This page is unfiished
All pantheism must ultimately be shipwrecked on the inescapable demands
of ethics, and then on the evil and suffering of the world. -
Physical Universe Organism Paradigm
The paradigm stipulates that everything in the universe is part
of something alive, conscious, and intelligent. The
universe itself either is a living organism, or that all of the individual
structures in the universe are living beings. This idea is not a new one,
but rather is an old one, and it used to be called pantheism but is now
called pan psychism.
Despite the terminology change, this idea embodies the essence of pantheism, and again I have no
clue as to how or what reasoning one would use to define or describe a human
destiny where we are comparably much less than the microscopic body
mites that live in the pores of our skin, or the fleas on a dog.
Understand that as a metaphysical choice, we generally hold a
BELIEF that physical reality is not whimsical or capricious and willing to
show up differently. However, IF the physical universe is an intelligent
organism, it could have undergone a slight spate of emergent properties
and developed a slight case of perversity. Under this unfortunate
development it could quite easily decide to fool around a little here
and there with us and violate our thinking.
The Big Picture.
Huge ideas and sweeping claims have extensive and sweeping consequences,
ramifications and implications. Generally, they are tantamount to a paradigm
and imply a paradigm change. Such ideas or paradigms should not be proffered
lightly, because their implications touch and affect almost if not all
facets of knowledge and disciplines.
If such a paradigm or claim is violated by any piece of valid knowledge
in any area, it is flawed, and must be changed or discarded. Paradigms must
be a vessel that is able to hold all valid knowledge, or an umbrella that
covers all valid knowledge. Many times the entire range of ramifications are
not realized by those suggesting a new paradigm or acceptance of an old one.
The number of areas and the many different disciplines generally require a
savvy, serious, and highly educated group of thinkers, scholars, scientists
and philosophers to analyze them. Not the least important of these are philosophers.
But philosophy has drifted out of favor even more than it ever
was. We can speculate that this is because philosophy has become a dead
course. It has become only the discipline which has focused upon the multitude of philosophers
and the details of their lives versus clearly delineating crucial
epistemological and metaphysical principles, and showing how the various
philosophers related to or contributed to these. Never once in my 20 years
of formal education were these principles presented, made clear, and their importance emphasized.
Modern academia has not structured its education and
curriculum around philosophy AS IT SHOULD but rather has featured or focused on technical
education and career preparation. Today, many feel that formal philosophy is
unnecessary, and more than one leading influential figure like Stephen
Hawking has denounced it as irrelevant, ostensibly because science is thought
to be "real" and philosophy theoretical.
Given this general disregard for philosophy and the failure to instill
epistemological and metaphysical principles into those educated, of course
many individuals feel no compunction to engage in this obvious group review
requirement and feel compelled to ignore its needed contribution and
critique. Sometimes an individual can develop a different paradigm, while
taking into consideration most of the valid knowledge, but then various
aspects should be vetted. Before going public with published material, the
attitude of the paradigm developer or big idea proposer
should be to have other people review any ideas or material with the request
"Help me out here, where am I going wrong?" To do otherwise
is simply unwarranted hubris and arrogance.
This is not necessarily a fatal flaw, but it would seem that the entire
support for the idea comes in the form of implications and their
interpretations, with no direct, tangible, or clear-cut evidence or
Violation of epistemological principles
violation of the essence of definitions, violation of the requirement for
contrast violations of boundaries
Violation of other pieces