Home Forums The Science 2 or 3 impasses?

This topic contains 3 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  Michael 1 year, 5 months ago.

  • Author

  • Michael

    Hi. I’ve just joined the WTMforum, and this is my first post. I´ve read a great deal of what Jeremy Griffith has written over a couple of years, and intuitively accepted the releaving feeling that comes with the understanding of e.g. the “loveindoctrination” concept… however, since I´ve also read up on a number of other controversial scientific reasonings like for instance the “Aquatic Ape Theory”, the “Human Givens” theory, the “PolyVagal Theory”, the rationale underpinning Linus Pauling’s vitamin C-protocol, plus some more hypotheses regarding evolution, human development and health, I´ve noticed that they all can be lined up along and compared against the geological timescale …I’ve also gradually come to internalize a certain degree of critical thinking which so far has assisted me in navigating what I read, and one thing I can’t seem to reconcile with the otherwise brilliant World Transformation-logic is that while it claims to rely on scientific (biological) ground, it at the same time ignores, and therefore suffers the inevital consequences of ignorance of, Fred Hoyle’s cosmochemical reasoning which states that Iron is the heaviest element formed by gravitation, and thus the development of the order of matter in the universe to this day reaches a first initial IMPASSE at the level of Ironformation inside stars…!!!

    This scientific fact is totally ignored in for instance chapter 8:2 in the book Freedom, where instead the reasoning goes that the first impasse was reached here on earth when macromolecules crumbled under their own weight, which had the effect of a 90 degree shift into informationdevelopment within RNA and DNA, and subsequently the genetic learningprocess reached the second impasse, which shifted development another 90 degrees into nervelearning and primate sociality…

    Given that this scientifically proven fact of elementformation inside stars is totally missing from the otherwise brilliant logic of the World Transformation Movement, the whole idéa seems to be missing a fundamental structural support, which for the sake of upholding mental balance will have to be replaced with something else…and as I see it, this “something else” is e.g. via the WTM’s newsletter nr. 29 and the scapegoating as “pseudoidealists” the NewAgeMovement and the logical dismissing of the coming Age of Aquarious…?

    Since I know of nowhere else to discuss these matters, I hope that this post will generate some reaction because I believe that my point is scientifically solid…

  • Dave

    Forgive me if I am missing something, but all elements heavier than iron form in supernovas. Earth formed from a supernova nebula (an old star exploded and provided the matter for all the planets in our solar system and the sun).

    This does not seem like an impasse. Gravity pulled the nebular materials into the planets and sun. This is basic info all over the internet and taught in all universities.

    • Michael

      Thanks for yor response… my point with my reasoning is that in these days, when man has walked on the moon and is even considering going to Mars, and the origin of comets and meteorites have left the realm of religious myth and instead entered into the realm of scientific explanations, there is a trend in modern thinking to think even beyond our own solarsystem and contemplate the entire universe on an everyday basis… the “basic info.” you mention is an example of just that… even wikipedia has an article where molecules found in deep space are listed… thus it seems to me as somewhat of a logical shortcoming when Jeremy is basing his impasse-reasoning on first earthly molecules crumbling under their own weight due to gravity, and secondly the twofold impasse of genetic learning, leading up to ‘loveindoctrination’… two impasses, but there is no mentioning whatsoever of the previous obvious impasse which occurred much earlier in the history of the universe…

      Although he is referring to Arthur Koestler’s 1978 book, Janus: A Summing Up, and the “Development of Order or Integration of Matter on Earth.”, and makes a specifik point in chapter 4:2 in “Freedom” of, quote;”the overall purpose or meaning of existence, is the ordering or integration or complexification of matter.”, end of quote, the obvious gravityimpasse of gravitational elementformation ending with Iron as the final element, which this universal matter according to current modern ‘basic info.’ eventually reached (and still reaches) inside stars formed long before our own solarsystem came into being, is omitted from the world transformation logic? This doesn’t make sense to me…

  • Michael

    Having contemplated the matter of the “waterside hypothesis” and consequently begun to read some articles by Michael Crawford, for example this one;
    …I’ve come to dwell on the phase in the geological timeframe called the “Cambrian explosion” some 500 mya. This event was, according to M. Crawford and others, made possible due to the fact that the concentration of free oxygen by then had reached the “Pasteur Point”, when oxidative metabolism among bacteria became thermodynamically possible. This change in metabolism which is still very much appreciated by anyone having felt the effects of lactic acid in the muscles following personal maximum exercise, also led to the sudden production of many different types of fatty acids, which in turn gave rise to a new type of fattyacidbased cellwall… this was what made the internal cellorganelles possible, and voilá…life “exploded” into todays variety of lifeforms…

    This way of pinpointing in time the origins of multicellular life and linking it also to the emergence of lipids, e.g. DHA is IMO so remarkable that it deserves to be appreciated as yet another “impasse” in Jeremy Griffiths model of “the human condition”… so… the question expands… is it 2, or 3 or even 4 impasses that makes the most sense when contemplating the “Conditions of Existence” mentioned in the article alluded to above?