I find it amusing when people talk about evolutionary dead ends and failed experiments.
It all depends on our perspective, from when we look in time and the time span we use.
If we look exclusively from our vantage point in time, and at a human time span, then - yes - it may appear that some species were evolutionary dead ends and failed experiments, and whichever species are alive today “made it”. But that is obviously a very myopic view, and not aligned with the vast time spans of evolution.
All species are born and die, this earth was born and will die, this universe was born and will die (heat death or big crunch). So in that sense, all species - including humans - are evolutionary “dead ends”.
Or we can say that all species are wonderful and awe-inspiring expressions of the amazing creativity of the Earth and this universe.
Cooking is something we all take for granted but a new theory suggests that if we had not learned to cook food, not only would we still look like chimps but, like them, we would also be compelled to spend most of the day chewing…..
Cooking food breaks down its cells, meaning that our stomachs need to do less work to liberate the nutrients our bodies need. This, says Wheeler, “freed up energy which could then be used to power a larger brain. The increase in brain-size mirrors the reduction in the size of the gut.” Significantly Wheeler and Aiello found that the reduction in the size of our digestive system was exactly the same amount that our brains grew by - 20%. Professor Stephen Secor at the University of Alabama found that not only does cooked food release more energy, but the body uses less energy in digesting it. As a consequence, more time was available for social structure to develop.
- from BBC, Learning to Cook Produced Bigger Brains
Changing food habits is a good example of how we shape our own evolution.
Our evolved biology makes our behavior and culture possible. Our behavior and culture changes, and this allows us to make use of our evolved potential in new ways. Both of these changes our selection pressures. Which in turn changes us biologically as a species. And this changes what is possible for us as individuals and as a culture.
We have evolved so it is possible for us to use tools and cook food. Cooking food allows us to make better use of food nutrients, which in turn allows us to make different and new use of our evolved potential. Both of these changes our circumstances and selection pressures, so different characteristics are selected for. This changes us biologically as a species. And this opens new options for us as a species and a culture.
Nowadays, our own culture is perhaps the most significant source of our own evolutionary change, as it has been for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Through culture, we change our social and ecological environments, which in turn changes the selection pressures, which in turn changes who we are.
For a good introduction to what sets humans apart from other animals, you can’t do much better than Alan Alda’s three-part series The Human Spark.
It is easy to think that since the lives of humans are so different from the lives of other animals, there must be big differences in how we are put together.
But is that the case? Are humans very different from other animals? No. We share almost everything with at least some, and often many, other species.
It is the small differences - often in degree - that sets us apart. As we know from the butterfly effect, in a complex system, small differences in the initial conditions can lead to big differences in how it all unfolds over time. In this case, small differences in biology leads to big differences in how we live our lives.
It is these small differences that leads to what we see as uniquely human such as relatively advanced culture, technology, and social organization.
The human brain is a big believer in equality — and a team of scientists from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, has become the first to gather the images to prove it.
Specifically, the team found that the reward centers in the human brain respond more strongly when a poor person receives a financial reward than when a rich person does. The surprising thing? This activity pattern holds true even if the brain being looked at is in the rich person’s head, rather than the poor person’s.
- from Science Daily
From an evolutionary perspective, it is not surprising that we may be predisposed for justice. We are social animals, and in many cases, justice benefits the group as a whole.
Our biology makes everything we know possible: metabolism, walking, digesting, feeling, thinking, anger, joy, sadness, culture, technology, imagination, creativity, compassion, ethics, a sense of meaning, and anything that is part of our individual and collective lives.
Some of it is shared among all Earth life. Much of it is shared among all animals. A great deal of shared among all mammals. Even more is shared among all humans. And some is differently emphasized among humans.
By observing brain cancer patients before and after brain surgery, researchers in Italy have found that damage to the posterior part of the brain, specifically in an area called the parietal cortex, can increase patients’ feelings of “self transcendence,” or feeling at one with the universe. The parietal cortex is the region that is is usually involved in maintaining a sense of self, for example by helping you keep track of your body parts. It has also been linked to prayer and meditation.
- Discover Magazine blog
Its a rich and interesting field, finding physiological correlates to whatever goes under the “spiritual” umbrella: A sense of awe, gratitude, compassion. A widened sense of “us”. A stronger and more mature sense of ethics. A reduced sense of boundaries, or recognition of boundaries as imagined. Effects of meditation or prayer practice, such as a more stable attention, improved self-regulation, and recognition of thoughts as thoughts. States of various kinds. And much more. Each of these are most likely related to short- and long-term changes in different and specific brain regions, and also the endocrine system, immune system, cellular function, and so on.
Its a common dilemma: We imagine a boundary, elevate our side and devalue what is on the other side, and make it difficult for ourselves to recognize it as an imagined boundary.
It is easy to see among some Christian fundamentalists. In their own minds, they elevate humans as being made in God’s image, and devalue non-humans as a lesser category of beings. From within such a mindset, removing the boundary means that humans ends up in the same group as beasts, and it is not a very attractive proposition.
The solution is of course to elevate non-human species and gain a more realistic view of humans. We can recognize the immense beauty of the natural world. The intelligence, caring and fit to their environment of all species, come about through millions of years of evolution. Our shared ancestors and close kinship with all life. How we are all expressions of a seamless process of evolution of this planet. The ways our evolutionary past is played out in our daily life, and how a recognition of this can be a great help to us.
Michal Dowd and Connie Barlow have a new podcast on the Big Integrity model. As always, well worth listening to.
A quick comment about something Connie Barlow mentions early in the podcast:
She says that in eastern models, consciousness is primary and the universe comes later. In her understanding, based on western science, consciousness is born out of the universe. And those two don’t fit well together.
In reality, Darwin’s loss of faith was, as he recognised, gradual and complex. The reasons were not new – suffering always has been and always will be most serious challenge to Christianity – but they were newly focused. Plenty of Darwin’s scientific contemporaries….. could accommodate their Christian beliefs with the new theory. Indeed, as historian James Moore has remarked “with but few exceptions the leading Christian thinkers in Great Britain and America came to terms quite readily with Darwinism and evolution.”
But Darwin, brought up on William Paley’s harmonious, self-satisfied vision of creation, could not.
Although I don’t write about it much here, I often use an evolutionary view to explore dynamics in daily life. It is fun to imagine what evolutionary function something has, and it can even be helpful at times.
For instance, I noticed nervousness before giving a presentation to a group, and realized that it seems to make perfect sense in an evolutionary perspective. If I am careless about what I say or do in front of a large group of people, it can have serious consequences for me. In extreme cases, I could get killed. I could get thrown out of my community. I could get stigmatized and have to live with the consequences for the rest of my life. Of course, in the culture I live in, none of these are likely to happen, or if some of the less serious consequences did happen, I could just find another group or move another place. But my system still responds as if I lived in a small tribe in Africa and my life depended on that one small community.
Just having that explanation makes it a little easier. The nervousness seems a little less personal. It is not so much about me, but a shared human - probably mammalian - experience.
Depression brings attention to a particular topic while reducing distractions, allowing it to be examined and processed more thoroughly. And that investigation can help us function better in daily life.
The idea is of course not new, and it goes well beyond just depression.
When I explore for myself, I find that any hangups, any reactivity, is a glue for attention. It brings attention to the apparent topic of the hangup, and also to the hangup itself.
Whenever there is friction between shoulds and is/may be, there is a knot. A hangup. A tantrum, as Byron Katie calls it.
The press release makes some good points, and it is an interesting exploration. Why do we sometimes resist a more rational view? And what can be done about it when we notice it in ourselves, or encounter it in others?
It is also interesting to note that the author appears to mix in his own beliefs which muddles the logic slightly.
Davis laments a modern world in which more people believe in ESP, ghosts, and angels than in evolution. Superstition and religion get particularly critical treatment, although he argues that religion, itself, is not the problem but “an inevitable by-product of how our minds misperform.
It is not quite ESP, ghost and angels versus science and evolution. It is about how we relate, not what we relate to.
It is perfectly possible to be curious about ESP, ghost, UFOs and other mysterious phenomena, and take a pragmatic and scientific approach to it. We can study it through science and be quite receptive and open to whatever we may find.
And it is also perfectly possible to have a blind and irrational belief in atheism or particular scientific models, pretending those views and models are true when we know that atheism is just another unproven philosophy and any scientific model will be outdated and obsolete at some point in the future. (And that goes for our most basic worldview as well, and our most basic assumptions about life and existence.)
When we mix in our own beliefs as Davis does, it is also easy to be caught up in shadow projections. To get caught up in the “I am right, you are wrong” dynamics and all that comes with it.
And as always, this is a mirror for myself. I see Davis being caught up in his own beliefs, so how am I doing the same? How am I doing the same in relation to him right now? Can I find other specific examples from my own life?
In this case, it is perfectly possible - even likely - that I am horribly unfair and assign views to the author that he does not hold. I haven’t even read his book. I am just using it to make a point.
Both education and religion need to ground themselves within the story of the universe as we now understand this story through empirical knowledge. Within this functional cosmology, we can overcome our alienation and begin the renewal of life on a sustainable basis. This story is a numinous revelatory story that could evoke the vision and the energy required to bring not only ourselves but the entire planet into a new order of magnificence.
Thomas Berry. Catholic priest, author, geologican, and one of the foremost figures in ecospirituality and evolutionary spirituality, died this morning.
This amazingly complete 47 million year old fossil was revealed to the public today. It was found in Germany in the 80s, wasy aquired by the University of Oslo two years ago, and is a link in the early evolution of primates. (See official site and BBC.)
Exploring our evolutionary past helps us understand who we are today, and this has many practical benefits. Our evolutionary story informs a wide range of fields, including medicine, sociology and psychology. And through the epic of evolution, we can find and a deep sense of connection, belonging and meaning, which in turn influences our views and actions and may even help us survive as a species.
There is also another side to our desire to fill in our past through genealogy, history, archaeology, evolutionary past, cosmology and more. We can use it to give ourselves a false sense that we understand and know who we are as a species and individuals. We can use it to get a sense of having ground under our feet, a base to stand on, stories that helps us solidify and flesh out our identities.
These stories can be used as material to solidify our identity as a species, culture and individual, and also as an object in the world - a me, a doer and an observer.
This is where inquiry can be very helpful. Do I know that any of these stories are really true? Do I know that they define who and what I really am? What happens when I take them as true? Who would I be without those stories? What are the truth in their turnarounds? (The Work.)
So while all of these stories from genealogy, history, evolution and cosmology can be very helpful in a practical sense, and may even help us survive as a species, it is good to notice how we hold these stories, what happens when take them as true, and find what is more true for us -including that we really don’t know.
Forty years ago this Christmas, something amazing happened: we visited the Earth’s moon for the first time.
It was the first time humans saw the Earth as a blue marble floating in space, and it gave us the first photo of an Earthrise. (Here is a recent interview with the three Apollo 8 astronauts.)
For the last forty years, we have been familiar with photos of Earth from space. And also the often transformative experiences of astronauts and cosmonauts. (Especially the ones who left Earth orbit.)
It has nudged us to recognize the Earth as one whole. As a living system. And as tiny even in the context of our own small solar system.
In many ways, seeing the Earth from the outside is a recent step in our collective deprovincialization. It is an invitation for us to grow up a little more as a species and global culture.
Whether gossip happens in our own minds, between people, or in the media, I can find at least two main functions of gossip.
In an evolutionary perspective, it seems that it makes sense for people to exchange information about others. When we do, and to the extent it is accurate, we have a better idea of what is going on, and that is often helpful. Even when it is not accurate, it serves to create a sense of intimacy among those who share gossip.
Gossip also serves an important function in terms of projections. We get familiar with a characteristic or dynamic in somebody else, and - if we are receptive to it - can then get familiar with it in ourselves.
There are also a couple of other projection-related functions of gossip.
I am with a group of teachers, and they are all enthusiastically sharing how the world of form continues to deepen and evolve before and after awakening. It is a continuing process of exploration. They use a Buddhist term for this unfolding, and although I am familiar with the term I didn’t realize it referred to the inseparability of ground and evolution.
All of these teachers are people I know in waking life, either in person or through their teachings. They are teachers who tend to emphasize the awakening aspect and de-emphasize -or leave out - the development/evolution aspect. And this tends to bug me somewhat.
In the dream, all of them emphasize both aspects equally and with great enthusiasm, and use a term from traditional Buddhism which refers to the inseparability of the two. There is a deep sense of this equal emphasis being an integral part of all mystical traditions, although teachings tends to - for different reasons - emphasize one or the other.
Michael Dowd and Connie Barlow are back in Oregon, giving a string of presentations in early April.
They will be in Roseburg April 9, Eugene April 10, Portland April 12 and 13, and Salem on the 16th.
If you happen to live around here, it is well worth attending. They are both amazing speakers in the area of evolution and spirituality, and Michael often uses the aqal framework to organize his presentations.
In exploring anything, it is a good idea to notice how it appears from the inside and outside of stories.
Take evolution as an example. Lots of people are into evolution in different ways, including evolutionary spirituality.
Where do I find evolution? For me, I find it easily within stories.
But what about outside of stories? What about how it appears here now? What about how it appears in the sense fields? I cannot find it there at all. At most, I can find it as a thought overlaid on the other sense fields.
So this makes it clear to me, in a more real way, that evolution only appears within stories.
And this, in turn, makes it clear that evolution is a story of only practical value. There is nothing inherently valuable or true in it, but it may still have a practical function in the world, and even in the spiritual practice of some folks.
These simple explorations helps put things in perspective. It helps us become more real about it. And it helps release identification out of these stories, so they are revealed as practical tools with no value beyond that.
It takes the drama out of it. There is nothing to defend. No inherent truth in the stories that we need to defend, and no truth in the reversals that we need to defend against. We don’t need to defend the story any more than we need to defend any other practical tool, like a hammer. The only question is when and how is it useful, in a purely practical way.
With evolution, we see that it obviously fits all the data we have collected from biology, so it seems quite useful there. It has some explanation power. And it does add another dimension to how we understand our psychology, so it has practical value there too. It may even add some richness to how we see ourselves spiritually, from within the realm of stories, so it may have some practical value there too, for those drawn to it.
Again, it is simple. Almost childishly simple, as so much else here. Yet, to fully see this, to fully see, feel and love it, and bring it into daily life in a variety of situations, takes some exploration and practice.
Since I started being interested in those things, I have thought the idea of human evolution slowing down being counterintuitive. Why should it? It seems more reasonable that it continues about the same as before, or even speeds up.
After all, there are more of us, much more diversity in the circumstances we encounter, and biological predispositions that may appear subtle at our individual human level may have a major impact in an evolutionary perspective.
For instance, if we have a biological predisposition for a disease that only breaks out later in life, it will impact our ability to help our grandchildren, and this may appear of little consequence in individual cases, but over time and over large groups of people, it most certainly will have an evolutionary impact.
And that is the case with innumerable traits. They may appear of little evolutionary significance when we look at individual cases, but it all adds up over time and in larger groups. And this goes for biological predispositions for any trait we can think of, physiological and psychological alike.
So I am glad that some recent research have found just that: human evolution appears to not only continue at a brisk pace, but may even have speeded up over the last few thousands of years. And, it seems to me, most likely will continue to do so.
I found these beautiful inquiries by someone who, like me, appreciate the work of Ken Wilber and The Work by Byron Katie.
Here are a few excerpts:
Belief:The Work ignores intersubjectivity.I can turn this around right away.
Turnaround:
The Work considers intersubjectivity.I do the Work with my partner.I listen to her Judge your Neighbor worksheet on me and facilitate her doing the Work on me while I listen with an open heart.She does the same thing for me.I couldn’t ask for a better mirror and if that isn’t intersubjectivity what is? The Work can be done with family, friends, colleagues, enemies, anybody.I learn an enormous amount when I facilitate another – about them and me.
I ignore intersubjectivity.When I defend myself against criticism as a knee jerk reaction.As Katie often says, Defense is the first act of War.When I believe my thoughts about others without enquiry.When I do not question my thoughts about me (my multiple selves – parent, child, adult).
…..
Turnarounds to “The Work does not take into consideration the evolution of consciousnessâ€:
The Work does take into consideration the evolution of consciousness.The Work questions the lies/pathologies that surface at every structure stage of consciousness.In the process, the untrue beliefs are left behind and I am freed to evolve or not.As Katie says, there are only 3 kinds of business; my business, your business and God’s business.Eros is God’s business.
I do not take into consideration the evolution of others’ consciousness.I believe that others can’t evolve, that they are blocked or stuck believing their myths.I believe this about my partner, my friends and work colleagues.I tend to believe the worst about them.And yes, I believe that of some of the Greens in this forum!Sorry guys, my bad.
I do not take into consideration the evolution of my consciousness.I often consider my problem to be hopeless.My understanding won’t get better.My fear won’t get better.My relationship won’t get better.
…..
Turnarounds for “The Work is limited by the Myth of the Givenâ€.
The Work in not limited by the Myth of the Given.The Work (4 questions) investigates any myth (beliefs) that I take as given (true).For example I believe the myth that my father is dead when his genes are alive in me, his memory is alive in me, his image is alive in me.By investigating every story, the Work leaves me as what I am (truth) in the moment.As Katie says, the Work takes nothing away and gives nothing.It’s only 4 questions.
I limit myself by the Myth (lies) that I take to be Given.There is no question in my mind that I was suffering from the myths that I believed.The energy that I use in holding on to beliefs that conflict with reality limits my creativity and action.
I believe the myth of the other/(s) to be given.I project my thoughts (myths) on to others and think that my image of them is real (given).Who is an Other without my story?
A friend of mine recently posed the question, “Is it just me, or are there a lot of people waking up these days?†It’s a really interesting question, one that I’ve thought about from time to time. And so talking it over with my partner I came up with at least six different possibilities (I’m sure there are more) that one might consider with regards to the question:
It is possible that with the dawn of the information age we are simply much more aware of that then we were before of how many people are waking up.
On the journey toward awakening and with a more realistic model of awakening, the amount of people we see who are awake or waking up increases due to our not having far-fetched models and because we’ve simply had more time to meet them.
It’s difficult to compare how many people are awake today versus in the past because we don’t have much reliable empirical data.
From the purely statistical perspective, the steady rise in the world’s population would mean there are more awakened people, if we assume a similar awakening per capita.
One argument is that as the speed of the world increases the ability to wake up to what is always already there, simply via the higher contrast, becomes easier.
Humans may be evolving in mental, emotional, and spiritual complexity over time (Ken Wilber’s evolutionary spirituality perspective), with one major outcome being that more people are waking up.
And some additional points that comes to mind:
Longer lifespan, as Duff mentions in a comment to the original post.
The filter of time. Most of us know only a handful of painters from the renaissance, but people at the time knew about many more. Just as time filters who among painters are remembered by later generations, the same happens with mystics.
Increased access & opportunity
Easier access to simple, effective practices from a range of traditions, and new variations such as headlessness, the Big Mind process and The Work. Also, a quicker and wider dissemination of simple/effective practices through old and new media.
Easier access to teachers, in person and through books, audio, video, internet.
For some, more leisure time so more time for practice.
There are more people today who get to taste most or all of their material desires. This means that more get to see, through own experience, that it doesn’t quite do it, and some of these (a small fraction) will then shift onto a path of spiritual practices. (On the other hand, we live in a global culture that promotes the idea of happiness through getting what we want in the material world, and this idea may have been less prominent - and tempered by other views - in previous times and other cultures.)
More inclusive definitions of awakening. If we take a broad (or vague) definition to awakening, as many do, then many has indeed awakened… but this may include people who have a soul level awakening (alive presence), a oneness awakening (a self here one with God and everything else), receptivity to or glimpses/intuitions of soul/oneness/nondual awakenings, and also a more stable nondual awakening (free from an I with an Other). Even among many so called “awakened” teachers today, we see people who express these different forms of awakening. If we lump it all together, it includes quite a lot of people. The Translucent Revolution by Arjuna Ardagh is one of many examples of this lumping together, where he mostly seems to talk about people who have a receptivity to and intuition/glimpses of soul/oneness/nondual awakenings.
The most simple and down-to-earth explanations seem sufficient to explain why it seems that more people are waking up today.
We hear about it more. We often use a very broad and vague definition of awakening which by necessity includes a lot of people.
More and more people have a sense, taste and glimpse of different forms of awakening through different practices such as the Big Mind process, so they and others may see that as an awakening. (It is an awakening, in that it awakens them to what is beyond a perception filtered through I and Other. But it is not an awakening in terms of - for instance - a stable nondual awakening where the whole sense of I and Other falls away.) We hear about awakenings more readily through modern communication.
And finally, more people may indeed awaken because there are more of us, and easier access to practices and teachers.
Michael Dowd’s new book, Thank God for Evolution, is available for pre-order. Also check out the book’s website which has articles as well as audio and video samples.
He does a great job of providing bridges from the traditionalist/fundamentalist to the rational/scientific perspectives, and between science and spirituality, all within an integrally informed framework.
(Not sure how much the book goes into the integral maps, but his talks often do.)
