.
It means practically that any system, such as a society, will move by itself in a direction that self-organizes its behaviour in a manner that it will reduce the inner conflicts within said society. Now, this is a difficult idea to digest for two reasons. One, society moves too slowly for us to comprehend the movement as a whole. And two, it seems like it has gone the other way, becoming more disorganized.
So let us look at this, taking the human being as our starting point. Now the human organism, as a self-organizing system, obviously has a greater intelligence as a system of behaviour than any of its so-called parts. The individual cells in our bloodstream, at least to our knowledge, don’t really think for themselves where to move. They simply organize themselves at a relatively grand scale.
One of Fuller’s significant themes, on which he elaborated in his book “Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking,”6 was his concept of the human being as a “system-organism”. In his approach, he viewed the human being as a self-regulating, complex, and interconnected system of subsystems with constant interactions between them.
Through this, Fuller proposed to explain the nature of human existence and consciousness from a mathematical and geometric perspective. So to better understand this “social network”, I will discuss his idea of the human being as a system of interdependence.
Fuller viewed the human body as a highly advanced complex system with various interdependent subsystems such as the circulatory system, respiratory system, and digestive system, among others.
According to him, all these subsystems are dynamically interrelated and interact with each other to maintain the body’s homeostasis. Fuller believed that the human organism can self-regulate, adapt, and continue functioning optimally despite various internal and external changes.
Fuller viewed the human being as an organism whose primary function was to maintain the integrity of the system. For instance, he emphasized on that human respiration is a crucial process that helps in regulating the body’s chemistry, which plays a significant role in the maintenance of homeostasis.
He also believed that the human being as a system interacts and communicates with the environment and its systems. According to him, the environment provides the human being with various resources and information that enables the organism to adapt and maintain internal balance.
Therefore, the human being exists in a symbiotic relationship with the environment, with the two constantly interacting to ensure the survival of the organism. However, I may disagree with him on this. I do not personally see this symbiosis to ensure survival. That is the engineering view of the cosmos, where everyting has to have a technical and causal explanation in terms of survival.
In his concept of the human being as a system, Fuller also discussed the role of consciousness and the mind in the human experience. He believed that the human mind is a system of subsystems, which interact and interconnect to create consciousness. And again, I fundamentally must disagree with this view. I do not see consciousness as something created by the systems. It is the other way around in my view. Or to put it less strictly, they are mutually arising at the very least in this network-view.
Fuller’s concept of the human being as a system was influenced by his knowledge in mathematics and geometry. He believed that just like the human body, the surrounding environment is a complex interconnected system with rules and patterns that regulates its behavior. According to Fuller, understanding these rules and patterns was the key to unlocking the secrets of the universe.
In his description of the human being as a system, Fuller also emphasized the importance of synergy. Synergy refers to the phenomenon where two or more entities or systems combine their efforts to produce a result that is greater than the sum of their efforts, which I described above.
According to Fuller, the human being as a system achieves synergy by working together with the environment, combining its efforts to achieve optimal health and balance. And on this point we are in agreement.
Fuller’s concept of the human being as a system was a significant contribution to the fields of science, engineering, and design. His approach provided a new perspective on the nature of human existence, highlighting the interdependent relationship between the human organism and its environment.
To bring this a level up, where whole communities organize themselves in different ways, Fuller is saying that the total intelligence of these communities is higher than their individual human beings. And this is the difficulty with the idea. So let us dive into some group dynamics.
A group of people is an organic network or a system. So I have to introduce another one of my concepts known as “group-cohesion”, which is the dynamic of “binding” ideas by agreement. How exactly it works is we create an interchange between vacuity and reactivity.
Any action within the group simultaneously has to create its corresponding vacuity, which either is an expectation on the part of some other individual or several, or it is an object involved in the dynamic, such as a chair. And so by agreeing to meet the expectation, whether subconsciously or consciously, we introduce this cohesion.
And the degree of this cohesion could be called the “total intelligence” of the group. In other words, it is the level of connectedness within the group. And some connections go “wrong” in that they are less cohesive. For example, a member of the group is feeling disconnected from the rest. So the group creates a vacuum and tries to fill it with a solution.
Any group as a cohesive network can organize its behaviour in this respect more intelligently7 than any single member of it can. Only by the idea of hierarchies do we have this leader nonsense in the first place. A truly organic network is where its “cells” point members to communicate messages between other cells. But they do not rule the rest of the network.
And so a system of this kind, which is complete in any sense of the word, is one where its network-relationship between its members or points is “perfect.” And that is what the universe actually is. There really is no separation between them. They are all interrelated patterns that eventuate into larger systems, constituting the totality, which is the cosmos.
Therefore, the next thing we must take up, is eventuation as it happens “in between the lines,” so I have to introduce some ideas from Carl Gustav Jung.
Synchronicity
Carl Jung was a renowned Swiss psychiatrist who formulated a unique concept known as synchronicity. He came up with this concept in the 1920s and 30s as he was studying the human psyche.
Synchronicity8 is a fascinating idea to me that has pulled in lots of attention from scholars, philosophers, and the general public. It is a term he used to describe a phenomenon in which two or more events, incidents, or experiences occur simultaneously, and they are connected in a meaningful way.
The events may not have a clear causal relationship, but they are linked by an underlying pattern, giving the impression that they are connected in a deep and profound way.
The idea of synchronicity issued as a response to the limitations of traditional scientific approaches to understanding the world. Jung argued that focusing solely on the cause-and-effect relationships that are observable in the external world was not enough to provide an accurate and complete understanding of human experience.
Jung believed that the human psyche was not just a rational and linear system of thinking, but rather a more complex and nuanced system that was deeply connected to the surrounding world. And this is akin to Fuller’s idea of the mind as an interrelated system.
Synchronicity served as a bridge between the psychological and the spiritual realms, making it a critical concept in Jung’s body of work. The concept of synchronicity involves two central ideas: acausality and connectedness. Acausality refers to the absence of any linear cause-and-effect relationship between the events or incidents that occur.
In other words, synchronistic events cannot be explained by the natural principles of cause and effect. Instead, they are connected by a deeper, underlying pattern that transcends the principles of physics or any other scientific explanation9.
Connectedness, on the other hand, suggests that events are linked in some way, even though they may appear to be unrelated on the surface. And this is also an aspect which will enter into our minds vividly when we take a look at the mind itself in later chapters.
This idea of connectedness resonates deeply with Jung’s concept of the collective unconscious10, which suggests that all human beings are connected by a shared pool of archetypes, symbols, and myths that are present in our unconscious minds.
This collective unconscious is the underlying source of our psychological and spiritual experiences, and it is where synchronistic events are rooted. Another way of looking at this is the Buddhist concept of the “storage-consciousness” as it is depicted in the Flower Ornament Scripture. One way to think of synchronicity is as a form of meaningful coincidence. When these events occur, they often hold a sense of significance, as if they are communicating something important to us.
Synchronistic events may take many forms, such as dreams, coincidences, or premonitions, and they may feel different to each individual. In fact, Jung argued that synchronicity was a subjective experience, meaning that it was unique to each person and could not be completely understood by an external observer. This is also true of the experience involved in seeing the network itself.
Jung gave several examples of synchronistic events, including a time when a patient told him a dream about a golden scarab beetle. While they were discussing the dream, a real golden scarab beetle flew into the room.
The coincidence of the dream and the beetle’s appearance seemed to hold a deeper meaning for the patient, and Jung used this event to illustrate the power and importance of synchronicity.
Synchronicity has had a significant impact on modern thought, inspiring many to explore the connections between psychology, spirituality, and the natural world. It has also been used to explain paranormal phenomena, such as ESP and telekinesis. Although personally I think these concepts are largely a load of crock, especially the latter. However, if evidence would appear to the contrary some day, I would have no choice but to update my database.
Critics of Jung’s synchronicity concept argue that it lacks empirical evidence and that the idea of meaningful coincidence may simply be a product of human bias or cognitive patterns. Which makes perfect sense to me. But does it need empirical evidence in the first place?
Its central themes of acausality and connectedness have inspired new ways of thinking about the world around us and encouraged people to explore their unique subjective experiences.
Although skeptics may dispute its empirical basis, supporters of synchronicity argue that this concept offers a profound and meaningful way to engage with the mysteries of human experience. And I happen to agree with them, as my own life has been filled up to my teeth with synchronicities.
Catenary Versus Reticulate
Sequences in this view are patterns that emerge from a series of events, which stick to specific orders or arrangement. In the idea I’m spewing forth, there are two types of sequences, namely reticulate and catenary. While both describe a series of events, they differ greatly in their nature and implications.
A catenary event can be thought to be a sequence that follows a cause-and-effect relationship, where each event leads to the next in a direct and linear pattern. In other words, it is a sequential pattern that follows a specific set of rules where one event leads to the next event in a chain-like manner.
One of the essential features of a catenary sequence is that each event is linked to the preceding and succeeding events, making it a linear pattern. In addition, the direction of the events is clear and easy to follow. But ever since this “approach” to the natural universe, people realized that it was insufficient to explain the patterns happening in it. It required something much more, for any event to have a more complete description.
So, the reticulate sequence was discovered, in which web-like patterns that encompass multiple events or factors that interact with each other takes place. In other words, it is a network-relationship where each event is dependent on multiple factors, and there is not a clear cause-and-effect relationship.
In a reticulate sequence, the order in which the events occur is less important than their relationship to each other. The complexity of the relationships among the factors makes it difficult to determine the exact path that led to a particular event.
One of the critical features of a reticulate sequence is that it describes a system that is more complex than a simple linear chain. And I think this will be the more relevant sequence to describe our extremely complex universe.
There are multiple interactions and relationships among the factors involved, making it challenging to predict the outcome of the process. The primary difference between catenary and reticulate sequences lies in the nature of the relationship among the events. While catenary sequences follow a cause-and-effect relationship in a linear pattern, reticulate sequences describe a spider’s web-like pattern of interaction among multiple factors.
Understanding the different types of sequences is crucial in understanding this view, as it can help us predict and comprehend complex phenomena. One has to consider not only the causal relationships of any past events, but also take into account its present and future relationships. And together they make up this network-relationship as a whole.
And so what follows now, is this global network, in so far as the planet goes. So I am going to introduce the ideas of a particular, albeit peculiar person.
The Noosphere
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a French Jesuit priest, philosopher, theologian, and paleontologist. Teilhard was one of the most fascinating thinkers of the twentieth century, whose ideas were ahead of the times, and his concepts of the Noosphere11 and Omega Point12 are one of his most profound contributions.
The term noosphere is derived from the Greek word - nous -, which means intellect or mind, and sphere, which refers to the entire ecosystem of the planet. In simple terms, it refers to the collective consciousness of the human species and the impact it has on the planet.
Teilhard believed that throughout history, the universe has been evolving towards greater complexity and consciousness. He called this process “complexification”, and argued that it was driven by the growth of consciousness and the development of communication systems.
According to Teilhard, the noosphere is the next stage in the process of complexification. It represents the culmination of all human thought, ideas, and experiences, and is the manifestation of the human species’ transformation into a global mind, which is further helped by our technology.
Teilhard believed that the noosphere is not a metaphorical concept, but a real and tangible reality that can be observed and studied just like any other ecosystem. He argued that the noosphere is composed of three distinct levels: the biosphere, the noosphere proper, and what he called the omega point.
The geosphere which is the plain planet, develops eventually a biosphere, which is the physical environment in which life exists, and includes all the living organisms on the planet. The noosphere proper is the realm of human thought and ideas, and includes all the knowledge, beliefs, and values that have been developed by the human species throughout history.
The omega point is the ultimate destination of the noosphere, and represents the point of maximum complexity and consciousness. According to Teilhard, the noosphere will continue to evolve towards this point, until it reaches a state of complete unity and harmony. This state of unity is exactly the same idea as the ultimate reality in my view.
Teilhard believed that the noosphere is not just a passive entity, but an active force that influences and shapes the physical world around us. Just as life has had a profound impact on the biosphere, he argued that the noosphere will have a profound influence on the planet’s physical environment.
For Teilhard, the ultimate goal of the noosphere is to facilitate the development of a planetary consciousness that transcends national, cultural, and religious boundaries. This is usually where people tend to get the heebie jeebies. Because they think that this is a loss of individuality as such, and will exterminate their sense of self.
But he believed that this consciousness would lead to a new sense of global unity and cooperation, and would ultimately guide humanity towards a bright and hopeful future. Although, one can easily see that we are in pretty deep shite with our current political, environmental and technological issues.
Despite its importance, the concept of the noosphere has been subject to criticism and skepticism. Some scientists have dismissed the concept as pseudoscientific and unproven, arguing that there is no evidence to suggest that the human mind can have a significant impact on the physical world.
Which is a load of bulldoze in my opinion. If the observance of particles change the way they behave, I do not see any reason why the mind is not capable of changing the environment.
Others have pointed to the potential dangers of a global consciousness, arguing that it could lead to a loss of individuality and the suppression of dissenting opinions.
They fear that a world governed by a global mind would be oppressive and authoritarian, and could lead to the persecution of those who choose to think and act outside of the mainstream.
Again, this is a real danger, as far as practical life goes. I am not arguing for this global consciousness for the record, especially in the technological sense. But I do think it is in a certain way inevitable. The internet is a true testament for it.
Despite these concerns, the concept of the noosphere remains a powerful and thought-provoking idea. It challenges us to think about the relationship between humanity and the planet in new and exciting ways, and encourages us to consider the impact we have on the world around us.
In the end, the concept of the noosphere represents a new and hopeful vision for the future of humanity. It reminds us that we are all connected, and that our actions and decisions have a profound impact on the world we live in.
And it encourages us to work towards a better and more harmonious future, where the power of the human mind is used to improve the world, rather than destroy it. And this is my whole point basically with this book, when it comes to practicality.
Superorganics
The Omega Point is an idea that Teilhard developed in the 1920s and 1930s in his works The Divine Milieu and The Phenomenon of Man. The concept is a culmination of Teilhard’s thoughts on the nature of humanity, evolution, and spirituality.
At its core, the Omega Point is an optimistic and aspirant concept that seeks to integrate science, spirituality, and the human experience.
The term “Omega Point” is derived from the Greek letters Alpha and Omega, which signify the beginning and the end of everything. According to Teilhard, the universe is a dynamic and evolving entity that is moving towards a final state of perfection.
The Omega Point represents this final state, which Teilhard believed to be the convergence of all things into a supreme consciousness. This sounds so outlandish probably to most readers that it might come across as fantasy. But this is basically the opposite of the idea found in Hinduism. Where instead of the universe evolving into this higher state, it devolves and is utterly annihilated in fire.
For Teilhard, the Omega Point is the ultimate goal of evolution. It is the endpoint towards which all life is moving, the point at which all the different branches of the evolutionary tree converge into a single point. Personally, I stand sort of apart from this view, and look at it both from the destruction and evolution points of view.
Teilhard believed that the evolution of life is not random, but rather follows a specific direction. He argued that evolution is moving towards greater complexity, consciousness, and interconnectedness, and that this is leading humanity towards the Omega Point.
The Omega Point, for Teilhard, is not just a theoretical concept but a tangible reality that is already present in the universe. He believed that we are already connected to the Omega Point, and that we are moving closer to it as we evolve.
Teilhard viewed the universe as a vast and interconnected web of life, and he believed that this web is connected by an all-encompassing consciousness. This consciousness is the Omega Point, and it is the ultimate destination towards which all life is moving.
One of the most important aspects of the Omega Point is its spiritual dimension. Teilhard believed that the Omega Point is not just a physical endpoint but a spiritual one as well. And this aligns with my view where the spiritual and physical are two aspects of a single reality.
He argued that the universe is imbued with a spiritual dimension, and that this dimension is leading humanity towards a state of spiritual perfection. For Teilhard, the Omega Point represents a state of ultimate transcendence, where we are united with the divine and with each other. This might sound vague as hell and almost grasping at straws, but it aligns with other modern thinkers, such as Watts and Dr. Schucman.
Only, I must point out that Watts had a distaste for the idea that things are gradually “progressing” towards something. It is almost contradictory how he viewed the universe. By his own words, he considered Maya and Brahman to be some of the greatest ideas ever thought of. So he had to have known where that leads. Well anyway.
Teilhard’s concept of the Omega Point has had a profound impact on the way we think about the universe, evolution, and spirituality. It has inspired many thinkers, including scientists, theologians, and philosophers, to explore new ways of understanding the world.
Some have criticized Teilhard’s ideas for being too simplistic or idealistic, but many have found them deeply inspiring and thought-provoking.
Overall, I find the concept of the Omega Point an interesting one. It offers us a vision of an evolution of consciousness that is deeply connected, spiritually rich, and full of potential. It reminds us that we are part of something much larger than ourselves, and that we are moving towards a state of ultimate perfection. Yeah right.
While saying that it may be so, in my line of thinking if you are fixated on some “ultimate perfect state”, you are using it as a crutch for security. That is why I merely entertain all these points, and not necessarily take them to the bank.
The Meta-View
So to recap, the universe is an expansive, ever-evolving network of events, phenomena, and forces. From galaxies colliding in the depths of the cosmos to the flicker of a tiny light in a distant corner of the cosmos, everything is interconnected in a vast and complex web of interactions.
At its fundamental level, the universe is composed energy. This principle and its regulations combine to form everything we see and experience, from stars and planets to the air we breathe and the ground beneath our feet. At the same time, they are constantly in motion, interacting with each other in a never-ending dance of cosmic proportions.
But the universe is not just a chaotic collection of random events. Rather, it functions as a self-organizing, self-repeating, and self-aware system, in which everything is in balance. The principles of physics regulate the behavior of every object and entity, providing a framework for understanding how the universe works and how everything fits together.
In this sense, the universe can be considered as a massive network, with each event and phenomenon representing a node in the network. Energy and form (matter) flow through these nodes, creating complex patterns and connections that are invisible to the naked eye but nonetheless crucial to the functioning of the entire system.
This process of interconnectivity and interdependence is repeated throughout the universe, from the tiniest subatomic particles to the largest galaxies. Even in seemingly unrelated events, there are underlying connections and patterns that serve to keep the universe in balance and functioning cohesively.
From a meta-view, the universe can be seen as a dynamic and constantly evolving entity. While it may seem chaotic and unpredictable at times, everything is ultimately moved by the principles of physics and the interplay between form and energy. This vast and complex system is greater than the sum of its parts, with each event and phenomenon playing a pivotal role in the larger network.
As humans, we can observe and study the universe, seeking to understand its intricacies. Whether through telescopes that allow us to peek into the depths of space or experiments that reveal the fundamental properties of form, we are constantly seeking to expand our understanding of the universe and our place within it.
But even as we learn more about the universe, there is always more to discover. The vastness of space and the complexity of the universe ensure that there will always be new mysteries to unravel and new connections to uncover. And as we continue to expand our knowledge of the universe, we will gain a deeper appreciation for the beauty and complexity of this massive network that we call home, I hope.
My entire argument with this article is that you, as you are, are not really apart from this network, even when you feel like you are. Because all these points of view that I am bringing forth, of interdependence, of social structures, of life itself, are all the same exact point. And that you are that point.
L.
See: Game Theory of the Universe first footnote. ↩︎
For arguments related to fine-tuning in the universe, the reader might want to look into works by physicists like Martin Rees and books such as “Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe.” Rees discusses how different constants of nature are precisely balanced for life to exist. ↩︎
A foundational book on this topic is “Chaos: Making a New Science” by James Gleick. It covers how chaos theory was developed and its implications across various scientific fields. ↩︎
A notable resource is the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), which provides data revealing large-scale structures of the Universe SDSS Website). Additionally, studies published in reputable science journals such as “Nature” or “Science” often discuss these observations. ↩︎
This book is a comprehensive resource where Fuller elaborates on his geometrical models and philosophical insights. It can be found through various academic libraries or purchased online. Synergetics on Amazon. ↩︎
To find empirical studies or theoretical essays on group cohesion as described in terms of total intelligence, suggested reading: Forsyth D.R., “Group Dynamics”, which discusses theories and aspects including ‘cohesion’ within groups. Link: Group Dynamics. ↩︎
Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle (from CW 8), this is one of Jung’s seminal works where he introduces and explores the concept of synchronicity. ↩︎
Jung on Synchronicity and the Paranormal edited by Roderick Main. This book provides insights into Jung’s thoughts on synchronicities, paranormal phenomena, and their implications for our understanding of reality. ↩︎
The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious by C.G. Jung In this work, Jung discusses foundational concepts that relate to his idea of synchronicity, including archetypes and the collective unconscious. ↩︎
“The Phenomenon of Man” - This is one of Teilhard de Chardin’s most important works, where he outlines his thoughts on the evolution towards the Omega Point and discusses the concept of the Noosphere extensively. ↩︎
“The Future of Man” - This book provides further insights into Teilhard’s views on human evolution and destiny in regard to collective consciousness. ↩︎
