TREE VS. NET
Print format

From: Bruce S.
Date: Saturday, March 8, 2008, 11:29 AM
Subject: Tree vs. Net
Reply to: 262555
ID: 259998

Dear Nisa --

Thanks for your encouraging comments and presence here.

You say

For a long time, I have been feeling that underneath all I do, I have an inspiration to "unite Science and Religion". As you say it is a huge undertaking and throughout history it had been more of a dream of the Greats than a reality. So, part of me feels silly for even thinking this.

Well, yes -- it has been -- and continues to be a dream. But there are today some strong forces pushing for better understanding. You may be familiar with the Templeton Foundation, and their yearly prize for "Progress in Religion" -- the largest single prize awarded on a yearly basis, if I recall correctly.

Sir John Marks Templeton is a wealthy investor who shares your interest, and the Templeton Foundation has undertaken very substantial projects. The Metanexus project has links to the Templeton Foundation, and they, too have explored these issues.

And another group looking at similar issues, is The Institute of Noetic Science -- "IONS". They are more progressive than the Templeton and Metanexus projects, and are interested in the "great shift in consciousness" that many people feel is in progress.

And, of course, there is the Ken Wilber work in these areas.

But speaking from my own experience, I have not really seen any group or individual out there today able to fully embrace the spectrum of issues that I think we are called to bring together. I think the challenge is essentially interdisciplinary -- the subject is so vast and so inclusive that no one can be experts on all aspects. Yet, it seems to me that if we take an approach that is essentially framed in terms of epistemology, and seeks to develop solutions that involve broad general principles, it might be possible to bring these diverse elements together in a very surprising kind of integration.

I feel this energy in the air these days -- and I am just continuing to gather up pieces and place them into an "integral context" -- where they can be explored and considered in an economical and practical way.

In your comments, you say

I feel I understand most of what you are expressing. Another perspective that comes to mind is that the 'tree' (left brain) is sequential, whereas the 'net' (right brain) is parallel. The computer scientists understand this sequential and parallel computing and their differences very well. Parallel is more powerful – perhaps doesn't surprise you.

I feel my female side is parallel and more intuitive. For the most part, I used sequential (left brain) for my scientific work. Now going forward, I am in tune with both, I think. But, I feel I am still stuck in "linear time" in a big way. I think it may be a long journey before I/we experience more of "timeless", meaning beyond linear time. But, each of us is different and has different combinations of both right and left.

I think you describe a common conundrum. We are all somewhat divided in this way, living within the tension of our expanded intuitive awareness, and the demands of life that require us to be highly coherent in linear and immediate/local ways.

*

Here's a little list of aspects that I gathered up over the years, that I think can be brought together with a single framework. The meaning of these words has to be tuned and adjusted to fit them perfectly into this framework -- but I think that can be done without distortion.

I'd say -- that your thoughts find a place within this framework -- the comparison of sequential and parallel processes, the sense of linear time versus -- simultaneity --

It seems that all human action is "serially organized" -- yet, if we are to act with wisdom, these actions must be embedded within or guided by an holistic and all-inclusive "parallel" context, that links together all contributing elements -- even if the number of these elements overwhelms our conscious cognitive capacity.

In a sense, this is what motivates us: to stabilize and articulate this "universal context of the whole" in a way that can guide our immediate and local and "serial" actions -- maintaining their cohesion within a large design that we can barely know or conceive, but can "feel" or know intuitively.

As things unfold, we might discuss each of these pairs, in terms of psychology and logic.

--- On Sat, Mar 8, 2008, in msg262555, Nisa Khan wrote ---

Dear Bruce:

For a long time, I have been feeling that underneath all I do, I have an inspiration to "unite Science and Religion". As you say it is a huge undertaking and throughout history it had been more of a dream of the Greats than a reality. So, part of me feels silly for even thinking this.

You are describing your thoughts towards this very effectively and beautifully. I can see that you're quite immersed in it. That's wonderful.

I feel I understand most of what you are expressing. Another perspective that comes to mind is that the 'tree' (left brain) is sequential, whereas the 'net' (right brain) is parallel. The computer scientists understand this sequential and parallel computing and their differences very well. Parallel is more powerful – perhaps doesn't surprise you.

I feel my female side is parallel and more intuitive. For the most part, I used sequential (left brain) for my scientific work. Now going forward, I am in tune with both, I think. But, I feel I am still stuck in "linear time" in a big way. I think it may be a long journey before I/we experience more of "timeless", meaning beyond linear time. But, each of us is different and has different combinations of both right and left.

Looking forward to learning more of your thoughts and findings.

Thanks for being there.

Peace,

Nisa

---