Sections of the Introduction
The Equation of Creative Transformation
Autopoiesis and Fear
The purpose of this book is to teach a practical, scientific method for maximizing creativity. Creativity is, among other things, the process by which we discover scientific laws, invent machines, produce works of art, and help others do the same. The most creative thing we can do is to help maximize the creativity of another. It will be shown that in so doing we maximize our own creativity. In teaching this method we will always use science as the ultimate criterion for truth, while recognizing that creativity and new truth require more than science. We use science only to separate truth from delusion. If we are to maximize creativity, we must first learn to integrate science, mysticism, evolution, ethics, art and other concepts in a new holistic paradigm of reality.
It comes to pass for all civilizations that either they change their collective paradigm of the universe or they die. In the past, all have chosen to die. It appears that Western civilization is being forced into the same choice today.
A "paradigm" is a comprehensive model of reality that enables us to relate to the world around us and have a sense of identity within what we perceive to be "the real world." Many persons feel that their identity is threatened if they have to change their beliefs in any way. They, therefore, will fight to the death to hold on to false beliefs. This is the basis of religious and ideological wars in general. Truth is not so easily threatened.
Only self-deluded persons feel their identity (ego) is threatened by the admission that they are in any way wrong. They will then deceive themselves to the point of hallucinating total distortions of reality in order to hold on to their false beliefs. A minor case in point is a now classical experiment in which persons are shown a deck of cards whose hearts are all black and spades are all red. Their paradigm is such that even after being shown the cards repeatedly, they cannot tell that the colors have been reversed: the simple paradigm that hearts are always red and spades are always black is so fixed in their minds that they cannot change it even after repeated observations that it has in fact been changed.
When this type of conflict comes to more important and fundamental beliefs such as who we are, where we come from, where we are going, and how we can get there, the resistance to paradigm change is much greater. Yet we are constantly being forced to change our most cherished beliefs by unavoidable, overwhelming reality. We can continue to learn only when we admit that we might be wrong. We learn much more when we recognize our errors than when we confirm our beliefs. Persons fear discovering their errors only when they desire happiness more than truth; otherwise they delight in discovering their errors.
In relatively recent history many of the people of Europe were forced to change their paradigm of the Catholic Church as a moral source of infallible truth. Those who did so created the scientific revolution and produced modern Western civilization. Those who could not change this paradigm were left behind and saw their countries undergo a sharp decline relative to the Protestant, or later secular, countries that resulted from the Reformation and the acceptance of scientific method as the ultimate arbiter of objective truth.
But no sooner was the Newtonian model of the world fully established and generally accepted by the end of the 19th century than science forced us again to change our paradigm twice in one generation--first, to the relativistic model of reality, and then to the quantum view of reality. Not even the greatest scientist of his generation, Albert Einstein, was able to accept the quantum paradigm of reality, which seems so contrary to intuition, common sense, and rational determinism, but which shall be shown to be the key to the holistic paradigm.
Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and the other creators of the scientific revolution had demolished the authority of the Catholic Church in the physical universe. Darwin and modern science in general apparently demolished all religious authority in the natural world. The religious fundamentalists in the United States and other countries still have not reconciled themselves to this state of affairs. Quantum mechanics went further and implied to some that there might not be any underlying order at all to the universe. In the words of Jacques Monod , everything occurs because of chance and/or necessity. Personal choice as well as moral order in the universe may be illusions. These last, apparent implications of quantum mechanics were so contrary to Einstein's moral sense of propriety that he rejected the basic premises of quantum mechanics altogether and looked elsewhere for other explanations for quantum phenomena.
Quantum mechanics has two basic premises which are counterintuitive to most persons. The first is that nature, at its core, is random. The second is that there is a fundamental, unavoidable interaction between the observerand nature so that it is not possible to observe any part of nature without changing what we are observing by the very act of the observation. Einstein responded to the first premise by saying that "God does not play dice with the Universe." He responded to the second premise by saying that "God is subtle but not malicious."
Einstein was a man of such great genius and creativity that the scientific community should have listened carefully to what he was saying. Instead, they chose to ignore him during the last quarter of his life, in spite of his public acclaim. But as we shall later see, Einstein may yet have the last word on this subject. Einstein's notions that quantum mechanics was an incomplete science and that quantum phenomena were due to hidden variables are now supported by increasing evidence, except that the hidden variables appear to be outside of our time and space (i.e., they are "nonlocal") and are intimately tied to the human mind [299, 836]. Einstein would have found this notion even more shocking than the basic premises of quantum mechanics, but perhaps not as spiritually disturbing. An infinite, noetic [see Glossary] universe filled with true information, outside of our time and space, is a belief all mystics have in common. Some personalize this belief and call it "God."
The scientific disdain for Einstein's views was not out of spite or malice, but because quantum mechanics fit the most fundamental paradigm of science, which may be summarized as follows:
Note: The essence of scientific method is experimental verification of theories and hypotheses (that may often be playfully generated). Any hypothesis or theory which fails to predict what it claims it can predict is considered false. No hypothesis or theory is ever regarded as absolutely true or beyond doubt. In fact, it is expected that all theories will eventually be replaced by truer theories in an unending process of scientific evolution through creative play with new ideas. "Truer" theories make more numerous and/or more accurate predictions.
- Definition 1
Information is the symbolic representation of events and their relationships.
- Definition 2
Truth is any information which, when we believe it, increases our ability to predict and/or control any part of the objective world without decreasing our ability to predict and control any other part of the objective world.
- Definition 3
Falsehood is information which, when we believe it, decreases our ability to predict and/or control any part of the objective world.
- Definition 4
The objective world is the commonly observable and measurable environment--physical, biological, and psychosocial.
- Definition 5
To predict is to imagine an event correctly before it is objectively perceived.
- Definition 6
To control is to deliberately cause a predicted event how and when we imagine it.
- Definition 7
Falsifiability means that alleged scientific statements must be objectively testable to see whether they are in fact false. Untestable statements about nature are at best trivial, at worst meaningless, but they need not be tested immediately.
Quantum mechanics was excellent at predicting the chemical behavior of atoms and molecules. It led to such practical devices (control) as lasers, microchips, and superconductors. Although quantum mechanics could not precisely predict or control the behavior of individual quantum events such as determining the simultaneous, precise position and momentum of electrons and protons or of electronic exchanges between atoms in a molecule, it predicted very precisely the average interaction of millions of these quantum events, as in the inventions mentioned above and in many thousands of reported experiments. Therefore, the scientific paradigm said that the Theory of Quantum Mechanics must be true, despite such unanswered questions as how a quantum object is simultaneously both a wave and a particle even though it can be observed as only one or the other. Richard Feynman and David Bohm, both renowned physicists, have each claimed, for different reasons, that quantum objects are in fact particles, not waves, although we may observe them as either [63, 241]. Some physicists are beginning to see a connection between quantum mechanics and mysticism [100, 299, 858].
There is a reality in the universe other than scientific truth. This is the reality of our subjective perceptions, feelings, thoughts, intuition, and mystical insights. Science may help us distinguish which of our subjective beliefs are objectively true or false, but it cannot generate new objective information about anything independently of our subjective imagination. All truth begins as a new, unproven, subjective idea which seems true to at least one person but which many others may feel is false because it violates their paradigm. Science is an aid to, not a substitute for, creative thought.
Science cannot replace our conscience, our inner sense of right and wrong. It will be shown that no matter what the scientific evidence to the contrary, we should never do things we believe to be wrong. This is why Einstein could never accept quantum mechanics as it had been formulated--it went against his conscience. Although Einstein was not religious in the orthodox or conventional sense, he publicly stated that he believed in the God of Spinoza, an impersonal God of reason and coherent order who did not play dice with the universe nor play malicious tricks withhis creations. Another great scientist who like Einstein was a major contributor to quantum mechanics, and yet could not accept its full implications, was Erwin Schroedinger, who won a Nobel Prize for deriving the quantum mechanical wave equation. Schroedinger's famous pronouncement on quantum mechanics was, "I don't like it, and I am sorry I had anything to do with it." Guided by his conscience, Schroedinger was also a deeply religious man in the mystical sense.
Ken Wilber, in his book Quantum Questions, has shown that some of the greatest scientists of this century have been deeply religious in the mystical sense. It will be shown that pure science devoid of mysticism as well as pure mysticism devoid of science are often sterile deadends that impede creativity. In order to be maximally creative, it is necessary to make a full synthesis between science and mysticism, as well as other concepts. This requires a radical restructuring of paradigms by scientists, mystics, and the world in general. If it is not done, humanity will probably annihilate itself, as has been independently shown . It is the purpose of this book to fully integrate the mystical and scientific paradigms through ethics and evolution within the context of maximizing creativity.
Mysticism means many different things to different people. What seems to be the common denominator among all mystics from Buddha, Jesus, Spinoza, Mahatma Gandhi, and Mother Teresa to their scientific counterparts in Kepler, Newton, Einstein, Schroedinger, Pauli, Jung, Heisenberg, and Teilhard de Chardin is that they all believe in the following paradigm--the Mystical Paradigm:
1. There is a moral order to the Universe.Almost all persons who are in any way religious can accept the preceding paradigm, although many will try to restrict it further by adding such notions as a personal God and specific formulae for communicating (praying) with this personal God. However, science excludes the mystical paradigm from its own paradigm, since the overwhelming majority of scientists, including those who are religious, cannot see how mysticism is relevant to science. That is to say, many scientists cannot see how any form of mysticism can lead to an increase in their ability to predict and control in the objective world. Nonmystical scientists see all forms of mysticism as synonymous with superstition. "Superstition" may be defined as "other peoples' religious beliefs." Similarly, many mystics reject science becausethey cannot see how science can help them better communicate with God, a subjective experience they perceive directly. This state of affairs produces the following kinds of persons:
2. There is a greater source of truth in the Universe than humanity; it produces, at least in part, the moral order of the Universe.
3. Humanity can communicate with the common source of moral order and greater truth.
4. Being ethical facilitates, and may be essential to, this communication.
The major values of existentialists are beauty and intellectual integrity in not deceiving themselves into believing what is not true. This applies in particular to their own motivations. Existentialists do what they do because they value experience as an end in itself. Just being oneself and recognizing that one's own experience is a sufficient end in itself are central to existentialism. Existentialists are often highly intelligent and artistically creative. They are exemplified by Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre. Jacques Monod was a scientific existentialist . However, it seems to me that existentialists are often as self-deluded as the mystical specialists and share what is in fact a similar value system--giving primacy to their subjective experience as the only reality that exists or matters. Nihilism is the most destructive form of existentialism since it rejects the notion of any ethical obligation at all, thereby producing de facto psychopaths. Many existentialists believe at least that they have an obligation to the intellectual integrity of others as well as to their own. They may often show social responsibility, albeit of a very limited kind. The most creative artists and scientists are usually open to both the scientific and the mystical paradigms. They are rarely existentialists. Monod and renowned cosmologist Stephen Hawking  are exceptions. They, and a few of their peers, seem to integrate both the existential and the scientific paradigms in an austere, lonely ethical system which limits their considerable creativity by denying the mystical paradigm, but which gives them ethical integrity and keeps them creative by valuing truth above happiness. The ultimate weakness of existentialism comes from valuing personal experience more than ethical action. No society is viable which does not give primacy to creative, ethical action over personal experience.
- Definition 8
Mystical Specialists are persons who reject science as having any relevance to their own reality, which is the reality of their own thoughts and experiences; they specialize in predicting and controlling their own thoughts and ignore as much as possible the objective world. They value experience more than action.
- Definition 9
Mystical Scientists are persons who make a sharp separation between science and mysticism. They are nonmystical in their science and nonscientific in their mysticism, but accept both paradigms for different aspects of their life. They may belong to and practice an orthodox religion while being very rigorous scientists in a specialized field. They are usually less creative than those who fully integrate science and mysticism, but are often more creative than the Mystical or Scientific Specialists because they are more open to all aspects of truth.
- Definition 10
Scientific Specialists are scientists who reject mysticism in its entirety and accept only the scientific paradigm. They are typically strict reductionists in science and see human beings strictly as biological systems whose behavior is determined entirely by physical laws and by conditioning--Neo-Darwinists, Skinnerian Behaviorists, and Orthodox Marxist-Leninists are examples of persons who see themselves this way. Scientific Specialists may be as dogmatic, destructive, and uncreative as the mystical specialists. They, like all persons, are creative insofar as they have ethical integrity and value truth more than happiness. As with other specialists, Scientific Specialists also become destructive when they assert that their paradigm is complete.
- Definition 11
Scientific Mystics are persons who fully integrate science and mysticism. They accept both paradigms in a holistic way and are mystical in their science as well as scientific in their mysticism. Kepler, Newton, Einstein, Schroedinger, Pauli, Jeans, Eddington, Heisenberg, and many other highly creative scientists have been scientific mystics. Not only scientists, but everyone from carpenters, potters, and gardeners to cooks, mechanics, and artisans are also more highly creative in their crafts and in all aspects of their life when they are Scientific Mystics. Scientific Mysticism is a state of mind, not a profession. Any person--not just the formally trained scientists and mystics--who accepts the holistic paradigm is in fact a Scientific Mystic. It will be shown that creativity is directly proportional to how well persons integrate science with mysticism in a holistic paradigm that combines the totality of human experience realistically and openly, objectively and subjectively, esthetically and ethically. This is the Holistic Paradigm.
- Definition 12
Finally, there are Existentialists, who often claim to reject both the scientific and the mystical paradigms; they see no pattern,meaning, or purpose in a universe which is then dogmatically asserted to be meaningless and absurd.
One proposition to be developed in this book is that any form of specialization is ultimately destructive, and that, by leading to its own self-improvement, scientific mysticism is the only realistic paradigm that can avoid internal contradictions and maximize creativity. Scientific mysticism (the Holistic Paradigm) is the only fully generalized paradigm that seeks to integrate all aspects of reality. It may, in fact, be essential to human survival. However, only persons who put maximum value on creativity can become scientific mystics. Scientists such as Monod and Hawking put a higher priority on not deceiving themselves. This is often a manifestation of fear, and as such it limits their creativity. We can, with difficulty, be scientific mystics and avoid self-delusion. It is a risk many otherwise creative persons decline.
Self-delusion is the risk we take in order to maximize creativity. Thereis no progress without some risk. The fear of risk takes us to specialization and stagnation. As soon as we open ourselves to mysticism, we also open ourselves to self-delusion. The world is full of self-deluded mystics, specialized scientists, mystical scientists, and existentialists who believe that they are creative when in fact they are destructive to themselves as well as others. This is where scientific method is most useful. If we are in fact creative, then our actions must be increasing someone's ability to predict and control part of the objective world without decreasing this ability for anyone else.
This precludes stopping at the prediction and control of our own thoughts (the subjective world) and calling that act creative. If we bring about subjective changes in ourselves or others, they are creative if and only if they lead to increased truth about the objective world for at least one person without decreasing truth for any person. So long as our information is purely subjective, we must remain open to the possibility that our information may be objectively wrong. We test subjective information by scientific method. Mysticism gives us only subjective information. It is not necessarily true or false. Science tells us whether any subjective information is objectively false according to the scientific paradigm. However, science never allows us to discover new truth of any kind directly. It can only test information to see whether it is false in the first place, and then communicate this information in a coherent way to others. If the information is not false, it is assumed to be tentatively true until "truer" information is available. Any information which makes any false predictions is either false or incomplete. The best we can ever hope to discover through science is true--but incomplete--information. All paradigms are either false or incomplete. Scientific Mysticism is an evolutionary paradigm that leads us toward an ever truer and more complete paradigm in an infinite process of ever increasing creative imagination guided by ever increasing objective truth.
- Definition 13
Creativity is the act of increasing truth for at least one person (including ourselves) without decreasing truth for any person (including ourselves).
Remember that science never gives us absolute truth that cannot be improved. All new truth begins as subjective information in someone's mind. But this is also how all delusion begins. In order to distinguish between truth and delusion, we must use scientific method, which is simply doing a suitable experiment to test our alleged model of truth. The design and execution of any "suitable" experiment is in itself a creative act, since it increases truth.
Creativity is, therefore, the act of producing new information and testing whether it is objectively true. The scientist does this through experimentation that shows that his theory or hypothesis predicts correctly with no significant errors; the engineer by building a new machine that works (controls) as predicted; the educator by teaching information that in factimproves the student's ability to predict and control in the objective world; the healer by in fact curing an illness and producing health; the nurturer by maintaining health and enhancing growth; the parent by having, loving, nurturing, and educating children; the artisan by making an object that can be used to enhance truth for at least one person; and finally, the artist by producing a work that is perceived as beautiful. "Beauty" is the conscious perception of objective truth being communicated to our unconscious. The greater the truth communicated to the unconscious, the more beautiful the art. Therefore, creativity has many--in fact, infinitely many--manifestations in the objective world. "Science," in the broadest sense, is the objectification of creativity. We can all be scientists in this sense of simply testing our alleged models of how to increase creativity. The desire to increase and the act of increasing creativity I call "ethics."
"Ethics" is usually defined as the study of what is "good," or as a set of moral values or principles. These definitions mean that one person's ethics can be another person's evil. My approach to ethics is universal in the mathematical sense of being optimal for an ultimate set of values, i.e., an extremal in a desired direction. It will be shown that there are only two ultimate values and that all actions are ways of achieving one or both of these two ultimate values. The first value I call "happiness." The second value we have called "creativity."
We all have multiple desires, not all of which can be simultaneously fulfilled. Unfulfilled desires make us "unhappy." Therefore, we are all both happy and unhappy at the same time. When the rate, strength, and number of desires being fulfilled exceeds the rate, strength, and number of desires not being fulfilled, we call the net result "happiness." The converse we call "unhappiness."
- Definition 14
Happiness is a subjective state of mind in which we believe that our desires are being fulfilled. Desires that have been fulfilled do not make us happy; only desires that are being fulfilled make us happy.
For those seeking happiness, the question "Why do you wish to be happy?" makes no sense because happiness is an ultimate goal and not a means toward any other end. Therefore, it is obvious that happiness is an ultimate end. It is not so obvious that creativity is also an ultimate end, but it shall be shown that it is.
The first thing to note is that happiness and creativity are not mutually exclusive. By definition, if our strongest desire is to maximize creativity, then the maximization of creativity is what makes us happiest, given that all other desires are not totally unfulfilled. However, creativity and happiness are obviously not synonymous, since happiness is a subjective state of mind, while creativity is an objective act. Our animal nature,which is reflected through the desires of our lower three brains (the mammalian cortex, the reptilian complex, and the hindbrain or fish brain), and which we share to lesser or greater degrees with all other animals, predisposes us to be happy. Each brain reflects its own desires, which are usually tied to the basic needs to survive, reproduce, metabolize, and provide for the welfare of our progeny--and nothing else.
The neocortex, which is developed most highly in human beings, although it exists to a lesser degree in all the higher mammals--particularly the primates, cetaceans, and elephants--manifests needs and desires that have little immediate relationship to survival, reproduction, metabolism, or nurturing of progeny. The neocortex contains our center for ethics and creativity. Darwinists have trouble explaining ethical behavior because much of ethical behavior seems contrary to survival. No other animal will knowingly die for ethical principles. At best, some higher mammals will risk their lives to save their young. We will show why ethics are essential to human evolution and why the continuation of evolution is more important in nature than personal survival. This will necessitate a change in the Darwinian paradigm.
The destruction of the frontal lobes in the neocortex destroys our capacity both to make ethical judgments and to display creative imagination, although it does not destroy basic reason or intelligence. Therefore, our biological capacity for ethics and that for creativity are neurologically linked within the frontal lobes of the brain and are interrelated by the notion that ethics are our desire to maximize creativity. Ethics, which are our highest need, evolved last. Formally we define ethics as follows:
It is a natural consequence of normal human development that at some point in our childhood our desire for creativity becomes as strong as all of our other desires combined. This course of development can only be impeded by extremely destructive measures such as neurosurgery (e.g., a lobotomy), drugs, or extreme deprivation such that the lower desires are never properly satisfied. Most commonly, all human societies destroy our natural desire for creativity by punishing creative behavior and rewarding noncreative behavior. Although this type of destructive conditioning is ultimately fatal to society, it is the most common feature of all civilizations up to the present. Why it occurs and how to overcome this phenomenon is a major topic of this book.
- Definition 15
"Good," or ethical, is any act or thing which increases creativity for at least one person, including oneself, without decreasing it for any person, including oneself.
- Definition 16
"Evil," or unethical, is any act or thing which decreases the creativity of any person, including oneself.
- Definition 17
The Universal or Evolutionary Ethic is that we must do our best to maximize creativity for ourselves and others.
Maslow's notion of the hierarchy of needs [500, 501] seems to applyhere, except that I would call the highest need "the desire to maximize creativity." The satisfaction of this need is what leads to self-actualization. We become self-actualizing when we choose to live by the Evolutionary Ethic, not by desiring to be self-actualizing. Furthermore, we can deliberately and consciously choose to follow the Evolutionary Ethic, then fulfill other needs only insofar as they are necessary for us to comply with the Evolutionary Ethic. We can make that choice when the strength of our ethical needs equals the strength of all of our other needs combined. When we make this choice, consciously or unconsciously, we become ever more ethical. When we refuse to make this choice or when we choose the opposite, consciously or unconsciously, we become ever less ethical. Ethical behavior, therefore, results from the strength of our desire for creativity as an act relative to the strength of our desire for happiness purely as a subjective mental state.
Following the Evolutionary Ethic is a uniformly optimal strategy that will maximize both happiness and creativity because, when we follow the Evolutionary Ethic, our desire for creativity becomes ever stronger and easier to fulfill relative to other desires, as we become ever more creative. If we seek to maximize happiness directly, we end up with neither happiness nor creativity because by seeking to maximize happiness directly we will always seek to satisfy whatever desires are strongest at the time, with little or no concern as to how this satisfaction will affect anyone's creativity, including our own. Ultimately, persons wishing to maximize happiness directly (hedonists) develop as their strongest desire the desire for desire. This is because desires that have been satisfied can no longer make us happy. The unending desire for desire can never be satisfied. This in turn leads to its own contradiction such that the main concern of all hedonists becomes not to be unhappy. Unfulfilled desires make us unhappy. The easiest way to eliminate unhappiness is to eliminate desire. The easiest way to eliminate desire is to die. Therefore, persons who wish to maximize happiness directly end up wishing for their own deaths indirectly, thereby minimizing both happiness and creativity along with unhappiness. This, like all risk-minimizing strategies based on fear, leads to extinction. Such persons are the reason why all civilizations in the past, and apparently our own civilization today, have chosen death.
For these reasons we maximize both creativity and happiness by seeking to maximize creativity with no concern for our happiness or that of others. That is why following the Evolutionary Ethic is a uniformly optimal strategy that will get us everything we want better than any other strategy. It is the only ethical principle that is fully generalized and viable in the long run. This now enables us to state the fundamental equation of Creative Transformation.
The Equation of Creative Transformation
This is the simplest equation that satisfies the boundary conditions of the process. It is clearly an approximation. Ethics (E) and Intelligence (I) are not fully independent, e.g., Intelligence (I) goes to infinity as Ethics (E) goes to 1, although Intelligence (I) can increase up to a point without Ethics increasing.
EQUATION 1: C = IEWhere: C = Creativity in quanta of new, true information generated per unit time. Range is minus infinity to plus infinity.
I = Intelligence in quanta of old, true information predicted and controlled per unit time. Range is zero to plus infinity.
E = Ethics in units of desire for truth minus units of desire for happiness without truth, the entire quantity divided by total units of desire. Range is -1 to +1.
Or E = (Yt - Yf)/(Yt + Yf)Where: Yt = Quanta of new, true information imagined per unit time. Range zero to plus infinity.
Yf = Quanta of new, false information believed per same unit time as Yt. Range zero to plus infinity.
When we value happiness more than truth or creativity, we will believe falsehoods which will enable us to continue to believe otherfalsehoods that make us happy in the face of contradictory evidence. That is why true information imagined minus false information believed, divided by all information imagined and believed is a measure of a person's ethics. The following corollaries follow directly from Equation 1, and the related Definitions. Equation 1 is derived and treated more completely in the rest of the book.
- Definition 18
Negative creativity is destructiveness which results from negative ethics, i.e., desiring happiness more than creativity. Destructiveness is the generation of false information or the elimination of true information.
Therefore, if a person is ethical, then 1 > E > 0, and the person is creative. If a person is unethical, then -1 < E < 0, and the person is destructive.
- Definition 19
Self-delusion is believing information that is false. It is not necessary to believe false information, because we do not need to believe anything. We can be effective by taking a probabilistic approach to life. We believe falsehood only when we behave unethically. We can always choose to suspend belief.
Corollary 1.0: The more unethical persons are, the more rigid their belief system, and the less likely they are to doubt their beliefs.
Corollary 1.1: It is ethical to doubt.
Corollary 1.2: It is unethical to be certain.
Corollary 1.3: Ethical persons always consider that their information may be in error, and are desirous of testing their information through scientific method in direct proportion to how ethical they are.
Corollary 1.4: Ethical persons take their identity not from their beliefs or experiences, but rather from their ethical actions, i.e., from doing their best to follow the Evolutionary Ethic. Ethical persons are goal-oriented, not method-oriented, while recognizing that unethical means can never achieve ethical ends. The means must be ethical ends in themselves.
Prediction and control are always partial, never total. We all predict and control only part of the total environment, and fail to predict or control in other parts of the environment. We all have finite intelligence.
- Definition 20
If E = 1 for any person, and that person never behaves unethically again, we define such a person as moral.
Morality is the desire and the act of predicting and controlling our own ethics, just as ethics is the desire and the act of predicting and controlling our own intelligence.
- Definition 21
Intelligence is, intuitively speaking, the ability to predict and control the total environment--physical, biological, and psychosocial.
Corollary 1.5: An ethical person focuses on predicting and controlling only what enhances the creativity of all. An ethical person does not interfere with the individual choices of others except in self-defense, because to do so diminishes the creativity of all. Ethically, we must speak only what we believe might be true, but we are also ethically constrained from imposing our truth on others. Nothing destroys the creativity of others more than to take away their opportunity to freely make ethical choices. By expanding the creative options for others in an atmosphere of freedom, ethics will flourish and evil will destroy itself.
From Equation 1, it follows that unethical persons (0 > E > -1) are more often destructive than creative in their lives, but not devoid of creativity, while ethical persons (1 >= E > 0) are more creative than destructive in their lives, but not devoid of destructiveness.
- Definition 22
Only immoral persons (E = -1) are defined to be solely destructive and never creative again after E = -1.
- Definition 23
A trivial person (E = 0) is a person whose net effect in life is to destroy and create equally, or to do nothing.
Corollary 1.6: Trivia is a set of measure zero, i.e., almost all acts are either ethical or unethical.Theorem 1
Corollary 1.7: Inaction is unethical.
Corollary 1.8: The best way to maximize creativity is to maximize ethics first and intelligence second.
Corollary 1.9: To increase the intelligence of an unethical person is unethical, i.e., destructive; it is unethical to tolerate destructive behavior by failing to take action against it.
Corollary 1.10: It is not possible to increase ethics without simultaneously increasing intelligence.
Corollary 1.11: It is possible to increase intelligence without increasing ethics; all such acts are suboptimal or unethical.
By helping persons become moral, we help them achieve infinite potential creativity. In other words, no matter how low their initial intelligence, they will achieve potentially infinite creativity if they can become moral.
Becoming moral is valuing truth above happiness in an absolute sense. It is a state of mind where all desires, including the desire for self-preservation, are secondary to the desire for maximizing creativity. It follows from Equation 1 and from the definition of ethics that if E = 1, then a moral person cannot believe falsehood, and all that a moral person imagines to be true is true. Therefore, to become moral is to have potentially infinite true information at one's disposal and to be able to generate it at will.
Intelligence is the interaction of at least eight distinct, necessary components. These are Sensors (S), Connectors (N), Memory (M), Logic (L), Will (W), Imagination (G), Effectors (R), and Information (F). We may express a person's Intelligence (I) as a direct interaction of these components:
I = S*N*M*L*W*G*R*FThe simplest direct interaction would be:
I = S•N•M•L•W•G•R•FWhere:* defines any general direct interaction,
• defines any simple scalar product,
e.g. simple multiplication
Creativity is the highest form of intelligence which results from adding a new component, Ethics (E), to the interaction as in Equation 1. Pre-ethical beings have zero creativity, although they have all the other components of intelligence. The creation of creativity is "morality," the highest form of creativity.
Components of Intelligence
If any component in a direct interaction goes to zero, then the resultant also goes to zero. Similarly, if any component in a direct interaction goes to infinity, then the resultant also goes to infinity. Therefore, if either Imagination (G) or Information (F) goes to infinity, then Intelligence (I) goes to infinity. If Imagination (G) is infallible, then it is equivalent to having infinite Information (F) at one's disposal.
It will be shown that human, not animal, Imagination (G) always generates true Information (F) independently of the Sensors (S), but that truth whether it comes from the Sensors (S) or the Imagination (G) is distorted and falsified when we value happiness more than truth. When we are unethical we Will (W) our Logic (L) to distort truth into falsehood in order not to have to give up a cherished paradigm. If we behave unethically, we believe what makes us happiest, although false. The more ethical we become the more we trust our human Imagination (G) and the less prone we are to believe falsehood.
- Definition 24
Imagination (G) is the ability and the act of generating new Information (F) independently of the Sensors (S).
All intelligent beings have some degree of Imagination (G) by which they generate new Information (F) when the Information (F) in their Memory (M) represents the existence of mutually exclusive events. Recall from Definition 1 that Information (F) is the symbolic representation of events and their relationships. When our Logic (L) tells us that two events exist, and they are mutually exclusive, then we know that some of our Information (F) about reality is either wrong or incomplete. Our Will (W) directs our Intelligence (I) to generate new Information (F) that will make all the Information (F) in our Memory (M) coherent and noncontradictory. New Information (F) can be generated indirectly by the Effectors (R) through objective experimentation whose results are reported by the Sensors (S) through the Connectors (N) to the Memory (M), or directly through the Imagination (G). In any case, it takes Imagination (G) to design any experiment that will give us new true Information (F). (Recall Definitions 2 and 3 of truth and falsehood.) Therefore, we cannot effectively increase truth for ourselves without some use of Imagination (G). Also, no human being is devoid of Imagination (G). Since when E = 1, and a person is moral, then the person cannot imagine anything false and the person can always resolve all apparent contradictions correctly through the use of Imagination (G), either directly or indirectly; this is equivalent to having infinite Information (F) at our disposal.
All the components of Intelligence interact with each other accordingto the related diagram and Equations. When Ethics (E) are added to the interaction, they give direction and resolve to the Will (W) and derandomize the Imagination (G) so that the Information (F) we imagine is true and available on demand. The same process that increases the veracity of our Imagination (G) also increases its productivity. So that we imagine more, more accurately as we increase our Ethics (E) until Imagination (G) is essentially infinite when we are fully human and become moral (E = 1). At the same time the Will (W), a vector quantity, becomes oriented more and more in the ethical direction of maximizing creativity and is less concerned with increasing happiness. That is why intelligence is not always independent of Ethics (E) and Corollaries 1.10 and 1.11 hold true. But intelligence is independent of ethics up to the point of being human. Because C = IE (from Equation 1), the person's creative potential is infinite when E = 1.
End of Explanation 1
The main purpose of this book is to teach those who value creativity more than happiness a practical technique for producing this infinite potential for creativity through morality in themselves and those they love.
Why, then, is it so difficult for human beings to become moral? The answer is twofold. First, we cannot become moral by ourselves, but only by helping another person become moral. Second, through individual fear all human organizations become destructive to the evolutionary process. Human evolution cannot continue unless we can learn how to conquer fear. These two phenomena represent an extrapolation of a pattern that exists throughout all evolutionary history.
A common denominator in the evolutionary process is a constant increase in the collective intelligence of the biosphere. In general the metazoa are more intelligent than the protozoa, the vertebrates are more intelligent than the invertebrates, the amphibians are more intelligent than the fish, the reptiles are more intelligent than the amphibians, the mammals are more intelligent than the reptiles, Homo sapiens is more intelligent than all other mammals. Furthermore, this is the order in which the fossil record indicates the biosphere has evolved. Therefore, increasing intelligence "through the unfolding of the implicate order," as David Bohm might say, is a common denominator in the evolution of the biosphere [62, 63].
Intelligence itself grows in both quality and quantity. The lowest level of intelligence is no intelligence at all, as is represented by absolute entropy (the nonavailability of energy for doing useful work) or total chaos. Total chaos or absolute entropy can predict and control nothing. Matter or coherent energy represents the next level of evolution. Matter can predict and control its own integrity of form. Matter is a homeostatic system whichresists change and often reasserts a previous form when disrupted. For example, in a suitable environment an atom will complete its normal complement of electrons if electrons are stripped from its outer shells. However, the behavior of matter is completely deterministic in its higher forms. Matter has no element of choice in its intelligence. Although individual quantum events are not precisely predictable, that seems due, as Einstein believed, to their connection to hidden variables, not to choice. True choice begins with life and evolves along with intelligence and ethics. Infinite choice comes only with infinite intelligence. But infinite intelligence cannot exist without morality. This is part of the moral order of the universe which limits the power of evil. The power of evil causes its own destruction at a human level of intelligence. The only evil that exists comes from our own fear, as will be shown later.
Life predicts and controls its own integrity of form just as matter does, but it can also predict and control things outside of its own form. Life can reproduce, metabolize, and mutate, which is to evince a higher order of intelligence than occurs in matter. Above all, life can choose to innovate. It can choose to do something that has never been done before and pass on this ability to its progeny. I postulate the following:
All atoms of a given species (elements) behave exactly the same forever. They never choose or innovate anything. Even a single, simple cell can choose to do something new that has never been done by any other cell. When it innovates, the cell generalizes and evolves. When it chooses to keep repeating the same pattern of behavior over and over again, it specializes and eventually brings about its own extinction. The choice to innovate is the source of almost all benign mutations which generalize the species, but may also produce deleterious mutations. The refusal to innovate, that is, the choice to continue repeating the same behavior, is the source of all mutations which lead to ever increasing specialization. The totally non-Lamarckian quantum mechanism by which this occurs is discussed later. Random mutations not involving choice, but due to vagaries of the environment, such as chemicals, radiation, or heat, are almost always deleterious; their cumulative benefit or true information content has measure zero, contrary to neo-Darwinism, which says that all benign mutations are random and consequently do not have measure zero.
A specialist does increasingly more of the same thing until it entirely ceases to innovate and can only repeat a pre-established pattern of behavior common to all members of its species. A specialist always becomes a total conformist within its speciality. A generalist generalizes by adding bits of information to its knowledge base about what it knows least; it is constantly innovating behavior so that its repertoire of behavior is constantly expanding until it can innovate in a maximum number of areas within the constraints of its species. When it exceeds those constraints it becomes a member of a new species that can continue to evolve. The generalist evolvesby knowing more and more about more and more until at infinity it knows everything about everything. The generalist evolves forever. The specialist always adds bits of information to its knowledge base about what it knows most while increasingly ignoring what it knows least. It knows more and more about less and less until it knows everything about nothing. It then stops evolving and eventually becomes extinct. The choice not to innovate causes a species to specialize and mutate into ever more specialized, ever less intelligent species. The choice to innovate causes a species to generalize and become more intelligent. Specialization leads to short-term success at the cost of long-term danger. Generalization does the opposite. In an infinite game the best long-term strategy always wins. That is why all specialized species are extinct or destined for eventual extinction.
Therefore we can see the basic pattern of evolution. It is in harmony with the moral order of the universe. The direction of evolution is toward ever greater generalized intelligence that results from the choice to innovate. The most generalized form of intelligence is the ability to create. Matter has intelligence solely about its own integrity of form, but it cannot innovate. Life has intelligence about its total environment--physical, biological, and psychosocial; it can innovate. Humans have intelligence about intelligence. They can predict and control their own ability to predict and control. We call this new dimension in intelligence "Ethics" (E). When E interacts with the other components of intelligence that we share to some degree with all other animals and even plants, then we become capable not only of innovation but of creation.
- Definition 25
A Generalist has maximum truth about a maximum number of aspects of the environment. Generalization leads to a maximization of intelligence, a long-term advantage.
- Definition 26
A Specialist has maximum truth about a minimum number of aspects of the environment. A specialist is distinguished from a generalist not by what it knows but by what it does not know. Specialization leads to a minimization of intelligence. Even if some particular specialized type of intelligence is increased at the beginning--a short-term advantage--overall intelligence is decreased by specialization--a longterm disadvantage.
To innovate means to generate new information independently of the sensors. But it is just as likely to be false information as it is to be true, so long as it is a product of our animal imagination. To create means to innovate more that is true than is false. Recall the implications of E gt; 0 from Equation 1. For almost all subhumans, except possibly for some of our closest generalized mammalian cousins, E = 0 (it does not exist). For pre-hominid species true innovations are positively selected while false innovations are eliminated by natural selection. Almost all pre-hominid species are neither systematically creative nor destructive. Hominids can be systematically destructive as well as systematically creative. As we becomefully human then our Ethics (E) goes to one (1). A corollary is that we are the only living species that can choose suicide. We are our own major source of natural selection. Evil (E < 0) always destroys itself, although it can also destroy some things that are good along with itself.
The pattern of evolution is that the biosphere moves toward the Moral Society not smoothly or regularly, but by giant hierarchical quantum leaps--leaps of four complementary pairs of evolutionary units from the previous hierarchy, taking us to the next hierarchy. This is the pattern of evolution as I see it:
- Definition 27
The next step in the evolution of intelligence is morality, or E = 1. When morality occurs we are fully human and have intelligence about our own ethics: we can predict and control our own ability to predict and control our own ability to predict and control. When we are moral we can create creativity systematically without ever destroying. A species that has reached that level of evolution I call a Moral Society.
An atom of hydrogen is a complementary pair comprising one electron and one proton. Hydrogen is the simplest, least intelligent atom that exists, i.e., it predicts and controls the integrity of form of the simplest of all atomic structures. The first quantum leap in atomic evolution is from hydrogen to helium by the fusion of four hydrogen atoms, i.e., four complementary pairs of electrons and protons. The fusion of helium leads to the carbon atom, which is the most chemically generalized of all the atoms because it is the only atom that is both an electron donor and an electron receiver, equally, for all four valence electrons and all four valence protons. This is the most generalized of the basic chemical properties of atoms.
Chemical evolution is a more generalized way of producing greater intelligence than nuclear fusion, which leads to unstable deadends with atomic weights in the hundreds for the transuranium elements. Organic molecules evolve to have atomic weights of several million, a much greater complexity of form than the largest atoms. Furthermore, the carbon atom is the only atom which in itself consists of four fully generalized complementary pairs of active electrons and protons, the other electrons and protons being neutralized in an inner helium atom and four neutrons. (Neutrons may be seen as a fusion of electrons and protons.) This leaves the carbon atom as the first and only fully generalized atom consisting of four active complementary pairs of protons and electrons. The carbon atom is, of course, the basis for the evolution of matter into life. Carbon enables the first giant quantum leap in the evolution of matter whereby an entire new dimension is added to the intelligence of matter, and new properties such as imagination, choice, and innovation manifest themselves.
There are, as far as we know, at least five full dimensional quadra-tures in the history of the evolution of our local universe. The first is the cosmic singularity by which our local universe came into being in an infinite sea of entropy. (This does not preclude an infinite number of other non-local universes outside of our time and space.) All the matter and energy in our local universe apparently came into being at that instant, although not in its present form. Further evolution required the organization of matter into ever more complex and more intelligent forms. Intelligence and complexity are correlated but are not synonymous. An intuitive but incomplete measure of complexity is the number of components in the system multiplied by the number of coherent connections between all the components, multiplied by the number of differences between all components and all connections, multiplied by the total bits of information shared by all the components of the system.
- Definition 28
We call such a giant quantum leap in evolution a full dimensional quadrature. Minor quantum leaps are called dimensional subquadratures.
The next full dimensional quadrature is the creation of life out of matter, although by dimensional subquadratures before life began there was an enormous amount of evolution of matter into all the diverse atoms and molecules.
The point at which autopoiesis began between DNA and protein is the best estimate of when the transition from matter to life occurred.
- Definition 29
The beginning of life involves a special type of chemical interaction called autopoiesis, which is a term coined by Varela and Maturana  to describe the process by which DNA creates protein while protein creates DNA within a living cell. Neither can create itself by itself, but together both can create one another. I now use "autopoiesis" in a more general sense than Varela and Maturana did to mean "a creative exchange of complementary information."
A good artistic visual expression of autopoiesis is Escher's "Drawing Hands," reproduced here. The two complementary hands can draw each other, but one hand cannot draw itself. A good artistic musical expression of autopoiesis and evolution in general is J.S. Bach's Art of the Fugue (for reasons which are given later).
What makes autopoiesis possible is the existence of four complementary pairs of self-reproducing molecules. They are adenine, cytosine, thymine and guanine, and they make up the DNA molecule, which is itself acomplementary pair. (Thymine is slightly altered into uracil in T-RNA when information is transferred from DNA to a ribosome to make a protein.)
I postulate that the first living cell in autopoiesis was a chemical system made of four complementary pairs of DNA and protein molecules. It took approximately from 500 million to one billion years to evolve from simple organic molecules formed about 4.6 billion years ago during the creation of earth. These early simple cells were replaced through natural selection by more intelligent, more generalized cells.
I postulate that the first metazoa were made up of four complementary pairs of autopoietic cells. This was the third major dimensional quadrature in evolution. These simple metazoa, which no longer exist, were replaced by more complex metazoa such as volvox and the sponges. It took the metazoa about three billion years to evolve from the first cells.
The fourth major dimensional quadrature in metazoan evolution consisted of the beginning of nerve systems. I postulate that the earliest nerve nets--they no longer exist--consisted of four complementary pairs of autopoietic neurons. An example of simple nerve nets that survive are those of the hydra, which is a much more complex life form than that which had the simplest nerve net. The first nerve nets took about 500 million years to evolve among the first metazoa. Nerve nets are subsystems of all higher brains. The brain evolves by adding newer structures without throwing away any of the older structures. These additions were dimensional subquadratures, up to the creation of the human brain, which was a full quadrature.
The early nerve nets eventually evolved into a supersystem of four complementary pairs of autopoietic nerve systems, the human brain. The first and most complex early nerve nets evolved into the fish nervous system, the highest level of autopoietic complexity reached by the basic nerve net model. The fish brain took about 400 million years to evolve from the first nerve nets. The next system to evolve was the reptilian brain, or R-complex, which is a distinct brain superimposed on the original fish brain, and in autopoietic interaction with it. The full R-complex took about 300 million years to evolve from the fish brain. The next system to evolve was the mammalian brain, or the mammalian cortex (includes limbic system), which is a distinct brain superimposed on the original fish and reptile brains and is in autopoietic interaction with both systems. The mammalian brain took about 200 million years to evolve from the R-complex. The last brain to evolve was the neocortex, which is a distinct brain superimposed on the previous three brains and is in autopoietic interaction with them. The neocortex became fully evolved only about 100,000 years ago and took about 100 million years to evolve from mammalian brains with little or no neocortex.
The neocortex could specialize or generalize. Cetaceans, elephants, and all extinct hominids specialized it. Humans generalized the neocortex by ethical choice, thereby fully developing the frontal lobes. The frontallobes are directly reponsible for human creativity. Creativity is the most gen-eralized form of intelligence, resulting from adding the ethical component.
Each cerebral hemisphere is a complement to the other--the now well-known right brain/left brain duality. (The four complementary, paired, autopoietic brains making up the human nervous system are the fifth full dimensional quadrature.) As the first fully autopoietic set of four complementary, paired brains, the human brain produced a new epiphenomenon: we have called this Ethics. Ethics, in turn, interacted autopoietically with the other eight complementary components of classical intelligence. As willbe shown in some detail and as was first postulated by Professor Amit Goswami of the Physics Department at the University of Oregon , the human brain has both classical and quantum modalities of operation. This in turn was derived from a postulate of physicist Henry Stapp, of the University of California at Berkeley, who postulated quantum mechanisms in the human brain . I postulate the following:
The classical brain produces the classical modality. The quantum brain produces the quantum modality. The classical modality enables us to learn complex patterns of behavior and to repeat them. The more classically intelligent a creature, the more complex the patterns of behavior it can learn and repeat. The classical modality of the human brain depends on the first three brains and part of the neocortex.
- Definition 30
The classical brain is made up of the lower three brains and part of the neocortex. It is capable of learning and repeating complex patterns of behavior. It usually learns by classical conditioning, although it can also learn through the quantum brain. The classical brain is receptive to the quantum implicate order when it engages in trial-and-error behavior that is just as likely to make errors as to produce new truth. However, a fifty-percent chance of success is much better than the success rate of totally random mutations.
- Definition 31
The quantum brain is made up of the frontal lobes and possibly other parts of the neocortex. It is capable of always generating original, true information independently of the sensors. The quantum brain is inhibited by conditioning; it learns solely by ethical choice by modulating infinite true information from the implicate order of quantum reality .
The quantum modality enables us to generate new ideas and to have original thoughts on any subject which are always true. This modality seems tied to the frontal lobes of the neocortex, but it may also involve other parts of the neocortex. This is the "human" part of our brain. It is clearly destroyed when the frontal lobes are destroyed . A random generator of true information is a remarkable entity which cannot be explained classically; a holistic quantum mechanical model of reality is required to explain it. This is a model that we will develop in this book.
Our classical brain enables us to behave intelligently, succeed in school, hold down a job, and do well on I.Q. tests, but it cannot generate a single original idea. It can, however, induce us to engage in simple trial-and-error behavior which through natural selection can lead to the consolidation of true innovations, as is the case with all lower animals.
The quantum modality can generate abundant, new, true ideas, but these ideas cannot express themselves in any way except through the intelligence of the classical brain. Therefore, human beings can only be creative through autopoietic harmony between the classical and the quantum brains. That is the nature of the interaction of our quantum Ethics (E) withour classical Intelligence (I). The classical and quantum brains are a new complementary pair that is responsible for all human creativity and the unique nature of human evolution through the creative accumulation of extragenetic information within our species.
We note that a new, true idea and a new, beneficial mutation are analogous creative events and are caused by the same underlying mechanism--a quantum (nonlocal) field of infinite, enfolded truth, outside of our time and space. This is David Bohm's "implicate order." It is the higher source of truth and moral order assumed by the mystical paradigm. This notion is very similar to Jung's mystical model of the collective unconscious. This is the source of Einstein's "hidden variables." True and false information comes to us randomly from the choice to innovate. Absolutely true (nonrandom) information comes to us from the deliberate choice to behave ethically. Therefore, there is a mystical-moral basis to both evolution and individual creativity. Evolution is a creative process by which true genetic information is consolidated in the biosphere and false genetic information is eliminated--all by natural selection. All creativity requires an interaction between the objective, natural universe and the mystical, quantum universe, i.e., creativity is produced by autopoiesis between classical and quantum modalities. The Chinese mystics called this the interaction between the Yin and the Yang.
Although almost all children seem to be creative, few adults seem to remain creative. Furthermore, all civilizations up to the present have systematically destroyed their own creativity. The reason for this paradox is fear.
Fear is hard-wired into the reptilian complex. Fear is an instinctive, genetically preprogrammed, neurophysiologically determined response to danger. When we are frightened, the reptilian brain takes over our consciousness and compels us to fight or flee based on all the classical information at hand. The reptilian brain evolved over a period of three hundred million years in a purely classical context, where danger was constantly faced and in which our ancestors had to respond rapidly and accurately if they were to survive. They had no creativity on which they could depend. The only reasoning involved was in determining whether one was more likely to survive fighting or fleeing. Within this context, fear, anger, and hatred are basically the same emotion. All danger triggers fear in the R-complex. If the danger has any chance of being fought successfully, fear becomes anger. If the danger is long-enduring and cannot be fought, fear becomes hatred, which again expresses itself as anger if the danger ever can be fought. Fear induces the repetition of previously successful behavior which enabled us to survive in the past. Fear inhibits innovative behavior whichmay lead to new advantages over the old behavior, but may also induce new danger.
Human society is subtle and symbolic in the ways that its dangers are manifested and responded to. Fear may result not from having one's life threatened, but from having one's paradigm--and, consequently, one's ego-identity--threatened. A common response to this type of danger is to attack the source of paradigm threat through verbal abuse, symbolically discrediting the source of information contradicting a cherished paradigm. That is what many religious fundamentalists, including Marxists, do when they attack and ridicule proponents of biological evolution. Of course, when ideologues of any persuasion have enough power, they usually have no compunctions about imprisoning or even killing those who attack their ideology. This happens today in Communist and in Islamic societies. It would happen in the United States if some of the alleged "Christian Fundamentalists," or other militant American ideologues who wish to impose their views on others, had all the power they wanted. Some scientific specialists behave similarly to the religious fundamentalists by attacking any approach to truth outside the scientific paradigm as "superstition." These scientists, as fear-ridden as the religious fundamentalists, have brought about a New Inquisition, as in R. Anton Wilson's book.
Another, more common, response to a threat to one's paradigms is to flee into protective ignorance by ignoring and refusing to learn any information which might contradict those paradigms. This is typically how most Americans respond to evidence indicating that the American Democracy may have become degenerate, and that the United States is in fact an oligarchy in rapid decline, ruled by the most evil and least creative persons its society can produce. These rulers obtain and maintain their power through lies and by manipulating the fears and protective ignorance of a majority of the electorate. Those who retreat into protective ignorance use as a partial solace the fact that almost every other country is worse off, thereby avoiding the difficult and risky actions necessary to protect their future welfare and that of their progeny. Protective ignorance increases happiness but decreases creativity. It is an unethical response to danger analogous to hiding one's head in the sand. It is produced when the R-complex dominates us.
In modern society the hard-wired fear response of the reptilian brain has become a firm belief that one cannot create. I will do my best to eliminate that destructive belief by creating a new paradigm that shows that every human being can create if and only if he or she chooses to be ethical and become moral, even if this choice is unconscious.
When this belief is combined with a low level of ethics, fear is transformed into a system for warping the imagination into producing self-delusion by distorting truth into falsehood. Just as the quantum brain is amechanism for producing true information, fear, when it becomes transformed into the belief that we cannot create, becomes a mechanism for distorting all truth into self-delusion, regardless of whether the truth has come from our quantum brain or from our sensors. This is what makes fearful persons so easy to manipulate through comforting lies that help maintain their illusionary paradigms. The degree to which we distort reality is proportional to our fear, i.e., to how firmly we have come to believe consciously or unconsciously that we cannot create.
- Definition 32
Fear is the belief that we cannot create.
Fear is turned into the belief that we cannot create because every human society, no matter how ethical or noble its original structure, has always been turned into a bureaucracy.
Most organizations have many goals and even more commonly accepted rules of behavior. If any persons in that organization are driven by fear and are convinced that they cannot create, then they will believe that the only source of security for themselves is to avoid negative feedback by controlling other persons. Because they cannot provide for themselves what they need, they must live parasitically off others. Persons driven by fear are by definition persons who do not believe that they have the creativity to provide for their own needs. Therefore, they must take from others what they need for themselves. The greatest threat to fearful persons are creative persons who do not need the fearful persons and can see them for what they are. The seemingly safest course for fearful persons is to control other persons as completely as possible and to convince them that they are also uncreative. As in the case with many other parasites, human parasites often destroy their hosts. Human beings become parasites only out of fear.
- Definition 33
A bureaucracy is an organization with a built-in mechanism for destroying negative feedback.
- Definition 34
Feedback is the perception of consequences of our actions.
- Definition 35
Positive feedback is the perception of our successes; it makes all recipients happy.
- Definition 36
Negative feedback is the perception of our failures. Negative feedback frightens persons who have no confidence in their creativity. Only persons who are highly ethical are made happy by negative feedback, because it maximizes their creativity; all others are made unhappy by negative feedback.
- Note: It is not possible to create if one fears failure.
- Definition 37
An organization is any association of two or more persons with at least one common goal and with at least one commonly accepted rule of behavior.
Creative persons tacitly support the parasitical leaders so long as they are given enough opportunities to be creative. When these opportunities are eventually and inevitably all taken away by an all-pervasive, all-consuming bureaucracy, the creative persons in the society revolt and overthrow the leadership if there are enough of them left, and if they still have the will and vision to revolt. This happened in the American, French, and Russian Revolutions, and under more peaceful conditions in other European countries as they were turned into social democracies. More often than not, the fearful leaders of the society have, by this time, been able to pervert all the social institutions to convince the entire population that it is also uncreative, making it easier to control. Nothing makes a personeasier to control than fear. The absence of fear and full confidence in one'sown creativity makes a person uncontrollable. Such persons can only beinduced to cooperate by showing them that they can be more creative in acooperative organization than by themselves. In the past, all such organi-zations have eventually been taken over by the least creative, most fearful persons. That is why creative persons have a tendency to be loners and not trust organizations. This, in turn, makes all human organizations even more vulnerable to parasitical control. The worst such organizations are tyrannies which are totally devoid of creativity. These exist throughout theworld, not solely in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. We engender such tyrannies through collective fear by giving bureaucracies power over individual creativity, so that eventually no person can create without the permission of destructive bureaucracies. It takes only a majority of the adult population to be fear-driven to destroy any nation, no matter how democratic. Two corollaries of these considerations follow.
- Definition 38
An alternative definition of "bureaucracy" is an organization with a built-in mechanism for convincing its members that they are uncreative and can only live parasitically off the creativity of others. The two definitions are functionally equivalent.
What creative persons most value is being creative. What they least value is having power over others. Since they are ethical, power over others is seen as a burden which interferes with their creativity. They only want power over themselves. What fearful persons value most is having power over others. Therefore, it is an inevitable dynamic in all human societies up to now that the most creative persons neither seek nor want power within the society. They merely wish to be unimpeded in their creativity. The only persons who seek and want power over others are those who are driven by fear. Therefore, in all human societies up to the present time, no matter how progressive or enlightened the original leadership, the most fearful, least creative persons eventually end up with almost all of the executive, legislative, judicial, and economic power, even though all power and wealth grow out of human creativity. How many presidential candidates, congressional representatives, senators, judges, or multimillionaires have ever discovered a scientific law, invented a machine, produced a work of art, or been in any way objectively creative? In the last fifty years, very few. The percentage is rapidly going to zero as our society becomes a total bureaucracy with irreversible entropy. We note that during the founding of the United States, when there was much less bureaucracy, many of the leadership were creative, e.g., Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, the Adamses, and Washington. The reason we could produce so many creative leaders with a population of 3.5 million but can no longer produce even one comparable leader with a population of 250 million is not genetic decay, but bureaucracy.
Corollary 1.12: Any organization that wishes to evolve must deny power over the organization to anyone who seeks it.The central problem facing humanity is how creative persons can amplify their creativity in organizations that do not degenerate into bureaucracies. The greatest impediment to solving the problem is that institutions from our schools to our political parties are dominated by fear-driven bureaucrats who constantly punish creative, unpredictable behavior while rewarding repetitive, predictable behavior in such a way that almost all adults become convinced that they are uncreative; they become conditioned to be totally uninterested in creativity and to value only being happy. Fear induces ethical vampirism, turning each host into a new parasite who in turn transforms still more hosts into still more parasites, until entropy is irreversible.
Corollary 1.13: The only way to keep organizations creatively evolving is to assure that (a) power by persons over other persons in the organization is minimal, (b) no one in the organization has the power to inhibit anyone else's creativity within the organization, and (c) all delegation of power is done by unanimous consensus for the sole purpose of maximizing the creativity of all members of the organization without diminishing it for any given member. It is better to have no organization at all than ever to diminish a single person's creativity, no matter how many other persons are allegedly benefited by the organization, because unethical means cannot achieve ethical ends. To assure that organizations remain creative, it is essential to keep them small; they grow by spinning off new small organizations in free association with the parent.
Almost from birth to the end of their days, in every nation on earth, human beings are promised punishment if they are creative. But throughout life they are promised happiness if they (1) do not think for themselves, (2) believe whatever everyone else believes, (3) repeat the conditioned behavior they have been taught, and (4) are pliant and cooperative with the bureaucracies that are destroying them and their progeny. If they cooperate with the bureaucracy, they will have money, prestige, and a sense of belonging to the larger society. If they refuse to cooperate, they are constantly punished. This produces a fearful population devoid of ethics and devoid of creativity.
This conditioning eventually destroys the creativity of any nation no matter how initially progressive, even if it takes thousands of years as in the cases of Ancient Sumer and Egypt--or if it takes only 200 years as in thecase of the United States, or 70 years as in the case of the Soviet Union. Evolution is an exponentially accelerating, impersonal process. Creation and destruction, evolution and entropy, are complementary pairs forming a self-catalyzing system.
The root of the problem is fear. The only antidote to fear is love.
Love is our most personal and meaningful experience. We all search and long for love, although it is not always clear what we mean by "love." We speak of loving our parents, our children, our mate or hoped-for mate, and even of loving food or art. We clearly mean different things by "love" in these different contexts. Love is not synonymous with the strong desire for something. If it were, there would be no difference between saying that an addict loves heroin and that we love our children. When we love someone we may have a strong desire to be near him or her. But this desire is not the same as the love which contributes to the desire. Desire and possessiveness in general are not love. Love is something we give, not something we take. To be clear and unambiguous, we shall use the word "love" only to mean the desire to enhance, together with the act of enhancing, the creativity of another unconditionally. This is the common denominator in the word when we say we love our parents, our children, our mates, and our friends.
Love is a cause and an effect of creativity. We are benefited far more by the love we give than by the love we receive. Nothing we ever do will increase our creativity more than seeking to help others, including our enemies, to maximize their own creativity. Increasing the creativity of anyone benefits everyone. That is why we should love our enemies. That is why we should love our neighbor as ourselves. That is what it means to return good for evil. However, if we are never loved we become incapable of giving or receiving love. Few things damage a child as much as being unloved by all around him or her. We are all usually loved by at least one person, e.g., by a parent, and that is usually enough to prevent irreversible damage.
- Definition 39
Love is the desire to increase and the act of increasing the creativity of another unconditionally, without selfish considerations.
It is not the love we receive but the love we give that ultimately leads us to the total conquest of fear and allows us to become moral and, potentially, infinitely creative.
Ethics are rules for maximizing objective truth. Ethics are rules for optimizing evolution. Ethics are an expression of our desire for truth. Creativ-ity is our ability to expand objective truth. Love is our desire to expand the creativity of another. Love is the highest form of creativity. It is the creation of creativity. Fear is the belief that we cannot create. Love and fear are the only human emotions that exist. All other emotions are interactions of these two primary emotions. When we are fully ethical, i.e., moral, we only feel love. When we believe that we cannot love someone, or that someone is decreasing truth, we feel anger. Anger is the conscious manifestation of our unconscious fear of having our creativity diminished. Anger is the unconscious belief that we cannot love creatively. All fear is an illusion. Like all illusions, fear serves only to diminish objective truth. The only antidote to fear is love. If we have never loved we cannot overcome our own fear. Persons behave unethically only when they are driven by fear. The more unethical they become, the more they are driven by fear. The last fear we overcome is our belief that we cannot love creatively.
To love creatively means that we can help others overcome their fears and become more creative. The lowest form of love is the love we give in return for the love we receive. The highest form of love occurs when we love the enemies who hate us and decrease truth for ourselves and others. An enemy is any destructive person. If we cannot love our enemies and thereby help them overcome their fear and be creative, we cannot ourselves become moral.
To love our enemies does not mean that we tolerate destructiveness. When we love someone we must give negative feedback when they are destroying; otherwise our love is perverse. The creative challenge is to give negative feedback with love and not with anger. This is the most difficult thing we will ever learn. When we give negative feedback in anger, we merely project our fear (i.e., our belief in our own inability to create) into another and thereby make that person potentially more fearful and unethical. Only highly ethical persons are capable of responding to anger with love. We must treat everyone as if they were ethical and therefore love them, because it is unethical to be certain. Our logic may tell us that unethical persons have irreversible entropy and cannot be made creative. Still, we must love them or we will never overcome our own fear of being unethical, i.e., uncreative.
We must love our enemies because we can never be certain that anyone is unethical. Human beings are far too complex for any other human being to understand completely. To judge an ethical person as unethical is extremely destructive to us and to that person. Therefore, the optimal strategy is to treat all persons as if they were ethical and not to judge them. If they are in fact ethical, they will respond positively to our love. If they are unethical, they will merely be driven away by love and threaten us less than if we had been unloving. Still, we must not judge those we drive away as unethical, but instead consider that we may be in error in how we treated them. We may not know yet how to love properly. So long as we are notmoral, we will not be able to love properly, although so long as we behave ethically our love will be adequate for dealing with other persons who also behave ethically. The real challenge is in loving persons who behave unethically. These are our enemies.
We must love our enemies to be sure we do not deny love to our friends. We cannot become moral by ourselves but only by helping another person become moral. This is what "autopoiesis" means at the human level.
The Moral Society can only be created through love. We can only learn to love creatively by teaching creative love to another. We must begin by teaching creative love to one other person. In the process we will learn creative love. Once we have done this, the other person becomes our complement in a complementary pair. Complementary pairs create one another by giving highest priority to increasing one another's creativity. If we cannot love at least one other person as ourselves, we can never hope to love our neighbor as ourselves. Therefore, we begin by making a commitment of love to one other person, but we cannot stop there.
The mutual creation of ourselves with our complements will help us overcome many of our fears but not necessarily all of them. We may still believe that we cannot creatively love persons other than our complements. This will produce fear and even destructive behavior. Perhaps we may only have one complement at a time. Perhaps we may fear that we can only form another complement by destroying the bonding with our last complement. Persons who try to have several complements at a time may seem to always fail. Therefore, we should at first concentrate on creating ourselves in a single complementary pair at a time with the only kind of person who can be our complement: that is, an ethical person of the opposite sex. However, the relationship itself need not be sexual. Then we can go on to the next step in our personal evolution, which involves loving persons who are not our complement or our children, since our children are part of us and possibly of our complementary pair. Remember that when we speak of "love" we mean an ethical, not a sexual, process.
As was indicated earlier, it appears that nature evolves by organizing complementary pairs into systems of four complementary pairs. Our ethical intelligence is the product of four paired complementary brains: (1) the neocortex, (2) the mammalian cortex, (3) the reptilian brain, and (4) the fish brain, i.e., the rest of the nervous system. Each cerebral hemisphere is a complement to the other. Each creative brain is the product of four paired complementary noncreative brains. The female brain is a complement to the male brain. As many recent studies have shown, the complementary differences in the brains of the two sexes are even greater than the complementary differences in the rest of their bodies [877-904].
Once we have formed a complementary pair with a person of the opposite sex, we can then form an embryonic Moral Society with threeother complementary pairs of persons all of whom love each other as themselves. We may never be able to love all our neighbors as ourselves, but we can begin by loving one other person as ourselves. Then together the two of us can learn to love three other couples as ourselves, thus creating an Ethical State.
The Moral Society, therefore, begins with four men and four women who value truth more than happiness and love each other as themselves. Each person must first be a complementary pair with one other person. Complementary pairs are not necessarily spouses. They may be parent and child, brother and sister, or just close friends of the opposite sex. We may only have one complement at a time, but cyclically and sequentially we can clearly have many complements. The process works best between loving spouses; it works least among unloving strangers.
Once the initial commitment to mutual creative transformation is made, the eight persons begin to interact to make one another moral. The central problems they must solve together are how each subset of seven can help the eighth become moral and how they can jointly become more creative as a group of four pairs than they are separately. This is how an autopoietic, collective, supermetazoan moral intelligence begins--by logical extrapolation of evolution in general and autopoiesis in particular. Only our lack of love for others can impede us. This is why we are helped more by the love we give than by the love we receive.End of Explanation 2
Note that all intelligence is collective. Our individual intelligence is the collective intelligence of the billions of cells that make up our body. The intelligence of our individual cells is the collective intelligence of the self-replicating molecules that make up the cell. In order for a collective intelligence to exist in the moral dimension, the sixth full dimensional quadrature, it is essential to create coherent, multiple, ethical intelligences willing to function as one. Only ethical love of the most creative kind can engender this cooperation. The following process for creating an embryonic Moral Society is only valid for four complementary pairs who love one another as themselves. The process will not work for persons whose fear will prevent them from loving and being loved by seven other persons simultaneously.
The essential prerequisites for creative transformation to which all four couples must first agree before they can succeed are:
1. Incorporating the evolutionary ethic into every facet of their lives and making all decisions accordingly, particularly regarding how they deal with each other and how they engage in autopoiesis. They always seek to maximize creativity for themselves, each other, all humanity, and the universe in general, in that order.Once four complementary pairs of ethical persons know and trust each other well enough to commit to mutual Creative Transformation, they begin discussing how to bring this about collectively and for each individual. The eight should meet by themselves for at least two hours at a time at least once per month, but not more frequently than is comfortable for any pair. They must pledge to each other complete honesty in telling one another what they believe about each other and how they believe each person can be more creative in terms of objective behavior. When anyone feels anger at anyone in the group, that person should immediately announce it to the group and the group should collectively help that person overcome the fear that produced the anger. No one should fear giving or receiving negative feedback. But remember to give positive feedback too. At each meeting, each pair should embrace or otherwise express affection for every other pair when arriving and departing. When the eight have met at least once without anyone having felt anger at anyone else, then they may be ready for autopoiesis, although those who are not too fearful may find that autopoiesis can, from the beginning, accelerate the process for producing a coherent, collective, ethical intelligence that becomes a Moral Intelligence greater than the sum of its parts.
2. Learning to love one another and others unconditionally and ethically by doing their best to maximize one another's creativity in a spirit of complete openness and constructive feedback, particularly autopoiesis.
3. Reducing fear in themselves and in others through ethical action, love, understanding the nature of fear, rejecting fear as a motivator, and autopoiesis.
4. Engaging in autopoiesis among themselves as best they can according to the dictates of their conscience and teaching what they learn to others.
In order to achieve a collective ethical intelligence it is necessary that the initial four complementary pairs of individual intelligences have coherent ethical thoughts. Coherence in thought requires similar but complementary thinking processes about the same problem at the same time with rapid real-time (almost simultaneous) feedback. In other words, the four paired brains of each of the eight persons must be ethically synchronized within themselves and between themselves. We individually synchronize our four brains within ourselves by becoming increasingly ethical until all four brains are driven by the neocortex, which is where ethical needs and creativity are centered, although the neocortex by itself cannot be creative. It takes the interaction of all four complementary paired brains plus the rest of the body plus ethics to produce our individual creativity. It takes autopoiesis between our classical and our quantum modalities.
In autopoiesis, at the supermetazoan level, we try to maximize ourcollective creativity by combining eight ethical intelligences into a collective whole that is more intelligent and more ethical than any individual. This is done by each subset of seven giving feedback to each of the eight persons to help him or her correct ethical errors and misinformation which decreases creativity, as well as by giving positive feedback in order to consolidate successes. The process is enhanced by synchronizing the four paired complementary brains of each person among all eight persons.
The seat of ethics, the higher brain or neocortex of the eight persons, is first synchronized by learning a common approach for making optimal ethical decisions in all aspects of our life by the practical application of evolutionary ethics. This approach is detailed in this book as well as in my previous books, particularly Psychofraud and Ethical Therapy. It involves making all decisions on the basis of what maximizes creativity withoutany other consideration except making sure we never decrease anyone's creativity.
The more primitive mammalian cortex, which is the seat of the emotion of love as well as other higher biological drives, is synchronized as the octet learns together the meaning of love in an ethical context: namely, that love means assuming responsibility for enhancing others' creativity, and that the love we give benefits us far more than the love we receive. When the eight commit to each other their best efforts to enhance one another's creativity, then the second brain is synchronized.
The third brain, or reptilian complex, as it is also known, is the seat of the emotion of fear and consequentially also of rage and anger plus the more primitive biological drives. The fear of the R-complex seems to be modulated by the limbic system of the mammalian cortex. Fear serves primarily to divide persons and is counterproductive to ethical integration. Fear can easily be manipulated to unite persons in collective destructiveness. Therefore, the ethical integration of the third brain is done (1) by modulating fear through love in the mammalian cortex, (2) by understanding the nature of fear, and (3) by rejecting fear as a motivator by means of the neocortex, as well as through direct, real-time autopoietic communication through the most primitive of the four brains.
The fourth brain, the primitive fish brain, is the seat of conditioned and innate reflexes and is basically emotionless, as is the neocortex. We can integrate this brain directly through the sense of touch.
We communicate through all our senses. One way we can have direct, rapid real-time feedback with seven other persons is through the sense of touch. Olfactory, visual, and auditory information from eight different sources at the same time often produces confusion and incoherence. Therefore, touch is one easy way to integrate eight ethical intelligences in real time. We are currently working on another technique using electromagnetic brain-wave resonance that does not require touch.
Touch is a prime but not sole modality of information exchange forour most primitive brain which began to evolve long before our ancestors had noses, ears, or eyes. Autopoiesis, as herein described, is a process for producing ethical coherence from the bottom brain up. There are other processes which are more complex and will be described in future books.
What follows is the result of four years of trial-and-error experimentation, hopefully guided by creative imagination. It seems to work for some persons. It clearly does not work for many persons. There may be much better ways to start. I do not know them. Follow your own intuition. You are welcome to use my clearly fallible intuition, until you have a better alternative of your own.
Autopoiesis seems to be produced at an elementary level, for some persons, by each person in the octet of four couples simultaneously touching four other persons of the opposite sex. There are several ways of accomplishing this task. The most practical from the point of view of comfort and minimal resources required is as follows: The four complementary pairs arrange themselves in a compact seated circle facing inward. All eight have bare feet and hands when they engage in autopoiesis, but the rest of the body may be clothed as is mutually acceptable to all persons involved. The circle consists of alternating males and females sitting in as small a circle as possible, holding hands with their feet extended. With each foot, each person touches the foot of one person of the opposite sex diagonally opposite him or her. Therefore, each person is touching four different persons of the opposite sex simultaneously, one to each side and two across the circle. This arrangement is shown in the accompanying figure, in which the squares are males and the circles are females; the straight lines represent the points of contact for hands and feet. This seems to produce coherence through touch at the prereptilian brain level among all eight persons. At each meeting all persons might rotate positions so that eventually all possible combinations and permutations of touching occur for all persons during autopoiesis.
Additional coherence might be produced with background music played at a barely audible volume. The best music for this purpose seems to be J. S. Bach's Art of the Fugue, which consists of four notes, B-A-C-H (in German notation), and their complements (mirrors) evolving in ever more complex, interwoven, helical patterns which are always incorporating four complementary pairs. (My favorite recording is on the London label, by Munchinger. It is difficult to find. The Ristenpart recording on Nonesuch, or the Mariner on Philips, might be good substitutes.) This seems to enhance coherence in the two middle brains and in the neocortex.
A Mandala of Creative Transformation
A symbolic representation of four complimentary pairs
engaged in Autopoiesis.
(Derived from similar figure shown in Chapter 5)
THE LENS GRINDER
There lived a man of ethics
All he said offended
His writtings were forbidden
he lived by grinding lenses
The grinding destroyed his body
The living became dying
The dying colud be ended
Only by compromise and lying
He declined the living
And chose the grinding
It is better to die by seeing
Than to live by dying
His life made men see
His death was not empty
His ethics live in me
His awareness - part of infinity
With courage we sail the Cosmic Sea
With love we go to infinity
With fear we make friend an enemy
We are all adrift in entropy
Listen, the cosmic voice within
All who play the game of the life win
The evolutionary thesis
All each other's autopoiesis
If we create one another
We create more than you and me
You are my sister and my brother
We all need each other in the sea
My brother and sister in thuth
We are all one in the Cosmic Sea
Entropic fear is all to lose
You creatye me as I create thee
Fear Is The Belief I can't create
Fear Is An Illusion
I Am Creation
I Now Create
As We transcend Matter, Space and Time
We Eight are One and now become Nine
The next level of coherence is a neocortical response by all persons focusing on a solution to a difficult problem. The first such problem might be how they can maximize creativity. This is done by mutual consent prior to autopoiesis. It might be facilitated by all repeating in unison the poem "Evolution," the Meditation, and the "Creation" couplet once before the first autopoiesis. Be careful not to turn a technique into a ritual. Repetitive, ritualistic behavior is almost always destructive. Visual concentration on the creative transformation symbol might also help some persons. Eventually the autopoietic octet should focus on specific, difficult-to-solve problems in the objective world, first by brainstorming them classically, and then by brainstorming them quantumly through autopoiesis. Some will discover that they can add significant new insights through the autopoiesis; but it seems best always to use the classical approach first. If we do not relate autopoiesis to the objective world, it might lead to self-delusion, as with any other mystical process.
Once the autopoiesis is begun, it continues without speaking until persons begin to achieve genuine, new insights into how to solve the problem athand. At that point, the persons with the insight, while still in autopoiesiswith the other seven persons, state their insights to the rest of the group orask questions of the group. Together the group solves the problem by consen-sus. If nothing happens, nothing is said. Relax; try not to force the process.
We always terminate autopoiesis whenever any one of the eight persons wishes to terminate it for whatever reason, with no questions asked or judgments made. This is in the spirit that only mutually voluntary associations are ethical or creative. There is no guarantee that it will work every time. For some persons autopoiesis may never work. Autopoiesis is a way of showing ethical confidence in one another and overcoming fear of nonsexual loving contact. If synchronization of thought and mental coherence occurs, it should produce a new collective moral intelligence greater than that of any person in the group, although this type of synchronization may take many repetitions of the autopoiesis process; for some, it may never occur. Clearly, there seems to be no way that autopoiesis can hurt any healthy person. It may, however, be disturbing to paranoids or other schizophrenics. These have been our experiences. It seems that only fear can inhibit the process.
Autopoiesis and Fear
Fear drives us toward repetitive, classical behavior. Fear inhibits communication between our classical and quantum brains. Fear makes us believe that our own imagination is dangerous. This creates a block between our classical and quantum brains. Fear leads us to repeat Information (F) from our Memory (M) rather than risk generating new Information (F) from our Imagination (G). Therefore, fear leads us to speak from our classical rather than our quantum brain during autopoiesis.
Autopoiesis seems automatically to liberate the quantum brain. It apparently takes an effort by the classical brain to inhibit the process. Thiseffort is manifested by drowning our and our partners' quantum thoughts in classical verbiage from our Memory (M). If everyone simply remains quiet in autopoiesis, we, apparently, liberate the quantum brain without fail. Fear may cause us to repeat our classical thoughts which seemed true in the past and still give us a sense of identity in an ever changing world. Our Memory (M) is an integral part of our ego. The other major part of our ego is our desire for happiness. Our ego seems to be our classical lesser-self, taking its identity from the classical brain. Our soul seems to be our quantum greater-self, taking its identity from our quantum brain--our mystical connection to infinite truth. The ego seems to be driven only by the desire for happiness, the soul only by the desire for truth. To become moral is to merge our ego with our soul and become whole.
In autopoiesis, we can distinguish a classical from a quantum thought. The classical thoughts, images, and feelings seem to flow smoothly and express themselves in conversational sentences that are relevant and rational. The quantum thoughts, images, and feelings may come in short, unpredictable, staccato bursts that may not seem rationally related to what has preceded. The classical thoughts are easy to keep to ourselves while we are in autopoiesis. The quantum thoughts, once we have them, persist and become stronger, until we have described them to our partners. The more we seek to maximize the creativity of our partners with no concern for our ego, the more creative we seem to become.
Therefore, in autopoiesis, as we practice it, we never try to control or lead the process, but rather we let the process work freely on us. We do not make jokes, argue with what anyone else has said, or try in any way to lead the octologue, but remain quiet and egoless until a thought or image becomes overwhelming and we feel absolutely compelled to share it with our partners for their benefit, not for ours, nor to show how clever we are. This may be in the form of a question. Above all, do not be afraid of long periods of silence. These periods seem necessary to liberate our quantum brain from the noise generated by the classical brains and egos of all the participants.
The quantum brain is the seat of ethics, higher love, and total courage. The quantum brain is always a part of something greater than ourselves. It is, apparently, directly linked to the evolutionary force--the source of all creation. It does not seem subject to direct control by the ego or the classical brain, which is a lesser brain. If we let it, the quantum brain can become one with our classical brain so that there are no longer any conflicts between our brains. When this happens we no longer fear our imagination, and we grow to trust our quantum brain, our creative unconscious. Before the integration of our brains is completed, we must rely on our classical brain to test our insights, our intuition, and our conscience, because while we are still afraid, i.e., while we still have only partial confidence in our creativity, we can be driven by fear masked as intuition,insight, or conscience. When this is the case, we will make errors which can be detected by the scientific method, which is largely a classical process. So long as we are fearlessly determined to scientifically test all of our original ideas, these ideas will always be true. If we become subjectively certain that our original ideas are true and need no testing, then they are almost always objectively false.
Therefore, we begin by always trusting our quantum brain, within the ethical context of doing our best to maximize creativity, never going against our intuition, insights, or conscience. We never do anything we feel is destructive no matter what the rationale or scientific arguments to the contrary. But after we have acted accordingly, we test the consequences of our actions to see whether we have, in fact, increased or decreased objective creativity. We act decisively while remaining open to the fact that all our Information (F) may be false or at best incomplete. We simply do the best we can with what we have, remembering that it is ethical to doubt and unethical to be certain.
Similarly, when our intuition tells us that something is creative, we follow up on it and take the actions we feel are right even if they seem irrational and everyone around us tells us we are wrong. That is how I wrote The Moral Society. That is how I discovered the process of Creative Transformation and Autopoiesis. That is how I created and am still creating all my inventions. But recognizing that I may still be driven by unconscious fear, I subjected all these insights to experimental testing in order to correct my errors, if any. My error rate is constantly declining. A revolutionary, new invention I am currently in the process of developing should be a definitive, objective test of the creative transformation theory and practice; the results of these tests and the process for repeating them will be available to all interested parties. Autopoiesis is still in its early, experimental stage. It may still have serious flaws. By testing and developing it together, and then giving one another feedback without fear of error or personal inadequacy, we shall together, through many groups of eight, perfect the process until we create the Moral Society. In order to succeed we need do no more than try our best to maximize creativity without any fear of punishment or expectation of reward. That is how we become moral within an autopoietic octet. In turning on the quantum brain, we do not turn off the classical brain, but, instead, we seek to harmonize the two brains. In so doing we harmonize with others through love and jointly we become moral.
Creative transformation is a testable hypothesis about the evolutionary process. If you tested it, as specified, to your satisfaction and it has not worked, you may dismiss everything I have said as nonsense. But do not reject the idea before objectively testing it. Certainty is a manifestation of fear. In any case, you should not be afraid to test a harmless hypothesis and prove it wrong. Whatever the outcome, it can only increase objective truth.As a minimum, you will know that something does not seem to work, although excessive fear among any one of the eight is enough to keep it from working; only your own fear can inhibit your own creativity. As a maximum, you will have begun the Moral Society and made a quantum leap in your own creativity. Therefore, the investment of time in this experiment may be worth your while.
Let your conscience guide you in this and in all matters. Just do not be driven by fear, or rationalize that your fear and your conscience are the same. Your fear is an illusion. Your conscience is your true sense of right and wrong. It is your desire for truth. When someone who you believe seeks to teach you truth recommends an objective experiment, do not dismiss it out of hand because it seems strange. So long as there is no way to produce harm, any experiment can only increase truth. You can evaluate the process of autopoiesis and creative transformation in general by seeing how much your personal creativity increases in the objective world and how much your fear decreases in the subjective world. If you follow the path recommended in this book, your personal creativity may increase enormously. You will become creatively transformed, if you choose to do so.
This, of course, is only the first step in the process. The process itself will tell you what the next steps should be. As was mentioned, we are currently working on a more advanced form of autopoiesis, without touching, based solely on electromagnetic resonance of brainwaves. This is a potential side effect of my new invention, which may turn out to be more important than the main effect. You should develop the creative transformation theory and experiment with autopoiesis as you see fit. You have nothing to lose but your fear. You can count on help in becoming creatively transformed from others who have already begun the process.
I hope that you can use the book that follows to guide you and those you love in the process of Creative Transformation. This is clearly not the last word on the subject. It is only a beginning. It may even be wrong. You are ethically obligated to improve the process, if you can. The only measure of the success of this process is how much it increases the objective creativity of those who engage in it. However the process of Creative Transformation begins, it seems to me that it might involve the following features and lead to these conclusions:
1. Participants begin by wanting to be more creative and recognize that they may have delusions as well as emotional or personality problems which are impeding their creativity; they must value truth more than happiness.All the preceding ideas and observations may be in error. However, we cannot use our fear of error as an excuse for not communicating our ideas to those we love. When we fear error, we cannot create. All fear is entropic. Only fear makes us destructive and impedes our creativity.
2. Participants eventually begin to help all other participants become more creative, and value the increase in the creativity of another as much as they value the increase in their own creativity; the most creative thing we can do is help increase the creativity of another. All creative human organizations, from families and businesses to nation-states, are faltering steps in this direction.
3. Participants then consider the hypothesis that the next quantum leap in evolution might logically involve the creation of collective superhuman creativity such as to make each individual more creative in an octet than he or she is alone. All eight participants must then choose to make this quantum leap.
4. The participants then consider the hypothesis that we might all be biologically incomplete and that we complete ourselves only with at least one person of the opposite sex who has a brain complementary to our own; the participants should recognize that we apparently cannot become moral alone. We seem to achieve morality solely by helping others achieve morality.
5. The participants may then see the hypothesized pattern of evolution, going back to the beginning of our local finite universe, in which all evolutionary jumps are apparently made by systems of complementary pairs; then they may see that the theme of new systems of four complementary pairs forming a new hierarchy of evolution is a recurring theme in nature; human autopoiesis in the moral dimension seems a natural extrapolation of this processs.
6. The participants might then make a personal quantum leap of a purely subjective nature and consider, while suspending belief, that our local finite universe might have been created by a nonlocal Moral Society outside of our time and space in the infinite universe of all universes. Our local universe might have been created to create more moral societies, which would then evolve beyond time and space and, together with the Moral Society that created them, create new and better universes of their own. The entire process of infinite creation that has no beginning or end might be God. The infinite source of true information in the quantum universe outside of time and space might be God. We might all be evolving toward becoming an ever greater part of God in quantum leaps of four complementary pairs. We might create God as God creates us; this is Universal Autopoiesis; this is Creative Transformation within God as an infinite process which contributes to us as we contribute to it. We always seem to get much more out of the process than we put into it, so long as we give something of ourselves. However, if we give nothing, we apparently receive nothing.
7. It seems that when we do our best to be ethical and become moral by loving others, we open up our minds to a direct communication with God as an infinite process. This seems to be the basis of allcreativity. The only thing that can apparently stop us is our own fear. We can conquer all fear by doing our best to love others. Autopoiesis between four complementary pairs of men and women may help us overcome our residual fears and teach us to love others, including our enemies, so that we become moral and, potentially, infinitely creative.
8. The philosophical-ethical basis for the preceding concepts are in The Gospels of Jesus, in The Ethics of Spinoza, in the writings of Teilhard de Chardin, and also in all of my books, including thisone. I also recommend Fred Hoyle's The Intelligent Universe for a recent, different perspective on a similar theme, plus Erich Jantsch's The Self-Organizing Universe, David Bohm and F. David Peat's Science, Order, and Creativity together with many other Bantam New Age Books and the New Science Library (see Bibliography).
My brother and sister in truth, never fear any idea, your own or another's, no matter how strange. Share all your ideas with those you love. If you are creative in your love, they will help you correct your errors. The sharing of objectively testable ideas can only increase the creativity of all who share. Only your fear of sharing ideas and thoughts can hurt you and make you less creative. Only by loving each other can we overcome all fear. Let us create one another.
© John David Garcia, 1991, All rights Reserved.