Monday, September 27, 2004

Definition of Terms

Definition of Terms

Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that language defines reality as much or more than mathematics does; therefore, I ask your indulgence as I define my terms. The prefix epi I am using to mean bridge; the root, noumen, as that which is both knowable as a concept by mind but unknowable as truth (Immanuel Kant) and/or the psychism of the cell and its impulse to growth.(Theilhard de Chardin). The suffix logos means The Word in all its connotative splendour. Thus, Epinoumenology becomes an examination of the noumen as presently being experienced, observed and recorded in the various disciplines which give dimension to that which we call Mind or the World of Mind. Some like Chardin have called it the noosphere.

Simplistically, it becomes the study of the rivers of Art, Science and Technological Consciousness that presently converge, swell and threaten the cosmological pillars upon which we now stand, view and ultimately define ourselves. Here then are the working definitions (or what some call jargon) I employ to facilitate the development of Epinoumenology as one of the initial pillars on the Bridge towards a New World Order or as I prefer: A New Golden Dawn in A New Golden Age.

trope: a pause and then a turning
meme: a genetic term to describe cellular replication and evolution)
cosmology: a creation story, i.e., The Bible, The Koran, The Upanishads, The Torah
cosmogony: an integrative story that encompasses all cosmologies, i.e., The Big Bang
rhetorical trope: the point where our rationalizations explore the boundaries of rationality
socio trope: a change of the magnitude that characterised the movement from agrarian to industrial society; Greeks to Romans; Babylonians to Greeks
cosmic trope: change reflective of ape to homo sapien
paradigm: a generally accepted and lived understanding of the world and one’s place within it, i.e., the world is flat; the earth is the center of the universe; Darwinism vs Creationism
nous: mind/soul/spirit
noosphere: the world of mind, populated by world minds

Rhetorical Trope:

To begin I wish to focus on the idea that as a World Civilization - especially as defined by our 1) Philosophy, 2) Psychology, 3) Biology, 4) Physics, 5) History, 6) Paleontology, 7) Mathematics, 8) Astro-Physics and 9) Governing Cosmologies, we are at Rhetorical Trope: Which simply means, in philosophical parlance, that we can, with great intellectual vigour, describe i) where we are as a Conscious Physical Manifestation in a perceived Universe; and ii) how we got here. The question now becomes: where do we go from here?

Where we go will depend on our understanding that rhetorical trope occurs as a function of genetically determined meme trope which, in turn, asserts itself as a biological imperative whenever the species reaches the end of an acceptable defining paradigm with respect to who and what we are viv-a-vis what we know about our position in the Universe. Historically this occurs as a prelude to Socio trope and has always been precipitated when our Science (reason) outgrew our theologies/cosmologies, and is best understood and summarised contemporarily by Alvin Toffler in his seminal work the The Third Wave. We are in the midst of change similar to that between Agrarian Society - where peasants toiled in fields and Industrial Society where they now toil in factories on assembly lines. This inexorable and historical rise and fall of civilizations is most recently and aptly summarized in Paul Tarnas’ tome: The Passion of the Western Mind.

Presently, as we hurtle towards the New Millennium and/or the Apocalypse of the Book of Revelations paradigm, I posit that our present cosmologies and our subsequently expressive World Mind are experiencing a serious and potentially debilitating fracture of the Collective Psyche. Worse, the Shadow of the Collective Unconscious has burst forth yet again. This time, unlike its focalized emergence and dominance in Hitler’s Nazi Germany - aided and abetted by sinister occult practitioners described by Trevor Ravenscroft in his masterful exposé, The Spear of Longinus - it has burst forth with equal tenacity and power across the globe. Sadly, too many of those in its vice-grip now possess the nuclear capability not only to eliminate our species but perhaps to disturb the Universal Harmonic (see the The Cycles of Heaven) and life as we know it. Our very survival as an evolutionary consciousness is at risk.

I feel/intuit that we are genetically programmed (meme trope) to awaken to an expansion of this thing called consciousness, at the same time as the Shadow emerges, and that the subsequent tension between the forces of the conscious and the unconscious is like The Dance of the Wu Li Masters in some Hegelian dialectic where we engage in thesis (consciousness), antithesis (unconsciousness), and synthesis (socio trope). I argue, that consciousness can only be expanded by facing the unconscious and absorbing its archetypes (Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell), however frightful or inexplicable they may be; further, that this process is solely a function of the noumen’s burst to the fore of consciousness (Jung: Modern Man In Search of Soul). To facilitate dialectic on this notion, I wish to focus on the convergence of that which we now understand about the noumen as explained and experienced in our Art, our Science and our Technology. Finally, I am going to go Out On A Limb and suggest that this present movement towards Tofflerian Scientific/Technological socio trope is but a prelude to cosmic trope which will be facilitated by the rapid expansion of consciousness as we embrace features of its emerging paradigm . That is for later. I should like now to bring the paper down to the microcosmic or personal level to assist in the development of the metaphors I have employed to date.

Tuesday, September 21, 2004


Epinoumenology is as an oasis for the fractured psyche of the World Mind as it presently constellates. I must, perforce, issue a few caveats to those who would join me in my walk through the Forests of Ideas that presently shape our current world paradigm.

One, I intend to make extensive use of metaphor - which hopefully does justice to Northrup Frye’s careful exposition on the subject: The Motive for Metaphor- to refocus the present conscious expression of what currently manifests as World Mind.

Two, I make a number of assumptions about our Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy, Science, Mathematics, Theology, Art and Scientific Technology, building on what I consider to be the texts which have most significantly informed the present expression of World Mind and hoping that many readers will have had a passing acquaintance with their contents.

Three, I am on a mission and am confident that the mountain I have climbed is at least as significant as say Sir Edmund Hilary’s conquest of Mount Everest or the journey of the five Jewish Rabbis that the late literary critic Edmund Wilson referred to in his book on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Keep that in mind as your personal barometer when you judge the efficacy of my presentation.

Four, I consider this to be an attempt to carry The Spear of Destiny without the assist of nefarious Occult Masters that characterised Hitler’s untimely , ill-conceived and ultimately disastrous - for humanity at least - Grail voyage.

Five, I believe that our increasing preoccupation with specialization and technology produces an effect wherein we are looking at the world from increasingly smaller F-Stops and that the required aperture necessary for positive paradigm shift is being stepped down unnecessarily. To elaborate, I offer the following story to demonstrate how difficult it will be to change both the aperture opening and focus. Currently we are behaving like an ancient Peruvian tribe which under the direction of its Shaman used to beat its children whenever there was a solar eclipse, believing that to do so would encourage the sun to return and thus ensure their survival. Eventually an outsider discovered them. Witnessing the ritual he attempted to convince them that the sun still would reappear even if they did not beat their children. Most of the tribe were afraid to break with tradition or as we call it today, the reigning paradigm, for fear that they would anger their god and thus lose the benefit of its life giving light. Undeterred the stranger continued to campaign and finally convinced a few families not to follow the group. True enough the sun came back the following morning. The majority, however, still refused to believe and attributed the result to their overwhelming continuation of the tradition. ( Something like the society dramatised in Shirley Jackson’s one act play, The Lottery.) With each subsequent eclipse more and more of the villagers gave up the tradition and eventually the tribe realized the error of their ways.

We are behaving in exactly the same manner today as we cling to outdated paradigms about the nature of consciousness, not to mention the even larger issues such as how close we are to extinction as a species if we do not redefine the present world paradigm with respect to land, air and water pollution. I argue that at the very least we have a biological imperative ( irrespective of group cosmologies, i.e., Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islamism and Aboriginalism upon which a significant number of us have bet our conscious futures ) to perpetuate the species and extend this experience of consciousness, a consciousness that we have inherited from the Sumerians, The Babylonians, The Greeks, The Romans, The Egyptians, and from whom we have developed our present systems of knowing.

Further, we must apply that knowing to continued explorations of this thing called consciousness, especially as it relates to the continued experience of the noumen as it has been developed through our translations of the Word (Logos) and subsequent applications to our sense of who we are as inhabitants of a planet called Gaia - a planet which our scientists claim is some four and a half billion years in at least one known Universal expression variously reputed to be at least 12 to 16 billion years ahead of us. These numbers, of course, change almost yearly as science continues its dialectic on the topic.