A Challenge To Biocentrism

So, this has been making the rounds: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/345809.

I’m going to pull a  spot and comment on it. Those of the Secular Humanist “skeptical” religion may want to turn away as this article is about Robert Lanza’s theory of everything. He is a medical doctor who is actually grappling with metaphysical questions, because sometimes that’s what science is for. I know that’s hard to believe. Shhhh…. sh-sh-shhhhh… We’re all just dust and dirt… all just dust and dirt.

Better?

Moving on.

In the article we read:

Therefore, following Lanza’s logic, the whole universe is not somewhere out there, but inside our head. Nothing can be perceived that is not already interacting with our consciousness. Just because the perceived images are experientially real, not imaginary, doesn’t mean it exists “physically” somewhere out there

Here’s a problem with theories like these: we are still the center of them. If there is no you and me… If you and I and all things–space/time/whatever–are manifestations of one “energy” (really one intelligence is closer to it) performing the almighty task of being, then to say the universe is in our head doesn’t go far enough. Where is your head? And who are you?

I know who you’re not. You are not the immortal center.

That next line, “Nothing can be perceived that is not already interacting with our consciousness” is a false statement, because there is no interaction at all, just the appearance of one, and there is no “our” consciousness. When we theorize beyond our experience in this way, we butt up against the subtle barrier that to truly understand it as other than a thought in your head, you have to die because you are the thoughts in your head. Perhaps it’s truer to say that death is a relative term than to say it does not exist, the thrust of Biocentrism. A caterpillar morphing into a moth is the transcendence of the caterpillar. Which means its death.

Death is transcendence.

The problem with the type of language used in the article is the same as most New Age language: we don’t want to see that death is transcendence. We want to take us with us when we go, so to speak. In the religious afterlife, that mean literally a ghostly you living in heaven/hell/a house in Amityville. In New Age dogma, the scientific finding that particles respond to the observer translates into We create our own reality! Isn’t it wonderful? Control! Control! Control!

If you still look like you when you die or act like you when you die, you didn’t die. No transcendence for you, Chester.

Well, to my eye, Biocentrism reads like more of the same. It’s fuel for the dogmatic fire, the center of which is your fear of annihilation. If one transforms into something else after that annihilation, that doesn’t mean death didn’t occur. You could say it’s energy switching forms but that doesn’t do it justice, does it? What is the experience of that? The irony of this blather about reality being within us is that we say it to keep it at arm’s length as an abstract. We keep there-is-no-out-there as a theory to maintain the illusion of an out there, because that illusion is the foundation of you. There is no you without an other.

However, experiencing reality at a broader/deeper maturity than this–that is to say, transcending and including it–does bring one to Truth with a capital T. And in Truth there is outer space and inner space. There is life and there is death. There is time. There is you and me. For in Truth, reality is all of the above plus a self awareness as all of the above plus the Nothingness moment in which even that is expressing. (Which is the beginning of everything, nothingness or thingness? YES. Is there such thing as death or is it a transition into another phase of being? YES.)

For the body to become that ginormous self-awareness it must be selfless. You gotsta go!

That is self-sacrifice. That is death. That is transcendence. That’s where theorizing and believing come to a grinding, glorious halt.

See the fact of this and sit with the realization. But don’t ponder the implications or you’re likely to get up and grab a sandwich or turn on the TV or something.

Advertisements

One thought on “A Challenge To Biocentrism

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s