In 2019 I published a book titled “Authoring Your Life Script.”  The material here is a chapter from that book.]

In the middle of the 20^th century, Eric Berne developed a psychotherapy system which he called Transactional Analysis.  He published a book in 1958 called Games People Play which provided a number of illustrations of how transactions between people played out.  About ten years later, Thomas Harris brought out a popularized self-help book based on Berne’s theories and the work of a neurosurgeon named Willard Penfield.  This book, described as the most popular self-help book ever written (it’s still in print), was titled I’m Okay, You’re Okay.  In this book Harris suggested that there are four basic transactional styles or positions: 

“I’m Okay, You’re Okay;” “I’m Not Okay, You’re Okay;” “I’m Okay, You’re Not Okay;” and “I’m Not Okay, You’re Not Okay.” He felt that the vast majority of adults find themselves in the “I’m Not Okay, You’re Okay” position.  There has been some debate as to whether that is the position people occupy from birth on or whether people are born into the “I’m Okay, You’re Okay” position (which is then corrupted by social interactions).  

            The theology of original sin seems to go rather well with the more modern concept that human beings by nature are Not Okay.  Some might call this a biologically transmitted feeling of inferiority.  The concept of original sin became a mainstay of the concept of substitutionary atonement in a lot of Christian theology. In the late fourth century, Augustine of Hippo (known to some as St. Augustine) gave clear expression to the concept of original sin, which had been developing amongst Christian theologians for a couple hundred years.  In his view, all of humankind was a mass of perdition and inherited their sinful nature as a result of biological transmission from Adam and Eve, the original human parents, who were portrayed as breaking God’s rules. The Protestant reformers of the 17^th century had a field day with this theory. Early Puritans converted some of this theology into mantras to instruct children; e.g., “In Adam’s Fall, we sinned all.” Some authors have proposed that the negative image of people projected by those reformers actually motivated people to do good and do a lot to demonstrate that they were among God’s chosen (the “elect”) instead of accepting a role as inadequate creatures.    

            Theological and philosophical enterprises are efforts to make sense of things, to explain why things are the way they are.  While modern efforts in these fields try to take advantage of current scientific understanding [see Harris’ use of Penfield’s neuroscience], many of these historic systems are completely disconnected from modern science.  When Augustine advocated for inherited sin, we had no understanding of the dynamics of modern genetics and concepts of what is heritable.   Probably most people could only occasionally observe that a man’s son looked like the father or that all the men in a particular family had oddly shaped ears.  Some of the most important original research in genetics was done by Gregor Mendel in 1865 (about 1500 years after Augustine)—interestingly enough he was an Augustinian monk!

            Our current generations of people can easily assume that what we know has been known for a very long time.  We might be a bit startled to discover that the concept of the human brain being a constellation of inter-connected nerves is a little more than 100 years old and the anatomical drawings made by the discoverer of this reality are still in use in medical textbooks.  [Dr. Ramon y Cajal received the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1906 for his work in mapping the nervous system.]  In 2015 we celebrated 150 years of modern genetics.

            Many people who do not accept the concept of original sin (which would include most Jews, probably Buddhists and adherents of Islam), suppose that feelings of inferiority are the results of poor parenting, educational deficits, negative experiences, etc.  Against that background are a plethora of self-help books which basically advocate that because humans are basically good from birth and that they have simply lost the ability to believe “I’m Okay, you’re Okay,” it will take a change in one’s attitude to get over those feelings of inferiority.  Usually these amount to some system about raising one’s self-esteem.

            It seems to me that some recent developments in the study of the brain may offer us some important insights into the persistence of low self-esteem.  In order to explain this, I need to give my readers a brief overview of brain morphology.  Our brains, which are thought to be the product of eons of evolution, clearly show older, more primitive areas and more recent, more sophisticated areas.  Deep within the brain is the limbic system (which includes the amygdala) which seems to be responsible for much of our emotional life.  A part of the more primitive brainstem is called the Reticular Activating System. The abbreviation for this system is RAS.  The more primitive aspects of our brains are driven by forces that want to preserve life and reproduce life.  The conscious mind can only focus on a few things at any given time.  If we had to be totally aware of everything that is stimulating our physical bodies, we wouldn’t be able to function.  The RAS acts as a filter to screen out background stimulation and does respond to some degree to directions from the higher cognitive functional areas of the brain.  For example, my RAS screens out the feeling generated by my wedding ring or my watch band;  however, if I ask what either of these things feels like the RAS will allow that information to make it to my conscious awareness.  Since the primitive brain is survival-driven, the RAS will forward any alarming stimulation to the amygdala, which triggers the fight or flight response.  Robert Cooper points out that the RAS “. . . has evolved over millennia with an inherent tendency to magnify negative incoming messages and minimize positive ones.” [Cooper, Robert K. (2010-02-06). The Other 90%: How to Unlock Your Vast Untapped Potential for Leadership and Life (Kindle Locations 421-422). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.]  Cooper also points out that “[a] few well-intended words of criticism—not a life-threatening communiqué, to be sure—are nonetheless amplified by the RAS into a simple message: Danger! Danger! We bristle up and get anxious and defensive. Conversely, a genuine compliment is usually deflated by the RAS to not much more than a whisper. Which is why, at the end of a typical day when a hundred things have gone quite well and one has gone slightly wrong, nearly all of us become preoccupied with the one thing that went slightly wrong.” [Ibid, location 426-429] 

I would suggest that we often are confused by the way the negative bias of the RAS contradicts our more logical observations.  We don’t know what to make of this confusion and so we allow it to generate those feelings of low self-esteem which make it easy for us to suppose that we are “Not Okay.”  That RAS background feeling that all is not well finds fluent explanation in the doctrine of original sin. People who embrace this concept have a way of blaming God for the way they feel and to confuse this even more, end up believing that they are supposed to feel bad about themselves. This gets complicated by the fact that both the RAS and the amygdala don’t seem to know when or how to turn off the alarms,  so any and all danger is felt to be mortal danger. These systems are like a home smoke detector which cannot tell the difference between burning toast and burning curtains. Perhaps this biology is background for the familiar assertion that “I am a mistake” instead of the honest, “I made a mistake.”

            To many folks it has seemed that the way to deliver us from this plague of self-defeating dynamics is to raise peoples’ self-esteem.  When Garrison Keillor talked about the mythical city of Lake Wobegon and describes all the children there as “above average,” he is teasing us a bit about our notion that we can raise everyone’s self-esteem.  Indeed, some researchers are asserting that our efforts to raise self-esteem have resulted in record high levels of narcissism in our society.  Narcissism is the attempt to look good and usually develops at the expense of emotional awareness or authenticity.  I once knew a little girl (about 12 years old) who described her narcissistic father to me as like “one of those super-fancy Easter eggs that look great on the outside but have all the insides blown out.” My readers might remember those expensive, fancy Russian Easter eggs bedecked with expensive jewelry which are preserved because the contents of the egg have been blown out.  When everyone is trying hard to be above average, competition gets encouraged and human relationships really take a nosedive.  I wonder if our efforts to maintain high levels of self-esteem put us into a perpetual battle with the RAS.  Hear what Cooper has to say here: “Let’s assume you’re getting angry at one of the many things that may cause you to become frustrated or off balance. It’s likely that deeply set habits or patterns are at work. The RAS is primed to magnify feelings of impending threat or lost control, instantly priming you for an outburst or, if you manage to suppress that reaction, increased tension or resentment.”  [Cooper, Ibid, (Kindle Locations 439-442).]  It is clear from current research that efforts to resolve issues of negative self-esteem by raising self-esteem are a failure. 

If we look at the multiple brain theory advanced by Soosalu and Oka, [Soosalu, Grant; Oka, Marvin (2012-04-09). mBraining – Using your multiple brains to do cool stuff] we don’t find high self-esteem as a characteristic of the aligned, integrated personality.  Instead, we discover that the highest expression of the heart brain is compassion.  We are discovering that self-compassion is the cure of choice for low self-esteem. The usual attempts to raise self-esteem seem to foster the notion that the individual is in competition with others and that s/he is winning.  That takes us to the un-sane conclusion that it is possible for everyone to be above average. Self-compassion allows us to admit our mistakes (from which we will learn), affirm that we are valuable and acceptable the way we are, and celebrate the notion that other people’s successes don’t detract from our own. Several studies tell us that self-compassion does not foster narcissistic perspectives but instead helps people to be more compassionate toward others.  We have learned that we all have specialized neurons called mirror neurons.  These neurons enable us to understand how other people are feeling.  It seems logical that developing and improving self-compassion would help these mirror neurons to decipher what’s going on with the others that we encounter and make it even easier for us to be compassionate.

V.S. Ramachandran has speculated that mirror neurons may provide the neurological basis of human self-awareness. In an essay written for the Edge Foundation in 2009, Ramachandran gave the following explanation of his theory: “… I also speculated that these neurons can not only help simulate other people’s behavior but can be turned ‘inward’—as it were—to create second-order representations or meta-representations of your own earlier brain processes. This could be the neural basis of introspection, and of the reciprocity of self-awareness and other awareness. There is obviously a chicken-or-egg question here as to which evolved first, but… The main point is that the two co-evolved, mutually enriching each other to create the mature representation of self that characterizes modern humans.” [From Wikipedia entry on Human Self-Awareness]

            Here is modern neuroscience telling us what Jesus and Buddha said a long time ago that it is important to love others the way we love ourselves.  The theological systems which have specialized in emphasizing original sin have made us unlovable in our own eyes—which makes it much more difficult to love other people.  Many religions which focus on negativity often get violent—like the Taliban. Those judgmental religions which seem to emphasize what is wrong with other people are not far from the horrid practices of the Taliban—and the ancient Christian crusaders!  This seems to be linked to focusing on the alarms from the RAS instead of the self-compassion the higher parts of the brain understand and promote.

Loving ourselves actually impacts our neural wiring and the ways our brains function.  This will affect our perception of reality:  compassionate people are more likely to see the universe as a positive, life-friendly reality.  Self-compassion improves our ability to be compassionate to others.  Andrew Newberg has learned, through his brain research efforts, that positive spiritual practices alter the neurochemistry of our brains and “. . . bestow a sense of peace, happiness, and security, while decreasing symptoms of anxiety, depression and stress.”

Here’s what’s surprising: a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that faith may indeed bring us health. People who attend religious services do have a lower risk of dying in any one year than people who don’t attend. People who believe in a loving God fare better after a diagnosis of illness than people who believe in a punitive God. No less a killer than AIDS will back off at least a bit when it’s hit with a double-barreled blast of belief. “Even accounting for medications,” says Dr. Gail Ironson, a professor of psychiatry and psychology at the University of Miami who studies HIV and religious belief, “spirituality predicts for better disease control.” [Time, 2/12/2009]. Research is also showing that fear-based beliefs can be hazardous to one’s health, leading to shortening of the life span, increasing of a variety of illnesses, prolonging of recovery rates, etc.  Fear-based belief focuses on that old, reptilian brain and pushes fear and anger responses.  The more we focus on that aspect of our physiology, the more we will configure a brain that is involved with fears constantly and which as a result may even exhibit a fair amount of paranoia.  We are discovering that the brain likes a balance and resists anything that will disturb that balance.  If we have a fear-filled brain, we will have a brain that specializes in maintaining a fearful balance.  That will require us to get better and better at identifying enemies, to be supersensitive to threats, and to use our logical ability to explain all this turmoil.  That will leave less and less energy to develop self-compassion as well as enhancing resistance to compassion. 

Changes in how our brains are configured will change the way we perceive reality.  Developing self-compassion will help us see things differently.  Jesus made an assumption that people do actually love themselves when he asked us to love others as we love ourselves.  To me this means that Jesus is promoting self-compassion and is suggesting that developing self-compassion is the right thing to do.  The self-compassionate person will see more good in others and indeed in the universe. 

We have learned over generations that an orderly society requires us to modify the expression of many primitive brain mechanisms. We might consider the biological drive to reproduce.  The rather primitive urge to copulate runs head on into our awareness that human babies have a very long period of dependence on parental care.  We have devised particular social customs to limit copulation to chosen mates and keep the resulting marriages together to care for children.  While I certainly would not argue that society’s interest in restricting the number of sexual copulations has been overwhelmingly successful, it does seem to me that we have an example of how social interactions, pressures and individual needs have modified the basic biological reproductive urges.  If we can develop customs to modify the primitive drive to reproduce, then we can also develop practices and customs to minimize the self-defeating elements of the RAS.  Amongst healthy adult human beings there is nearly universal success at toilet training—which is a process of teaching the primitive brain not to defecate or urinate whenever and wherever it feels like it.

There has been a plethora of articles (complete with graphs) which show that the rate of change in society has been accelerating for some time.  We are being told that change is happening at an exponential rate.  This is probably contrary to the ‘speed’ with which components of human physiology change.  Our amygdala has evolved over hundreds of years and it is not likely to change quickly to accommodate the realities of 21^st century life.  This means that we have to be deliberate and intentional about how we manage our physiology in order to make sense of contemporary life and avoid making messes by reacting like our primitive ancestors needed to react to avoid the dangers of the saber-toothed tiger.

“Compassion is not religious business, it is human business, it is not luxury, it is essential for our own peace and mental stability, it is essential for human survival.” Dalai Lama

Emma Seppala crafts a compelling summary of the science that shows why compassion is healthy. Seppala points to leaders in the positive psychology field, Ed Diener and Martin Seligman, who suggest that connecting with others in a meaningful way helps us enjoy better mental and physical health and speeds up recovery from disease. Further, research by Stephanie Brown at Stony Brook University and Sara Konrath at the University of Michigan shows that experiencing compassion may even lengthen our lifespans.  With the intention of answering the big question of why leading compassionate lives is good for us, Seppala reveals:

“The act of giving appears to be as pleasurable, if not more so, than the act of receiving. This is true even with very small children.

People living lives rich in compassion, altruism, and meaning tend to experience less inflammation.

Stress predicts mortality in those who do not help others. Therefore, it appears that compassion buffers against stress.

Depression and anxiety are linked to self-focus. Therefore, compassion lifts moods by shifting attention to others.

Compassion tends to increase our sense of being connected to others. Strong social connections have been associated with longevity, strong immune systems, and faster recovery from disease. Connected people also appear to have lower rates of anxiety and depression.

Given the contagious nature of compassion, we are left with the thought that acts of compassion can change the world.”

It clearly appears that increasing self-compassion also increases overall compassion toward others.  Given the benefits of being compassionate (see the above quote), it would appear that it is in our best interests, both personally and socially, to become more self-compassionate.  “.  .  . [O]ne of the most important applications of compassion is with yourself. Your relationship with yourself is the platform from which you relate to others.”  Soosalu, Grant; Oka, Marvin (2012-04-09). mBraining – Using your multiple brains to do cool stuff (p. 232).  Kindle Edition.

There is plenty of research from, among other sources, the positive psychology movement which indicates that self-compassion is key to resolving the nearly innate self-criticism most Western adults harbor. Here is a portion of the Wikipedia entry about self-compassion:

“Self-compassion is extending compassion to one’s self in instances of perceived inadequacy, failure, or general suffering. Dr. Kristin Neff has defined self-compassion as being composed of three main components – self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness.

“Self-kindness: Self-compassion entails being warm towards oneself when encountering pain and personal shortcomings, rather than ignoring them or hurting oneself with self-criticism.

“Common humanity: Self-compassion also involves recognizing that suffering and personal failure is part of the shared human experience.

“Mindfulness: Self-compassion requires taking a balanced approach to one’s negative emotions so that feelings are neither suppressed nor exaggerated. Negative thoughts and emotions are observed with openness, so that they are held in mindful awareness. Mindfulness is a non-judgmental, receptive mind state in which individuals observe their thoughts and feelings as they are, without trying to suppress or deny them. Conversely, mindfulness requires that one not be over-identified with mental or emotional phenomena, so that one suffers aversive reaction. This latter type of response involves narrowly focusing and ruminating on one’s negative emotions.

“Self-compassion has been considered to resemble Carl Rogers’ notion of ‘unconditional positive regard’ applied both towards clients and oneself, Albert Ellis’ ‘unconditional self-acceptance,’ Maryhelen Snyder’s notion of an ‘internal empathizer’ that explored one’s own experience with ‘curiosity and compassion,’ and Judith Jordan’s concept of self-empathy, which implies acceptance, care and empathy towards the self.

“Self-compassion is different from self-pity, a state of mind or emotional response of a person believing to be a victim and lacking the confidence and competence to cope with an adverse situation.

“Research indicates that self-compassionate individuals experience greater psychological health than those who lack self-compassion. For example, self-compassion is positively associated with life satisfaction, wisdom, happiness, optimism, curiosity, learning goals, social connectedness, personal responsibility, and emotional resilience. At the same time, it is associated with a lower tendency for self-criticism, depression, anxiety, rumination, thought suppression, perfectionism, and disordered eating attitudes.

“Self-compassion has different effects than self-esteem, a subjective emotional evaluation of the self. Although psychologists extolled the benefits of self-esteem for many years, recent research has exposed costs associated with the pursuit of high self-esteem, including narcissism, distorted self-perceptions, contingent and/or unstable self-worth, as well as anger and violence toward those who threaten the ego. It appears that self-compassion offers the same mental health benefits as self-esteem, but with fewer of its drawbacks such as narcissism, ego-defensive anger, inaccurate self-perceptions, self-worth contingency, or social comparison.”

Kristin Neff is a major researcher in the study of self-compassion and she tells us that “Mindful Self-Compassion [MSC] combines the skills of mindfulness and self-compassion, providing a powerful tool for emotional resilience. A randomized controlled trial demonstrated that MSC significantly increased self-compassion, compassion for others, mindfulness, and life satisfaction, as well as decreased depression, anxiety and stress.” From “Center for Mindful Self-Compassion,” Website for Kristin Neff, Ph.D.  See her website:  http://www.self-compassion.org    

The unidentified editor of another website on the RAS has this to say about how we can utilize the filtering nature of the RAS to make changes: “Over 30 days, if you think about it and imagine yourself experiencing something new, or affirming an additional, recent belief like ‘the world is full of amazing and incredible people’, slowly but surely you are molding your filter so that this new statement is having access to your mind and a new mindset is taking place. As you give access to your mind for new convictions, new thoughts are making their way in your subconscious. We all know that no matter [what] our beliefs [are], especially where they normally deal with other persons, there are plenty of opinions to prove one right or wrong out there in the world. If you believe people are jerks, there will be plenty of people around that can prove you right. If you believe people are great, there are just as many people out there waiting to prove that belief right. In the end, it is about what belief you choose to embrace and impress upon your subconscious.”

Also see pages 42-3 in this book [Authoring Your Own Life Script] for another author’s perspective on what’s involved in rewiring the brain.  Tschannen-Moran estimates that it takes six months of combined “unlearning” and “learning” to make permanent change in neuronal firing patterns.

Most of us will have to get rid of old filters in order to change the RAS successfully.  This is a place where mindfulness can help.  If we insist that the only reality is NOW, that yesterday is NO LONGER and that tomorrow is NOT YET, then we can rightfully assign those old negative and dangerous filters to the day that is no longer.  The affirmations we use to make the changes probably will be more effective if they begin with the phrase, “right now.”  “Right now, the world is full of amazing and incredible people.”  “Right now, I am loving myself and celebrating my gifts.”  “Right now, I am doing amazing things (like reprogramming my brain!).”  We can also avoid passing the buck to tomorrow and refuse to say things like “tomorrow I will be more powerful or better or smarter or more creative.”  Any time we are tempted to delay the action to the NOT YET, we can restate those actions in terms of NOW.

Kristen Neff also invites us to: “Think about the times you’ve been lost in the throes of self-criticism. Are you self-focused or other-focused in the moment? Do you have more or fewer resources to give to others? Most people find that when they’re absorbed in self-judgment, they actually have little bandwidth left over to think about anything other than their inadequate, worthless selves. In fact, beating yourself up can be a paradoxical form of self-centeredness. When we can be kind and nurturing to ourselves, however, many of our emotional needs are met, [it leaves] . . . us in a better position to focus on others.”  [October, 2015, Greater Good e-newsletter.]  Neff enumerates five common ideas about why self-compassion is often said to be a bad thing and is able to offer solid research reference in each case to refute these assumptions.   The refuted assumptions are: (1) self-compassion is a form of self-pity; (2) self-compassion means weakness; (3) Self-compassion will make me complacent; (4) Self-compassion is narcissistic; (5) Self-compassion is selfish. [See the above cited newsletter.] 

Soosalu reminds us that: “Dr. Robert Ornstein, a noted Psychologist and Neuro-Scientist, makes the point in his many pivotal books, that we become what we repeatedly do. Our personalities and identities are influenced by repeated behaviour and experience.” This suggests that developing exercises and mantras to use regularly can help us to become more self-compassionate.  In keeping with this observation, several exercises are presented for you to use in beginning to become more self-compassionate.

            The first exercise is a breathing exercise.  It is suggested that you use about six seconds for each inhale and each exhale. However, the idea that the time for both inhale and exhale is about the same is more critical than the actual number of seconds involved.  The goal is to develop a process of balanced breathing with a particular focus.

Breathing Exercise

EXHALE:                    INHALE:

            Confusion                 Clarity

            Doubt                        Confidence

            Puzzlement              Understanding

            Uncertainty              Courage

            Familiarity                 Creativity

            Fear                            Compassion

            Mediocrity                 Excellence

Say, line by line “exhale ….”  “inhale . . ..”  About six seconds between each inhale and exhale. If this exercise generates any internal conflict, then pay attention to what that is about.  My hunch is that conflict might arise either because you are asking yourself to give up a familiar thing (like “doubt”) or you are challenging yourself to show some new behavior (like “confidence” or “excellence”.)    Since we know that our brains like things to stay the same, pay attention to the details of any discomfort because it might give some clues to use in the next exercise.

A Mantra Exercise

The idea here is to identify negative, familiar mantras that you repeat often.  An example might be “I’m really stupid.” Or “I never do anything right.”  Then construct positive mantras that contradict the negative ones and/or which invite a shift in your perspective.  Examples might include: “I’m really brilliant.”  Or “I get things right most of the time.”  Including some humor in these statements will help: e.g., “I’m really a closet genius.”  Or “I am a great philosopher waiting to be discovered.”

Negative, familiar mantras:  these might be ones you’ve made up or some you inherited from your family of origin.

1._______________________________________

2.______________________________________

3._______________________________________

Positive mantras that can take the place of those negative ones:

1._______________________________________

2.______________________________________

3.______________________________________

Self-Compassion Habits I Would Like to   

Develop

Here you have a chance to detail several habits that you could practice regularly which would be focused on being compassionate toward yourself.

            There are several things I want to do regularly for myself: (Examples—include some playtime in every day, get enough sleep every night, create a self-care fund to allow me to indulge myself occasionally.)

1.______________________________________

2._____________________________________

3.______________________________________

4.______________________________________

5.______________________________________

6.______________________________________

Here is a list of habits that get in the way of self-compassion that I will abandon as I put my new habits in place.

1.______________________________________

2.______________________________________

3.______________________________________

4.______________________________________

5.______________________________________

6.______________________________________

  “ . . .there’s now an impressive and growing body of research demonstrating that relating to ourselves in a kind, friendly manner is essential for emotional wellbeing. Not only does it help us avoid the inevitable consequences of harsh self-judgment—depression, anxiety, and stress—it also engenders a happier and more hopeful approach to life. More pointedly, research proves false many of the common myths about self-compassion that keep us trapped in the prison of relentless self-criticism.” —Kristin Neff

“Thich Nhat Hahn, Buddhist teacher and activist, makes the point that compassion does not stop with letting our hearts feel the suffering of others. ‘Compassion is a verb,’ he stresses. Compassion and action go hand-in-hand.”

“When we’re motivated by a true spirit of generosity, we benefit as much as those on the receiving end. Jesuit priest Anthony de Mello says it this way: ‘Charity is really self-interest masquerading under the form of altruism. … I give myself the pleasure of pleasing others.’ In the same vein, the Dalai Lama playfully speaks of working to benefit others as ‘selfish altruism.’”

“Psychologists have identified a typical state of euphoria reported by those engaged in charitable activity. They call it ‘helper’s high,’ and it’s based on the theory that giving produces endorphins in the brain that provide a mild version of a morphine high. Research at the National Institutes of Health showed that the same area of the brain that is activated in response to food or sex (namely, pleasure) lit up when the participants in the study thought about giving money to a charity. At Emory University a study revealed that helping others lit up the same part of the brain as receiving rewards or experiencing pleasure.”

Not long before his death Grant Soosula and I shared some online conversations via Skype about syntropy, a topic in which Grant had an interest, especially as it involves the concept of retrocausality. He was also interested in how noise effects systems. Those conversations spiked my curiosity and led me to some further research. I began looking at the concept of syntropy and that led to some other things, including learning about quantum physics.  My response to Grant’s questions has changed the way I “do theology.”  I offer these reflections in appreciation of Grant’s work and as a tool to use in further investigations about the relationship between the mBraining concepts and spiritual issues, especially Christian theological concerns.

I have titled this article as Reflections on Syntropy; it thusly labeled because this is a series of “reflections” based on my readings to which Grant’s questions have led me.  I understand there may be some logical disconnects here.  As I struggled to put these into some kind of arrangement, I was reminded that one scientist said that if you can explain quantum physics, you don’t understand it at all!  I am hopeful that my reflections will encourage my readers to apply their own questioning minds to the issues.

In response to Ulisse Di Corpo’s book Syntropy, The Spirt of Love, I’m thinking about the concept that traditional cause and effect thinking describes the way history whether personal or social pushes us. The push concept relates to entropy and perhaps to the dissipative structure concept.  The dissipative structure is something that elaborates itself in response to the forces of entropy.  Entropy says things are running down and structures that elaborate themselves consume energy thus conforming to the entropic principle.  At some point this elaboration becomes so cumbersome that the structure can’t support itself and is at risk of collapsing.  The alternative is for the structure to transform itself into some new that is more energy efficient.  My example is a jet plane speeding down a runway.  At a certain point (known as the point of no return) the plane must either crash (the collapse aspect) or fly (become a new being). 

Syntropy is the complement of entropy and uses energy differently as it simplifies the structure. There are different concepts of time involved here as well:  entropy moves in a conventional fashion from past to present, while syntropy moves from the future toward the present.   Whereas a diagram of entropy would show an expanding structure (˂), one of syntropy would show a diminishing structure. (˃)

Here is a quotation from Di Corpo’s book that may clarify the distinctions I’m trying to address here:

“Negentropy is often mistaken for syntropy, which can easily lead to the erroneous conclusion that an increase in information always corresponds to an increase in syntropy. Negentropy is defined as the opposite of entropy, whereas syntropy is defined as the complement of entropy. This may seem like a minor distinction, but it is an important one. Syntropic information flows from the future, whereas negentropic information flows from the past. This small difference makes syntropy and negentropy two totally different concepts. While opposites preclude each other, complements are not mutually exclusive, but balance one another, and complementarity is a significant factor in the entropy/syntropy dynamic.” [Di Corpo, Ulisse. SYNTROPY: The Spirit of Love (pp. 25-26). ICRL Press. Kindle Edition.]  

Negentropy is a reduction in entropy to move a system towards order.  We might think of negentropy as pruning or reducing entropic dissipation.  Thus, the force of negentropy might be seen as a process which helps maintain the systems accomplishments and thus opposes the overall effects of entropy.

 Syntropy functions as a retrospective cause which stands conventional thought on its head indicating that the future causes the present. The concept of a “calling” might be a way we have of describing that reality. In English, we use the word “vocation” to describe a person’s job or profession.  The word “vocation” is derived from Latin where it means “calling.”  There have been lots of efforts to help people discover their “call,” and most of these efforts have focused on past experiences, gifts or talents, and sometimes society’s need for certain professional workers.  When it comes to clergy and sometimes physicians, nurses, and educators, there have been discussions about how individuals feel called by Godding to their life employment decisions. 

Here is a comment about retrocausality: “It is an error to think of the past or future as distinct from the present moment, as the idea of past or future is never experienced separate from the present moment. Stepping and relaxing into the present moment (where we all are right now) and releasing our habitual and chronic contraction against it, spontaneously introduces us to our true creative nature. This idea, called “retrocausality,” implies a symmetrical treatment of time in which both past and future events can play a role in informing the present moment to happen the way it does. Such a perspective collapses our notion of sequential time as always flowing in one direction, that is, from the past to the future, as it allows causal movement in two directions simultaneously. The present moment—the point where our power to shape reality is to be found—is the place where the “handshake” completing this transaction between the past and the future happens. Wheeler comments, ‘There is no more remarkable feature of this quantum world than the strange coupling it brings about between future and past.’” [Levy, Paul. Quantum Revelation (p. 65). SelectBooks, Inc., Kindle Edition.]

It is interesting that Levy makes note of retrocausality in his book about quantum physics but does not use the term “syntropy.” Apparently Di Corpo and Levy come at this concept from somewhat different perspectives, although there is much agreement between these two books.  In some respects, the concept of retrocausality disappears if we take Einstein’s advice and simply say that there is no such thing as time, there is only the present moment.  Of course, to do that also obliterates historical precedent as a causal factor as well.

Reflection on this reminded me of the concept that the divine is a mysterium fascinosum and tremendum (this concept was introduced into the phenomenology of religion by Rudolf Otto in his Idea of the Holy published in 1917. There is a curious coincidence here because as early as 1904 Otto “. . . argue[d that]  consciousness cannot be explained in terms of physical or neural processes, and also accords it epistemological primacy by arguing all knowledge of the physical world is mediated by personal experience.” [see Wikipedia article about Otto]).  The frightening or tremendum aspects of the divine mystery could be equated with entropy while the attractive or fascinosum aspect could be equated with syntropy. Entropy could be the push toward change and syntropy could be the pull toward change. Entropy encourages and validates the status quo. If entropy encourages the development of dissipative structures as a way of coping with change, then the dissipative structure develops from an attempt to preserve the status quo. When the dissipative structure reaches a point where it must collapse or be transformed into a new order of being, that transformation to the new order of being would be a response to the beckoning of syntropy.  Some people call that point a bifurcation point. That idea suggests that the dissipative structure either disintegrates or is transformed at the bifurcation point. The disintegration would represent the dominance of entropy while the transformation would be the dominance of syntropy.

Györgyi says: “A major difference between amoebas and humans is the increase of complexity that requires the existence of a mechanism that is able to counteract the law of entropy. In other words, there must be a force to counter the universal tendency of matter towards chaos and energy towards dissipation. Life always shows a decrease in entropy and an increase in complexity, in direct conflict with the law of entropy.” [Di Corpo, Ulisse. The Balancing Role of Entropy / Syntropy (Locations 268-270). Kindle Edition]. Syntropy is not the opposite of entropy but instead of conforming to the usual concept that cause and effect proceed in a linear fashion from the past to the present, syntropy is retro-causal energy that as Györgyi says, “counters the universal tendency… toward chaos…”.

Would chaos be the interval, the null point or the bifurcation point between entropy and syntropy? If we say that chaos is the bifurcation point, then it would make sense that people experience plunging into chaos when they feel called out of their current circumstances but are not yet certain as to where they are being called. Some people have reported an intuitive awareness that they need to get away from or finished with whatever they’re doing and if that’s not accompanied by some clear idea of what’s next, they will find that awareness disturbing and sometimes depressing.

We can see the present moment, i.e., now, as the intersection of entropy and syntropy and thus see ourselves as constantly living on an edge between entropy and syntropy. Insofar as we mortals tend toward death, we move toward the collapsing of the dissipative structure; however, as we focus on the reality of consciousnessing, we are moving toward the new order of being. This brings to mind the quotation “I set before you the ways of life and death, therefore, choose life.”  [“There are two ways, one of life and one of death; but a great difference between the two ways.” So, it says at the beginning of the Didache.]  See also Deuteronomy 30:19: “I have set before you life and death, . . .  therefore, choose life, that both you and your seed may live.”

Luigi Fantappiè stated that in the law of syntropy he could see the law of love: “Today we see printed in the great book of nature – that Galileo said, is written in mathematical characters – the same law of love that is found in the sacred texts of major religions.”  [Di Corpo, Ulisse. The balancing role of Entropy / Syntropy, 2014 (Locations 1609-1613). Kindle Edition.]

“. . . the reduction of entropy is achieved through a continuous tension towards optimization, whereas . . .  the increase in syntropy is obtained thanks to the process of intuition, which is a property of the superconscious mind and leads to innovation.”  [Ibid., Kindle Locations 1709-1712.] The superconscious mind to which this author refers could be equated with the Godding consciousness.  There is a reminder here that moving toward optimization or perfection pushes us toward dissipative structures which result in entropic collapse.  Levy draws similar conclusions in discussing the role of consciousness.

[The italicized lines below are quotations from You Are Not Physical—You Are That Which Perceives Physicality by Story Waters.]

 “We are not ultimately defined by our perception; we are that which chooses how we perceive. We are not the definition or meaning we perceive; we are the creator of the meaning and definition we perceive. We are a unified diversity of consciousness. Observation is not passive. Perception is fundamentally a creative act. How we choose to perceive creates our experience of what we perceive. To know yourself as possessing all qualities is to know yourself as a unified diversity.”

If what this person is saying is true (and I think it is), then when we factor in syntropy as a retrospective cause, then we become whom we are called to be.  This gets interesting when you add quantum entanglement to the mix. [Quantum entanglement (from quantum physics) holds that two particles originally closely connected will continue to interact instantly no matter how much distance there is between them. Recent research has found quantum entanglement in the world of macro reality as well.] This would mean that how I respond to the call affects the source of the call and modifies it.  We might consider this to be an example of Hegelian thesis, antithesis and synthesis where thesis is the entropic force, antithesis is the syntropic force and synthesis will become the new call. The elaboration of my incarnation of the “call” will eventually be moved by entropy toward a dissipative structure. Then that whole process may repeat itself.  The process of dynamic entanglement suggests that when we are in dialogue with the forces of syntropy, we are engaged in clarifying and refining the call experience. Hegel seemed to understand that as he suggested that this process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis would lead to a constant improving of life. Looking at it this way suggests that quantum entanglement offers an explanation for what drives the process that Hegel describes. The dialogue that is described here would invite the individual to become more aware of an understanding of his or her personal gifts. This also opens the door to becoming aware of the gifts of experience across the life span. We will want to consider the shifting of gifts as we age and also reflect on first and second half of life issues. [See Rohr, Richard, Falling Upward. Rohr seems to suggest that the second half of our lives is involved with the strange attractor of syntropy; this gets manifested in a drive toward simplicity.] This would make Humanings partners with Godding in manifesting consciousnessing reality in the world.

Some gifts and talents may dissipate as we age and they yield to the forces of entropy, but syntropy will call forth new gifts and talents and new uses for the finished products of negentropy.  One might suggest that coherent growth of the multiple brains links with the forces of syntropy and what results could be called wisdoming.

Syntropy is a manifestation of consciousness—which cannot be created or destroyed.  The coherence of multiple brains (i.e., chakras or mBraining) increases awarenessing or self-consciousnessing. Syntropy invites the development of self-consciousness (or self-consciousnessing) while entropy dissipates self-consciousnessing and disrupts coherence. The elaboration of the dissipative structure is a protest against entropy but does not promote self-consciousnessing.  Thus, the more elaborate the dissipative structure, the more unrealistic a person becomes.  This is the elaboration of dualism. Ultimately this leads to the construction of inauthentic selves which are disconnected from the ground of being.  If sin is missing the mark, as the Greek origins of the word suggest, then the elaboration of the inauthentic self is sin.  This can provide a simple (but not simplistic) guide to evaluating our behavior.  Elaborating the dualistic perspective disconnects us from the ground of being.  Self-consciousnessing is the awareness of the consciousnessing nature of reality that moves us ever closer to integration with the ground of being.

Taking a clue from Grant Soosalu’s concept of multi-brain coherence, I’m thinking about a flow of energy through a coherent system that incorporates Grant’s idea of wisdoming but also moves beyond the individual to lead to expanded awarenessing of the Humaning-Godding entanglement. 

In the mBraining concept both the head brain and pelvic brain are involved in the creativity. It occurs to me that the head brain focus is on purpose and the pelvic brain focuses on passion. Passion might be thought of as a “push” force, while the head brain might be thought of as a “pull” force. This gets us into the possibility of using the pelvis-head axis to relate to the entropy-syntropy perspective and/or mysterium tremendum et fascinosum.

Here is an interesting synchronicity. In my book, Heresy out Loud! (pages 270-282), I had mentioned microtubules in individual cells as possible links to quantum reality. I had in mind that this might be like a portal through which the entanglement between Humanings and Godding was manifest. Some reading I have done (in the last few months of 2019), reveals that within the last two years there have been examples of quantum entanglement observed in the macroscopic world. I had suggested in book that although macroscopic entanglement had not yet been demonstrated, it eventually would be. Apparently, the research I was thinking about was already underway.

The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in “microtubules” inside brain neurons corroborates this theory, according to review authors Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose.  They state:  “The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?” ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. “This opens a potential Pandora’s Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, ‘proto-conscious’ quantum structure of reality.” [from the website BigThink]

The issue of consciousnessing needs to be examined in the consideration of a quantum universe where entanglement exists at both the microscopic and the macroscopic levels. Some authors are suggesting that consciousnessing is not the creation of the brain but rather that the brain is an instrument which makes manifest the reality of consciousnessing but does not create it. That would suggest a portal quality to the brain and perhaps a portal quality to the multiple brains revealed by the work of the mBraining community. The quantum nature of those vibrating microtubules might be compared with a radio receiver which plays music that originates elsewhere.  Another metaphor would be playing of music on musical instruments. For example, a particular melody sounds very different when played on a variety of instruments. The melody exists independently of the instruments but only is embodied in the world by the instruments used to manifest it – even if the human voice is the instrument in question.

Some recent research is indicating that the vibrations in the microtubules are similar to Eastern music which uses a different tonal system from Western music. Specifically, some researchers are saying this is related to Hindu music but the same may apply to Arabic music as well. This fits well with some recent Russian research which indicates that human DNA responds to sound. That research equates the effectiveness of things like hypnosis and meditation with the sounds of human speech. I’m suggesting that the intuitive influences of the retrocausal aspects of syntropy work through this mechanism. There could very well be a two-way influence between the DNA and consciousnessing: if the speech centers of the brain influence the vibrations in the microtubules and thus causes shifts in the DNA, then shifts in the DNA resulting from vibrations in those microtubules could affect the speech centers in the brain even if those vibrations are induced via quantum entanglement with Godding consciousnessing. Thus, intuitive awareness gets translated into language and offers us a way of understanding and manipulating intuitive discoveries which syntropy discloses.

The Russian research on how DNA is altered by sound can alert us to the fact that our bodies listen to everything we say:  how we talk about ourselves may alter our self-perception at the DNA level as well as the psychological level. 

Biocentrism:  How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, by Bob Berman and Robert Lanza has me thinking about incarnation—and I’ll try to explicate what that’s about for me.  Let’s begin with a definition of incarnation.  This word actually means ‘enfleshment.’  We probably most easily associate this word with the historic Christian teachings about Jesus who is portrayed as the Incarnation of God.  There are some issues with the notion that Jesus is/was the only incarnation of God, but I will set those aside for the moment.  An interesting synonym for ‘incarnation’ is ‘avatar.’  The word ‘avatar’ is derived from Sanskrit.  It refers, early on, to the incarnation of a Hindu god in human form.  The Sanskrit behind this means “he crosses over” and might make a lot of sense to use the word ‘avatar’ to describe how Humanings manifest eternal consciousnessing.

The authors of the biocentrism book make an impressive case for the idea that consciousness is eternal. Partially based on what is known as the conservation of energy hypothesis (which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed but can change forms or manifestations) they claim that consciousness as a form of energy cannot be destroyed even by the death of individual humans.  They stand much of current thinking about the universe on its head and focus a lot on the often-stated theories of quantum physics which include the understanding that until an object or event is observed that said object or event is only a probability.  If we push this concept a bit, then we are faced with the fact that what we usually call reality is a perception of our consciousnessing mind.  In this case, human beings are not some sort of an incidental development of a growing universe—instead we are the creators of the universe.  “Our current scientific worldview offers no hope or escape for those scared to death of dying. But biocentrism hints at an alternative. If time is an illusion, if reality is created by our own consciousness, can this consciousness ever truly be extinguished?”  (Lanza, Robert and Berman, Bob, Biocentrism, 2009, p. 146)

Dean Radin offers a similar concept: “In exploring the limits of consciousness, especially when confronting experimental results suggesting the existence of unconscious precognition, we are indeed challenged by the spirit of our own epoch. In spite of the persuasiveness of conventional wisdom, consciousness may in fact have transtemporal aspects, and if so, the hard problem of consciousness takes on a mysterious new gleam.” [Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 163-180, 1997 0892-33 10197 O 1997 Society for Scientific Exploration Unconscious Perception of Future Emotions: An Experiment in Presentiment by Dean I. Radin]

Carl Jung (CW 8. Par. 643) said, “If we are to do justice to the essence of the thing we call spirit, we should really speak of a ‘higher’ consciousness rather than of the unconscious.” Roberto Assagioli talked about a similar concept which he called higher consciousness; he saw people as able to move into that state rather than the higher consciousness moving into humans.

Let’s wonder about seeing individuals as incarnations or avatars of eternal consciousnessing.  If we consider that Godding is eternal consciousnessing and might be linked to various manifestations of energy (keeping the conservation of energy in mind), then we can look at the concept that we are all incarnations or avatars of Godding. We are each an avatar through whom the Godding energy has crossed over.  It might be less difficult if we used the term ‘avatar’ instead of ‘incarnation’ because the use of the word incarnation may complicate things for some Christians.  The experience of human consciousnessing (and eventually self-consciousnessing) would be the result of interaction between the physical human being and the Godding energy. Those microtubules could be the site of that interaction.  Microtubules are part of the cells in the brain or, in terms of mBraining, in our multiple brains.

If consciousnessing is transpersonal and something shared by individual persons, then that might change our understanding of memory. It has been suggested that at the end of human existence the quantum elements in those microtubules continue as part of the quantum universe. We often experience the phenomenon that current events will remind us of some previous event in our lives. For example, in June of 2017 I shared a trip to Italy with my wife and two of our good friends. There we participated in a seminar that Grant Soosalu did on Embodied Wisdom. That same group assembled several months after that at an Italian restaurant for dinner and before we knew it, we were talking about one of the dinners we shared in Italy on the trip. There is also a robust effort to demonstrate that people have memories of previous lives that they may have lived. Could it be that our experiences can help us access similar experiences that are part of the memory of global consciousness? Might the claims of memory of previous lives be references to memories held by global consciousness?

There are indications that individuals who are the recipients of organ transplants manifest some characteristics of the donor of their organ. This includes reports of people changing their preference for foods, leisure activities, values, etc. This might be an example of quantum entanglement involving the microtubules in the cells in the transplanted organs. This could relate to the reports of memories of previous lives. Among the organs that have been transplanted quite successfully is the heart; the evidence that Grant Soosula and others have reported regarding the neural system within the heart would indicate that the microtubules in the heart cells could be a vehicle by which “memories” of the previous heart’s owner are transmitted.

In response to the theories of entropy and syntropy, I’m thinking about the concept that traditional cause and effect thinking describes the way history whether personal or social pushes us. The push concept relates to entropy and thus to the dissipative structure concept. If syntropy functions as a retrospective cause, then the concept of a “calling” might be a way we have of describing that reality of who we are.  The frightening or tremendum aspects of the divine mystery could be equated with entropy while the fascinosum aspect could be equated with syntropy. Entropy could be the push toward change and syntropy could be the pull toward change. This fits with Di Corpo’s assertion that syntropy functions as a strange attractor drawing us beyond ourselves.  The strange attractor concept has been equated with the Omega Point described by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in his work. “The Omega Point is a spiritual belief that everything in the universe is fated to spiral towards a final point of divine unification.” (Wikipedia)

Levy offers this comment about the Omega Point.  “He (de Chardin) conceived of this as an evolutionary impulse within humanity, as well as within the universe itself, that was ascending towards consciousness, resulting in an individuated consciousness directly (re)cognizing its own nature. At de Chardin’s Omega Point there is a direct, nonconceptual comprehension of the ground of “being” by the fundamental cognizant aspect of the ground of “being itself,” with human beings as the instruments through which this realization occurs. At the Omega Point our true nature recognizes, comprehends, and illumines itself. From the atemporal point of view, we are already at the Omega Point, and what is happening in our world is the footprint of this realization projected backwards in time. This is to say that the events playing out in linear time are the very vehicle through which the Omega Point realizes itself through us—provided, of course, that we recognize that this is the case.” [Levy, Paul. Quantum Revelation (pp. 36-37). SelectBooks, Inc.. Kindle Edition.]

The strange attractors, which are fractals, are manifestations of syntropy.  As a system moves away from chaos toward the strange attractors, it is finding a new fractal configuration (having lost its previous fractal configuration through dissipation.)  The dissipative structure encounters the retrocausality of syntropy and is drawn toward or called toward a more coherent manifestation.

The purpose of a system is to transmit data.  During the life of the system it encounters resistance to its purpose in the form of noise.  The system responds to the noise in two basic ways: (1) it increases the volume of its signal and (2) it develops filters to screen out the noise.  While these functions may help for a while, eventually they reach a point of diminishing returns. All this uses energy and thus the system conforms to the principle of entropy. The reality of the dissipative structure emerges as the exhausted system reaches a point of no return.  In the expansion phase of the system, it develops components that we might describe as the finished products of negentropy.  As the dissipative structure becomes chaotic, the strange attractors of syntropy may “cherry-pick” the collapsing system for those prize ingredients fashioned by negentropy to integrate into the new system. 

The new system will be less complex, more efficient and thus move toward the Omega point of the universe.  Eventually the whole cycle will repeat itself, but because of the retrocausal forces of syntropy, each “new” system will be less elaborate, more efficient and coherent than its predecessor. Syntropy insures that “new” system will embody what was “learned” or “discovered” in the preceding system.

 As these systems develop, they will influence the forces of syntropy via the dynamic of quantum entanglement. We might describe the result as the fine-tuning of the strange attractors.  We experience this reality through expansion of our intuitive awareness.  We might describe this as a series of emerging systems that conform increasingly better to the fractal nature of reality. “Emergent properties are common in nature, where a combination of apparently simple constituents produces a more complex whole. Everything from the structure of sand dunes and the form of snowflakes to life itself is described as emergent.”  [Clegg, Brian. Dark Matter and Dark Energy (Hot Science). Icon Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.]  Perhaps Clegg is seeing “emergence” as a function of the fractal nature of all of nature.

Entropy encourages and/or validates the status quo. Entropy encourages the development of dissipative structures as a way of coping with change by elaborating the components of the present system. Entropy appears as an effort to move the present system closer to perfection. Since perfection is impossible eventually the dissipative structure reaches a point where it must collapse of its own complexity or escape to a new order of being. How the escape to the new order of being plays out would be a response to the beckoning of syntropy. Syntropy beckons us toward simplification and thus seems to be an antidote for the expanding complexity of our lives.

 “A growing body of empirical evidence on the anticipatory reactions of the parameters of the autonomic nervous system . . . suggests that the activity of the autonomic nervous system must be included in any model of the mind. According to the entropy/syntropy theory, the autonomic nervous system connects the individual to the attractor, the source of our vital energy (syntropy), and it is therefore the seat of the feeling of life: the Self.” Ibid., (pp. 39-40).

The philosopher David Chalmers has speculated that consciousness may be a fundamental property of nature existing outside the known laws of physics.

Individual expression of the avatar nature is guided by the entropy/syntropy model:

“According to the entropy/syntropy model, the superconscious mind originates in the attractor, outside our physical being and connected to our body via the solar plexus (i.e. the heart). Since syntropy acts as an absorber and concentrator of energy, the strong functioning of the superconscious mind is associated with feelings of warmth located in the heart area, feelings that coincide with the experience of love. In contrast, weak functioning of the superconscious mind is associated with feelings of emptiness and emotional pain, anxiety and anguish, often accompanied by physical symptoms such as nausea, dizziness, and feelings of suffocation. The superconscious is a state that leads to a higher level of awareness and allows us to experience visions of the future, intuitions, and inspirations that are usually inaccessible to the ordinary states of the conscious mind.” Di Corpo, Ulisse. SYNTROPY: The Spirit of Love (p. 49). ICRL Press. Kindle Edition.

“The entropy/syntropy theory maintains that life and consciousness are sustained by the backward-in-time flow of energy (syntropy), which is absorbed by the autonomic nervous system, and that the feeling of life is most likely in the heart, rather than the brain.” Ibid. (p. 62).

George Musser, writing for Nautilus (January 30, 2014), discussed retrocausality in an article titled “The Quantum Mechanics of Fate,” and shared this conclusion:

“Retrocausal models have forced physicists to reconsider long-standing taboos. In affording a role for future events in the present day, it joins a line of thought stretching to Plato and Aristotle. They argued that nature, like man, is organized around final ends and goals. Just as the purpose of the baker is to bake, the purpose of the raindrop is to fall, and of the seed to grow into a tree. These so-called teleological approaches fell out of the scientific mainstream when Newton and his contemporaries proved that you could predict the future of natural objects using only present circumstances. There was no explicit role for the future or need for it. With retrocausality, physics may be forcing a very old idea back into the conversation.”

“Supercausal time characterizes systems in which diverging and converging forces are balanced, and where causality and retrocausality coexist and complement one another. In such systems past, present and future time is unitary.” [Di Corpo, Ulisse. SYNTROPY: The Spirit of Love (p. 14). ICRL Press. Kindle Edition.] What Di Corpo is calling supercausal time would seem to be a reference to Einstein’s understanding that time is an arbitrary concept that we impose on our experiences.

My life is a dialogue, through all my multiple brains, with universal consciousnessing, and, in that process, I become an avatar through which that universal consciousnessing flows into the world of Humaning experience.  In the mBraining system, this reality is linked to the wisdom that flows through us when our multiple brains are in coherence. This flowing wisdom can be equated with what some people call the Holy Spirit.  One metaphor makes a lot of sense to me:  universal consciousnessing is like a flowing river; in that river are whirlpools or vortices which seem distinct from the river but are also part of the river.  We are those vortices. Those vortices are shaped by both what preceded them and where they’re going.  The action of those vortices affects the flow of the river but doesn’t stop it nor do they exist without the river.  The vortices are avatars through whom universal consciousing crosses over.

“Castrating Paul, Neutering Jesus.”

I believe that the apostle Paul was most likely a candidate for the position of Jewish high priest in Jerusalem before he got involved with Christianity. Paul was a Pharisee, a highly educated man and an individual who had close connections with the Jewish establishment. Because his father purchased Roman citizenship for the family, we might suppose that Paul also had, through his own family, some connection with important Roman citizens. The fact that Paul was also named Saul alludes not to a name change but the fact that people like him usually had two names—a Jewish one and a Roman one.  In the first century of the common era, the local Roman government had a hand in appointing the high priest, at the very least no one could hold the office unless Rome agreed.  Since Rome was involved in the selection of the high priest, it would seem that Rome would be supportive of Saul’s early persecution of Christians who were seen as opponents of the system. Saul was present at the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr and by his passive participation seemed to endorse this murder.

There was a lot of unrest in Palestine in the first century of the common era. We know that Pontius Pilate, who was the Roman governor of Jerusalem when Jesus was crucified (approximately 29 CE) was removed for incompetence. He was ordered to report to Caesar in 36 CE for killing Samaritans in a bloody confrontation with people apparently engaged on a religious journey to view or find artifacts supposedly left on a mountain by Moses. We also know that there was a revolt against Rome beginning in about 66 CE which led to Jerusalem being destroyed by the Roman army in 70 CE. While we probably don’t know exactly when the Paul was executed, it seems to have been done by the Emperor Nero about 64 or 65 CE. Military operations in that time were necessarily slow and deliberate. For example, to capture the Jewish rebels who had retreated to the fortress of Masada, the Roman army built a ramp to enable them to reach that mountain fortress. The ramp was 375 feet high and took 10 to 12 weeks to build (with slave labor). Masada fell into Roman hands in 72/73 CE.  If we take that as the date the Roman efforts to quash the rebellion ended, then there was war in Palestine for about 7 years.  It would appear that the gospels of Mark and perhaps Matthew and Luke as well were being written during the end of or just after that war.  I doubt if much attention has been paid to this war as background to the study of the New Testament, except to note that the “church” might be coming aware that the arrival of the kingdom of God had been delayed and that with the death of some major figures from the beginning history (including Paul), and that it behooved them to get some written accounts of the beginning created before all the prime figures were dead.

          According to the Gospels, Jesus had speculated about the temple in Jerusalem being destroyed. The early leadership of the Christians was aware of the impending destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Indeed, Jesus himself may have seen it coming.  Of course, references in the gospels to the “future” destruction of the temple were most likely written after the fact, given the commonly understood dates of the writing of these gospels. The destruction of the temple also brought an end to animal sacrifices. We also know that in the first century of the common era there were people who were bothered by the concept of animal sacrifice. Pliny the Younger sent a letter to Rome, around 100 CE, stating that the decline in animal sacrifices was causing a negative impact on farming in Asia minor. It has long been supposed that this decline was related to the growth of Christianity, but it may very well be that the decline in animal sacrifice preceded or at least accompanied the emergence of Christianity.

Paul implies that the death of Jesus puts an end to the need for animal sacrifices. What I’m proposing is that Paul’s emphasis on the substitutionary death of Jesus was an effort to save Judaism from the inevitable destruction of its central temple in Jerusalem. Sometimes we seem to think that biblical materials were produced in a vacuum. We ignore or discount the fact that these materials were addressed to a particular audience (which is not us), at a particular time and for a particular reason.  It would be helpful to understand to whom (in addition to where) Paul was writing. There were apparently lots of synagogues in cities in Roman times. There were a number of people who were attracted to the teachings of Judaism in part because Judaism emphasized the oneness of God. Lots of people apparently attended synagogue and listened to the teachings of rabbis. They appreciated the principles of Judaism but abhorred the concept of circumcision. We also know that these bands of “hearers,” as the people who came to listen to the rabbis were known, provided a ready audience for early Christian preachers. Many conversions or baptisms were facilitated by those preachers working with the so-called “hearers.” I wonder if baptism in the very beginning of the church took the place of circumcision. If indeed the hearers encountering early Christian teaching supposed that this new approach to faith eliminated both the need for circumcision and for the continuing practice of animal sacrifice, two major obstacles that prevented the “hearers” from actually joining the synagogue were eliminated.  It may very well be that Paul’s letters were addressed to people who had joined the Christian movement through their involvement as hearers at local synagogues. 

Here is a bit of an aside about making assumptions.  If I was an expert physicist (which I am not) and earned a living teaching elementary physics to college freshmen, I might have in my files a lot of material about basic physics.  I might not have much at all about quantum physics.  Someone going through my files after my death might suppose I was unacquainted with quantum physics.  They might be surprised if they discovered, on the hard drive of my computer, a major book I was writing about quantum physics.   There is an old axiom that we ought not forget:  absence of proof is not proof of absence.  When we ignore the audiences which ancient writers were addressing and the purpose or intention of their work, we risk missing a lot of about the significance of the material which we have.

Child sacrifice was a widely practiced custom in the ancient world. It apparently had no attachment to a specific religion and appeared in many ancient cultures and places. The famous story of Abraham and Isaac may at least be based on Judaism’s early rejection of child sacrifice. In 1843 Soren Kierkegaard wrote a little book entitled Fear and Trembling.  This book is an essay on the story about Abraham and Isaac.  Kierkegaard, among other things, wanted to lift up the psychological, spiritual, and intellectual turmoil in which Abraham found himself immersed when he dealt with what he believed to be a call from God to sacrifice his son.  One way that Kierkegaard highlights the anguish in which Abraham found himself is to suppose that this journey into the wilderness to make the sacrifice was made in silence.  No one knew what to say while presumably everyone knew what was really going on. 

          The Abraham story probably is about 3,000 years old.  It comes down to us from a time in history when child-sacrifice was practiced.  There are indications that a rather large number of primitive cultures all around the world practiced child-sacrifice.  While there are some difficulties discovering what actually happened, there are also indications that near neighbors of the early Hebrews had an organized system of child-sacrifice.  These people apparently had a large bronze figure with extended arms.  A child would be placed in these arms and then the statute would be heated with a fire built at or in its base.  The heat caused the statutes arms to extend and the child was then dropped into the fire and cremated.  It was also reported that the priests beat drums during this ceremony to drown out the sound of the infants screaming thus preventing the child’s parents from hearing the horrible anguish of their child.  There are indicators in the writing of the prophet Micah, who was also active about nearly 3,000 years ago and also in work of Jeremiah who was writing about 2500 years ago, that the Hebrew people were aware of these horrifying customs of their neighbors.  It is not clear whether or not the ancient Hebrews, before the time of Abraham had similar practices. It is in this context that Abraham becomes convinced that God is demanding that he sacrifice his first born (and only) son.  I invite you to consider what some of the roots of this nearly universal practice of child-sacrifice might be.   It appears that in most of the societies practicing such things there was a two-part belief:  that God is a fierce power who threatens to destroy people because people are wicked, wrong, messed up, and inadequate by nature.  The only way for these inherently flawed people to protect themselves from the vicious and somewhat capricious actions of this dangerous God is to make a sacrifice that proves to God that the people are submissive, obedient, compliant, and terribly sorry for their inadequacies.  The sacrifice of one of their children seems to be supreme proof of the people’s faithfulness.  There are even stories from some cultures that families bought or adopted children from poor families and then sacrificed these poor souls as substitutes for their own birth children.  This led in at least one case to families feeling forced to “repent” of these wicked ways and sacrifice their birth children when the sacrificing of substitute victims didn’t seem to appease God and gain the people the right divine favors.  If these people’s perspective sounds a bit like the concept of original sin that would pervade centuries of Christian thought, you may be onto something.  The doctrine of original sin may have eventually been separated from the practice of child-sacrifice, but the two actually seem to be related.

 It’s possible that first century people might have at least heard stories about the practices of child sacrifice even if it was no longer done in the Roman empire. However, inconvenient children in Greece and in the Roman empire were exposed to the elements and left to die. Plutarch (ca. 46–120 CE) mentions child sacrifice happening in Carthage. Archeologists have found considerable evidence of child burial in Carthage, but there is some disagreement about the practice, or at least the extent, of child sacrifice.  Child sacrifice was an attempt to placate angry deities and so in tough times –when crops failed, or the nation was threatened by foreign adversaries—child sacrificing increased. There is a link between the people of Carthage and the ancient Canaanites who practiced child-sacrifice. Indeed, it is still being practiced in Africa. “In the 21st century, such practices have been reported in Nigeria, Uganda, Swaziland, Liberia, Tanzania, Namibia, and Zimbabwe, as well as Mozambique, and Mali.” [See Wikipedia, child sacrifice in Africa. My reader is cautioned about the gory details that are reported in the Wikipedia article on child sacrifice which includes such things as removing organs from a living child’s body and children being buried alive.] It could be that people who had an awareness of these practices might have been impressed by the notion that God allowed his only Son to be sacrificed.  That would have been an impressive statement about the ultimate sacrifice requiring the end of sacrificial death as a component of worship.   Paul (and others) could have used this logic to appeal to people interested in Judaism but repelled by the concept of animal sacrificing.  Paul’s teaching may have seemed to many as a way of bringing new life to the Judaism they already knew.

It seems quite possible that what Paul developed as a rhetorical device to spread the teachings of Jesus while preserving the essence of Judaism got turned into the essential truth about Christianity. In other words, here’s a classic example of how the tail ends up wagging the dog. We know that there was early conflict amongst the Way Walkers about Jewish and Gentile versions of Christianity. Sadly enough, we also know how the church came to discriminate against Jewish people. In fact, it has been suggested that some of the interpretations of who Judas was were manifestations of early anti-Semitism. Only very recently has the Roman catholic church stopped blaming the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus; within my lifetime the phrase “perfidious Jews” was taken out of the Roman liturgy (1963). The emphasis on Jesus as a sacrificial offering has often overshadowed the teachings of Jesus. Very recently a leading evangelical preacher was quoted in the New York Times as saying that the teachings of Jesus were not really the important thing about him, but that the sacrificial aspect of his death was of critical importance.  This seems to fly in the face of the fact that the words for “cross” and “crucifixion” appear 73 times in the New Testament, while the words for “love” (verb and noun) appear 259 times. Curiously enough, the terms “cross” and “crucify” only appear 18 times in Pauline writings which represents about 25% of the New Testament occurrences of those words.

The illogic of God requiring child sacrifice in the person of Jesus has led to a plethora of theological musings which has largely distracted the church from realizing that substitutionary atonement requires the concept that God the Father endorses child sacrifice. It is quite a stretch to go from the fundamental effort to portray God as such a loving presence to the hideous idea that he would be willing to have his son murdered! Richard Rohr in a recent writing identifies Anselm of Canterbury (c.1033-1109) as the author of a paper which stated that Jesus needed to die in order to restore the honor of God.  From this paper came the concept that we know as substitutionary atonement.  Rohr also tells us that for about 1,000 years prior to Anselm’s pronouncement, most Christians believed that the crucifixion was a ransom paid to the devil.  To put it another way:  for about half the history of Christianity, the concept of original sin did not exist.

The emphasis on Jesus as a sacrificial victim has distracted the church from trying to understand and appreciate the actual life of a man called Jesus, the examples he provided for how to live, and the teaching he shared with his followers. It is not too difficult to make a case for the proposition that Jesus was a landless, rebellious peasant who was equally critical of both the Roman and the Jewish establishments. However, such an image is very much a minority position in established Christianity.

          Using a concordance of the New Testament, I counted the number of times the word “sin” appears in Paul’s writing: that number is 53 and of those 53 occurrences 40 of them are in the letter to the Romans. The word “love” appears in the same writings of Paul 73 times. It is my impression that Christian fundamentalists overemphasize Paul’s concern about sin and discount the importance of love in his writing and in the entire New Testament.

          In the ancient world, military victors often castrated the enemies they had defeated. Of course, castration destroys a man’s ability to be a father. Castration was thus used to put an end to a particular line of descendants thus ensuring that a defeated king would not have any descendants who might eventually become usurpers of the throne of that defeated king. Castrated males, also known as eunuchs, were often used to protect harems and to work in some other sensitive political positions. For a long time, young boys were castrated before puberty to create singers called castrati. These “boys” grew up to be the equivalent of male sopranos. In fact, a lot of music was written for these castrati. This child abuse custom was finally made illegal in the late 19^th century. One could make the case for the notion that castration was used not only to deprive people of their natural power but also to allow the authorities to manipulate the victims.

          I’m suggesting that a lot of so-called Christian theology, by overemphasizing Pauline ideas about substitutionary atonement and underemphasizing Pauline ideas about love, has castrated Paul. The result of this helped in the neutering of Jesus. This line of thinking discounts the role of Jesus as a teacher or wisdom figure and puts the emphasis on Jesus as a victim. To put it quite plainly, the emphasis on substitutionary atonement casts God in the role of a murderer who continues the ancient tradition of child sacrifice. Of course, Christian theology has avoided these rather stark implications by engaging in irrational sophistry. Sophistry “means the clever use of arguments that seem true but are really false, in order to deceive people.” (Cambridge English dictionary) Although it might be impossible to tell exactly, it might even be that the early writings of Paul, which preceded the Gospels, influenced the writing of the Gospels.

          The church system has allowed itself to ignore the radical teachings of a neutered Jesus. It seems clear enough to me that across the span of history and across the variety of manifestations of the church there has been little unanimity with regard to the definition of sin. If the primary perspective on the person of Jesus sees him as a sacrificial victim and the definition of the sins for which this victim was murdered is not consistent, then it becomes easier to avoid consideration of Jesus’ teaching. In fact, it becomes necessary to avoid the teaching in order to ignore the inconsistent definitions of sin.

The conception of Jesus as the victim murdered for sin, often coupled with declarations of his innocence, ignores the historicity of the man’s life. It is difficult to imagine that Jesus, who was probably 35 years of age at the time of the crucifixion, had never married. It would appear to be in the church’s best interest to ignore the possibility that Jesus was married. Obviously, a neutered Jesus would not have children. It may also be in the church’s interest to see Jesus as a young man. While in our time, 35 years of age is considered young, in first century Palestine a 35 year old man would have been considered an adult at about age 13 and anyone over 55 would be seen as old. In terms of our understanding of the life-cycle, Jesus would have been well into the second half of life.  I have never seen a portrayal of Jesus as a wise, old man. These assumptions enable the church to maintain the image of Jesus as an innocent victim and ignore the possibility that he may have had children. When we consider that the ministry of Jesus lasted for about three years, we are forced to realize that our records of that ministry are woefully inadequate and probably distorted since the earliest of them were not written until at least 20 years [most scholars would probably say closer to 50 years] after the crucifixion. Galilee, which was about 90 miles north of Jerusalem, was apparently a hotbed of resistance to the establishment. Jesus is reputed to have gathered crowds there. The Gospels number those crowds in the thousands and even if those numbers are somewhat inflated both the Roman and Jewish establishments would find the gathering of large crowds in Galilee to be a major concern. Most of the towns in Galilee were small rural villages with rarely more than 400 inhabitants. Bethsaida, which was a fishing village on the shore of the Sea of Galilee may have had a population of 4,000. If rumors reached Jerusalem that Jesus had crowds of the thousands in Galilee that would have been a huge number. It does appear that the authorities sent investigators to Galilee to check things out.  Jesus was definitely on the radar screen of the authorities well before his arrest.

          The church has also sanctioned the sanitizing of the crucifixion.  The Romans stripped the victims of crucifixion naked.  There is an account of soldiers casting lots for Jesus’ garment which implies that he was crucified naked.  However, I doubt that there is any example of a portrayal of the crucifixion that shows a naked Jesus.  There is also a report that a spear was stuck in Jesus’ side to ascertain that he was dead; this may be a euphemism for the practice of impaling the victims of crucifixion by ramming a spear or sword into the victim’s anus.  I once had planned to include such a description of the crucifixion in a church program and was told it was too violent and awful.  That really made it clear to me that the church needs a clean picture of a painless crucifixion.  Jesus not only gets neutered; he also gets sanitized. 

Crucifixion was a penalty reserved for terrorists and rebels.  Jesus may have been considered by some as a terrorist.  The title Iscariot affixed to Judas’ name suggests he was a Sicarii.  These people carried very short daggers, infiltrated crowds of people, assassinated victims and slipped away.  They wanted to free Israel from Roman domination.  While some scholars believe the terrorist attribution to Judas is inaccurate, the long association of a terrorist title with at least one of the disciples of Jesus along with the execution of Jesus as a terrorist, may tell us that our typical pictures of Jesus, the gentle, nice, “pretty” man are way off target.  It becomes easy to ignore the historical context of Jesus life and focus on the irrational concept that humanity cannot see that God is love unless God arranges the murder of Jesus.

What about making a case that Jesus died to protect the integrity of his message?  Something has to be very important for a person to choose to die defending it.  Jesus’ decision to go to Jerusalem and his deliberate management of the events of the week including determining when to die—to maximize the impact of his death– seem to point to a man intent on proclaiming the importance of his teaching. The occurrences of the last week of Jesus life indicates that there was a lot of careful planning almost to a level of micro-management to ensure that the authorities’ ability to act would fit into Jesus’ plans. For example, Jesus came and went through the city gate every day that week and apparently made sure he was out of the city before the gate was closed for the night. The night of the Last Supper was the only night Jesus chose to stay in the city and he arranged the place where he would meet with his disciples that night and gave his disciples instructions on how to find it. They are to follow a man carrying a water jar—which would have been the task of women and which would have fooled the Romans who thought of Jews as inferior people.  There is some indication that Jesus had chosen Judas to arrange for his arrest. One of the ignored features of that night is that Jesus was not arrested in the upper room where he and the disciples had supper. This suggests that Jesus and Judas had prearranged a place where the arrest would take place.  The reports we have indicate that Judas left the dinner at Jesus’ behest [“what you are going to do, do quickly.” John 12:24] and that after that the entire band went to the Garden of Gethsemane.  Judas would have to have known that’s what would happen so that he knew where to bring the authorities to arrest Jesus. That would indicate that Judas actually played a key role in the events of that night at Jesus’ request. It might also have been part of the plan for the arrest to take place out of doors so the disciples could easily elude the authorities who came to arrest Jesus. This would have insured that there were live witnesses to carry on the work Jesus had begun. Thus, Jesus controlled the time and place when he would be arrested and seems to have arranged to be crucified while the lambs for Passover were being killed (although there is a good deal of scholarly debate about the exact correlation between Jesus death and the slaughter of the lambs). I doubt that very many Christians would seriously entertain an image of Jesus as a crafty, clever and wise politician who knew how to work (or game) the system. An image like that would conflict with ideas about Jesus as an innocent victim.   However, that image seems to fit well with Jesus’ own recommendation that his followers be as crafty as serpents and as innocent as doves: “I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves, so be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.”  (Matthew 10:16) The Jesus who says this is telling us he is a worldly-wise politician as well as a spiritual leader. Judas has been anathematized by the church for betraying Jesus. Here is more illogic about substitutionary atonement:  if substitutionary atonement is THE critical concept about the death of Jesus, why not celebrate the man who helped make it happen?  I can easily imagine that after the crucifixion Judas would want to have killed himself if he had expected something else to happen.  But there is the puzzlement about a document known as the gospel of Judas, which takes a rather different approach to things—did Judas write it (not likely) or does it represent an oral tradition flowing from Judas himself to later followers?  The gospel of Judas opposes substutionary atonement!  Did he die at his own hand but much later than is supposed? Did the other disciples, who may have had a hand in the stories recorded in the gospels, actually stone Judas as the Gospel of Judas claims?  Were the disciples angry with Judas or even envious that Jesus had chosen him to play a key role in the Maundy Thursday night drama?

          Among the things that are lost in this un-sane process is the model of the suffering servant who confronts corrupt power whether it appears in a religious institution or a political system, who champions the cause of the poor, and offers blessings to peacekeepers regardless of the personal cost.  This suffering servant knows what he is doing and chooses carefully when, where and how to deliver his message.  I suppose we would have difficulty with considering Jesus to be a clever, crafty suffering servant. I think the reality is that Jesus was a much more sophisticated person than we usually suppose that he was. Our supposition is probably encouraged by the tendency to see Jesus as a naïve, innocent victim– a perspective that seeing Jesus as a sacrificial offering supports.