In Part I of this book I developed a rational, evolutionary perspective of the universe and our place in it, basing my exposition on generally accepted, well-understood facts with logical, speculative extrapolations from these facts. The extrapolations, although possibly radical to some, were in the spirit of scientific tradition, with few or no mystical components. I am now going to deviate from that tradition and bring in mystical components which are in harmony with scientific facts. This is something which is generally not acceptable within scientific discourse.

I have learned through personal experience that the creative process is not purely logical or linear. It involves irrational, nonlinear, and diffused thinking which makes apparently irrational jumps between many apparently unrelated topics. Eventually, this type of thinking and perceiving must become focused and subject to objective, rational analysis, or it is very likely to lead to self-deception. If we are to be maximally creative we must learn to combine rigorous scientific thinking with diffused mystical thinking.

We create through diffused, intuitive, mystical thinking. That type of thinking can also lead to gross self-deception. We separate truth from illusion through science. In this chapter--and to a lesser extent in the chapters that follow--I shall try to bring about a synthesis between these two types of often antagonistic mental processes by deriving the Creative Transformation process not linearly and logically, as I derived the evolutionary perspective, but rather subjectively and personally, as the process actually became understood by me. This involves sharing my subjective experiences with the reader as well as sharing the objective facts that led to these experiences. To the best of my knowledge this has never been done successfully. However, it would be misleading to give a linear, logical derivation of Creative Transformation when the linear logic of the process occurred to me only after I derived it. I hope that by my taking this risk, you will benefit. If I fail now, you and I can both try to derive the Creative Transformation process rigorously, linearly, and logically in future books about this new synthesis.

The new synthesis is a twentieth-century phenomenon by which all fields of knowledge are converging to show that physical, biological, and psychosocial evolution are different facets of a single cosmological process. The new synthesis begins in this century with Einstein, who through his understanding of the ethical teachings of Spinoza was able to get new insights into how the universe is structured. Since Einstein, many persons have contributed to the new synthesis. We will discuss some of them later. The thinker who most exemplifies the new synthesis is Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

 
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955)

The epitome of a creative scientific and artistic mystic, a spiritual, scientific generalist

Teilhard was born in France in 1881 to an aristocratic family. He was ordained a Jesuit priest in 1912, but volunteered to be a stretcher-bearer in World War I. He was decorated for valor and received the Legion of Honor. He became a world-famous paleontologist. In the 1930s he was one of the discoverers of Peking Man, the first known complete set of fossils of advanced Homo erectus. In addition to his more conventional scientific activities he was a philosopher of evolution who made the first complete, modern synthesis of science, evolution, ethics, art, and mysticism. Spinoza had made a more rigorous but less complete synthesis 300 years earlier. Teilhard wrote many beautiful books on these subjects [759-768]. Almost all of them were banned by the Catholic bureaucracy. However, they werepublished after his death in 1955 while in "exile" in New York City. I had the privilege to encounter Teilhard once in Berkeley, California, around 1953, a few years before he died. Crossing paths on a campus walk, we smiled at one another and said "hello" but did not otherwise speak. I did not know who he was at that time, but that incident stayed with me and profoundly affected me for the rest of my life. I felt I had encountered a remarkable man and always regretted that I did not attempt a conversation.

Teilhard's best-known book is The Phenomenon of Man (Le Phénomène Humain, a much better title in the original French) [767]. In it he speculates that evolution is a process leading us toward convergence with God at a point he called Omega. Many persons, including me, have been deeply moved by Teilhard, and I was an anticlerical agnostic when I first read him, not knowing he was that impressive person I had encountered sixteen years earlier. Yet Teilhard is decreasing in popularity. Part of the problem is that as a total generalist, i.e., a full scientific and artistic mystic, he was misunderstood by both the scientific and the humanistic communities. He violated some of the prejudices of each. The scientific bureaucracy takes any apparent error in an argument as reason for discarding the entire argument, even if it leads to obviously correct conclusions. Scientists are also highly prejudiced against the introduction of any form of mysticism to any scientific discussion. Specialists in any field always try to discredit gen-eralists by latching onto any error they make in the former's specialized fields. They always miss the forest for the trees. That is why specialists are minimally creative. We cannot create when we fear error. Science can always eliminate our errors.

The major value of Teilhard, as with Spinoza and other scientific mystics, is not that he is correct in all his details but that the beauty and completeness of his synthesis can stimulate the imagination of others to perfect his vision in an unending process. The tragedy of Teilhard is that his vision was not practical--indeed, less so than that of Spinoza. He showed us from where we came, how we got here, and where we are going; but he did not tell us how to take the next step. He left thousands of persons ready, willing, but unable to take the next step. What happened was that eventually a cult, dominated primarily by self-deluded, mystical specialists, took over the Teilhardian movement and further alienated the scientific community. One of the effects of Teilhard was to stimulate many other persons to explain and amplify his vision. This led me to write my first book on these subjects, The Moral Society, in 1970 [280].
 
The Moral Society

In this book it was my twofold objective (a) to perfect the vision of Teilhard by amplifying it through my presumably more extensive and deeper knowledge of mathematics, physical science, and technology, and (b) then to make it practical both through my knowledge of the real world and by purging it of all mysticism, ideology, and sentimentality. My intent was no less than to write a book that would replace the Bible, the Koran, and Das Kapital as motivating factors in human history. I was much less successful at it than Teilhard.

My youthful arrogance might be forgiven in light of the facts that at the time I was a very successful, 34-year-old high-technology entrepreneur and scientific generalist who had many inventions to his name and had for two years been the founder, chairman of the board, and president of a fast-growing, highly creative engineering company that was destined to earn hundreds of millions of dollars. As with many Americans, I thought that having achieved financial and technical success I now qualified as an "enlightened master." However, as soon as I saw myself becoming wealthy and powerful I realized that this would not fulfill my life or give meaning to my existence. Indeed, it was a trap. What moved me and gave meaning to my life was the vision of Teilhard and Spinoza and its restatement by me in The Moral Society.

The first thing I did after I finished The Moral Society was to give copies of the manuscript to my closest associates, many of whom I had greatly enriched and all of whom I respected. I was astonished by the results. All of my senior coworkers claimed I had personally betrayedthem. Not only were they afraid that my book would bring down the wrath of the government on us and destroy our company, they almost all refused even to discuss whether my book was right or wrong. That apparently was irrelevant. Further, it was obvious from the few comments I did receive that they grossly misunderstood my book, which I had taken great pains to make clear, concise, and simple enough for an intelligent high school graduate to understand. I did not yet understand the nature of fear or how fear induces self-deception and misunderstanding of significant negative feedback. Therefore, in order to fulfill my fiduciary obligations, I sold all my stock in my company to my employees for whatever they wished to pay me, under any terms they wished, feeling very noble in the process, and set forth to conquer the world for the evolutionary ethic. I received enough to support my family for two years. I had a wife and four young daughters to support. Therefore, I felt some fear, since it occurred to me that in giving up my economic base I might have much more in common with Don Quixote than with Spinoza. I strongly identified with Spinoza and to a lesser extent with Teilhard at this time. Along with my feelings of nobility there were shadow feelings of foolishness, smugness, and self-righteousness.

I had never known failure before and had an exaggerated self-confidence in my creativity from having already achieved technical and economic success, as well as from having made a full commitment to the Game of Life. I was burdened by a little knowledge. From this moment on, however, I would, in a sense, know nothing but failure for the next fifteen years. My vision of the Moral Society was that of a super-metazoan, collective moral intelligence that would have the same relationship to us as individuals that we have to an amoeba. Furthermore, I had a completely practical, rational, scientific, step-by-step program of how to transform our current society into the Moral Society. I also had about a thousand self-declared supporters, after the book was published, who claimed to be ready to help me take this quantum leap in evolution. Yet everything I tried failed. We could not even take the first step.

My main concern when I wrote my book was that it not lead to another destructive, dogmatic ideology as the Bible, the Koran, and Das Kapital had. Therefore, I constantly stated that my ideas, just like Teilhard's and Spinoza's ideas before me, might be partially wrong and should be modified whenever scientific feedback so indicated. With the negative examples of St. Paul, Mohammed, and Lenin before me I did my best to assure that each embryonic Ethical State that I started would abort if it became destructive. The Ethical State was to be a transition state between our current society and the Moral Society. Each of the dozens of experiments in which I tried to create an embryonic Ethical State led instead to an incipient bureaucracy that had to be aborted.

I tried one thing after another. Nothing seemed to work. I could not create an organization that would not become a bureaucracy, even though I knew exactly what caused bureaucracies and the necessary basic mechanisms for preventing them. It was not until 1984 that I was to discover the cause of, although not quite yet the solution to, the problem. The cause was fear and the self-deception induced by fear.

So long as persons are driven by fear they will turn any organization they belong to into a bureaucracy. Indeed, an alternative definition of a bureaucracy is an organization that instills fear into its members by convincing them that they cannot create, but must live parasitically off the creativity of others. Fear is the belief that we cannot create.

The only antidote to fear is love. Love is the desire to help and act of helping another person increase his/her creativity.

The reason I had been failing for fifteen years was that I did not understand the nature of fear and had been lacking in unconditional love. The latter was a quality in which Teilhard put me to shame. I did not even know how to love my friends, let alone my enemies. I mistakenly thought that a cool, rational commitment to the truth was sufficient. I could not help those I loved overcome their fear. As a consequence, I could not overcome my own. I had to correct my mistakes if I was to help create a Moral Society. We could not take the first step until we changed ourselves. An Ethical State not unified by unconditional love is a contradiction in terms. I learned to correct my fundamental error in an indirect way by observing two patterns in nature, while trying to better love others unconditionally and to transcend the belief that I could not love creatively.
 
An Objective Pattern

A proton and an electron are a complementary pair that together make the simplest atom--hydrogen. Four complementary pairs of protons and electrons, i.e., four hydrogen atoms, when fused, make a helium atom--which is the first step in atomic evolution. This is the most common isotope with two electrons, two protons, and two neutrons. (A neutron is essentially a fusion of an electron and a proton.) Over 99.99% of the helium isotopes are in this form.

The fusion of helium leads to carbon and to many other atoms. The carbon atom is the only completely generalized atom, being equally an electron donor and an electron receiver for all its four valence electrons. In its most common isotope, it consists of four complementary pairs of active electrons and active protons. The other eight electrons and eight protons are neutralized in an inner helium atom plus four additional neutrons. Furthermore, carbon is the atom which forms the basis for chemical, as opposed to atomic, evolution--the next hierarchy in the evolution of matter.

Chemical evolution eventually leads to the four nucleotides--guanine, thymine, adenine, and cytosine--which make up the genetic code within the DNA molecule and which organize themselves as four complementary pairs along the DNA strands.

The DNA is itself a complementary pair. (Note that thymine is slightly altered into uracil when messages are sent from the DNA to the ribosome by T-RNA.) Four complementary pairs of simple DNA and simple protein in autopoietic interaction are probably what created the simplest living cell, which may no longer exist.

The DNA molecule is a complementary pair;
each strand of the helix mirrors the other.

Cells are the beginning of life and human beings are the highest known form of life. What produces human ethical intelligence and makes us fundamentally different from all other life forms is the human brain. Furthermore, the human brain consists of four complementary pairs of subbrains.

Each cerebral hemisphere is a complement to the other, the now famous left-brain/right-brain interaction. The highest and most recent brain is the neocortex, the fourth brain. This is the center of ethics and imagination. The next or third brain is the mammalian cortex, or the limbic system, the center of the emotion of love and its variants plus the higher biological drives. The next or second brain is the reptilian complex, the center of fear, rage, and aggression plus intermediate biological drives. The first and oldest brain is the fish brain, i.e., the rest of the nervous system, which is the basis for the most primitive biological drives and the automatic control of our basic physiology. The human brain is an autopoietic system of four complementary pairs which makes it possible for humanity to take the next quantum leap in evolution.

Ventral view of the human brain, which consists of
four pairs of complementary brains:
fish, reptile, early mammal, human.

 
Speculative Extrapolation

Evolution goes in quantum leaps by integrating first complementary pairs, then successive hierarchies of four complementary pairs. At the human level the male and female brains are complementary pairs. Recent embryological and neuroanatomical studies support the existence of complementary differences between males and females [877-904]. Until the advent of Homo sapiens no species had a fully developed set of four paired, complementary brains. It might require only the ethical integration of four men and four women to create an embryonic Ethical State. Within this context an Ethical State is a new level of moral consciousness and collective ethical intelligence. The moral integration of four complementary pairs of Ethical States might create an embryonic Moral Society.

An Ethical State is therefore a new state of mind that comes to exist among four men and four women who simply make a commitment to maximize each other's creativity by engaging in a new form of autopoiesis. If this represents a valid extrapolation of the objective pattern in nature--by which quantum leaps in evolution occur through successively higher orders of autopoiesis between new hierarchies of four complementary pairs of evolutionary entities--then a new, higher form of creativity will come into being. Therefore, protons and electrons, four hydrogen atoms, carbon-based molecules, the four reproductive nucleotides, the DNA molecule, complementary pairs of DNA and proteins (cells), complementary pairs of cells (metazoa) and four fully developed complementary paired brains (human beings) represent steps on the evolutionary ladder leading to the next logical step, which is four complementary pairs of men and women in a new form of autopoiesis that I have called an "Ethical State."

The Ethical State produces a quantum leap in human creativity for each person individually and the four men and four women collectively, making them significantly freer of the tyranny of the random forces of the physical, biological, and psychosocial environment than has ever been achieved before. As a result, these eight persons represent a new order of sovereignty and thus comprise a new type of state in the sociopolitical sense as well. The main problem to be solved is how to practically bring about this new higher-order autopoiesis. The only objective test of our success in creating the Ethical State is that a new order of objective creativity is produced which leads to radically new scientific discoveries, inventions, and works of art that are not possible for persons who are not in an Ethical State. This test is currently being implemented.

If an Ethical State is created, then it is easy to imagine how a Moral Society can be created by voluntarily integrating many highly creative, sovereign Ethical States into a new higher-order autopoietic entity which further amplifies individual human creativity so that the Moral Society eventually has the same relationship to an individual human being that a human being has to an amoeba. The creativity of the Moral Society transcends biological limitations, as is shown in Chapter 8, and grows into ever new dimensions of creativity. In Chapter 8 we see that it is plausible for the Moral Society eventually to evolve to the point where it can integrate distinct universes and create new universes which will evolve to create more Moral Societies. This hierarchical evolution has no upper limit--it goes on forever.
 
The Mystical Pattern

Mysticism has many meanings to different persons. To me it means a state of mind in which we believe that in the universe there is a moral force with greater knowledge than humanity and that we as individuals can, in some way, communicate with that force. Our communication is enhanced by our ethics. This to me seems to be what all mystics have in common. This is the "mystical paradigm." This higher force may be a personal God to some, e.g., Jews and Christians, or a more abstract force to others, e.g., Buddhists and Spinozists.

However we perceive this higher moral force, it manifests itself in very similar subjective experiences, a sense of inner peace and oneness with others. Above all it manifests itself in a feeling of love longing to expressitself by enhancing the creativity of others. Unfortunately, it also manifests itself in self-delusion. Mystics include Buddha, Jesus, Spinoza, Teilhard, Einstein, and other highly creative persons who follow the evolutionary ethic. They also include Saint Paul, Mohammed, Torquemada, Calvin, Rasputin, Hitler, and other highly destructive persons with perverse ethics. Mysticism by itself therefore gives no advantage.

What mysticism seems to do is to stimulate the imagination. But as we saw in Chapters 3 and 4, the imagination is capable of generating false as well as true information. Mysticism is ethically neutral. If the mystic is ethical, his/her mysticism will make him/her more creative. If the mystic is unethical, his/her mysticism will make him/her more destructive.

Scientific method is an antidote to self-delusion within the mystical process. The main function of science is to enable us to distinguish between imagined information that is true and imagined information that is false. Science does not directly generate any new ideas, although it gives experimental results from experiments designed by our imagination and carried out by our ethical will. Only ethical mystics subject their mysticism to science.

My personal attitude toward mysticism, until late 1983, was that it was mainly a form of intellectual degeneracy by which persons specialized in predicting and controlling their own thoughts and thereby became immersed in self-delusion. Then in late 1983 I noticed that some objectively creative persons were also mystics. Ken Wilber, in his book Quantum Questions [837], showed that some of the greatest scientists of the 20th century--among them Einstein, Planck, De Broglie, Jeans, Eddington, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, and Pauli--were highly mystical. We should always pay attention to the ideas of persons who are highly creative in the objective world, no matter how strange those ideas might seem.

In my agnostic days when someone would speak to me of God or mysticism, I would ask, "What can I predict and control in the objective world by accepting your God or mystical model of reality that I cannot predict and control without it?" I never received a satisfactory answer to this question. Therefore, I regarded mysticism and the belief in God as merely one of many mental aberrations to which humanity was prone, particularly since mysticism was usually associated with organized religions. I knew of no organized religions which were not apparently destructive to the creative process. I regarded Teilhard de Chardin as someone who, as a religious practitioner and priest, overcame a serious mental handicap but was prevented from becoming more effective by his religious beliefs. All the mystical specialists I met appeared self-deluded and uncreative. Then I observed that, as a group, scientists who were guided by sincere personal mysticism (not the mysticism of organized religion) were much more creative than scientists who were antimystical atheists. They were also more humane, loving, and better at communicating their creativity to others,which further enhanced their creativity. Therein I had the answer to my own question. When personal mysticism or the belief in God is combined with objective science, it enhances objective creativity. Therefore, under some circumstances mysticism is ethical.

This all seemed ironic to me, because I had originally written The Moral Society to be a purely scientific, albeit simplified, book, intended to appeal to and mobilize the scientific community. After it was published I realized that almost all the people who responded positively to my book were mystics, among them some scientists. But the scientific community as a whole rejected me as much as they had rejected Teilhard and Spinoza in their day.

The most support I had was from mystical psychiatrists and psychologists, who seemed unscientific to me. I therefore tried to compensate for this "embarrassment" by writing a tract against anti-scientific thinking called Psychofraud and Ethical Therapy [279] in which I debunked traditional psychiatry, psychotherapy and mystical specialization in general and put in their place a rigorous, austere ethical way of life, independently, but somewhat in the spirit of Jacques Monod, with whom I corresponded on these matters (see Monod's Chance and Necessity [531]). Psychofraud> was even less effective than The Moral Society. However, I still regard it as a worthwhile guide to personal ethics and a much needed expose of psychofraud; I am glad I wrote it and still recommend it, in spite of its errors.

In 1984 I began to look into "scientific" mysticism to see how it could be integrated into my, until then, quixotic quest for the Ethical State. I learned the following:

• 1. Mystical Specialists--i.e., mystics who are antiscientific and reject science as having any relevance to their mysticism--are as destructive and self-deluded as I had previously seen them.

• 2. Mystical Scientists are also destructive and self-deluded in proportion to how much they compartmentalize their science and their mysticism, so that they do not apply the tests of science to their mystical insights and they do not rely on their mysticism to generate new ideas in science. In general Mystical Scientists are unscientific in their mysticism and unmystical in their science.

• 3. Scientific Mystics are creative in direct proportion to how ethically they integrate mysticism and science. Those who have made a full integration between science and mysticism I call "Scientific Mystics." They are fully scientific in their mysticism and fully mystical in their science. This is the Holistic Paradigm.

• 4. Scientific Specialists are scientists who have learned one thing to almost the total exclusion of everything else and have totally rejected the Mystical Paradigm as having any relevance to their life; they usually refer to it as a superstitious, antiscientific type of thinking.Like other narrow specialists, scientific specialists are usually minimally creative in their specialty, although they may do useful work.

• 5. Artists are creative in direct proportion to how ethical and intelligent they are. They, apparently, have no essential need of conventional scientific knowledge. Their objective artistic creations are their link to objective truth. Mysticism enhances their creativity when they are ethical and they integrate mysticism with their art, e.g., J.S. Bach, Michelangelo, Penderecki, and Dali.

At the same time that I came to these five conclusions I observed a pattern unifying science, mysticism, and art. This pattern is a repetition of the theme of ascendance through four complementary pairs. The physicist Fritjof Capra observed part of this pattern in his book The Tao of Physics [100]. Jung had observed another part of this pattern in the studies he did on mandalas and in his theories of the collective unconscious [395].

A mandala is a symbol of transcendence used as an aid to meditation in traditional Tibetan Buddhism and Hinduism. The symbol usually incorporates four paired (bilaterally symmetrical) components within a circle.

A Tibetan mandala, illustrating a system of four complementary pairs

A general mandala from the work of Swiss psychologist C. G. Jung

Jung had noticed that when persons achieved full individuation they would spontaneously produce a mandala. Indeed, mandalas are archetypes which occur in all cultures as a symbol of transcendence, although the concept of transcendence might be quite different in the various cultures. In Western culture it was almost always an unconscious symbol which was used for its esthetic value within a transcendental context, as in the cathedral windows or roofs. When The Moral Society was published, a graphic symbol was created to represent the forceful, simultaneous expansion of the eight collective components of intelligence of The Moral Society--the symbol for the generalization of intelligence and evolution. I had never heard of a mandala at the time and was not to know about them for fifteen years. Yet, inadvertently, a mandala had been created.

Within The Moral Society I also referred to J.S. Bach's Art of the Fugue>* as the art form that most clearly expresses the evolutionary process in completely abstract symbolism. I now know that the Art of the Fugue is a musical mandala based on four notes (B-A-C-H in German notation) and their complementary pairs, which Bach called "musical mirrors" (very much like the four nucleotides in DNA).
[*Note: The Art of the Fugue is the background music for most of the pages of this website.]

Finally, when I discovered the process of Creative Transformation, I felt compelled to draw a symbol of the process, although I had never drawn anything original in my life and I consider myself to have the lowest level of plastic artistic skills of any human being. The evolution of this symbol is illustrate below.

Sketches above resulted in the cover symbol on The Moral Society, below.

And the process continues..................

Therefore, there is an independent tradition in art and mysticismwhich parallels the scientific pattern of evolutionary progress through quantum leaps of four complementary pairs integrated into a coherent whole. This holistic concept of evolution, science, art, and mysticism is exploding into new concepts being generated by the revolutionary "New Physics."

 
The New Physics

The "New Physics" is a movement begun by Einstein in the early 1900s with the special theory of relativity. Einstein's work led to quantum physics when combined with the work by Planck, Bohr, de Broglie, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Pauli, and others in the 1920s and 1930s. Actually the basic concept of "the quantum" was first proposed by Planck in 1900 and elaborated by Einstein in his corpuscular theory of light in 1907, which explained the photoelectric effect. Fundamental quantum theory said that energy - and therefore matter - was granular and not infinitely divisible. Therefore, there was a minimum unit of energy - the quantum.

Although Einstein was a major contributor to quantum physics, he could not accept the implications of what quantum theory eventually predicted, namely (1) that nature was fundamentally random and unpredictable at its most basic levels in atomic phenomena and (2) that in nature therewas a fundamental and unavoidable interaction between the observed and the observer such that it was not possible to observe anything in nature without disturbing what we were observing. Einstein objected to the first prediction by his famous dictum "God does not play dice with the universe," and to the second prediction with "God is subtle, but not malicious." Niels Bohr is said to have responded by saying to Einstein, "Stop telling God what to do!" Remember, Einstein believed in the God of Spinoza.

Einstein insisted, in ever greater disagreement with his fellow physicists, that quantum mechanics was an incomplete description of reality. He postulated that there were hidden variables in nature. If we could discover and measure the hidden variables, then we could predict precisely and we could observe without changing what we are observing. However, the scientific paradigm and its epistemology is that truth is whatever information enables us to predict correctly, while falsehood decreases our ability to predict and leads to false predictions.

Even though quantum mechanics says there are limits to our ability to predict, we can predict the averages of all the random fluctuations at the atomic level. These averages make up the everyday world of objective reality at the macroscopic level. This is the world in which we live and experience. This is the world we directly perceive. Within this world quantum mechanics enabled us to predict chemical behavior, which is the average interaction of many billions of atoms, as well as control with lasers, superconductors, and superfluids. These last three creations are examples of macroscopic quantum phenomena. Many microelectronic devices, such as the Josephson Junction, also depend on quantum mechanical phenomena [38]. Therefore, the evidence in favor of quantum mechanics is overwhelming. In the latter part of his life Einstein's objections were merely ignored. However, in 1935, Einstein and two young associates of his used quantum mechanics and relativity to show that quantum mechanics may be self-contradictory.
 
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox

In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) wrote a remarkable paper [224] which in the last twenty years has become increasingly a center of controversy. EPR showed, using the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity, that it is possible to determine the momentum or position of an electron without disturbing it if the electron is correlated with another electron. "Correlation" means that the two electrons have passed or originated close to each other and have affected one another through electromagnetic interaction, although they may in the future have moved arbitrarily far from each other. Another one of the pioneers in the new physics, David Bohm, was later able to show that the EPR paradox applies to other quan-tum objects, such as photons and neutrons. Therefore, sometimes Bohm's name is added to the EPR paradox and it is called the EPRB paradox. In Bohm's terminology, a quantum object is any object whose mass is sufficiently small that it will be significantly affected by the quantum potential.

Quantum mechanics predicts that we cannot measure the position or momentum of a quantum object without disturbing it. EPRB predicts that if we have two quantum objects which have at some time in the past been correlated in a special way in accordance with quantum theory, e.g., by originating at a common source, and which have up to the present not been disturbed even though one might have moved to the moon and the other to Mars, we can precisely and instantaneously measure the position or momentum of the object on Mars by measuring the position or momentum of the object on the moon. The object on the moon is disturbed by the measurement, but not the object on Mars, unless relativity is violated and information is transmitted to the object on Mars much faster than the speed of light. At first, this does not seem so astounding. However, the implications are very deep.

One of the fundamental postulates of quantum mechanics is that quantum objects have a probability distribution of the states (includes positions) in which they can be. Until we observe them they are in none of those states, but potentially in all of them. This is taken to be literally true. It is not that the quantum object is in a particular state, and that we do not know what it is until we find out what it is: it is literally not in any of the states until it is observed. Very complex experiments have shown this to be true [336, 703, 836]. A bizarre consequence of this is that quantum objects can be seen either as waves or as particles depending on how we observe them, but not as both simultaneously (Bohr's principle of complementarity). For this reason some physicists, starting with mathematical genius John Von Neumann and Nobelist Eugene Wigner [836], have proposed that the nature and behavior of a quantum object are determined by human consciousness. There is no absolute separation between the observer and the object observed.

Starting in 1964 a remarkable young physicist, John Bell, showed that if the EPRB paradox turned out to be true, then the hidden variables which Einstein had been looking for were "nonlocal" [46, 336]. The concept of "locality" is that of things tied together by time and space and subject to the speed of light for interactions. When we communicate by radio waves, for example, that is a local phenomenon that propagates at the speed of light even if we are on earth communicating with a satellite near Uranus, as happened in early 1986. Nonlocal interactions can occur simultaneously over vast distances, contrary to relativity, which says information cannot be transferred at speeds higher than the speed of light. It may also be possible to have the causes occur after the effects. Nonlocality is far more bizarre than the hidden variables subject to relativistic laws that either Einsteinor his antagonists imagined. Einstein believed all interactions were local. Bohr and the Copenhagen school resolved the paradox by stating that the correlated particles would both be disturbed instantly by a measurement on one of them. This is in fact what has been shown to happen.

Starting with a series of experiments performed by Alain Aspect and his colleagues in France in 1982 [24, 703], there is now very strong, objective, experimental evidence that there are nonlocal, hidden variables at work in the EPRB, which turned out as EPRB predicted, but not how they predicted. Einstein would have been even more shocked by the notion of nonlocal, hidden variables than he was by the basic nondeterminism of quantum mechanics, although not as spiritually disturbed once he found out the implications of the nonlocal interactions of the human mind and the local universe. A better way of seeing the situation is that both Einstein and Bohr were right and both were wrong. Quantum Mechanics correctly describes the universe as an integrated whole, but there are nonlocal hidden variables tied to consciousness at work in all quantum phenomena.

One interpretation of the data - and there are other interpretations [336] - is that when one quantum object of a correlated pair is observed, what is happening is that there is an instantaneous, synchronized communication of this information to anyone who would observe the second quantum object, so that the two observations would be correlated as expected; or if there is only one observer, his one observation makes the probability state wave collapse for all correlated objects simultaneously so that all observations will remain correlated even if they are all made by the one observer at different levels. In other words the communication is not between the correlated quantum objects, which are subject to the laws of relativity, but instantaneously and nonlocally (outside of our time and space) between the observers or potential observers of the quantum objects. The exchange of quantum information mind-to-mind or between one mind and all quantum objects is not subject to relativity, the speed of light, or time-bound causality. It is a type of telepathy, but of a special kind: namely, it is unconscious when it occurs, and it works only for quantum phenomena. The hidden variables are in a special quantum space which incorporates the noospace of our individual consciousness. Furthermore, this quantum space exists outside of the time and space of our universe, and the transfer of information can occur instantaneously within this space. When this occurs it can alter objective reality in our universe. Corollaries: (1) A single thought can have the power to change the entire physical universe; (2) language is, in part, a quantum phenomenon. Additional experimental evidence supports this interpretation of the EPRB experiments.

Beginning in the 1960s, a physicist by the name of Helmut Schmidt (not the ex-chancellor of Germany) did a series of experiments that showed that there was a direct connection between quantum phenomena and the human mind [682-684]. What Schmidt did was to create a type of clocklikemechanism with lights which lighted up at random according to how a radioactive isotope decayed. The decay of radioactive isotopes is a random quantum phenomenon. Each light on the clock face was equally likely to light up at any instant. There was absolutely no pattern to how the clock face would light up. However, some persons, not all persons, could by concentrating on the clock face make the lights light up in a statistically highly significant pattern, with men apparently inducing the lights to light up in a clockwise direction, and women apparently inducing the lights to light up in a counterclockwise direction. Recall that men and women are postulated to have complementary brains. This is another example of this special quantum telepathy or in this case quantum telekinesis. These persons alter objective physical reality by their mental interaction with quantum objects. There are many other indications of a direct connection between the human mind and quantum reality.
 
The Quantum Connection

Physicist Fred Alan Wolf [849, 850], Amit Goswami, a professor of physics at the University of Oregon [298, 299], physicist Henry Stapp at the University of California at Berkeley [738], and others have postulated that there is a "quantum connection" between the human mind and the world of quantum reality. A more familiar notion is that of C.G. Jung, namely that we all share a common collective unconscious.

Near the end of their lives, C.G. Jung and Wolfgang Pauli co-authored a remarkable book, The Interpretation of Nature and Psyche, bringing together physics, psychology, and mysticism. Jung is well known to have been a mystic. It is less well known that the Nobel Prize winner Wolfgang Pauli, one of the most brilliant and mathematically rigorous physicists of the 20th century, was also a thoroughgoing mystic. In this book, published in 1951, it was predicted that by the end of the 20th century physics and psychology would become united through quantum physics. This may have been a correct prediction.

Jung saw the collective unconscious as the source of all creative knowledge. In other words, when persons were creative they merely tapped into this vast source of collective unconscious knowledge and modulated it.

In my book Psychofraud and Ethical Therapy I debunked Jungian psychotherapy (analytical psychology) as another form of psychofraud. I was then in my antimystical phase. However, I expressed admiration for his imagination and the appeal that analytical psychology has for objectively creative persons. Even then I believed we should always pay attention to, if not necessarily believe, what creative persons value. The belief in the creative, collective unconscious, as with the belief in God or the mystical paradigm, seems to make persons more creative. It seems that Jung hit upon a valuable and probably true concept with his notion of the collective unconscious, even though his form of psychotherapy was no more valid than Freud's. On the other hand, Freud also hit on another valuable and probably true concept in his notion of the unconscious mind. It is unreasonable to expect creative persons to always be right. Creative persons, however, usually make a worthwhile contribution even when they are wrong, e.g., EPR.

Amit Goswami [299] believes that the human brain has two distinct modes of operation - a quantum mode and a classical (or Newtonian) mode. In the classical mode we learn and repeat complex patterns of behavior. The classical brain is the brain we usually associate with what we call "intelligence." The classical brain is what enables us to learn by conditioning. The quantum brain, on the other hand, is what is responsible for all our creative behavior. The quantum brain is not controllable through conditioning and is responsible for all of our "original" ideas.

Although I have major disagreements with Amit Goswami on other matters (particularly the importance he gives to conventional parapsychology, solipsism, and what seem to me mystical rituals), I am in partial agreement with his notions of the quantum connection and the division of the brain into classical and quantum modes of behavior - except that I believe this occurs in each neuron and even at the molecular level in the DNA molecule. The only important parapsychological phenomenon in which I believe is human creativity itself. Quantum telekinesis also seems to exist, but it is rarely important at the creative levels.

Evolution and human creativity are analogous processes. A benign mutation that increases the intelligence of a species by incorporating new true information into the DNA molecule is analogous to a good idea, which incorporates true new information into our extragenetic information pool. A deleterious mutation that decreases the intelligence of a species by incorporating new false information into the DNA molecule is analogous to a bad idea, which incorporates false new information into our extragenetic information pool. A satisfactory model of the quantum connection must unify the evolutionary and the creative processes. Evolution is a creative process. There was evolution before there was a brain; therefore, there was a quantum connection before there was a brain.

We know that evolution is an accelerating process in which benign mutations are occurring at ever accelerating rates. Single-celled organisms ruled the earth for three billion years before simple multicellular animals with nervous systems appeared (e.g., the hydrae). As the nervous system developed, the rate of evolution went faster and faster and the human brain doubled in size in less than two million years. In the brain there is far more complexity (number of components multiplied by number of connections between components) than there is in the rest of the entire body. The doubling of the hominid brain in less than two million years represents the greatest quantum leap in complexity in the history of biological evolution.

The evolutionary school of punctuated equilibrium, associated with Stephen Jay Gould, has gathered considerable evidence that neither Darwinism nor neo-Darwinism is in accordance with the evolutionary fossil evidence indicating that new species often arise all of a sudden by radical quantum leaps, and not by gradual changes that slowly consolidate themselves by natural selection. Yet recent evidence indicates that one of the main examples used by Gould, the panda's thumb, was possibly not a quantum leap in evolution, but represented a slow change over tens of millions of years. Gould has, with his usual eloquence, expressed the notion of punctuated equilibrium by his statement, "The first bird hatched out of a reptile's egg" [300].

To turn a reptile (actually, a small dinosaur) into a bird in one fell swoop involves so many genetic changes that they could not occur by random mutations in one generation. The probability of this occurring is so low that it would almost certainly not happen even in five or ten billion years. And there are thousands of apparent quantum leaps in evolution. Therefore, there must be another feedback mechanism to the evolutionary process in addition to natural selection. This additional feedback mechanism, I postulate, is the quantum connection.

I still believe that natural selection is a part of the evolutionary process. However, it is only part of the process, not all of it. Another part is the quantum connection. There may be still other parts. Darwin, like all great scientists before him and after him, was only partially correct.

Sir Fred Hoyle is an ornament of our civilization. As a great scientist and artist, he plays the crucial role of repeatedly challenging the conventional, well-established wisdom of the scientific community when it is beginning to be smugly taken as axiomatic. He did this when he developed the steady-state model with Bondi and Gold [771] in the late 1940s. This was as valuable a contribution to scientific thought as were Einstein's challenges to quantum theory that culminated in the EPRB paradox. It is always unethical to be certain about cause-and-effect relationships.

Starting in the early 1970s, Hoyle and his associate, Chandra Wickramasinghe [363, 364], have begun to challenge the conventional wisdom of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. Hoyle claims that the probability of having evolved the particular combination of enzymes which makes human life possible is less than 1 in 10^40,000. This is a number so huge (1 with 40,000 zeros after it) that there is almost no chance that this combination could have occurred by chance and been selected in five billion (5 X 10⁹) years [360, 771]. He has also shown many holes and contradictions in the conventional evolutionary record. There must be another feedback mechanism in addition to natural selection. Fred Hoyle has come up with a mechanism just as radical as the quantum connection [360].

Hoyle's astronomical analysis of the interstellar clouds of particulate matter have convinced him that these clouds are made in part of bacteriaand viruses. Furthermore, he has mounted a theoretically brilliant, experimentally falsifiable argument since the early 1970s to show that the quantum leaps in evolution are caused by the infections of our animal bodies by bacteria and viruses from outer space. It is possible to have viruses introduce genes into human cells. His conclusion is that evolution is intelligently directed by a superbeing (a god in the Greek sense, not God in the Judaeo-Christian sense). This god seeds the universe with genes to enable life forms to evolve throughout the universe.

At the same time Hoyle recognizes that the human brain is a quantum mechanism that could theoretically be affected by information from the future. This quantum information is responsible for our moral sense and our creativity. He implicitly recognizes the quantum connection. The god that sends information from the future is more like God in the Judaeo-Christian sense. There may therefore be a hierarchy of gods all driven by the same ethic - to maximize creativity - although if your belief in God is derived from Judaism, you might call the lower gods "angels" or even "saints." As might be expected, the scientific establishment has almost universally rejected Fred Hoyle's ideas on evolution.

As much as I respect Fred Hoyle and value all of his creative contributions, particularly his brilliant challenges to the scientific establishment, I find it hard to accept his bacterial and viral mechanisms for evolution. This would imply that god was not particularly subtle and quite malicious in giving us a potentially fatal infection in order to produce a benign mutation. If such a god existed he would be a clumsy apprentice-god working at the galactic, but probably not at the universal, level. This god would help the evolutionary process get started on lifeless worlds and contribute to the re-seeding of new bacteria and viruses as the environment changed. (Fred Hoyle gives an excellent argument that chlorophyll did not evolve on earth.) The major mechanisms for evolution would still be natural selection and the quantum connection.

The quantum connection brings an elegant unity of design, worthy of God, to the entire universe. The most recent cosmology which has united with particle physics and quantum mechanics implies a quantum connection from the instant of creation, when the universe was created through a single quantum event in an infinite sea of entropy. From 10 seconds after the start of the universe almost the entire gross evolution of the universe is predictable, on the average, by quantum mechanics and relativity. The new physics [328, 689] and some forms of mysticism further imply a quantum-connection mechanism at work in all facets of evolution from the beginning of the universe to current, individual acts of creativity. David Bohm's model of the implicate order [62, 63] explains the information-rich universe and evolution in terms of quantum mechanics as an unfolding of infinite truth outside of our time and space. God is a creative process. The fine-tuning of the universal constants--such that if some varied by as littleas one part in 10, the universe as we know it would not be possible and neither would evolution--indicates a quantum intelligence at work using the quantum connection to influence our evolution. For this and other reasons, and as much as it will alienate me from the scientific community, which I respect, I subscribe now to the quantum connection and I believe in God as the creator of the universe.
 
God

As Fred Hoyle has pointed out, the scientific community is loath to allow the concept of God into scientific discussion, and with good reasons. I gave a reason for this at the very beginning of the book. Galileo's experience is an even better reason why theologians should stay out of science. However, when the evidence of intelligence at work becomes overwhelming, it is unscientific to deny that it is there. The scientific community is absolutely biased in favor of purposeless, blind forces at work. That is why Darwinism is so comfortable to the scientific community.

The creationists in the United States have exacerbated the problem by denying the empirical evidence for the facts of evolution. They have tried, by political machinations, to impose on the public school system a completely unscientific theory whose only virtue is that it supports their religious biases, which are narrowly sectarian and disagree with the views of most Christians. This has made the scientists even more entrenched in their antitheistic bias. However, the creationists, including those with scientific credentials, should be seen compassionately as frightened, ignorant persons who see Darwinism as a threat to their quantum connection. Darwinism by itself can easily be corrupted to justify destructive systems such as Nazism, communism, and predatory capitalism. Pure Darwinism obviates the requirement for any moral order to the universe. Just as Marx lived long enough to deny being a Marxist, Darwin, a minister's son, might deny being a Darwinist if he lived today. Religious fundamentalists usually have little in common with the founders of their religion, who were usually more open-minded and creative. What would Jesus think of the fear-filled, allegedly Christian fundamentalists of today, who constantly violate Jesus' sole commandment that we love one another?

As we evolve toward a Moral Society, it is easy to imagine that we will be ever more effective in increasing creativity throughout the universe. That is our ethical imperative. If we should evolve to the point where we have complete understanding of our local universe, the next creative challenge in harmony with the evolutionary ethic would be to design and create nonlocal universes, outside of our time and space. If that is where we are going, it is reasonable to assume that that is whence we came.

In order to evolve forever, a Moral Society must create ever higher dimensions for its creativity. It is reasonable, therefore, to imagine that ourown local universe was created by a Moral Society that wanted to improve that universe in which it evolved in order to create ever more Moral Societies that would create ever better universes in ever higher dimensions.

A Moral Society, no matter how evolved, is always a finite being. It is a god to us in the same sense that a human being is a god to an amoeba. Therefore, a Moral Society, no matter how evolved, is a god in the Greek sense, not God in the Judaeo-Christian sense. Furthermore, there is no greatest Moral Society, no more than there is a greatest number. Only the process is infinite. Therefore, God in the Judaeo-Christian sense is not a person or a single being, but a process. That is why God cannot be represented by visual imagery. That is why Franklin, Jefferson, Goethe, Einstein, and many others believed in the impersonal God of Spinoza. Only processes can be infinite, never persons.

God is the infinite process, within the infinite universe of all universes, by which creativity is forever expanded. God exists in the quantum timeless universe of infinite information produced by the set of all Moral Societies that have ever existed and ever will exist. Everything that exists is created by a Moral Society and is part of a Moral Society, as was foreseen by Spinoza. Everything that exists is a modification in the infinite process that is God. God creates us as we create God by expanding forever the creativity of the universe. The ever expanding creativity of the universe is the glory of God. We worship God by doing our best to learn, teach, and create. As Teilhard said, "The worship of a modern person is through research and development." As Spinoza said, "To love God is to do our best to understand and emulate God." We create God as God creates us. This concept is called "autopoiesis."
 
Autopoiesis: Overview

Autopoiesis means "self-creation." Poiesis is from a Greek word meaning "to make or create" (it is the root word in "poetry"). The term autopoiesis was coined by Varela and Maturana [796] to express the tangled hierarchical process by which life arises as an epiphenomenon of protein creating DNA as DNA creates protein. It also applies to the tangled hierarchical process by which the brain modifies the mind as the mind modifies the brain to produce the epiphenomenon of human consciousness. The autopoietic interactions of our four complementary brains create the epiphenomena of ethics and creativity. The fundamental autopoietic interaction is the tangled hierarchical process by which God creates everything as everything creates God, thereby producing the epiphenomenon of evolution. It is a holographic process by which each part reflects the whole [62, 63, 838]. Therefore, the challenge before us is how human beings can create a new, higher order of autopoietic interactions within a group of four complementary pairs of men and women to create a new level of consciousness we call"The Ethical State," to produce the epiphenomenon of morality--leading to the creation of creativity. But before discussing the Ethical State we shall speculate on how autopoietic interaction through the quantum connection enhances the evolutionary process and produces the quantum leaps in evolution. This in turn shall help us understand how to bring about autopoiesis at the super-metazoan level between four men and four women.
 
The Quantum Mechanics of Choice

Quantum mechanical phenomena occur because there is a possibility of choice which is not predetermined. There are two types of choices: (1) Whether we are going to observe the quantum entity as a wave or as a particle, and (2) whether we focus on momentum or position for a particle, or on energy or time for a wave. The uncertainty principle says there is an irreducible error determined by Planck's constant in the simultaneous prediction of these factors. These types of errors in one dimension are as follows:

Therefore, depending on what we choose to observe we determine the error in position, momentum, time, or energy as the case may be. As EPRB, Helmut Schmidt, and other recent experiments have implied, and as John Von Neumann and Eugene Wigner first proposed, it is not the observation per se, but our choice or consciousness of the situation which to a degree (not entirely) determines objective reality at the quantum level.

There follows what all this means to me. It is how I choose to interpret reality. There are many other interpretations [336]. Other interpretations may be as good or better. Ultimately, I will accept the interpretation (even if it means rejecting everything that seems true to me now) which will maximize my objective creativity and that of those with whom I interact. The maximization of objective creativity is the only goal. That is the only irreversible choice I have made.

Many choices have irreversible consequences. Suicide and murder are obvious examples. There are other less obvious irreversible choices. Among these are values we choose to emphasize in life. For reasons given elsewhere [279, 280], a choice of the value of happiness over the values of truth or creativity leads to an irreversible process of ethical decay, even though we may not be consciously aware of having made that choice. Furthermore, there is evidence that a human choice may be triggered by a single quantum event at a single neuron in the brain [738], so that ultimately our choices themselves are not predetermined, but neither are they totally random. If choices were totally random then there would be no possibility of progress because there is a much higher probability that a totally random (maximum entropy) choice, i.e., a choice in which all possible outcomes are equally likely, would be destructive and not creative. Merely think of alternative actions that are destructive and those that are creative in any given situation. It is always easier to destroy than to create. Therefore, there is a process in nature which derandomizes choices and leads to progress. We call this process "evolution" or "God" as the case may be. Ultimately they mean the same thing.

Both my intuition and my reason tell me that our local universe was created by a super-metazoan ethical intelligence that as a minimum had the same kind of relationship to a human society that a human society has to single cells. This Moral Society, however, was a finite being; it was capable of making errors. That is why our local finite universe is not perfect; i.e., evolution leads to many mistakes which are corrected by natural selection, and our imagination produces many false ideas. The Moral Society had to give up complete control of its creation and allow free will to operate in order to create a moral society greater than itself.

As a Moral Society driven by the evolutionary ethic, our Local Moral Society (LMS) (it is locally connected to our universe) tried to create a universe that would maximize creativity. As a highly evolved being aware of God it would not presume to know everything but would try to maximize the quantum connection between our local universe and God so that our local universe would produce the maximum number of the most creative Moral Societies, which would eventually unite with one another and the Moral Society which created them (Teilhard's "Point Omega"). Thisis local autopoiesis. Nonlocal autopoiesis involves any entity uniting withGod--that is, the evolutionary force--by making a choice to become closer to God. This choice does not necessarily require consciousness as we understand it. It requires merely that the entity make a choice to movein the direction of greater generalized intelligence. Remember that creativity is the highest and the most generalized form of intelligence known to humanity.

If we wish to maximize the creativity of our children we must eventually give them complete freedom, or we will stifle their creative growth. When they are very young we intervene and limit their freedom because if we do not they may seriously hurt themselves or others; but eventually we must set free those we love and give them the opportunity to be destructive, or we will destroy their chance of becoming creative beings. We must do this even if we believe we know what is best for them and we are virtually certain that they are making the wrong choices. For choice to be meaningful, it must be ours and not someone else's. A corollary is that a benevolent tyranny is unethical. Therefore, all tyranny is unethical, including democracy.

It is not always clear at what point it is best to give our children complete freedom. Legally our society emancipates children from their parents somewhere between the ages of 18 and 21. Some parents try to emancipate their children almost from birth by essentially becoming their servants and not interfering with the child's wishes if at all possible. These children are usually difficult to be around. However, I have found that they eventually get negative feedback from their peers, and they do not seem to turn out worse than other children.

LMS is both our mother and father. (Remember, LMS = Local Moral Society that created our local universe.) It created a universe to create us and help us evolve into a better Moral Society. However, it did not predetermine this. It gave us an ever increasing degree of free choice to determine our own destinies. From the first cell, we have always had the choice to evolve or not evolve--except until now it was not always a conscious choice.

Every species chooses its own evolution. It does this by choosing how to behave. All of life plays the Game of Life. Its behavior in turn determines its evolution. I hypothesize that there is a quantum connection built into every neuron and into the DNA molecule itself when it interacts autopoietically with protein.

Every living creature makes a choice to open its quantum connection and evolve when it chooses innovative behavior which increases its generalized intelligence. Every living creature makes a choice to close its quantum connection and not evolve when it engages in repetitive behavior and it chooses not to innovate.

We can now see how quantum mechanics brings this about.

The quantum connection in our local universe is determined by Planck's constant (h). It is our opening to a universe of infinite information that is both everywhere and beyond time, matter, and space (Bohm's implicate order). It is our connection to God. LMS in creating our universe had to adjust all the universal constants to fit just right with the value ofPlanck's constant that it chose. The value of Planck's constant determines the unpredictability of our universe by even LMS. If Planck's constant is too large, the whole process becomes chaotic; if it is too small there is not enough uncertainty for us to become creative. (Newton implicitly assumed Planck's constant to be zero; he explicitly assumed the speed of light to be infinite.) The creation of our universe was somewhat like throwing a very large number of dice to choose a numbered formula for development. LMS has designed the dice as well as the formulae and knows what numbers are possible on each die. LMS can also determine where they will all fall, but LMS cannot determine the precise number that all the die faces will sum to. This number determines the evolutionary possibilities for each star. LMS may have constrained the number, but it left many possibilities open. So long as Planck's constant is not zero there are infinitely many possibilities. LMS might have hoped that most of the possibilities were good ones and that in its design it had minimized the possibility of a destructive universe; but if LMS did not leave an open quantum connection, making it possible for entropy to grow, it would have destroyed the creative potential of its own creation. Without free will, the Moral Societies evolving in our universe could not possibly have been better than an exact copy of the original LMS. That is not progress. All ethical parents want their children to be superior to themselves. Free will is essential to creativity, and free will comes not from ourselves but from our connection to God. LMS compensated for its potential errors by creating a cosmic quarantine so that errors at one star would be constrained and not propagate among the stars. This is elaborated later.

Beginning with the first cells there was the possibility, although a very low probability, of innovative behavior. The DNA molecule was subject to mutations by both the external environment and the internal environment. The latter enabled a single, internally generated quantum event in the DNA of the cell to trigger a cascade effect of events among the coherent quantum components of the cell, leading to both innovative behavior and a restructuring of the genetic code. Those cells that specialized by repeating the same behavior over and over again, the vast majority, would become evolutionary deadends. Those cells that innovated behavior which increased their generalized intelligence had a corresponding genetic change in their DNA. Remember that, in cells, behavior is determined by the DNA. Furthermore, quantum mechanical events, such as tunneling (see Glossary), can make subtle alterations in the structure of the DNA, which both changes behavior and becomes part of the permanent record. The essential concept is the duality of a single mechanism that both causes behavior and stores genetic information.

Single cells are not known for their innovative behavior. Therefore, the evolutionary feedback that comes from the quantum connection is at first not much more efficient than that hypothesized for random mutationsand evolution by natural selection. That is why it took single cells three billion years to evolve into the metazoa.

Prior to the first cells, evolution had been primarily, but not entirely, a deterministic process preprogrammed into our local universe by LMS. Each star system is a unique, partially random experiment in evolution. There is always the uncertainty due to Planck's constant. Therefore, LMS created deterministic, evolutionary structures that took the process up through chemical evolution to DNA and proteins. This process begins with a highly uncertain situation determined by Planck's constant and the other physical laws at the time of the Big Bang. Then macrostructures made of noncoherent quantum objects begin to grow which become ever more deterministic and as a consequence less innovative; but together these macrostructures eventually become possessed of a feedback system and a trigger mechanism made of coherent quantum objects that can alter the entire macrostructure by a single quantum event. We call this last macrostructure a DNA molecule in autopoiesis with protein, or a living cell. Therefore, I suspect that the DNA molecule evolves deterministically from simple molecules very rapidly under the conditions of the primitive earth in accordance with Manfred Eigen's theories [217-219] of chemical evolution, and then becomes less subject to chemical determinism as the new, higher-order quantum connection is created. A corollary is that life everywhere in the universe is probably based on DNA and protein. I do not believe that life evolves on nonearthlike planets. However, I believe that almost every star eventually has an ecosphere for an earthlike planet during part of its life cycle. We are, after all, created in the image of God.

Part of the evolutionary process is therefore to create an ever expanding hierarchy of quantum connections so that ever more complex behavior can be controlled and consolidated by quantum events and choice. This begins with the autopoietic interaction of DNA and protein. The single cells are still highly subject to chemical determinism, but they have a small quantum connection that enables the cell to choose innovative behavior over repetitive behavior through the occurrence of simple quantum events within the DNA molecule itself. The next dimensional quadrature of the quantum connection occurs with the metazoa; this is a dimensional quadrature of autopoiesis producing coherent cells. However, it is the formation of the nervous system, consisting of coherent neurons, which starts shortly after the evolution of multicellular creatures without a nervous system (such as Volvox and the sponges), that gives evolution its major impetus. This is why animals evolve much faster than plants. The first creatures with nervous systems were similar to the hydrae.

I hypothesize that there is a hierarchical chemical feedback system between corresponding hierarchies in the nervous system and the genetic DNA such that repetitive behavior induces mutations leading to further specialization of intelligence, until there is no more innovation and thequantum connection is almost closed for a specialized species with irreversible entropy. That is why specialized species never go back to being generalized. The choice to specialize is irreversible.

Innovative behavior, on the other hand, leads either (1) to extinction or (2) to mutations conducive to a continued increase in generalized intelligence, or if they are trivial, (3) to "genetic drift," which are mutations that neither help nor harm the organism initially, but contribute to its genetic variability and eventual evolutionary potential. Remember that trivia is a set of measure zero. The chemical feedback can be through hormones or, more likely, memorial RNA-like molecules, which can work backward and alter DNA [280]. This, not the bombardment of the biosphere by genes from outer space, is probably what produces most cases of punctuated equilibrium in evolution--although both phenomena may occur.

As the nervous system evolves it becomes increasingly effective both at innovative behavior for generalized species and for converting the quantum chemical events that produced this behavior into genetic changes. This explains why evolution went so slowly for three billion years--when there were only single cells without nervous systems--and why the rate of evolution has been increasing ever faster during the last billion years since the be-ginning of multicellular animals with ever evolving nervous systems. Each improvement in the nervous system increases the rate of evolution. Thus, cells evolve very slowly. Metazoa and plants without nervous systems arenew autopoietic lenses that evolve more rapidly. Creatures with simple nervenets, up to the appearance of the first brains, evolve much more rapidly. Creatures with true brains--fish have the highest form of a true primitive brain--evolve more rapidly than mollusks and other invertebrates that have simpler brains. Reptiles have a new brain (the R-complex) after the fish brain, and evolve more rapidly than fish. Mammals have a new brain (the mammalian cortex) after the reptile brain, and evolve more rapidly than reptiles. Finally, hominids (with a generalized neocortex and four coherent autopoietic paired brains) evolve more rapidly than all other mammals. Further, this new evolution is centered almost entirely on brain changes.

We have over 98% of our genes in common with chimpanzees! Thus, relatively few genes are responsible for our differential complexity, which may depend more on our chosen quantum connection than on our genes. Our true differential complexity comes primarily from the quantum field and the infinite implicate order. Each of the four brains leading to Homo sapiens represents a dimensional quadrature over the previous neural structure. The fish brain was a dimensional quadrature over the nerve net with ganglia. The reptilian brain was a dimensional quadrature over the fish brain. The mammalian brain was a dimensional quadrature over the reptilian. The hominid brain was a dimensional quadrature over the brain of all other mammals because hominids developed the most generalized neocortex, which completed the next four complementary pairs in the evolutionary hierarchy.

At each point of dimensional quadrature, there is the choice of specializing or not specializing. Remember, trivial innovations produce genetic drift. When the primates had the most advanced mammalian brains, other mammals with almost equally advanced brains chose to go back to the sea and specialize. These became the cetaceans, the whales and dolphins, who now have brains almost as complex as humans' but much more specialized. Similarly, those primates who innovated the behavior of walking upright while simultaneously using tools punctuated their equilibrium by mutating into the hominids. The hominids who innovated behavior by inventing new tools, social organization, and language repeatedly modified the genes that determine brain structure, as well as their quantum connection, and evolved into modern Homo sapiens. By contrast those that became stuck in a rut of repetitive, conservative behavior patterns specialized their brains, closed their quantum connection, and became extinct. Neanderthal was the last to do this. Paranthropus (Australopithecus robustus) was one of the first. Some highly ritualized human societies are still trying to turn off their collective quantum connection; they pay for it by being uncreative. Since the advent of Homo sapiens human evolution has been determined primarily by subtle changes in the brain which predispose the species to innovative or repetitive behavior.

This is not a new form of Lamarckianism which predicts the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Gross changes in the body, such as cutting off the tail of each succeeding generation of rats, or indeed inducing any body changes other than in the germ plasm, would not be inherited. In order for the behavior to induce a genetic change, it must be freely chosen by the organism through its quantum connection. Each organism is continuously presented with situations in which either it can repeat a type of behavior which is instinctive or was found beneficial in a similar situation in the past, or it can try something new. If it innovates and survives, it predisposes itself to a genetic mutation which will make that behavior more likely in the next generation and automatically increases the generalized intelligence or the genetic drift of the species. If it repeats the successful behavior of the past, it predisposes a mutation which will even further reinforce that behavior, close its quantum connection, and make its progeny still more specialized. A species has reached irreversible entropy when it can no longer innovate behavior. All species lose their ability to innovate behavior as they specialize because of the choices of their ancestors. Every 26 million years many of the specialized species become extinct as the cosmic force prunes the Tree of Life of its dying branches. A corollary is that psychological conditioning as an educational tool is destructive to creativity. Education, if it is to maximize creativity and not merely increase intelligence, must have no extrinsic rewards or punishments associated with it. Similarly, if a tyranny takes away the right to choose, it destroys ethics and creativity. (See Chapter 6 for further discussion of these subjects).

This hypothesis about evolution can be tested experimentally. It is falsifiable. The problem in testing it is time. Since most species are specialized, they rarely innovate. Some human beings innovate rapidly, but they all breed very slowly, and they tend not to mate on the basis of their innovative abilities. Still I would expect for all species that when both parents are innovative in their behavior, their descendants will tend to be more innovative than their parents in a manner not explained by current genetic theory, which predicts a regression to the behavioral mean of the breeding group. Therefore, experiments should be multigenerational among humans and highly generalized mammals such as opossums and chimpanzees.

Chimpanzees are highly innovative in their behavior but have not had a chance to develop their quantum connection since they became knuckle-walkers because of competition from hominids who have preempted the ecological niche of an innovative, machine-building primate. In protected, creative environments where chimpanzees were allowed to freely breed selectively on the basis of their innovative behavior, we should see a much more rapid increase in innovative behavior and generalized intelligence than would be predicted by conventional genetic theory. Indeed, I would predict that, among chimpanzees, generalized--not specialized--intelligence would increase more rapidly if they were freely bred for desirable innovative behavior than if they were classically bred for intelligence itself. In other words, when both mates are innovative, evolution is enhanced.

For those who find chimpanzees too slow in breeding and expensive as laboratory animals I would recommend using as a laboratory animal an opossum, which is a notoriously stupid, noninnovative animal but highly generalized and a rapid breeder. Rats and mice may already be too specialized to significantly innovate behavior. If not they would be the ideal laboratory animals for this experiment.

Given this theory, it might at first be expected that there would be enormous evolutionary pressure to select for innovative behavior. However, that would be true only if all innovative behavior were creative. There is a small set of behavior that is trivial. Remember, "trivia" is a set of measure zero. There is the much larger, non-zero measure, set of behavior that is destructive innovative behavior, which can manifest itself as insanity in all species. Indeed, the more innovative the species, the more prone it is to insanity. This is where natural selection comes into play.

Destructive innovations are quickly eliminated by natural selection. Furthermore, for pre-ethical species where E = 0, destructive innovations are just as likely as creative innovations. However, innovation is still a much better bet than totally random mutation, which almost always produces deleterious changes. No one has ever observed a random beneficial mutation, much less a quantum leap in evolution by totally random mechanisms. There is even less experimental evidence for this dogmatic feature in Darwinism than for the quantumtheory of evolution. Furthermore, it cannot be experimentally verified, because no one will ever see a random beneficial mutation. The latter are an article of faith to the classical Darwinists. Any significant innovation in behavior by a member of any species should produce a change in its genome which may be chemically detectable. We note that species such as insects and bacteria, which rapidly adapt to insecticides and antibiotics respectively, do so because of the natural genetic variability that already exists among them due to genetic drift. They do not produce new protective genetic mutations in response to these chemicals.

A fifty-fifty chance is an excellent evolutionary bargain. We have nochoice over the completely random mutations, such as those induced by cosmic rays, caffeine, sudden temperature rises, and other vagaries of the environment. Almost all of those are deleterious. Random beneficial mutations are a set of measure zero! However, we have a choice over innovative behavior.

How many persons would take the choice of innovative behavior over a tried-and-true method if the probability of the innovative behavior leaving us worse off were fifty percent? Probably very few. That is why evolution is such a slow process and why almost all species choose to specialize whenever possible. That is why the evolution of Homo sapiens has been so rapid. Other species choose, but do not know they choose. We choose and know we choose. That's what it means to be an ethical species with a moral sense. If we are ethical, the odds are in our favor, and we have an ethical obligation to take a risk and innovate.

Finally, this innovative theory of evolution explains why some species with a stable niche, such as the horseshoe crab, can remain genetically stable for hundreds of millions of years, even after they have become highly specialized. Since they no longer innovate, they no longer evolve. Because their niche is highly stable they are skipped by the cosmic pruning every 26 million years. They have found a secure niche in which to hide, but they are still doomed to eventual extinction, because only those who innovate can continue to evolve forever.
 
Ethics and Choice

Ethics is a preprogrammed desire for truth built into the neocortex. When we make an ethical choice we choose what we believe will maximize truth or creativity. All species with a neocortex seem to have a modicum of ethics, although it is much less developed in other species than in our own. Species that innovate cultural, as opposed to genetically determined, behavior clearly have some ethical capacity. Chimpanzees in the wild have been seen to innovate simple tools and to innovate behavior, both destructive and creative. Cetaceans and elephants all seem to have some linguistic ability. Dolphins are solicitous of the welfare of other warm-blooded species, particularly humans. There are many reports of persons saved fromdrowning by dolphins. This is also indicative of ethics. Dolphins are also excellent at innovating behavior.

The macaque monkeys in Japan, who allegedly innovated food-processing behavior and taught it to others, might have had a modicum of ethics. The hundredth-monkey syndrome [699] reported among them--indicating that as soon as about 100 monkeys on one island had learned this innovation, monkeys on other islands began inventing it on their own--could be a quantum effect of a critical mass of innovative behavior triggering similar innovations through their quantum connections with the other monkeys on the other islands. It might also mean, contrary to the popular reports, that the original reports were lies or that knowledgeable monkeys could swim or otherwise get to the other islands. The original reporter of the hundredth-monkey syndrome claims he only intended his statement to serve as a metaphor, not as literal truth.

I suspect that the theory of morphogenetic fields of Sheldrake [699] is valid only insofar as it corresponds with the quantum theory of innovative behavior. Morphogenetic fields are nonlocal perturbations in the universal quantum field produced by the choice to innovate. The choice to innovate, like the evolutionary process itself, is self-catalyzing. A new species starts when a small interbreeding group engages in the same highly innovative behavior, such as clumsy, rudimentary flying for the small dinosaurs of 200 million years ago and long-term upright walking and tool-using by the hominids of five million years ago. The more members of a given species innovating the same behavior, the easier it becomes for other members of the species to innovate the same behavior. A morphogenetic field is, therefore, an unfolding of the implicate order within the universal quantum field [63] by the collective, common, innovative choices of members of a given species. Sheldrake merely assumed the existence of morphogenetic fields without explaining the mechanisms that caused them.

In spite of the evidence of ethics in other species, I suspect that ours is the first that has depended on ethics for survival. This is in opposition to classical Darwinian theory, which says that ethical--and certainly altruistic--behavior is nonadaptive since it usually gives no reproductive advantage to the ones behaving ethically, and never does so to the ones behaving altruistically. Indeed, it may have been a series of ethical choices that first punctuated the equilibrium of our prehominid ancestors and then led to upright walking as the major anatomical mutation below the neck in the last 20 million years. I suspect that the common ancestor of all the hominoidea--gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, humans--was a tree dweller that innovated ground-dwelling behavior. It had a greater propensity to walk upright than all its descendants except for hominids. This was a species probably ancestral to Ramapithecus and Sivapithecus.

Because it was an ethically driven species without culture, it was at a short-term biological disadvantage and left few progeny and fossils. Asdifferent members of this ancient species would revert to walking on all fours, they specialized, mutated into new species, and gained short-term biological advantage but lost some of their ethics and gave rise to the gibbons and the knuckle walkers. Knuckle-walking is almost as strange as upright walking. It might result from a partially upright walker reverting to all fours. Finally about five million years ago the first hominid became an irreversible upright walker that could no longer effectively go back to walking on all fours. He had to continuously create to survive. This was the second punctuation in our direct ancestors' equilibrium.

Ethical choices are like generalizations; they give long-term genetic advantage to the interbreeding group at the cost of short-term risk and disadvantage to the innovator. That is why, even among mammals with neocortexes, ethics are rare and specialization is common. If every time we make an ethical choice we increase the creativity of our future children, or of other persons who are genetically close to us, there is an advantage to ethical behavior not obvious to simple Darwinism. Note that all human beings have over 99.9% of their genes in common. Because of the ways gametes are produced, the advantage of an ethical choice might be primarily patrilineal and would explain some of the ethical differences between men and women--namely, why men seem much more willing to take ethical risks than women, while women seem much more open to low-risk mysticism, and new ideas in general, than men. Therefore, ethical behavior might be adaptive even to species devoid of culture who are highly innovative and relatively intelligent, as the early hominoidea must have been. It takes a minimum level of intelligence to produce enough creativity to compensate for the dangers of behaving ethically (C = IE). The early hominoidea might have had this minimum level of intelligence.

Cultural evolution started when ethical behavior had clear value to group survival, since the ethical values are passed on in the cultural tradition. That is why Socrates' dying for his principles still influences us today. Jesus, dying for his, influences us even more, although he apparently left no progeny. Christianity helped create Western Civilization. Today ethical choices are clearly essential to our survival as a species. Yet many adult humans seem to disregard their ethical nature and live only to increase their happiness. The reason for this is fear.
 
Fear

Fear is the belief we cannot create. Fear has been hard-wired into the reptilian complex for over 250 million years as a mode of survival. For hundreds of millions of years our ancestors saw at least half of all innovative behavior lead to disaster. Among humans more than half of all the "popular," innovative behavior leads to disaster, since unethical innovations derived from deception and self-deception are more likely to promise happiness topersons than ethical innovations. Ethical adults seem to be a distinct minority in our species. Ethical innovations are seen by their creators as ends in themselves and are not sold as a means to make persons happy. Unethical innovations, such as popular ideologies and psychofraud, are always sold as means of helping persons become happier in either this world or a future world. The future "world" itself may be a "natural" communist utopia or a supernatural Muslim or Christian heaven. Therefore, over half of all human behavioral innovations seem to be disastrous. These deleterious mutations almost always represent a corruption, derived from fear, of a more ethical, earlier innovation, e.g., Jesus and St. Paul, Judaism and Mohammed, Spinoza and Jefferson, Karl Marx and Lenin.

Compounding this state of affairs is the sad fact that our whole society is structured to convince persons through reward and punishment conditioning that they are not creative. Instead they must do as they are told, learn what is taught, regurgitate it as it was taught, not innovate, and then they will be rewarded and not punished. Persons are constantly rewarded for repetitive, ritualistic behavior and punished for any innovation which violates popular prejudice. Popular prejudice is almost always destructive. It leads to unethical adults. Children are born ethical. That is why the young are almost always less conservative and more creative than their elders.

Many persons are convinced that we live in a world of scarce resources and that the best they can do is, if they are weak, share in the resources equally, or, if they are strong, take them away from others for their own benefit. The former view produces predatory socialism. The latter view produces predatory capitalism.

To create is to produce more than we consume. This is something almost no one realizes he/she can do. Yet it is the basis of all human progress. Every invention or true innovation makes us more generally intelligent than we were and thereby increases the creativity of all ethical persons. It enables us to make better use of the resources left, in effect increasing the resources at our disposal. However, technical innovation can make unethical persons more destructive, since it can increase their intelligence without increasing their ethics. The latter makes some persons fear science and technology.

Fear leads to a lack of confidence in our own creativity and a mistrust of the creativity of others. Our classical brain, our intelligence, enables us to learn and repeat complex patterns of behavior. Our quantum brain, our ethics, enables us to innovate and invent new patterns of behavior, but at the cost of constant, false negative feedback from any bureaucratic society. Therefore, many persons close off their quantum brain and just repeat over and over again previously successful formulas of behavior once they have been learned. That is why socially approved ritual is so satisfying to so many persons. That is why so many persons are so destructively conserva-tive and will not innovate even when they are about to be destroyed by a lack of innovation. That is why the ruling elite in every country, once established, whether leftist or rightist, become conservative and uncreative. (See Leftist, Rightist, Conservative, and Liberal in the Glossary.)

Ultimately the end result of fear is to destroy ethics by putting an absolute block between our quantum brain and our classical brain. Fear always brings about what we fear most.

A corollary is that "professional" investors driven by fear of losing money will usually do more poorly than if they had invested at random. That is why endowments and pension funds which tolerate no losses do more poorly than the stock market itself.

Once we mistrust our imagination we also mistrust our ethics. Instead we then depend on self-deception and deceiving others to be happy. The greatest fear becomes the fear of losing our delusions. The greater our intelligence the greater our capacity to deceive ourselves and overcome all evidence contrary to our delusions. We then use our Imagination (I) only to maintain our delusions. Whatever information comes through our quantum connection is distorted so as to help us maintain our illusions. Fear destroys by paralyzing the quantum brain and distorting all truth into self-delusion. The only antidote to fear is love.
 
Love

Love and fear are the only emotions that exist. All emotions from greed, jealousy, and hate to sorrow, pity, and compassion are combinations or manifestations of these two primary emotions. Love is the desire for and the act of helping another person increase his/her creativity. Anger is the conscious manifestation of the unconscious belief that we cannot love creatively. To love creatively is to be able to help a person overcome her/his fear and as a consequence become more creative. Anger is the last and most difficult fear we overcome. However, anger and its longer-enduring manifestation of hate can never be overcome alone. We can only overcome them by loving others, particularly our enemies.

An enemy is any person who is destructive to us or to those we love. To love an enemy is to help that person overcome his/her fear so that he/she may become less destructive and more creative. This is an extremely difficult thing to do. Even Jesus was not able to love his enemies sufficiently to keep them from killing him. Our enemies also have free will and the right to remain destructive. Because C = IE (and so long as E 1 we can behave destructively), we get the greatest creative effect with destructive persons by helping them increase E rather than I. This minimizes their destructiveness while increasing their creativity. So long as E 1, too much intelligence can be disastrous; this is particularly true when persons who are ethical and intelligent put their creativity at the service of destruc-tive persons and organizations. This is common when E 1. Unethical persons use the remaining fear of ethical persons to control their creativity. Furthermore, I is itself dependent on E. Increasing E increases Imagination (G) and Will (W) directly plus Memory (M) indirectly. In order to love our enemies effectively, they must trust us. They will never trust us unless we love them from our soul.

The soul is our true self, which takes its identity from our quantum connection to God, our ethics, and our creativity. The ego is our false self, which takes its identity from the persistence of our Memory (M), our intelligence, and our happiness. The ego sees itself as the set of all our memories, our happy, unhappy, and trivial experiences. Our ego seeks to maximize our happy experiences. Our soul seeks to maximize creativity. Our soul and our ego are both part of our mind. When we die our soul lives on in the creativity that we have engendered in others, but our ego is totally extinguished, since only our creative acts can survive in our species and in us as a part of God. Remember, we create God as God creates us.

We overcome the entropy of our ego by valuing creativity over happiness. When we are moral, we no longer have an ego but are guided entirely by our soul. Ego is an interaction between our Intelligence (I) and our desire for happiness. By eliminating our desire for happiness we free our mind to be maximally creative. Our Intelligence (I) is no longer burdened with supporting our ego. It becomes a purely creative part of our mind. Our Will (W) is then entirely driven by our soul. So long as our ego is part of our Will (W) we behave destructively, but ever less so as we value creativity over happiness. Creative Transformation catalyzes this process of overcoming the entropy of ego.

Corollary: As we undergo creative transformation our Memory (M) improves. A declining Memory (M) is one side effect of ethical decay. Memory (M) can obviously also decline in other ways unrelated to ethics.

Ultimately, perhaps, our body dies because our soul dies--not necessarily the other way around. Our soul is immortal, if we do not kill it. We can kill our soul only by deliberately choosing to destroy our quantum connection to God. This is the only Hell there is. Only morality can engender immortality [280].

Persons who value their ego over their soul are always afraid, because ultimately, no matter how we try to fool ourselves, we all know that our ego will perish with our body and we will have no more personal experiences or happiness. That is why most persons fear death. Only those who can find total satisfaction in engendering creativity in others can overcome their ego and all fear. These are persons who value what they do over what they experience. The soul is action-oriented. The ego is experience-oriented. All others will compensate for their fear and attachment to ego through self-delusion. Self-delusion can always provide a happy experience. These delusions include a belief in an afterlife in which the ego survives as part of thesoul, as some of the leading religions teach, or a belief that there is no meaning or purpose to the universe and that we each have no obligation except to ourselves, as some modern, atheistic existentialists teach.

These delusions also include the beliefs of those communists who teach that they have discovered the ultimate deterministic laws of human history and how to control it. Remember that history and evolution are nondeterministic quantum processes. The communists then expend the energy of their society to forcefully prevent the dissemination of any evidence that they may be wrong. In this way the communists destroy their negative feedback and the creativity of their people. They relieve their fear through the delusion that they know where we are going and how to get there. Some communists live in fear and use force, fear, and deceit to rule. Whatever engenders fear also destroys love.

It is fear and lack of love between East and West that now threaten to destroy humanity and perhaps the biosphere. When was the last time the alleged Christians of the West tried to love their enemies? When have the communists loved and trusted their own people, let alone their enemies?

To love from our soul is to convince the persons who are destroying love and truth that we can and will help them overcome their fear and be more creative because we share a common quantum connection; we value them unconditionally as individuals who are part of God. Whatever increases the creativity of one person increases the creativity of all. No one can lose from the increase in anyone else's creativity, except possibly those who exercise power through fear. Even they will eventually benefit by losing the power which corrupts them. It is necessary but not sufficient to go through the motions of love in order to help our enemies; it is necessary and sufficient to feel this love in our soul and act accordingly. Then our enemies will feel this love in their soul. There is nothing we can do that will increase our creativity more than loving others, particularly our enemies. This is the only way we can eventually overcome all fear. We cannot become moral by ourselves, but only by helping others become moral through love.

When we love from the soul, the creative act of loving is its own reward, and we seek nothing beyond it. When we love with our ego, then we see love as an exchange where we give no more love than we receive. Ego-based love leads to the absence of love. Ethical or true love, which comes from the soul, is always unconditional. When we love ethically we always focus, with no concern for our ego, on what will maximize the other person's creativity; in the process we maximize our own.

The currently exploding divorce rate, together with the growing inability to make loving commitments, is a manifestation of fear by which all persons are driven to love only from their egos. Our society is destroying everybody's quantum connection to God. This makes it ever more difficult for persons to love from their soul. When people love only from their ego, love is false and does not endure the test of time.

Love is the extension of all autopoietic quadratures by which two or more previously self-centered evolutionary entities choose to help themselves by helping another and in the process create a new, higher collective evolutionary entity greater than the sum of its parts. This is how DNA and protein created life, how single cells created the metazoa, and how single human beings shall create the Ethical State and the Moral Society. All evolution depends on choice. The most important choice we ever make is to love rather than to fear. This is the only choice by which we never lose. It is a choice to play the Game of Life.
 
How To Begin

Creative transformation begins with four essential steps. Each step helps us become more creative and leads eventually to the creation of the Ethical State. We can take some of the steps by ourselves, but the process can only be completed in a group of four men and four women. For the reasons given before, four men and four women are the optimal number for beginning autopoiesis at the super-metazoan level. However, we can make progress toward creative transformation in smaller or larger groups.

Couples are usually too small a group. They find it easy to accept common delusions. Still, we are better off in a couple than we are alone. Groups larger than eight soon begin to create a hierarchy whose members find it difficult to treat each other with equal respect and to communicate on a personal level, soul to soul. It becomes almost impossible for groups larger than fifteen. Larger groups should be broken down into smaller groups, preferably of eight each. Therefore, if the process is to be optimized, it should involve four men and four women who freely choose each other and agree to work together to become creatively transformed. Persons who have difficulty creating their own groups of eight may expect help in forming groups of eight from those who have already begun the process.

The four steps are as follows:

• 1. Deliberately choose to live by the evolutionary ethic and make every decision on the basis of what will maximize creativity for ourselves and others; make a commitment to play the Game of Life. This facilitates our making commitments to others.

• 2. Do our best to love others, including our enemies, by interacting with them on the basis of what, in our best judgment, will help maximize their creativity, and by opening our soul to them, while respecting their freedom of will; make an unconditional commitment of love to others, focusing on those groups of eight to which we belong. We choose to love rather than to fear.

• 3. Learn the nature of fear and how it manifests itself in everyone's destructive behavior, including our own. Then focus on how wecan learn to overcome fear through taking our identity from our soul instead of our ego, and by doing our best to maximize creativity, without any other considerations; we choose to reject fear as a motivator of our actions. Only humans can do this.

• 4. Engage in autopoiesis as best we can. This feeds back to the previous three steps and helps us better achieve them; those steps in turn further enhance the autopoiesis, which is an ongoing process.

Creative transformation is therefore a self-catalyzing process based on ethical love; its spirit is communicated in these four steps, but its practice transcends any given technique. Still, there is a technique that has been experimentally developed to help persons get started. Each group of eight can then modify the technique to suit its own particular needs and innovative inclinations.

Never turn a technique into a ritual.

Remember, each person has the same quantum connection to God. We may each need a group of eight equal partners to maximize our creativity, but no one needs a "guru" (see Glossary). Indeed, any attempt to lead the process destroys it. Within the group of eight we are each our own guru. To bring about this state of affairs, we must each learn to synchronize our four complementary pairs of brains to produce autopoietic coherence among the eight persons participating in the process.
 
Brain Synchronization

The objective of creative transformation is to eventually create a collective creative intelligence that is greater than the sum of its parts and in such a way that each individual is more creative than he or she would be alone. As in all creative endeavors, everyone wins something and no one loses anything. The intermediate stage for creative transformation we call the Ethi-cal State. The final stage we call a Moral Society. The first stage is theprocess of brain synchronization, the establishment of quantum coherence.

Brain synchronization in the group of eight, which for convenience we will call an "octet," means that the eight persons have simultaneous but complementary thoughts which enhance one another, just as coherent photons enhance one another in a laser and enable us to create holograms. Both processes are macroscopic quantum phenomena. Each person in an octet reflects the hologram produced by the octet. The octet is part of the Universal Hologram produced by God. The four steps previously given help produce this brain synchronization, one brain at a time, to create a new quantum hologram of coherent thoughts among the octet.

There may be other and better beginning steps; I have not found them. This technique works for some persons; it does not work for everyone. As we shall show, the technique is logically coherent, but it was notdiscovered by a purely logical process. In retrospect, I could derive the process of creative transformation linearly and entirely through logic and science, but that would not maximize your creativity. The creative process is basically an irrational, nonlinear process. The logic and science come later to test the validity of our basic insight. We create through ethics, we reason through intelligence. Both must work together to produce creativity and prevent self-delusion.

The process of creative transformation came to me in a series of dreams over a period of one week, after I had been working intensively for about four months to understand and meld the new physics with evolutionary ethics and teach this to others. The first dream expressed itself in a poem. I had not written a poem for fourteen years. In 1970 I wrote a poem in conjunction with The Moral Society. That poem summarized evolutionary ethics and my book by describing Spinoza's life. The poem became an epilogue to the book and was printed within it. I reproduced these poems in the Introduction. The newer poems summarize the process of creative transformation. As is obvious, poetic expression is alien to my nature. I prefer clear, concise, unambiguous prose. Yet on rare occasions my quantum connection forces me to express myself in poems I do not fully understand, but whose multiple meanings are revealed over many years. All poems, which resulted from two such occasions, appear in the Introduction.

The next idea that occurred to me, again in a dream, was that autopoiesis at the super-metazoan level was an analog of a carbon atom; that in order for it to occur we had to have the equivalent of covalent bonds between complementary pairs, such that it was possible to have a group of men and women (the complementary pairs) with each man communicating simultaneously with four women and each woman communicating simultaneously with four men and all communicating with each other, somewhat like a carbon crystal. I could not imagine how to accomplish this even though I worked for months with many possible geometries of groups in two and three dimensions and ranging up to 128 persons. The best I could do was to come up with the geometry expressed in the mandalas earlier in this chapter, which makes it possible for each person in an octet to communicate simultaneously with three persons of the opposite sex and one of the same sex.

It occurred to me during the week of "revelations" that the right size for the group of men and women was eight. I had not yet consciously seen the pattern of evolution by groups of four complementary pairs, or their correspondence with mandalas. I knew almost nothing about mandalas. It turns out that four pairs of men and women is the only optimal arrangement there is. Neither larger nor smaller groups will allow each person to simultaneously communicate more effectively with four persons of the opposite sex and all to communicate with each other.

Finally, at the end of the week, I had a dream in which "Meditation"and the "Creation" couplet (reproduced with the poems on page 38) came to me. I had no idea yet what the creation couplet meant. It was the first time I had realized that for humans fear is the belief we cannot create and that this belief is an illusion.

A similar idea was expressed in a book of Christian mysticism called A Course in Miracles [862]. When I first read this book I had a strange feeling that I had written it in the future and sent it to myself in the past (a quantum concept). The book was in fact written anonymously by a woman I never met, a Jewish psychotherapist who had died a few years earlier. She claimed to have written it over a period of ten years in response to a voice she heard when she was alone. As a psychotherapist she kept this to herself and one male confidant, another psychotherapist. She arranged to have the book published anonymously shortly before she died. It is a book with a powerful message for Christians or ex-Christians. Yet almost all the key persons involved in writing and publishing the book were Jewish (another example of Jewish catalysis as in Chapter 4). I was moved by A Course in Miracles even though I thought the book had some shortcomings. The author seems to have known too much psychofraud and not enough science. It may be that no revelation - however true - is devoid of errors. That is why we need science.

Insofar as my own revelations were concerned, I had clearly thought of some innovative behavior that might lead to higher consciousness. I saw absolutely no possibility of harm in this new behavior. When I communicated this to my close friends, most expressed fear and did not want to have anything to do with it. My personal image before others at the time was that of a highly rational, nonmystical person. Even those who were mystically inclined thought I had gone too far. No idea I have ever expressed seems to have aroused so much fear as supermetazoan autopoiesis. All this made me think that I probably had worthwhile ideas. It took me six more months of trial-and-error attempts to get a group of eighteen persons, mostly strangers to each other, together to try the experiment. I wanted redundancy because of the fear my ideas had, until then, engendered in almost everyone who had become familiar with them. I expected that at least half of these eighteen persons, who had been recruited by newspaper advertising as experimental subjects, would be scared away as soon as I told them what I wanted them to do. However, I had learned how to lessen fear in the previous six months as well as how to recruit experimental subjects. Only six persons dropped out after the first day. Eventually I was able to consistently recruit experimental subjects and teach the process to others with no dropouts (see Appendix).

The way I set up this first experiment was that I invited all the persons who applied to spend six days, all expenses paid but no salary, at a large, luxurious ranch, to participate in an experiment for enhancing creativity. I prescreened the applicants by having them all first read The Moral Society and some also Psychofraud and Ethical Therapy to get a general idea of my values and theories. I also had all applicants fill out an application form similar to the one given in the Appendix to help match applicants with common interests. Then I invited them to the ranch and we interviewed each other. I rejected no one. All persons screened themselves in or out, as I provided full disclosure as best I could. Through this process we reduced the number of applicants from 100 to 18 over one month.

The first day of the experiment I gave them an intense four-hour audio-visual presentation that summarized this book up to now. The presentation is outlined in the Appendix. Six persons dropped out after that, clearly frightened and disturbed. The other twelve stayed until the end of the first experiment five days later.

The next five days were spent on brain synchronization. Because there were now only four women and eight men left and I wanted the experiment done under optimal conditions, I had the four women choose the four men with whom they would like to engage in autopoiesis. The four men left out, including me, were to be observers. One woman was married and chose her husband, as one would expect, although I had emphasized that autopoiesis was completely nonsexual. Two of the other women chose men they had met for the first time that week. One woman, who was a personal friend of mine, chose me, much to my surprise, and the other women backed her up. At first, I had intended to be an outside observer along with the other men; but I decided to go along with any unexpected results produced by the process I had started, not wanting to interfere with the quantum nature of the process. Therefore, I became an observer from the inside instead of the outside.

Then the eight of us proceeded to synchronize our individual, four-paired complementary brains within the octet, one brain at a time. This process was to be refined and improved through trial and error over the next four years as we did subsequent experiments. However, the changes are more in style than in substance. The main thing I have learned is (1) how to better inform persons about the process so that those with high fear levels screen themselves out before the workshop, and (2) how to lower the fear of those who remain. We can now accomplish everything in two-and-a-half days of teaching and participatory seminars (see Appendix).

The synchronization of the highest brain, the neocortex, which is the center of ethics, is achieved by having a common system of ethics derived from the evolutionary ethic. This is difficult to accomplish.

I had already written three books on the subject, one unpublished, parts of which were to mutate into this book. The other parts remain unpublished. All the participants had read one or both of the two published books, plus a shorter version of the material in the Introduction to this book. They agreed in principle with the evolutionary ethic. However, at the time of the interview I saw that most of them obviously did not understandthe material, nor did they, with the possible exception of one woman, overtly attempt to practice the evolutionary ethic. They were apparently all decent persons. Still I did not want to exclude anyone who wanted to participate in the experiment. I hoped that the autopoiesis would generate feedback and help them be more creative. This was one of the main objectives of the experiment - to see what could be accomplished by autopoiesis within an octet.

To enhance their sense of the evolutionary ethic and to synchronize the neocortex between them, I had them apply the evolutionary ethic together with the Eight Ethical Principles to solve three ethical problems by consensus over the next three days. These problems were how to apply the evolutionary ethic to solve the current problems of (a) economic survival, (b) education, and (c) sexual relationships. Almost all the octets that have participated in the creative transformation experiments to completion have done well in theoretically solving these problems, but few have done as well in applying the ethical principles to their own lives. The exceptions have been those who were able to integrate themselves into an octet. In this and other exercises it is important that persons reach their own conclusions, and that they not be led.

Later on, when I trimmed the six-day seminar to two-and-a-half days, I had the participants work on only one problem of their choosing. Persons under thirty would usually focus on sex, and older persons on economics or education. Some of the older persons seemed embarrassed by discussions of sexual ethics. In the next two chapters I apply the evolutionary ethic to extend the creative transformation process to the areas of education and economics. I leave the simpler problem of sexual ethics as an exercise for the reader.

As a hint in solving the problems of sexual ethics, I might add that a general consensus (not necessarily correct) of the octets was that (1) sex without love is unethical; (2) love without sex is ethical; (3) love always involves commitment; therefore, (4) sex without commitment is unethical. A less obvious conclusion was that (5) sex totally unrelated to reproduction might at best be trivial and at worst destructive. You may use the examples of the next two chapters plus the ethical theory of Chapter 3 to derive your own analysis about sexual ethics. A final general, but not universal, conclusion was that (6) ethically committed, heterosexual monogamy is the most creative form of sexual behavior, contrary to the "Playboy Philosophy" and recent popular practice. These conclusions were surprisingly conservative compared to ethical conclusions in other fields. A corollary is that we should not expect to find love through sex, but that we should learn to love from our soul and make ethical commitments before experiencing sex, if we are to be maximally creative as a couple. The fact that this is rare is a defect in our culture. One consequence is a high divorce rate leading to many millions of single-parent families.

After the exercises for ethical synchronization of the neocortex by learning to practically apply the evolutionary ethic, we went on to try to synchronize the mammalian cortex by learning the ethical meaning of love. We explored the meaning of love in the ethical sense of what it means to be loving and to feel loving by experiencing and doing our best to help others maximize their creativity. We, and all subsequent groups, concluded that we are all helped more by the love we give than the love we receive. For love to be meaningful it must be unconditional and selfless. At the same time, true love requires that we give negative feedback to persons we love when they are destructive. We must also give them fair opportunities rather than alms. The latter are destructive to the creative process. The great challenge is to give negative feedback with love and humility and not with anger and arrogance. It also takes much more creativity to provide fair opportunities for others than to give them alms.

After extensive discussions among ourselves we all signed the contract for creative transformation. I had prepared this contract before the experiment, but I wanted them to reach their own conclusions and modify it if necessary.

All successful octets have signed the contract essentially as is. Groups who did not sign the contract, or extensively modified it for any reason, have all failed in creative transformation. The reasons for this are apparently not inherent in the nature of the contract, but are more related to the fear of persons who refuse to sign such an innocuous contract, which no ethical person should fear. However, not all who signed the contract succeeded. You should try to improve the contract.

After signing the contract, we sat in a circle of eight and each made a personal commitment to the other seven, one at a time, promising to do his/her best to maximize the creativity of each person in the group of eight. It was an emotionally moving experience in which most of the persons, including myself, cried and had their souls touched. I had not cried in thirty years. Subsequent commitments with other groups have not been as emotionally moving. It may be that a full week devoted to the creative transformation workshop is always best. However, in the long run, the two-and-one-half-day workshop seems adequate and a better use of resources. The long-term effects seem about the same. Up to now a majority of each group eventually drops out of the process, usually because they do not receive enough benefits fast enough. Creative transformation is not magic.

Next we addressed the problem of fear and tried to synchronize the reptilian brain. Fear is an emotion that usually divides us. Fear can apparently only unite persons in collective destructiveness, as Hitler, the communists, many "democratic" politicians, and lynch mobs have discovered. This problem is the most difficult to solve and was not well handled at that time. Many of the persons in the first experiment had very deep-seated fears which were not addressed. Later I was able to get persons to speakmore openly of their fears, and help them see that they were always based on self-delusion. They always had the ability to create solutions to their problems and overcome their fears if they wanted to, and the other persons in the octet were supportive in the process.
 

CONTRACT For Creative Transformation

We, the undersigned, promise to do our best to help one another maximize our creativity. Toward this end we promise to educate and help one another and to tell one another the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the best of our ability. We shall give each other honest and constructive feedback about how to improve our behavior. We shall accept all such feedback from each other in the same loving spirit in which it is given. We shall make no judgment about the ethical nature of our seven teammates, but only do our best to help them make their objective behavior more creative. At the same time we will be honest and forthright in expressing our feelings to each other, recognizing that our expressed feelings about anyone communicate more about what we are than what that person is.

If we should ever wish to disassociate from this group of eight persons, we will do so promptly, giving at that time to the other seven persons our full true reasons for the disassociation. After disassociation from these persons, we have no further obligations to them other than those we choose to assume. The remaining persons may at that time incorporate other persons to take our place without any further obligations to us other than those they choose to assume.

So long as we are members of this group of eight persons, we promise to do our best to treat every person outside the group with whom we have dealings the same as we treat persons inside the group. We will share these experiences with our teammates.

We promise to ethically love and serve one another. We shall do our best, knowing that we may often fail, to ethically love all humanity, including our enemies, who decrease our and others' creativity. We are fully committed to maximizing the creativity of all humanity, but we agree first to begin with ourselves.

A G R E E D

(Signed and dated by all participants)

In the many hundreds of persons who have participated in the creative transformation experiments, the only apparent common denominator in the octets that failed, or in individuals who dropped out of the octets that succeeded, was fear. The greatest fears have been in giving up apparently rigid, delusionary belief systems, i.e., false paradigms, which seem to help orient the person while giving his/her ego a seemingly false sense of self-worth and personal identity. The worst of these systems seem to be those of mystical specialists, who appear totally open to almost any kind of nonsense but are closed to scientific feedback. They will believe anything that makes them happy and disbelieve anything that makes them unhappy, with no regard for objective evidence. We have had no trouble recruiting mystical specialists for our experiments, but we have never had long-term success with the mystical specialists who reject scientific method as in any way being relevant to their mystical experiences. The mystical specialists seem invariably more interested in what they experience subjectively than in what they accomplish in the objective world. It seems that persons who take their identity from their beliefs (paradigms) rather than from their objective ethical actions always have too much fear to succeed in creative transformation. Remember, ethics are based on goals, not beliefs, and it is unethical to be certain.

The best we have been able to achieve in our seminars and workshops is to help most persons recognize that they are operating out of fear anytime that they act destructively. Fear always causes persons to bring about that which they fear most. Fear always stems from the belief that we cannot creatively cope with the situation which produces the fear. As the creative transformation process goes on, the octets help their members face up to their fears and overcome them. Those who cannot face up to them leave. Unfortunately, this is a majority of the participants.

The experimental evidence, so far, is that the creative transformation process will work for everyone who is not too afraid. At this time, based on my personal observation in the West, about 80 percent of the general population seems so afraid of the process that they will not even try it. This fear should, however, rapidly diminish as more octets are created. The new is always more frightening than the commonplace.

The most pernicious fear seems to be fear of giving up false, ego-based models of one's personal identity. Ironically, these false models destroy a person's creativity and make a person even more destructive. The single most common and most destructive false belief system I have found among our participants, and there are many others, is the belief that the person is a hapless victim of environment and that other persons and bad luck have kept him/her from being more creative. These people believe that, if someone would only give them a chance, they could be creative. They believe opportunities are given by others, not created by ourselves.

In this belief, which I call the "victim paradigm," the persons are denying their free will and their quantum connection to God. They are also violating the first rule in the Game of Life. There is nothing more destructive that persons can do to themselves. Persons who cannot accept 100 percent responsibility for their life and the consequences of all their actions or inactions and assume that whatever happens to them is self-caused will never be creatively transformed. These persons generally receive negative feedback within the process and leave the octet, no matter how lovingly the negative feedback is given. I have never known of a highly creative person who had the victim paradigm. I have never met an uncreative person who was free of it. We can all become free of it by assuming responsibility for our own life. The easiest way to do this is to choose to play the Game of Life. We clearly have it in our power to choose to do so. We can all reject fear as a motivator. That is what makes us human.

A corollary to the "victim paradigm" is "the savior delusion." Persons who believe the victim paradigm almost always tend to see all persons as either oppressors or as saviors. When they see them as saviors, they assume that their savior will right all the problems in their life after they accept the savior. We can only help persons change themselves. No one, not even God, can unilaterally change another person, because we all have free will. The savior delusion always leads to disappointment, and the savior is then turned into an oppressor. The victim paradigm remains intact.

Persons who have fear, but not too much of it, can, in time, overcome their fear through the creative transformation process. The dividing line of fear between those who succeed and those who fail in creative transformation seems to be persons who can overcome the victim paradigm and make a sincere commitment to play the Game of Life. Otherwise, their fear is too high. Any person who can honestly begin the creative transformation process and stick with it will eventually overcome fear and fully succeed. It is not necessary to believe in the process in order to succeed. It is only necessary to have patience and to not be too afraid, particularly of negative feedback. Perhaps someday someone will find how to help those unfortunate persons whose lives are governed by fear and who cannot make a sincere commitment to play the Game of Life. They do not have to be proficient in the Game of Life. The most rank amateur beginners in the Game of Life can successfully engage in creative transformation. They merely have to lower their fear enough to try the Game of Life.

The final brain synchronization that occurs is that produced by the autopoiesis itself. It works directly on the most primitive of the four brains. Simultaneously, autopoiesis contributes to the synchronization of the other three brains, if the previous three steps have been complied with even to a slight degree. As the autopoiesis progresses it catalyzes itself by making the persons more ethical and creative, more loving toward others in and out of the octet, less afraid of situations and others in and out of the octet, and by producing an increasing amount of synchronicity in each person's life.

Synchronicity is a Jungian term referring to the occurrence of meaningful coincidences which further enhance the creative process in our life. It is another quantum phenomenon that can be attributed to the moralorder in the universe as well as a two-way communication between our quantum connection. Our unconscious receives the information from the implicate order and communicates to others through their quantum connection to cause or put us in situations which will produce what we need to enhance our creativity. Fear causes the opposite of synchronicity.

In autopoiesis the eight individual members of the octet integrate their individual quantum connections into a single collective quantum connection that serves as a lens for focusing the infinite information flowing from God into a finite image within the local universe. We each use our quantum connection to project through the lens of our imagination a finite random image onto our intelligence (our classical brain) from an infinite source of information. The deeper and broader our intelligence and the greater our ethics, the less random and more meaningfully important this projection will be. Our intelligence determines the size and depth of the projection; our ethics determine the relevance, coherence, and fidelity of the projection. This is how we create, C = IE. In autopoiesis we do this collectively within the octet, and project the quantum information more accurately and deeply than is possible or comprehensible for any individual. In autopoiesis we must distinguish between information that is coming from our quantum brain and information that is coming from our memory.

Our memory is part of our ego and our classical brain. It is a component in our intelligence. We cannot be effective in the objective world without using our classical brain. We cannot be creative without using our quantum brain. The classical brain consists primarily of the three lower brains and part of the neocortex. The human quantum brain is entirely in the neocortex, primarily in the frontal lobes, although as we mentioned earlier there are lower-order quantum connections in all other brains and in the neurons themselves.

The classical brain learns by conditioning or under direction of the quantum brain. The quantum brain always knows. The classical brain, once it knows how to solve a problem, always wants to repeat the same solution over and over again every time it encounters a similar problem. This repetitive, uncreative behavior occurs because the classical brain includes the reptilian complex and is subject to being governed by fear.The classical brain is very reliable and almost always works, unless it encounters a radically new situation which requires creativity. The quantum brain is a random generator of true information. It becomes ever more derandomized as we become more ethical, which means that as our ethics increase we imagine exactly the true information we need when and as we need it. However, we can never depend entirely on our Imagination (G) because we cannot increase Ethics (E) unless we also increase Intelligence (I) by doing our best to learn, teach, and create.

Therefore, once persons have learned a repertory of essential skills (e.g., obtained a Ph.D.) that enables them to survive, many tend to closeoff the unreliable connection between the quantum brain and the classical brain and to depend almost exclusively on the classical brain. This is why, when lobotomies were first performed, medical experts could not detect any deleterious side effects; so many persons do not use their quantum brain anyway. Eventually persons saw that lobotomies produced a decrease in the ability to make ethical judgments and to display creative imagination, things that many people do not do. An unethical culture produces psychosocial lobotomies.
 
The Quantum Dialogue

In order to prepare persons for autopoiesis we performed an exercise I called the "Quantum Dialogue," which I first learned in part from Amit Goswami. In the Quantum Dialogue we encourage persons to use their quantum brain by responding to a question not with the first answer that comes to mind but by inventing an original response. The first answer is usually a reflection of memory and is controlled by the classical brain.

Almost all of us rely on the classical brain to have a conversation. Our classical brain usually works smoothly, quickly, and reliably. It gives socially acceptably answers to questions. Our quantum brain often works unreliably and slowly, eventually producing short, staccato bursts of information after long periods of silence. This information is often socially unacceptable, and may seem unrelated to the question or problem at hand. These quantum answers may in fact make us appear strange or even insane. This is why persons are so reluctant to use their quantum brain.

Some persons have great difficulty with the Quantum Dialogue. This difficulty is a reflection of how much they have blocked off their quantum brain. After rejecting their first classical answer to a question they cannot invent a second answer. But all can succeed if they keep trying. Other persons find it very easy. This exercise usually makes persons conscious of their quantum brain for the first time in their life and facilitates the autopoiesis, which usually follows within the next few hours during our experiments.

We produce the Quantum Dialogue by sitting the octet in a circle and having each subset of seven ask any question they wish, one at a time, of each person in the octet, so that eventually each person asks at least one question of each of the seven other persons and each person gives at least seven quantum answers. We repeat the process as many times as necessary. It is essential that each person make a choice to set aside the first answer that comes to mind, and deliberately choose the very next thought or image that comes to mind, whatever it may be, as the quantum answer. The choice to reject the first answer and rely on the quantum brain opens the quantum connection.

There are four harmless ways that I know of for opening up the con-nection between the classical and the quantum brain. There may be others. They are as follows:

• 1. The Quantum Dialogue.

• 2. Going to sleep while concentrating on a difficult problem that cannot be solved without the quantum brain and then waking up with the solution--which usually follows an apparently irrelevant dream that precedes the solution. The solution is a synthesis we make immediately after waking from the dream.

• 3. Focusing all our waking attention on solving a difficult problem that requires use of the quantum brain, but without any consideration of any reward for solving the problem or any punishment for not solving it. Extrinsic rewards and punishments are destructive to the creative process.

• 4. Autopoiesis.

Other techniques which make similar claims, such as drugs or classical meditation, either do not work or seem to have deleterious side effects. For example, classical meditation seems to turn persons inward psychosocially, specializing them in predicting and controlling their own thoughts, while making them less loving and less creative in the objective world. Drugs almost always have adverse effects on our intelligence even if they liberate the quantum brain. The net effect of all these other techniques for stimulating the quantum brain seems to be a net decrease in creativity.

The Quantum Dialogue is the least creative way of opening the quantum brain without harm, but it is the easiest way to get a person in touch with his/her quantum brain. It helps synchronize the quantum brains of the octet. The second and third techniques above are personal. Our ability to use these techniques is individually increased by participating in creative transformation.
 
Quantum Octologue

Autopoiesis creates a collective, creative experience somewhat like a collective dream, in which persons speak literally as well as symbolically as they describe the insights, visions, and questions that occur to them. Autopoiesis is a coordinated, focused Quantum Octologue in which the quantum thoughts are not necessarily the second thoughts. It is a direct, real-time (almost simultaneous) synchronization of the quantum brains of the octet. We can distinguish quantum from classical thoughts because the latter flow smoothly and quickly in extended sentences and clearly reflect our memories, while the former are short, energetic bursts of original information which we feel absolutely compelled to communicate to the other persons in the octet. These are the kinds of thoughts we rarely have but which, when we do, we usually keep to ourselves. The real-time sharing of these thoughts is central to autopoiesis. It has much in common with a Friends (Quaker) meeting, where all participants seek to speak from the "Inward Light." The major difference is that autopoiesis is a much more integrated and complete form of communication of quantum information.

Autopoiesis is a mystical, loving type of brainstorming where no one judges another, and all speak about their insights without fear of being wrong or considered stupid. During autopoiesis one of the manifestations of fear is to drown our and others' quantum thoughts in classical verbiage. This can be prevented by noting the above differences between quantum and classical thoughts and by keeping thoughts to ourselves until we feel absolutely compelled to express them. No one should be concerned about extended periods of silence. In autopoiesis it is better to be silent than to let our classical brain take over. What we want is eventual, full, harmonious interaction of the classical and the quantum brain. At first, the classical brain often fears the quantum brain. We should speak not to show how clever or "deep" we are, but only to communicate an important, original thought that we believe will help increase the creativity of others in the group. The ethical commitment to others helps liberate the quantum brain. The quantum thoughts, images, and questions will eventually come to us if we are ethically motivated and if we are patient.

Patience is required if autopoiesis is to work. For those who will be helped by autopoiesis, I estimate that a significant, irreversible, creative effect will take about two years of engaging in autopoiesis at least twice a month. It is unlikely that anyone would require more than four years. "Irreversible" means that our fear will never again dominate our ethics. It does not mean that a person has overcome all fear. However, the effects of autopoiesis will be powerfully felt the very first time by about 75 percent of the persons who try it and who have successfully gone through the previously described brain synchronization with the octet. This is an experience, but not necessarily a transformation. Remember, we seek only creative action; meaningful experiences are merely trivial side effects.

Approximately 25 percent of those who try autopoiesis feel no effects even after repeated trials. For them it is a neutral experience. Some of these persons, if they are not too afraid, can still contribute to the autopoiesis of others by simply participating in the process and saying nothing. The only truly difficult part of autopoiesis is accepting the strangeness of the process and trying it in the first place. This is how it is done.
 
Autopoiesis Detailed

After the very first autopoiesis, which was suboptimal and partially successful for only about half the persons, I quickly saw how it was possible to have a group of four men and four women all communicating with fourpersons of the opposite sex and the octet as a whole simultaneously. I had not been able to solve this problem in the six previous months of trying. This was done by following the pattern of the creative transformation symbol, where the squares represent men and the circles represent women. The straight lines contain the points of contact of each person with each of the four persons of the opposite sex. The eight sit in as small a circle as possible, with alternating males and females, each with bare hands and feet. Each person holds the hands of the persons next to him/her and touches with each foot one of the feet of each of the two persons opposite him/her of the opposite sex. (See Appendix for more details.)

This synchronizes the most primitive of the four brains, the fish brain, in an eight-way flow of information through touch. Each person in the octet is touching four persons of the opposite sex. The fish brain began evolving long before our ancestors had noses, ears, or eyes. The primary modality for the exchange of information for this brain is the sense of touch. Touch is also the only modality of communication which does not seem to produce incoherence and confusion when eight persons simultaneously communicate with one another in real time.

Autopoiesis is enhanced (although this is not essential) by producing further coherence with music played softly during the process. The Art of the Fugue is the ideal music since it expresses the process of evolutionary autopoiesis, leading to ever newer and greater hierarchies of evolution through quantum leaps of four complementary pairs. It is a musical mandala. If anyone expresses a dislike of the Art of the Fugue, it is best to play no music at all, although such a person is not likely to ever successfully engage in creative transformation.

Additional coherence is produced when (1) all participants consciously decide by mutual consent to focus on a single problem during the autopoiesis, and (2) prior to beginning the autopoiesis all participants brainstorm the same problem classically until no one in the octet has any more classical ideas on the subject.

There are many other possibilities for enhancing coherence, from reading and understanding the creative transformation poems and concentrating on the creative transformation symbol (page 37), to following one's own instincts. All participants should feel free to experiment with the process through consensus.

Note: Do not turn a communication technique into a ritual.

Autopoiesis becomes increasingly easy with practice, requiring ever less effort for the octet to achieve coherent quantum thoughts. I suspect that eventually there may not even be the need of physical contact. We are working on a new technique which integrates the autopoietic octet by brain-wave electromagnetic resonance rather than by touch. One of the main difficulties in the beginning with integration by touch is simply being comfortable. All members of the octet should be as relaxed and comfort-able as possible; we have found the best way to achieve this is by havingeight small but comfortable chairs with good back support in as small a circle as possible. Do not try to hold your hands in the air, but rest them on your legs or partner's legs. If you and the two persons of the opposite sex who are opposite you have trouble reaching far enough to touch feet, rearrange the circle so that the most long-legged persons are sitting opposite the appropriate, most short-legged. Experiment until you are comfortable. After a while you will all be able to get comfortable every time.

Part of the comfort is that the autopoiesis takes place in a quiet environment with no disturbances. Octets with young children should pool their resources and hire a babysitter to take care of the children so that they will not disturb the autopoiesis. The proper age for autopoiesis is at whatever age a person can understand and make a commitment to the Game of Life.

Typically it takes about five-to-fifteen minutes for the octet to get coherent, quantum thoughts, although it can take much longer. The time sense of the participants is often greatly distorted; usually, time seems to pass much more quickly once quantum coherence is achieved. But in the beginning many persons feel afraid that they are failing if they do not speak up. When this happens they always think, or worse, speak, from the classical brain. Fear always triggers the classical brain, never the quantum brain. Therefore, do your best to remain quiet in the autopoiesis until you learn to distinguish between quantum and classical thoughts. When you get quantum thoughts you will not be able to keep them to yourself. They will come back stronger and stronger until you express them. Then they disappear, and new thoughts or images take their place. When you have a visual or auditory image, describe it. These are also part of the process. There is nothing wrong with the entire octet remaining quiet and not speaking a word. There is no way in which anyone can fail, so long as he or she is committed to playing the Game of Life.

The objective is not to talk but to do your best to help the other seven in the octet to maximize their creativity. You are all constantly communicating with each other through touch. By simply participating in the autopoiesis without fear, you are contributing to the creative transformation of others and yourself. You will always succeed in this if you let your conscience rather than your fear guide you. You will find your personal creativity, in seemingly totally unrelated parts of your life, greatly expanded if you merely contribute as best you can to the autopoiesis without saying a word. The words will eventually come to you if you stop fearing that they will not come. Remember, you are in no way obligated to say a single word.

Your fear will drive you to speak up, to demonstrate how clever or knowledgeable you are, or even to make jokes. Resist this. Focus on what you can say or do to help the other seven be more creative. Forget about your ego. If nothing comes to you, or when in doubt as to whether yourthoughts are quantum, say nothing. The other seven will be focused on you, communicating through touch; this is how autopoiesis works at alllevels of evolution. All autopoiesis represents a new form of communicationamong evolutionary entities that have reached a communications plateau.

Getting eight persons together at a given time and place is often difficult. Try to accommodate everyone, but subsets of the octet should get together at least every three weeks if the full eight cannot get together. This should happen even if the result is that only two persons get together. However, try to avoid getting together much more often than once every two weeks. This puts too much pressure on the participants. The experience should be rewarding and pleasant, not mandatory. It is play, not work. If autopoiesis seems like work rather than play, it might be best to drop out of the process for a while; it is not for everyone.

The autopoiesis effectiveness of the group is a function of the fear levels of the participants, the number of participants, their sex ratio, and their collective commitment to the Game of Life.

For any group the autopoiesis ends whenever any person wishes to end it, with no questions asked or judgments made of the person ending the autopoiesis. Only mutually voluntary associations are creative. Do your best to avoid judging the contributions of others. Autopoiesis usually lasts about one-half hour, rarely running over one hour. At first autopoiesis may end because at least one person is becoming unbearably uncomfortable. Later it will last longer, and persons will learn to be comfortable for longer periods of time. Two hours is the longest autopoiesis I have observed. That one ended because of extrinsic events (a child crying). Feel free to experiment and innovate with the process. Remember, do not turn it into a ritual. The fact that completely different things are communicated each time makes it nonritualistic. The pattern of touching is merely one quantumcommunication technique. There may be better techniques. The only objective is to produce synchronized, real-time, coherent communication between the four complementary paired brains of the eight participants. Whatever optimizes this process is the right way. There may be several optimizing strategies. And we may not yet have discovered any of them. Autopoiesis is not magic; it is only one component in creative transformation.

The crucial goals are synchronization of the four brains through ethics, love, lowering fear, and whatever form of autopoiesis is best for you. If you fail in any of the first three steps, you will fail in autopoiesis. I have tried varying this peculiar arrangement of autopoiesis because so many persons are afraid of touching feet, yet it is a fear I have trouble understanding since only a few persons are afraid of touching hands. I have always found that every variation tried is less effective than the one suggested. Not touching feet as suggested seems to lower effectiveness by about 50 percent. A partial explanation for this last unexpected result follows:

Men and women are tightly locked into a mode of thought peculiar tothe brain structure of their own sex. Recent studies in embryology and neuroanatomy indicate that men and women have very different (complementary) brains [877-904]. Each has something the other sex needs, more at the mental level than at the sexual level. By everyone touching four persons of the opposite sex simultaneously, this complementarity of sexually-related mental differences is communicated. For the first time most persons experience that they can develop the perspective of the opposite sex. This clearly does not happen outside of autopoiesis when we touch only one or two persons of the opposite sex. Persons rarely touch three or four persons of the opposite sex simultaneously in an ethically loving context. This duality of perspective by which each person, at the mental level, becomes both male and female at the same time (a quantum concept) enhances the autopoiesis and the creativity of the group. It may be that we need to touch one person of the opposite sex for each of the four brains. Each cell in our body reflects our sexual differences as well as our complementarity.

These are the meanings of the creation couplet and the creative transformation symbol (pp. 37-38). When the four complementary pairs in autopoiesis become one through their quantum connections, they are all male and female at the same time. This produces a ninth collective entity that is both male and female and greater than any individual, but not greater than the eight. This is the octagon in the center of the creative transformation symbol. An octagon is between a circle and a square, which universally are female and male symbols respectively. I did not consciously understand these concepts when I wrote the poems and drew the symbols of creative transformation. Autopoiesis is a technique for producing quantum coherence between four men and four women.

The most important, practical advice I can give you on autopoiesis is not to try to control the process, but to flow with the process and let it work on you. The process is the product of eight persons and does not belong to any single person. Each member of the octet is an equal spokesperson for the entire octet. Anything you do as an octet should be done by 100 percent consensus, not by force of personality or majority vote. The autopoiesis will help produce the consensus.

Autopoiesis at all levels is a dynamic reminder that we cannot evolve alone. All intelligence is collective, from the collectivity of our four brains to the collectivity of the billions of cells that make up our body to the collectivity of the molecules which make up each cell. God is in turn the supreme, collective autopoietic process produced by all the beings of the universe who create God as God creates them. Similarly we must realize that we cannot become moral alone, but only by helping others become moral. We maximize our individual creativity by seeking to maximize the creativity of others. This is autopoiesis. This is what it means to love.

No matter how much others love us, we only receive the love that we give. We are benefited far more by the love we give than by the love bestowed on us. This is what Jesus meant when he said repeatedly that hisonly commandment was that we love one another as he had loved us. Love is the extension of all autopoiesis.
 
A Do-It-Yourself Guide to Creative Transformation

Until now I have given the theory and the practice of creative transformation as it has developed since 1984. We now distill these experiences into the steps that bring about creative transformation and consider how we can tell when we have taken each step successfully. If you are scientifically minded and skeptical, as you should be, you may want to repeat my experiments independently. In order to help you rediscover for yourself the process of creative transformation without having to repeat my mistakes, I have given the details of my experiments in the Appendix. I now give you my best judgment as to how to proceed in the future. Feel free to innovate, but remember when you change the process you are no longer repeating my experiment but doing one of your own.

The steps to be taken all center around the four steps of (1) ethical commitment, (2) love of others, (3) conquest of fear, and (4) autopoiesis--all as previously mentioned. We will repeat these steps in a do-it-yourself context. The first step you must take is, therefore, a commitment to the evolutionary ethic that is more than lip service.

Step 1.
We begin our commitment to the evolutionary ethic by agreeing to play the Game of Life. You should study this book and the rules of the Game of Life. If you feel that you can in good faith agree to abide by the rules of the Game of Life, particularly the first one, then you are ready to begin creative transformation. If not, you are not ready. If you are not ready, you should then get into a discussion group with other persons who wish to engage in or are engaging in creative transformation and discuss the rules of the Game of Life and their implications until you feel in your soul that you can abide by them. If you can never abide by the rules of the Game of Life, then my best judgment is that you will never be able to successfully engage in creative transformation. If you do abide by them, then you are ready for the next step.

Step 2.
Once you begin to play the Game of Life you will know that you are succeeding because you will feel an enormous decrease in subjective fear. This comes from the realization that you need do nothing more than your best to play the Game of Life and that your subjective best, whatever it may be objectively, is enough to win the Game of Life. Remember, this is a game that we win by playing, not by having some minimum objective level of proficiency. We can lose only by refusing to play. Playing the Game of Life does not mean that you have conquered fear, but merely that your fear has been lowered to the point where you can begin to love others from yoursoul rather than your ego. You may still believe that you cannot love creatively. You will know that you have this false belief every time that you feel anger toward anyone, no matter how evil and destructive they may be. Very few persons in history have been able to love their enemies.

The second step involves learning to love your enemies, without tolerating their destructive behavior, by first learning to love your friends. The only true friends you will ever have are those who along with you have freely chosen to play the Game of Life. You must learn to have compassion for the fear within others that makes them destructive. You must do your best to open your soul to others without fear. The love you give to others from your soul will never hurt you. It is only when you love with your ego that you will be hurt. The second step involves becoming incorporated into a group of four men and four women who have freely agreed to play the Game of Life and have all freely signed the Contract for Creative Transformation between each other.

When you and your octet have freely signed this contract and have of your own free choice met at least once without feeling fear, anger, or any negative emotion toward one another, and you immediately stop any interactive behavior which is solely for your own benefit and not at all for the benefit of one another, then you are ready for the next step.

Step 3.
The third step is the conquest of fear. It is the most difficult step you will take. It may take the rest of your life to complete it. It requires that you face up to your own fears and the fears of others. It requires that you give and accept negative feedback within and without the octet in keeping with the Contract for Creative Transformation. It requires that you recognize and give up the illusions that produce fear. When all within your octet have given and received feedback on their fears without feeling any anger toward one another, then you may be ready for the fourth step--which is autopoiesis. This does not mean that you have conquered fear. You have merely taken one more step on the way to conquering fear. You cannot control what you feel, but you can control what you do. You can reject fear as a motivator.

The third step requires that you choose not to act out of fear, but rather do what you sincerely believe will maximize creativity no matter how much fear you feel or how much fear ethical action may induce. This is, of course, difficult; simply do your best. Your best will win the Game of Life.

Step 4.
You and your octet should engage in autopoiesis as soon as you wish. However, it will be ineffective so long as any person in the octet has failed to take any of the previous three steps, particularly if he or she cannot accept and give negative feedback on respective fears. Anyone who is afraid of autopoiesis itself has not even taken the first step. You will know that autopoiesis is working for the octet when all of you have and express new thoughts, images, and ideas during autopoiesis and when youbecome more creatively effective in an objective part of your life. Once this occurs the creative transformation process will go on as long as you wish until you have created an Ethical State and a Moral Society. To have conquered fear is to never again feel fear or anger toward anyone, even our most destructive enemies. Through these four steps we will learn to love everyone from our soul--even our most destructive enemies.

The first three steps are of increasing difficulty. The first step is the only one you can possibly take alone. If you cannot create an octet around yourself, it is usually because you have not yet adequately taken the first step. The least you could do is repeat the experiments described in the Appendix. Whatever the case may be, there is free, ethical help available to you in taking all four steps.
 
A Strategy

You are not alone. If you wish to participate in creative transformation and you cannot begin the process by yourself, there is a growing network of persons who might help you begin by finding the right octet for you. In return, you will repay this service solely by helping others engage in creative transformation and create their own octet. Anyone who demands payment from you in any other way for this or any similar service is probably a person driven by fear who is likely to deceive you, or worse. All persons driven by fear, decrease your creativity and that of others. Anyone who seeks to control or in any way exploit an octet including his/her own for personal gain is more likely to be an enemy than a friend. Like all enemies they deserve our compassion and love, but not our cooperation in their destructiveness. When we love someone we must give them clear and unavoidable negative feedback when they are destructive, recognizing that they may be right and that we may be in error. If they refuse this feedback or its intent, then their own fear will drive them away from us. We should seek to help all persons overcome fear through ethics. We should increase the intelligence only of persons who are ethical.

Our universe seems to have a cosmic quarantine such that: (1) only ethical persons can be creative in the objective world (C = IE); (2) unethical persons and societies controlled by them destroy themselves, as humanity seems close to doing; and (3) stellar distances and physical laws are such that a technologically advanced society controlled by unethical persons is more likely to destroy itself before it can harm the independent, evolutionary experiments going on in the environs of the nearest (let alone distant) star systems. We should learn from this.

The evil-doers of the world are absolutely no danger to ethical persons, if we treat them solely with love. It is the ethical persons who are a danger to other ethical persons when they allow their creativity to be ex-ploited by destructive persons. To persons who behave destructively we must give nothing but ethical information, which can only increase their creativity by increasing E. We must not increase the intelligence of persons who behave destructively except indirectly by increasing their ethics.

Creative transformation is a self-selective process that drives away unethical persons and attracts ever more ethical persons. A way of minimizing our destructiveness is to communicate nothing and give nothing--other than ethical information--to adults who are not actively engaged in the first four steps of creative transformation. At the same time, we are ethically obligated to make the process of creative transformation available to the maximum number of persons while rejecting no one. Unethical persons will automatically select themselves out, most of them almost immediately before even starting the process. A few may take as many as several autopoietic interactions to leave the process. At the same time we must not judge those who select themselves out as unethical, but recognize that our own imperfections and lack of understanding of the creative transformation process may have driven them away. We must continue to have compassion and love for persons who cannot overcome their fear. If we had overcome all of our fear we would not have driven them away, if they were in fact ethical. It is always unethical to be certain and ethical to doubt.

We can and should judge individual objective acts by ourselves or others as ethical or unethical. However, we, as human beings, are far too complex to fully understand. We cannot even understand ourselves, let alone others. Therefore we must always be ready to forgive and to love. We judge only acts; we never judge others or ourselves.

The greatest source of fear is that persons judge themselves as unethical. This is extremely destructive to the person and those around him/her. The more ethical we become the more damaging to others are our judgments about their ethics. Therefore, we must follow the teachings of Jesus and learn not to judge others or ourselves. When we judge an act as unethical we should always propose a better alternative--or keep quiet. We must never lose sight of the fact that we may be wrong. At the same time we must take the ethical action dictated by our conscience and then use scientific method to find out if we were mistaken. The more we discover our errors and recognize them, the fewer errors we will make. This is a quantum concept.

There is a network of persons engaged in creative transformation. This network is available to any person or octet who wishes to join it. The only price of membership is the open exchange of ethical information. Each octet is independent of every other octet. Each octet pays for its own expenses and not anybody else's expenses. The octets work together on joint projects only when it is mutually desirable. We begin by exchanging ethical information before we exchange information about other things.

Persons who feel uncomfortable about being in a network not startedby themselves should create their own octets and their own network if they wish. Eventually all such networks will unite in a Moral Society, if they are based on the evolutionary ethic. The current network exists only (1) to help, through education and trade, those who cannot entirely help themselves, and (2) to join with other octets and networks who have lowered their fear sufficiently to love and be loved by others outside their current octets and network. There are only four common agreements in this network: (1) a commitment to the evolutionary ethic, the Eight Ethical Principles, the Game of Life, and the Contract for Creative Transformation; (2) a choice to reject fear as a motivator and to share ethical network information with anyone who fills out and submits an application (Appendix) to join the network; (3) a willingness to invest time and resources to help any persons who wish it, no matter how disturbed and evil they may appear at first, to begin creative transformation so long as they keep to the Contract for Creative Transformation; and (4) the willingness to accept as network members any octets or networks who accept these four points of agreement.

Anyone who has better principles on which to create networks and octets is welcome to do so. We will listen and modify ourselves when it seems right. Any individual or group within the network is free to leave and join other networks or start networks of their own, all in the spirit of the Contract for Creative Transformation. All relationships must be voluntary if they are to be creative.

This system for creative transformation is impossible to control, even by the persons who start it or by any government no matter how tyrannical. Anyone can start a group of eight, in secret if he/she is so inclined. Even in a total police state such as the Soviet Union it is difficult to watch and disrupt every possible grouping of eight persons, since they can meet privately in their living rooms, kitchens, or in parks to creatively transform themselves. Once a critical mass of persons have overcome their fear, they will be impossible to control by any government, no matter how tyrannical. Fear is the only thing that makes persons controllable. Persons who can overcome their fear will eventually transform their society into an ethical, progressive system.

For a society to be progressive it must be based on love and not on fear. The society that will evolve naturally among the octets will be such a society. Each octet will recognize that the most creative thing it can do will be to increase the creativity of others. All the successful octets will eventually offer every person who so wishes the opportunity to be creatively transformed. These octets will naturally evolve toward educational and economic self-sufficiency (see Chapters 6 and 7). This in turn will give all human beings who wish it an opportunity to educate themselves and become self-sufficient. The government-controlled welfare bureaucracies of the current nation-states shall be replaced by unlimited educational andeconomic opportunity for all who wish to be creatively transformed. If one network should fail through a developmental error, then other, better networks will arise to take its place. Remember, no quantum process is certain, although the average of many independent trials is predictable.

Both democratic and communistic societies are based on fear. The former is based on the fear of oppression by the strong; the latter on the fear of economic insufficiency for the weak. No combination of these is viable. The society which will evolve naturally from the octets and their networks will overcome the oppression of the strong and the insufficiency of the weak by freeing the creative energies of all who wish to learn, teach, and create to the limits of their capability. Simultaneously, all persons who so wish will be assured of support and sustenance, according to their own nature and inclinations, within a freely chosen network of octets. There will be an octet of their own choosing for everyone. This type of society is neither a capitalistic democracy, a socialist state, a combination of the two, nor any other type of system that has ever existed. It is something new. The closest political approximation to the type of society which will naturally evolve among the octets is a libertarian society.
 
The Libertarian Perspective

Creative transformation is an ethical and an intellectual process, not a political one. However, it has political implications. The major one is that persons who have overcome fear and are driven solely by the evolutionary ethic and love are not controllable by conventional governmental means and do not need outside government in any way. They are self-governing and autonomous. They become individually self-sufficient and join voluntarily with other octets in projects that require more than eight persons, although almost anything that people need can be produced by an octet--anything from food, energy, and housing to education, health care, and transportation. Space exploration and national defense as well as other worthwhile enterprises may require the cooperation of thousands or even millions of octets. How this might be done is shown in Chapter 7. National defense is one of the few legitimate functions for a national government. Even this could be done best by a network of free octets within a libertarian society.

The important point to remember is that self-sufficiency is a relative concept. Not even powerful nations such as the Soviet Union and the United States are completely self-sufficient. We all need others in order to achieve our maximum potential. But we can only fulfill this need for others, ethically, by voluntary interactions. Trying to force others to give us what we need through democracy or communism leads to the destruction of creativity. Only voluntary transactions through mutual free choice can ever be creative.

Persons following the evolutionary ethic, octets and their members, assume responsibility for their own life and declare their own freedom while respecting the freedom of others. This is the type of behavior that maximizes creativity. Therefore, a corollary of the Eight Ethical Principles is that a person's life and property belong entirely to him or herself and that no one has a right to any part of another person's life or property without his/her consent except in necessary self-defense against the person in question. This is the ethic of libertarianism.

The libertarian ethic says that the liberty of each individual is sacrosanct and that individual liberty cannot be ethically interfered with except in self-defense. The democratic ethic says that that which makes for the greatest liberty for the greatest number is the greatest good. Therefore, under democracy, the individual liberty of some might be restricted in order to provide for the greater liberty of others. A corollary of this is that it is "acceptable" for popular majorities to impose their will on unpopular minorities. This thinking leads inevitably to socialism and the destruction of individual liberty and creativity. The Bill of Rights in the United States was supposed to limit this intuitive contradiction in democratic ideology, but it does so ever less effectively. Eventually, in every democratic society, the liberty of the few is not only sacrificed for the alleged liberty of many, but the liberty of all is sacrificed through socialism for the illusions of material security of the majority.

A libertarian society is one in which anyone can do or say anything he or she wishes so long as he or she does not impose undeserved harm on another. When is harm deserved? Self-defense through force against assailants or robbers is clearly an example of deserved harm inflicted upon another. Speaking any truth which is harmful to another is not an undeserved harm unless it violates a prior contract or is part of an unethical (criminal) conspiracy. Conversely, assault, robbery, slander, libel, lies, pollution of another's space, and breaking agreements are considered wrong because they impose undeserved harm on others. They also decrease their victim's creativity. "Harm" is anything that decreases anyone's creativity.

Ethically, we can never increase our creativity at the cost of someone else's creativity because unethical means can never achieve ethical ends. It is always unethical to decrease the creativity of a single individual, no matter how large the alleged majority that is to benefit from this "sacrifice." This is why communism, democracy, and all combinations of the two lead to self-contradictory, i.e. self-destructive, systems that are leading the human race toward annihilation by reducing our freedom to choose. Only the evolutionary ethic can serve as the basis for irreversible progress. Only libertarianism is politically compatible with the evolutionary ethic.

The Founding Fathers of the United States were libertarians in spirit who made unethical compromises toward democracy and majority rule in order to supposedly succeed. These ranged from a toleration of slavery tothe right of a sufficiently large majority to take away everyone's civil rights (e.g., a 75-percent-majority of the state legislatures to amend the U.S. Constitution). The latter eventually led to inequitable land-use laws, the draft, the income tax, compulsory, destructive educational bureaucracies, and police state bureaucracies--all gross violations of the libertarian ethic. The Founding Fathers' famous dictum, "That government governs best which governs least," is pure libertarianism. Neither they nor the ever more corrupt political bureaucracy that governs the United States lived up to this dictum. Instead we have a government that always governs more and more and constantly takes libertarian rights away. The only positive developments in these matters since the first U.S. Constitution have been the Bill of Rights and related amendments such as the abolition of slavery. Almost every other action of government has diminished liberty.

The creative transformation process will lead automatically and inexorably toward a libertarian society. The creative transformation process will lead to the concentration of the most creative persons in the octets and network of octets. Even when these disagree among themselves about many things, they will agree about the need for a libertarian society because creativity can only be maximized under maximum individual liberty.

Since creativity is the basis of all power and all wealth (see Chapter 7), by simply withdrawing their support from their respective governments and the supporting economic system and by concentrating on their own creativity and their own self-sufficiency, the octets shall automatically create the structure of a libertarian society. They will then band together to protect their own freedom and extend it to others. This will turn the society into a libertarian society where each octet essentially has the rights of a sovereign government, and all political choice is through unanimous consensus.

Each individual could remain unaffiliated, join, or create any group of any size of his/her choice. Individual liberty would always be protected, but only groupings with at least four men and four women would have sovereign rights. This will restrain psychopathic personalities, who typically are loners. Within a creative transformation octet the best of each comes forward while the worst eventually disappears. Anarchy is impractical.

Disputes between octets and individuals would be settled by creative consensus with neutral octets chosen at random to serve as arbitrators or as judges in criminal cases, again by consensus. Majority rule would in general be replaced by consensus among octets. Each octet would have the right not to cooperate with others and to function as an isolated sovereign state. Every octet would do its best to protect everyone's individual libertarian rights, because this would maximize creativity and because it is unethical to tolerate destructiveness. Because of creative competition among groups, it is expected that very large organizations would not compete effectively against the free octets and their networks.

The closer a society's economic system is to laissez faire capitalism,the sooner it will become a libertarian society after the creative transformation process begins. Therefore, we should expect the United States--which, in spite of the fact that it has been moving away from libertarianism since its inception, is still the freest society on earth--to become the first creatively transformed libertarian society. Tyrannical societies, such as the communistic and Islamic states, are the farthest from being libertarian societies. They should take much longer to be ethically transformed. But the creative transformation process will be difficult to stop in the tyrannical societies even with police state terror. Only common fear makes persons controllable for destructive purposes.
 
The Next Four Steps

In order to optimize the creative transformation process it is the responsibility of each octet and their networks to go beyond the first four steps. They must also take the next four:

Step 5.
Become self-sufficient in education, economics, health, defense, and everything else, in this order of priority. Only a fairly large network can become more self-sufficient than a current nation-state.

Step 6.
Help other octets, in your own network first and then in other networks, to achieve the same degree of self-sufficiency through education, trade, and mutual defense agreements.

Step 7.
Extend the protection of the self-sufficiency networks in the formof a libertarian society to any person who wishes to join it on equitableterms. Doing this will provide security for all human beings who need it and eventually leave the central government without power, wealth, or a creative population to govern. Remember that both security and insecurity are illusions. Only the Game of Life is real. The central government and its willing subjects, if they are not nurtured by creative persons, will consist entirely of parasites and will eventually collapse--to be replaced by a libertarian society. It is unethical to nurture parasites.

Step 8.
Extend the process to other countries through education, trade, and mutual defense until the entire world is a creatively transformed libertarian society on the way to becoming a Moral Society. Never impose your way of life on others by force, but allow them space to be different in their own territory. Human intelligence without human ethics leads inevitably to self-destruction [280]. Similarly, you fight to the death to defend your liberty and that of affiliated octets. It is unethical to tolerate destructive behavior, however strong the culprit. Creativity can only grow through liberty, never through force. Every tyranny is worse than anarchy.

That is what our Local Moral Society (LMS) has done to us. We are given free will to be creative or destructive. We are never forced to be creative. Indeed, we can almost always find a short-term advantage in behaving anarchically and destructively, or so it seems. The last four steps are primarily for maximizing our creativity by maximizing our intelligence after our ethics have evolved to the point where we can handle a quantum leap in intelligence without self-destructing. Each octet will know when it is ready to begin taking the last four steps. Until then it should concentrate on the ethical and moral aspects of its creative transformation.

We have used the concept of a libertarian society in an idealized fashion to communicate a consequence, but not necessarily a method for achieving the consequence. The libertarian society is not a goal; it is merely the consequence of persons freely engaging in creative transformation. The only goal is to maximize creativity. Just as democracy and communism are means which are not ends and lead to self-destroying contradictions, so would the goal of creating a libertarian society be another means which is not an end. We reject anarchy because it does not maximize creativity.

We see that in the Libertarian party in the United States. This party has a stated goal of creating a libertarian society, as we have defined it. In spite of the fact that the Libertarian party has the allegiance of some of the most creative persons in the United States, along with some of the most hedonistic and selfish, it has already produced a party system which is almost as bureaucratically corrupt as the Democratic and Republican parties, without ever having achieved any significant power! For example, its political candidates are usually no more creative than the Democratic or Republican candidates. The Libertarian party puts almost as much emphasis on legalizing drugs as it does on reducing government. It has no better alternative to the arms race than isolationism and a purely defensive posture. It promotes selfishness rather than love. If the Libertarian party took over the United States government it would have compromised its ideals so much in order to woo the masses that it would be as indistinguishable from the Democratic and Republican parties as they are from each other. The political process in the United States is such that libertarian rhetoric will be used by hypocritical politicians whenever it is politically expedient.

The masses are never wooed by liberty, but only by the promises of more security--another illusion. The love of power always overwhelms the love of ideology. Most people will vote for libertarianism, not out of ethics, but out of the belief that it is in their economic best interests. A necessary but not sufficient condition for any system to keep from total corruption is that no one who seeks power over others in any way is ever granted power.

It is true that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. However, the mere pursuit of power, no matter how noble the purpose, also corrupts as the Libertarian party has shown us. That is why no one who wants power should ever have it. Only the exclusive, open-mindedpursuit of truth through creativity, love, and full scientific feedback from all persons can keep an organization or an individual from becoming corrupt. And even those noble goals and methods will fail if the autonomous organizational unit is much larger or smaller than eight persons or lacks full and equal participation of both men and women.

In order to be maximally creative, the octets need alternatives to the current educational and economic system. Each octet may develop its own alternatives. There is still enough liberty in the United States to create these alternatives and replace the current, destructive educational and economic systems with ethical systems based on love rather than fear.

The next two chapters present some alternatives for your consideration. It is what we wish to do within our octet and within our network. Those who wish to join us in this endeavor are welcome. Those who wish to create their own alternatives have our best wishes. We hope to learn from you. You are welcome to learn all you can from us. We hope you are better and more successful than we are. Then we will follow your lead. The more alternatives that are tried to create an Ethical State, the higher the probability of success. No monolithic organization is necessary or desirable. Eventually we will all rejoin in the Moral Society. The Ethical State is a new phylum of the human mind, which is destined to converge into the Moral Society--just as we are now converging into the Ethical State.

The Ethical State is the state of mind that results from creative transformation. The Ethical State is also any octet or network of octets who have actively engaged in creative transformation. All who value truth more than happiness and all who love more than they fear are living in an Ethical State. It is a state without boundaries. An Ethical State is creative. In order to maximize its creativity, it must continue to become moral and to educate itself in a new way.