Reviews, Paradigms & News
Four Core Paradigms and Eight Key Books for Understanding, Awareness, and Achieving Inter Group Peace
September 17, 2020
We can now explain and we can understand just about everything in the context of four core, key and macro overarching paradigms.
Physics, Biology, Sociobiology, and Metaphysics — as a package — can pretty much cover it all.
We have great new information and we are blessed with powerful new science that can help us understand and use each of those four paradigms for our lives.
We have an explosion of new, enhanced, irrefutably credible, clearly legitimate and foundationally solid and valid science that anchors, grounds, explains, defines, quantifies, delineates, explicates, contextualizes and basically validates and affirms our evolving sense of reality and of the universe we live in that creates the actual functional context for our existence in the newly understood context of those paradigms.
Science is massively useful for that validation process.
We now have a much better scientific and functional understanding of the key component parts of the universe that we live in and of our role, function, and status as conscious and aware human beings in that universe.
Science is our friend at several levels.
We are in a golden age for scientific learning that gives us an extremely useful opportunity at this moment in time to build strong working belief systems and functional paradigms about the key component parts of that universe and about our own role and behaviors and beliefs in that universe.
We have just now reached the historic point where it is very useful, intellectually legitimate and scientifically credible for us to believe and understand that we actually exist in the context of four macro paradigms that combine and interact to functionally contain and explain the working context for basically everything as an overall package of creation.
Paradigms are key to that understanding.
Paradigms are extremely useful at multiple levels much of the time, and they are particularly invaluable now for understanding the context we live in and for perceiving and utilizing the context we have for our lives and for our world.
Paradigms, at their finest, give us a construct to interpret information, understand processes, make decisions, and take actions in ways that the paradigms help guide us to think and understand about whatever the paradigm topic functionally is. Our brains are epigenetically wired to build and use paradigms to construct and channel our beliefs and our thoughts, and we generally build them well when we have enough information to bring them into being.
For existence, itself, it now seems to be both useful and accurate to think that we can group everything into four macro paradigms that actually include and encompass every key area that we need to understand.
We have good and growing evidence for each paradigmatic train of thought and belief.
All four of the macro paradigms lend themselves to rich veins of scientific research, analysis, and thought, and all four are currently in an explosion of scientific and functional learning about their contents and their composition.
Paradigm 1 for everything is physics.
Paradigm 2 for everything is biology and life.
Paradigm 3 for everything is Us — people — and our role as conscious and self-aware beings who are functioning in the context of the first two paradigms.
Paradigm 4 for everything is metaphysics and includes creation, itself.
Metaphysics includes cosmology, faith, and the actual underlying causation factors for both life and the physical universe.
That paradigm includes the causation and reason for our own existence as conscious beings with free will who are functioning in the context of it all in the context of the first three paradigms.
All four paradigms are currently benefiting hugely from our growing understanding and our expanding science in each areas. We know far more about the world than we have ever known in each of those areas and what we now know very much reinforces the four-paradigm construct for existence.
Paradigm 1 Is Physics and Quantum Physics
We are clearly in a golden age for physics.
Paradigm 1 as a pure science is learning about itself in powerful and expanding ways.
We are in the midst of a huge explosion in learning about physics and the world we live in. Pure classical physics has been replaced by relativity theories and then enhanced by quantum physics, and we now have a rich vein of learning in quantum physics that is hugely supported by brilliant reinforcing, delineating, illuminating and functionally enabling mathematics that has now given us lasers, computers, and an entirely new sense of what it means to be a particle or a wave as key elements of construction for everything around us and for us, ourselves, in the process.
Quantum physicists are doing magnificent work — and we can clump all of their learning into the current version of Paradigm 1 and know that we collectively are benefiting from that learning and that they are steering us down the right directions for us to benefit at multiple levels from what they now know.
Our repeatedly verified insights into the role of consciousness into key elements of quantum mechanics is extremely reinforcing for seeing all four paradigms as a package and not as separate trains of thought or independent realities.
Our growing awareness of synchronicity is also giving us much broader senses of both time and connectivity in the world that we live in.
Paradigm 2 is Biology and Life
Paradigm 2 for everything is biology and life.
Our science about biology and life is also currently exploding at a rate that matches and even exceeds what we are learning about quantum physics. We are entering into new levels of composite learning about life processes that could actually be legitimately be labeled as ‘quantum biology.’
Intentional design of core and key processes of life are increasingly obvious and useful to us in a growing number of functional ways.
Codes are key. We can now see how multiple codes, processes, and intentionally inter related and interacting processes structure our lives and life itself in ways that have the codes interacting with each other in amazingly complex, intentional and effective ways that we did not see or even suspect until our recent science and our new computer building skill sets pointed us in that direction.
This is a perfect time for learning for us in biological science.
We can now actually see and understand what the clearly functional programs and codes and interacting processes are for the first time in our existence because we now have various levels of absolutely intentional codes and we use them all in our computers and in our other physical productions and interactions. We now have the ability and the context to understand life processes and basic and key life tools in ways that were literally not possible for Darwin and for the subsequent and current generations of academic believers in the prior classical levels of pure Darwinian evolutionary theory who did not have the context of computers to learn from to ground their thinking and beliefs.
The original classic Theory of Evolution had some clear genius and it had some deficiencies — and we now can enhance and repair some of the deficiencies with our growing and far more detailed understanding of those actual tools and processes.
We clearly need a blend of the old evolution beliefs with the new science at this point in time to take full advantage of that tool kit and to understand it more clearly.
We need the Theory of Evolution to evolve.
Some parts of the old Theory of Evolution will survive. Processes that clearly have situationally and circumstantially evolutionary outcomes clearly happen all the time in the context of that core coding for some areas of life — and we can understand that entire process much more clearly now because we now know and understand that we have coding for potential processes built into DNA and RNA that enable that to happen and we actually have progressed in our science to the point where we can both read and manipulate those codes.
We actually could choose to evolve as humans in some interesting ways at this point in our history using the new CRISPR tool kit that was not part of Darwin’s paradigm of life or even suspected by him in his thinking and his own extremely useful research.
We do know now with a reasonable level of certitude that those explicit tools that do that work were not themselves built by circumstantial reproduction relative success levels or by the random mutation tools and processes that anchor classic Darwinism.
We are reaching the point now where our academic community is coming to know and understand that those tools, processes and linked channels of development, and of biological interactions could not possibly have been constructed through any classically Darwinian combination of purely serendipitous species modification processes that were each triggered entirely by random mutations and then chosen and selected for survival in each species for each feature only by their relative reproductive fitness and by their own direct and individual propagation level success.
We now know the particular actual tools that are used in functional Evolution so well that the vaccine we just built for the Covid epidemic actually looked directly at the coding instruction kits already built into our RNA and the new vaccine instructed our bodies to respond using targeted pieces of our own messenger RNA to build the antibodies and to create the defenses that old vaccines would have built by giving people a mild case of the disease and then having the programming built into our RNA, building a response to resist and deal with that infection.
Our growing understanding of the processes, pathways, and potentials of epigenetics has also allowed us to learn more about the potentials we have built into the process by DNA to the point that we are on the verge of a golden age of life sciences learning — and that expanded learning will give us tools that we can use to give ourselves and our children and our grandchildren better lives.
All of that science is now very rapidly being built into Paradigm 2 about biology and life and we need to be responsible stewards of that information, because it can be used to provide benefits and it can also be used in dangerous ways that could damage us at multiple levels for a very long time if people choose to use it in evil ways.
Paradigm 3 Is People
Paradigm 3 for Everything that exists deals with Us.
We humans are the third key paradigm of existence that we need to understand and deal with in enlightened and effective ways in order to optimize our success and even our individual and collective survival in the context of all four paradigms.
We are special.
In the midst of this massive and immense universe, and nested on our own tiny, possibly fragile, and very special Eden-like planet, and knowing that we are a very long way down the passage of the billions of years of linear time from the big bang that our science now believes started this time line and that began the processes that have served both to build both the physical parts of the universe and life itself in its various forms, we need to have our own paradigm as humans and we need to include our remarkable, capable, and very unique conscious minds as a key part of that paradigmatic package.
We actually have some clear reasons to feel special.
We have intellects.
We seem to be alone in the level of intellectual consciousness that we have.
Other living beings are also clearly conscious and have emotions and reactions and responses of various kinds to their world — and some even have hierarchies and relationships and a number of clearly intentional strategies for interactions with each other, but we seem to be unique and alone in pure intellectual capacity and in actually understanding and doing mathematics and in doing creative things like music and art and both creating and appreciating beauty.
We are not just a lump of coal.
We have amazingly complex brains.
Our brains actually have about the number of neurons that we now believe exist in total as stars in the known universe.
Our brain has a hundred-billion neurons and those neurons are actually connected by a hundred-trillion synapsis.
Those are spectacular numbers — and their magnitude seems to be unique to us.
So — we definitely are not the same as everything else around us.
Think about what we are.
We create things.
We understand things.
We have scientists of various kinds who are doing deeply important discovery and discernment work into biology, chemistry, energy, macro and micro productions of various processes, and who are doing that wide range of consciousness directed work with amazing competence in a wide range of sites and settings all over the planet.
We have learners everywhere.
We have tools and concepts and growing levels of formulas in our quantum physics and in our DNA-related science of biology, and even quantum biology, that let us create interactions at multiple levels with the environment that we did not think possible a very short time ago.
We have a growing sense that quantum interactions between and inside of living things create functionalities like photosynthesis, mass migrations, and synchronized flight patterns for birds — and it appears now that some of the quantum interactions may, if fact, make life possible at levels that we did not suspect until very recently.
We do seem to be the only element of creation that actually thinks deep thoughts.
We seem to be unique in our ability to conceptualize about both Paradigm 1 and Paradigm 2.
That actually can be dangerous, because it gives us the ability to build nuclear bombs and poisonous chemical weapons, and now even to build an entirely new set of CRISPR-based biological weapons that can have the ability and the potential to actually do major damage and to even destroy the human race if we channel several of those new powerful tools in those very wrong directions in very unfortunate ways.
We need to be sure that our Paradigm 3 role and function adds value and does not do irreparable harm to us or to the Eden we live in — and we are actually at the point where either outcome can happen if we do some wrong things right now.
Potentially channeling those extremely powerful and dangerous tools in both physics and biology in the wrong directions is sadly relevant to us right now as a current danger and as a real risk, because we also clearly have the kinds of programming as people for our interactions with the world and with each other that sometimes steer us into doing evil and damaging and destructive things to one another and we unfortunately, actually too often, tend to feel very right and justified and emotionally legitimate in doing those damaging things to each other.
We have been known to commit genocide.
We build weapons of mass destruction and we build them with some intent of using them if we feel sufficiently provoked or sufficiently threatened to bring them into use.
We are interesting packages of patterns and behaviors relative to each other in ways that we need to understand clearly so that massive damage does not happen.
It’s hard to imagine a quark destroying another quark out of sheer spite — but we see humans doing extremely destructive and evil things to other humans all the time.
We all have the programming to be saints and we all have the programming to be sinners, and we need to increase in our collective self-awareness to the point where we actually choose to be saints and then use our magnificent biological and physical tools to give our children and our grandchildren great and safe futures and current lives.
We need to understand who we are and what we can do and then we need to make enlightened choices about our actual behaviors.
That’s why we clearly need to understand why we should see ourselves as our own extremely important Paradigm 3, and why we need to steer ourselves in the right directions in each of those key areas of our lives.
We need to decide with the full set of information available to us to rise to our very best sets of enlightened values and to steer our Human Behavior into the right channels because we are a threat to each other from who we are if we allow ourselves to go down the wrong paths of purely instinctive behaviors that can sadly feel very right to us while we are on those paths.
We have strong instinctive programming to be extremely tribal — and to feel pride and a sense of achievement when we damage the other tribe.
We also have strong programming to be inclusive — and to provide our best support and our clear nurturing and direct protection to whomever we include as Us in our world.
So, as a nation, we need to expand our sense of Us to expand our zone of safety, and we need to do that soon because our tribal instincts are being activated by too many people who have their own extremely seductive and neurologically rewarded alpha instincts activated and who do not want us to achieve Peace.
We need to be collective sociobiology experts at this stage of the learning process and we need to make enlightened decisions about our interactions with the world and with each other.
The first levels of sociobiology thinking pointed us in some useful directions about human behavior a few years ago, but we need to go now beyond noting that we have some dangerous and interesting tendencies and we need to understand our definitely patterned instinctive behavior as people and we need to grow in both our intellectual strength and in moral enlightenment in ways that can be anchored in a full understanding of sociobiology and of human nature in its most dangerous forms.
For Paradigm 3 — we need to rise above our worst activations of our tribal and divisive sets of instincts and we need to turn the entire package of inter group and inter personal instincts into a tool kit for enlightened behavior and Peace rather than having it steer us to tribal animosity, inter group conflict, inter group anger and then inter group destruction.
That is not a hypothetical or theoretical or future area of concern.
Look at what is actually happening around us right now.
We have more than 130 very real ethnic and tribal wars going on in the world today. We also have tribal anger and instinct fueled inter group conflicts and anger happening to us in our own country right now in very real ways.
The people on each side of the conflicts in all of those areas in the world, including the inter group conflicts here, feel very justified in their emotions and their actions and in doing damage to one another with no guilt or adverse conscience impacts at any level for their harmful behavior.
We clearly all have the potential to sin and we also all have the potential to be saints — so we need to get intellectual control over both of those processes because we will be at huge risk and we will be damaged if we do not do exactly that and do it both quickly and well. We have a dozen key and relevant inter group related instincts. We need to channel them to good directions.
We need to understand our entire set of positive and negative inter group options as clearly as we now can unravel actual DNA and as clearly as we can now channel electrons, and we need to use those instincts in enlightened and intentional ways to make us safe as a nation and as a world.
We need the functional science of us dealing with us to be as strong as the science that we use now for building lasers and for producing RNA enabled vaccines and in creating new species of animals or plants or chemical compositions.
We need to know and understand that we are just as predictably patterned in our approaches to ourselves and to our world as quarks or seed corn are to their existence and to their trajectories.
We have territorial instincts, sexual instincts, maternal and paternal instincts, and levels of hierarchical instincts and we build cultures in every setting to help us achieve our instinctive goals. We have hierarchical instincts, so our cultures invent chiefs or captains or heads of some kind for every setting — and we tend to feel right both following our setting’s leader and in aspiring to be our settings leader.
Our instincts to divide the world into Us and Them and to have very different behaviors and values for Us and Them are hugely important to us because they are both a blessing and a curse, depending on how they are activated
“We are all Saints and we are all Sinners,” actually quotes both the original Martin Luther and his more recent namesake Martin Luther King, Jr. That potential is in each of us to go down either path, and that means we each need to make the right choices for our lives.
We tend to protect and defend and support whoever we believe to be Us in any setting, and we tend to dislike, distrust, oppose and feel anger toward anyone who we define at an instinctive level to be Them in any setting.
We can’t free ourselves or separate ourselves from our instincts at any level, so we need to work with them and we need to channel them in very intentional ways to guide our communities and our lives.
The biggest danger that we face is that we can’t stop ourselves from having a strong sense of separation, division, and deep distrust against anyone we perceive to be Them.
But we can very intentionally do a number of things in any setting and in the world to significantly reduce the number of people we perceive to be Them.
We need to expand our sense of Us in most settings — and that expanded sense of Us can steer us to completely different emotions, perceptions, and behaviors in those settings.
We can create the best communities, the best thought processes, and the most effective and intentional collective strategies for safety, prosperity and Peace if we clearly understand what our instincts are and know how to use them as tools in enlightened ways to create Peace and achieve our goals.
So we need to steer Paradigm 3 in enlightened ways to the right sets of behaviors, perceptions, beliefs and emotional linkages — and we should be able to create inter group Peace at some level in almost every setting if we do that in effective ways that fit the needs of each setting.
Being Us is extremely situational — and we need to use that knowledge for good results in situational ways everywhere—and we should do it all keeping in mind that Paradigm 4 provides an overarching context for everything to exist and function.
Paradigm 4 is God
Paradigm 4 for everything is metaphysics.
Metaphysics explains what or who created everything that exists now in the first three Paradigms?
Metaphysics includes cosmology, causation, belief system alignments and commitments, and personal and collective levels of faith.
The Creator, Creation itself, and The Creation Process are all part of the natural logical anchors for Paradigm 4.
Paradigm 4 — at the core — is God.
We can each use what we believe to be right as values and guidance from what we believe in Paradigm 4 to anchor our decisions, behaviors, actions, and beliefs.
Science is pointing us to the clear conclusion that all of those highly integrated parts and pieces that exist in the first three paradigms did not happen on their own.
If we decide to believe, from the massively increasing and persuasive body of purely scientific evidence, that all of these tools, processes, formulas, and patterns that are so clearly embedded in the first three paradigms were intentional in very clear and explicit ways — then the logical question for us to ask of ourselves to complete our understanding of the entire situation we are in is to ask:
Who or what had the intentions and the power and the purpose to create each of those pieces and patterns of existence that we can now see so clearly, and what should that belief lead to in our lives?
We have some expert advice in those areas.
We are now blessed with five excellent books in that space that are good to read and easy to share with anyone who wants to expand their thinking to include that set of concepts.
Icons, all, for each of the authors.
Frank Wilczek, George Ellis, Perry Marshall, and Francis Collins are now taking a leading role among the physicists, engineers and scientists by writing very powerful and direct books explaining with significant depth and clarity why they as scientists each believe that core parts of those areas that they study are clearly designed and why they each believe that the designs they have learned and studied have intentional origins.
Each of those authors has done a deep dive into the physics or biology or functionality of the world we live in — and each has concluded that we are blessed with amazing tools and they each believe that each of those tools have been a gift from God.
Many members of our traditional academic communities in both biology and physics will not agree with that conclusion or that belief.
Most of our traditional academics, in this country and in much of the western world for most of this past century or so, have actually been in strong and open opposition to anyone in their academic fields who looked at either biology or physics and speculated, or postulated, or theorized or directly contended or even suggested in any way that intentional external design had happened in any of those areas and that God had any part of that process.
In fact, any hint of what some academics in those areas often called Deism was opposed as a teaching subject and it was not allowed in any of the published academic papers created for most settings. One major academic leader announced that he was evolving from being an atheist to being an anti-theist because he felt that those thoughts were so extremely wrong that they should be opposed rather than simply ignored.
The actual issue of how everything began is generally addressed by those non-theist academic thought leaders by saying that it literally “just happened.”
“Just happened” is a strongly held belief for a high percentage of people in both evolutionary biology and physics.
Some thinkers in those schools and settings say that the universe spontaneously began because that was a natural thing for a universe to do — and some contend that life began in an equally spontaneous way because the world we live it just happens to have a set of relevant and useful chemical factors that made spontaneous combustion possible and they believe that a set of circumstances that allowed life to continue once it had spontaneously sparked into being also “just happened.”
They definitely and explicitly believe that the RNA codes that reinforce life processes in such useful and explicit ways also “just happened,” and they acknowledge how extremely fortunate for life itself it has been for those programs and biological combinations to have come into existence.
Spontaneous existence and independent and spontaneous creation events with no external causality is the official and accepted belief system that exists in most American and Western world academic settings, and that belief tends to be clearly and strongly and even rigidly held in most of those settings.
In that context, Evolution in its classic theoretical model with all of its component parts is officially considered to be a science — and the processes that are involved and included in the official Darwinian Theory of Evolution have believers, supporters, and advocates who reject any modifications to the component parts and beliefs of that science to be academic and intellectual error, clear and significant intellectual shortcoming and deficiency, intellectual incompetence and even intellectual malfeasance and academic disrespect if people with other perspectives on those issues persist in their challenge to the theory in academic settings once they have been “corrected” by the experts about the appropriate theory and given the chance to get it right.
Charles Darwin is considered by many intellectuals and by many fully embedded academics to have produced the definitive thinking and the ultimately definitive work on those issues, and his process and theory is clearly and completely accepted by many people as being scientifically true beyond contention.
Darwin was a brilliant man.
He actually wrote a magnificent piece of work. He had multiple brilliant insights. He and he was an excellent writer and he was an extremely competent compiler and gatherer of information and data. He has many very strong believers today and he deserves to be respected for what he did.
However — we now know things that he did not know — and one challenge will be to get those believers in his pure model to overcome their patterns of strongly rejecting any challenges to their beliefs at the direct belief affirmation level so that we can take full advantage of the science available to us today.
We need to build a new evolution paradigm — Evolution 2.0 — to give us all a sense of the actual evolution process that exists and to let us use those tools to give us a better future as a species and a planet.
We need clarity in academic circles about what to believe about those processes now.
We need to understand the key anchor concepts and processes that actually exist.
We need to recognize that spontaneous mutations did not drive the process.
Spontaneity is a key anchor concept for classic Darwinism theory at a couple of levels.
Classic Darwinians believe that life somehow started spontaneously in some setting with a completely serendipitous and spontaneous chemical spark that fortunately included the component parts necessary to replicate itself over time as life, and they believe that particular event has been successful and that process has continued to perpetuate that spark of life over the billions of years since it began, because the elements of that first spark had the right component parts to make that happen.
Life is defined by many of our Darwinian-based life science scientists as being functionally self-replicating as a core piece of their definition of what it means to be alive, and that seems to be an excellent way of looking at that definition now.
Pure Darwinists believe that first spark and all of the sparks that have happened since then have been open to periodic and completely spontaneous and totally random mutations — and they believe with great and explicit clarity and rigor that when any mutations happened in an organism, they potentially carried forward to the next generations of the organism and if they survived into another generation, they became an option for the organisms.
Darwinians believe that the mutations that survived and became on going components of the organism were the ones who actually had successful reproductions that out produced and out reproduced the variations and the other forms of that organism or species that did not have that mutation.
Each random mutation that survived one generation had the ability to out reproduce other versions of that organism that were less successful in reproducing was the only Darwinian change agent.
Survival of the fittest or survival of the best producer and the best reproducer were the only processes that Darwinian thinkers believed created species and enhanced species.
The mutation process for classic Darwinists was never intentional, designed or scheduled, but the Darwinian believers felt that even though it often takes extremely long periods of time — potentially thousands of functional and linear generations for each piece and for each component of a modification to prevail in that explicit selection process — the Darwinians always point out very accurately that life has existed for billions of years and they have said repeatedly with a high level of conviction that there is enough time available for thousands of generations of selection to happen with each change for each organism.
They also believed, as part of the theory package, that entire new species somehow sprang into life on occasion through complex and fortuitous levels of purely serendipitous and coincidental change from a prior species, and that the fact that thousands of generations were needed for each subpoint of each change between the species was not a reason to disbelieve the process or to suspect its validity, because time is almost infinite for even those kinds of complex multi factorial species level changes to happen — and the proof point for the fact that time had been sufficient for the change was that the change had happened, and therefore there must have been enough time for it to happen.
That particular part of the argument was a bit circular, but circular is acceptable if you believe absolutely that the paradigm is true.
When they looked at the reality and discussed the point that some of the changes in a species seemed to have some synchronization with changes in other species — as in having the color of a butterfly wing perfectly match the flower of a plant that they nested on, they pointed out that the fact that the thousands of generations for both organisms that were functionally needed for both the plant and the butterfly to make each of the micro changes in shape or color was not a good reason to believe that it had not happened in that explicit way because billions of years have been available and because the colors actually clearly matched in that setting, so those thousands of generations simply must have happened for both species in order for that to be true.
Time was the answer. Darwinism took time. Their proponents say that it just takes time and we have had billions of years of time to spend on the process and that extremely long spans of time allow all of those changes to happen.
People with classic Darwinians beliefs said that the synchronicity effects that are sometimes so lovely and amazing were achieved piece by piece and step by step for each species for each piece of the process over long periods of time.
The lack of any transitional state evidence in most settings or the lack of examples of either other butterflies or other flowers in partial transition with colors that didn’t match quite as well as the perfect fit from the current winning species of both species in any setting has been dismissed by Classic Darwinian experts and advocates as being due to the fact that those less perfect versions of both species are now extinct and both do not exist today at any level because they were out reproduced by the winning pair in each combination and setting.
Our world and planet are clearly extremely well positioned for life itself, and for human life as part of the process. If the laws of physics varied by fraction of a percent in any direction, our world would not exist and our life would not be possible.
Some people reject that obvious perfect fit of this world for us as a proof point for intentionality and some people actually point to a theory in quantum physics that would allow for multiple universes to happen, and they say that anything can happen when there are a billion universes, so it is possible that our universe through sheer happenstance is simply the one among billions of patterns where all of those pieces just work out so well for us.
Believers in the multi universe model of quantum physics are probably intellectually credible in some perceptions of quantum physics in making that claim — but it’s interesting that some very intelligent people in some academic settings would rather invent a billion other universes rather than observe, note, and appreciate that this particular planet seems to be made very nicely for us.
String theory is taking us to interesting possibilities — and that’s not unreasonable to recognize — but it’s also not unreasonable for us to notice that this particular Eden meets our needs very nicely and it’s a good and nice place for us to use our conscious brains to figure out quantum physics and quantum mathematics and quantum biology, and to note that the four-paradigm model of existence at least theoretically makes them all components of a package that we can celebrate and understand.
We instinctively use paradigms to organize our thinking about almost everything in our lives. We instinctively use paradigms for a wide range of processes. Building paradigms is an instinctive behavior that serves us well in very consistent ways.
Paradigms sometimes limit what we see, however.
We do have a very strong ability when we believe in a paradigm to have the evidence of our surroundings at least seem to fit the belief — and we also have a very strong ability when we believe in a paradigm to discard any contradictory evidence as being extraneous and irrelevant to the belief.
We also have very strong anomaly screens and anomaly rejection processes for our paradigms — and we can fairly easily remove or ignore a data point from our consideration process by declaring it to be an anomaly and therefore functionally irrelevant. Our paradigms tend to have extremely strong anomaly screens for multiple levels of information.
We have that ability and the tendency in both our emotions and our belief systems to strongly support old paradigms, because old paradigms tend to exist because they have done their positive lifting in the past and we don’t want to screw up our future by changing a working paradigm that should not be changed.
There is a major logic validity for thinking that way. We want to avoid risk. If people built a strong paradigm for their village about when to harvest acorns or when to gather blue berries — because that was functionally the best time to do those activities and because that approach has worked for a period of time.
It’s possible that strong belief on those kinds of issues might have helped keep the village alive for generations.
Those are real examples. Acorns fed a lot of tribes in California for a long time. They were gathered every year. If the people in a tribe simply changed their acorn paradigm at some point and decided not to harvest or heat and store acorns for a while, that change might cause the tribe to perish if other unexpected circumstances made it impossible for the village to harvest fish that year and if the village did not have their usual acorns to fall back on for winter calories when the fish supply failed.
Some of those kinds of practices exist for groups because they were useful at some point in time and we are supporters of them and tend to be defenders of them as patterns of behavior rather than fully understanding them and defending them based on a full sense of the processes involved now.
We have hunting paradigms and gathering paradigms and child birth and child raising paradigms and we believe and use them over time with great consistency because they work and it feels right to use them. We emotionally and functionally trust our paradigms and we prefer to be aligned with the practices of whatever culture we are in for each setting because we get support from our groups when we meet the behavioral and cultural expectations of our group.
Strong Darwinians tend to have a similar attachment to the key components of that belief system — and some people with that belief system fully in place can dismiss any contradictory information as being an anomaly rather than a contradiction — and the strong believers in classic Darwinian theory can sometimes become unhappy, annoyed, or even angry when the core belief is challenged in their settings in any way.
That strong and sometimes almost emotional defense of that particular Darwinian evolution paradigm by Darwinian believers is probably linked at least partially to the fact that many of the people who have attacked evolution and attacked believers in evolution most strongly in most settings have clearly and openly done it for religious reasons. Religion often has strong creation elements, and each faith tradition tends to have their own belief about how everything began.
In our country, a number of people who look at those issues do it from the perspective that the Old Testiment version of the Bible that said creation was done entirely by God and it took exactly one week.
So a number of the people who attack the Theory of Evolution do it from the perspective of believing that it all happened in seven days and that it was less of a process than an event.
Other believers in the Bible believe that the days were periods of time and not calendar days, and that the events took place in that rough sequence but not necessarily with that level of specificity.
Its interesting that when you look at the Genesis sequence of creation, there is some parallel to the science we believe in today — with energy and light preceding life and every other species of animal preceding people.
We actually show up at about the right place in the sequence — late on Day Six — with God resting on Day Seven in the Genesis version of creation.
The problem we have relative to evolution and our own interactions as a species and nation, is that we do tend to have some serious instinctive tribal divisions around some of the people who believe in the Bible and around some of the atheists and the anti-deists who reject any inclusion of God in the process.
Those sets of people clearly do not like each other in a number of our communities.
So we need to steer in directions that will not make us do bad things to each other now. It would be a good thing to get the people who believe in a literal six-day creation theory to appreciate how supportive it is to the faith of a person to believe that all of the first three paradigms of existence are gifts from God, and to appreciate that the sequence of creation has strong echoes of the Genesis chronology.
It would also be a good thing to get the anti-theists to recognize that there does seem to be extreme levels of intentional design in both physics and biology, and to simply enjoy that reality rather than resist it.
We need faith leaders to do whatever they believe is the right fit for their own set of people who choose them as leaders — and we need to move away from having our faith settings function as gangs and tribes and places for our less enlightened instincts to thrive and flourish.
Christ did some serious teaching on the Sermon on the Mount. Other faiths have their own strongly supportive, sharing and inclusive and loving calls for beliefs and the role of God in their lives.
We need a paradigm change for people who are channeled into negative behaviors through the fourth paradigm..
We also need to enhance and evolve that basic evolution theory.
There is no possible way of making enough classic Darwinian selections processes actually work to create RNA for a species, for example. Having thousands of generations of selections that would be actually needed to make each piece of each change actually does push us back beyond the Big Bang trigger time frame for the creation of complex inter locking species.
The math does not work.
Science is less credible as science when the basic math on any key part of the science does not work.
There would also be some serious levels of existing evidence for the other versions of the RNA tool kit surviving in some setting if RNA actually had a Darwinian design process for all if those changes.
Many of the selection processes and a number of the basic the species enhancement processes that we see in our classic evolution studies do work, but we now can see that they actually work in the context of a preprogrammed set of epigenetic life process options and not based on random mutations for each species.
Perry Marshall, engineer, computer program guru, and author says we need Evolution 2.0 to explain the actual process and he is clearly right. Marshall has also written some new work on consciousness driving key elements of physics and biology that both strengthen and reinforce his excellent book.
Our new science is extremely useful in giving us functional perspectives on all of those issues.
It was much harder at a purely scientific level to challenge those classical Darwinian evolution paradigms before we knew that DNA and RNA are actually coded with intentional code.
That’s one of the reasons why the knowledge base we have today is so relevant for creating a sense that we do actually function in the context of those four key paradigms.
Codes are key.
We did not know what that meant to have intentional code until we actually invented computers and then started to program them, and then we gained an appreciation for the fact that our computers never program themselves.
They all use huge amounts of code but code for each computer had to come from somewhere other than the computer or it did not exist — and the computer did nothing.
Darwin could not have known how computers actually function. He would have loved the entire process today had it been available to him. He did brilliant research, and what he could have personally contributed to the science with a clear understanding of how those codes and processes work would have been extremely impressive.
Probably awe inspiring.
But he did not have that information and parts of his theory needed that information to be fully successful.
What we now know about those codes has given us great power to understand and channel key elements of our life.
People in academic settings today who continue to hold strong attachment and full commitment to the classic Darwinian processes in their purist forms after looking at the functional coding interaction issues for life processes should not be too critical of other people who hold other primarily faith-based beliefs about evolution.
We clearly benefit from intentional design in a number of obvious areas.
That fact that those codes exist and that they are intentional actually does not tell us who or what wrote those codes and programs. It simply tells us that they exist.
Some people doing quantum physics sometimes get to some similar situations relative to the origin of elements and component parts of that process and field of study. Some very talented physicists who have looked at the mathematics involved and at the formulas that now exist believe that there are design elements visible to them — and a number have leaned toward having a sense of intentional design there as well.
We are now seeing some very powerful linkages between the nonlocality and synchronicity elements of quantum physics and some of the key areas of biological and consciousness connections that let us know that those creation processes were linked at multiple levels.
Even Richard Dawkins, in his wonderful new book The Extended Phenotype, shows that evolution happened in packages and not in solo siloes. His phenotype packages look a lot like the product of nonlocal patterns and linkages from quantum biology.
Those connections create patterns and those patterns create the opportunity for life itself to exist, thrive, and be beautiful.
God clearly has a sense of beauty and seems to have a sense of humor when some of the designs that make up the various species of our planet become more visible to us all.
The fourth paradigm gives us a wide range of opportunity for our thoughts and our beliefs.
The old parable of the blind men and the elephant had each of the blind men making a wrong decision about the nature of the elephant. John Thatamanil, a Christian Theologian from India and The Union Theological Seminary, wrote an interesting book called Circling the Elephant, and he makes the point that maybe all of the blind men were actually right rather than wrong in their perceptions.
We need to each reach our own understanding of religion, faith, and our own basic belief. We should look to faith leaders we trust from our own faith experience if we have them in our lives.
We tend to be blessed with a world of religious encounters, experiences, feelings, and there clearly are a wide range of personal religious interactions that people sometimes can feel as individuals and as potentially spiritual beings. Many people have a deep sense of having been touched by God or in contact with God.
Those religious encounters and experiences tend to point in similar and very positive directions.
The world offers us multiple organized theories of God that all seem to point in aligned directions at the end of each process.
We don’t have much organized scientific research happening in academic settings into those multiple theories about God, but we do have extensive generations of theologically inspired thinking in every setting and we have extensive levels and categories of faith-based thinking.
We also do have a framework for our science from the first three paradigms that could actually lend itself to also looking at all of those issues from a metaphysical perspective in multiple settings.
The current theories about God have a broad range at this point in time.
Those theories range from everything being anchored on an absolutely self-generating and self-creating spontaneity and connectivity for everything at one end of the continuum and goes over to absolute intentionally created packages for everything and for each thing by a separate and involved God at the other end of the continuum.
Many people have a direct faith-based experience of God and the people with those direct personal experiences of God seem to have a significant consistency in their comfort with the legitimacy and the reality and the benefit to them of that experience.
The data base of believers who communicate feeling right about many of those direct and reported experiences tends to be consistently almost overwhelmingly positive.
At the purely intellectual level, some people who believe in God believe that God put a number of macro processes in place in physics and in biology and then functionally got out of the way to watch it all unfold.
Some people who believe in God think that God micromanages a lot of stuff in real time and creates absolute intentionally designed parts and pieces that constitute everything in explicitly designed ways and that then function in ways that are under the constant control of God.
It’s entirely possible that all of those beliefs are true in their own way and that we live in some combination of direct interactions and macro patterns that we actually use our intellects to discern and even define.
Circling the Elephant deals with those possibilities. That author is a Christian and he believes in the Christian Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — and he believes that the Holy Spirit reaches out to the non-Christian churches and belief systems.
Joseph Selbie wrote a great book called The Physics of God that has extremely powerful information about those processes, design elements, and links. That book is definitely worth reading.
We will review it later on this website.
Time is an issue relative to our role in a universe that was created at least in part to give us a home and a role.
One frequently asked question is that if we believe that the creation of human life and our functional free will and conscious minds were a key part of the overall plan — then why did it take so very long for us to get here?
One answer to the question of why it has all taken so much time for us to exist is answered at least partly by saying that time might not be relevant at any level to God — and the pure passage of time might not be important at any significant level to either us or God.
Another part of the answer about time might be that it is actually both sequential and simultaneous — and it is possible that what will be in the future might already be here now if it all also actually happens at once. Processes and events might be simultaneous and time and existence might be both a process and an outcome.
That would seem to be a very strange path to go down except for the fact that, quantum physics now gives us actual examples of simultaneous happenings and we now know from quantum entanglement and synchronicity and linkages that simultaneous and instantaneous are both possible as another way that time is happening.
We also know that the perception of time isn’t fixed into a single form and we now know that relativity happens — so the extremely long time involved in having us appear might not be relevant outside of a narrow channel of time.
The aspect of time that is most relevant to us, however, is that we seem to live very finite lives. Time is a very personal and immediate issue. We clearly don’t live forever in the form we are in now and we do not live long compared to the time frames involved in everything but us, and our time seems to be focused on us now.
Why are we so finite?
That time limitation for our lives might actually be an inspiration for us to be creative and to be productive while we are here.
Some people who have thought and written about that issue said that if we had more time, we would probably waste it.
Would the absolute geniuses who have done the heavy lifting and who put together some of the intricate and brilliant mathematics of quantum physics have gotten them all done if they each had a million years to live?
But maybe not.
We clearly are motivated to learn extremely complex stuff at an intense pace — and it’s not clear how that pace would be affected if we had forever to get those particular things done.
We also know from numerous near-death experiences that the people who seem to at least temporarily cross into the post life existence seem to completely escape the pressure of time when that happens. They seem to have a feeling of merging with infinity when they get to that point.
The most important time factor that we each have is the time of Now.
We do each have Now.
Now gives us a sense of presence and a sense of urgency and it possibly also gives us a perspective for appreciating and creating music and beauty and maybe even love.
The key point to know and keep in mind relative to time is that “now” is extremely relevant to us and it clearly and actually happens to be where we are now so we might as well take advantage of it and smell the roses now.
Different religions seem to have some differences in how they perceive God. It’s a mistake to reach conclusions about any other faith system, but respectful observations are probably legitimate.
Buddhists tend to have a belief that God is in everything and the moment of enlightenment for Buddha was when he reached down and touched the earth and recognized that he was connected to everything.
The Dalai Lama has written a book on science and Buddhism that embraces science and encourages religious belief with a scientific underpinning.
Hindus tend to believe that God is in some form in every setting, and that particular religion actually has both hundreds of Gods and a unity God that triggered the process.
Some of the New Age believers seem to have a belief that God is in everything and that it’s possible to be aligned with God by making the decision to create that alignment. Ram Dass and EST and Emerge seemed to have belief paradigms that fit that model.
Christians and Jews tend to have a belief in the sense that God created everything and steers everything, at some level — and that God wants people to live good and moral lives and to be supportive of each other in caring and enlightened ways.
The various branches of those religions tend to have some elements who insist on very strict interpretation of the Bible and others who are more open to a broader access to God through a wider range of beliefs and understandings.
The five authors whose books are cited in this piece who are trying to figure out what the new science tells us about God and who have strong personal faith in God each write that they believe that God is love and that God wants us to be loving to one another and not to be at war with one another.
George Ellis is an active Quaker.
The scientists who write the books cited here with these book reviews talk only slightly in those books about their personal experience of God but they each seem to have deep and reassuring levels of trust that God is inherently Good and that God wants each of us to be of service to one another in loving ways.
All four of those authors use and cite their links to their piece and part of the Christian Church as a grounding for their personal faith base.
This particular piece and four of the Institute books are written by a Concordia-trained Christian with Lutheran leanings and an appreciation for basic Swedenborgian thoughts, beliefs, and ethical standards.
Some people who are fans of patterns and processes have been observing that both quantum physics and what now seems to be some form of quantum biology and even quantum sociobiology seem to be more evolutionary and developmental processes than events.
Some faith-based people with that context have been pointing out that similarity for both evolution in biology and a kind of functional evolution in big bang rollout events and having kinds of quantum elements rolling out as a type of process rather than as pure events and developments might be worth either understanding or appreciation of some kind of developmental processes as a mind set for creation and a clue about how it is all happening.
Robert Wright, the sociobiology icon, wrote a book about the Evolution of God that resembles at a macro level the tiny book that Carl Jung wrote about God — the Answer to Job — and Wright seems to have concluded that believing is credible and believing in ways that create enlightened personal behavior is preferable.
He writes with high levels of historic specificity about the evolution of specific religions as a context for his thinking.
Wright has become a Buddhist and speaks of his personal experience as a religious direct encounter in a Buddhist meditation situation and setting.
All of those science-based people who wrote books that explain why they each believe in God, are very clear that they each believe in a loving God.
Each seems to have had personal faith-based religions and each seems to have had their own relevantly holy encounters with God in their own faith path and their own personal context.
Five of the cited authors have read their book reviews on the InterGroup Institute website and have posted positive references to the reviews on their social media outlets. Four have sent additional research information to The Institute. The new Marshall Piece on consciousness and causality is going to get further exposure at future points in time.
Each of the five authors also all have deep appreciation for their own conscious minds and they value the fact that we seem to have conscious minds as people in a unique and appreciated way. They celebrate free will and conscious thought and the ability to learn important things in the world we live in today and each believes that they were born to learn as their own missions for their lives.
Every one of those authors — from each context — clearly and explicitly celebrates the remarkable fact that we have both conscious minds and some level of free will and that we actually have the ability to think in somewhat autonomous ways about the universe and events and about ourselves.
Academic America is not at that point today — but probably will get there because it is too hard to maintain fervent support for Darwinian processes when the new science proves that they did not happen.
Many current academic settings still will clearly not accept or even consider these sets of beliefs or conclusions about the origin of all of those components of existence at this point in time, but we need to remind the academic settings that they should not feel threatened in any way by the existence of those tools and beliefs and they should continue to use the actual tools at every functional level and enjoy having them.
The only request being made now from this piece to the most strongly committed atheists in those settings is to not be critical of any non-threatening and non-intrusive theistic theories of the authors of these books on biology and physics in any scornful or damaging ways until you can identify another mechanism for having created RNA and for forming and counting quarks.
At the other end of that particular continuum, the pure six-day creation people with deeply fundamentalist beliefs clearly have an uphill swim at this point in scientific history.
It is possible that some of the people who believe in the Genesis story of creation will find the fact that the sequence in the Bible starts with a big bang equivalent and then proceeds through the creation of worlds and creatures, and then doesn’t add people to the mix until the sixth day — and then creates men and women explicitly “in the image of God’.
People who believe that God created people to have another set of conscious minds in the universe might find that “Image of God” description to be poetically aligned — because the old interpretations of what that meant always fell short when the physical body of people was chosen to be the relevant image and when that created multiple logistical issues at many levels.
Creating men and women in the image of God also has an interesting new science linked context when we realize that current science seems to tell us that the billions of neurons in our brains and the billions of stars in the known universe seem to be similar numbers.
The poetry of having Eden threatened by the first people actually eating of the tree of knowledge and learning about evil and good also fits the current paradigms about quantum physics and nuclear bombs and genocides and evil tribal behaviors of various kinds.
That interpretation of Genesis isn’t likely to create reconciliation with some of the most conservative believers in a couple of faiths. We probably should definitely try to create some level of reconciliation today in our academic settings with the most anti theist people in those settings.
We might just want to declare truce.
Neither side needs to concede anything. But we could be more polite to each other in some settings at this troubled point in our history as a nation and as a people.
It is absolutely fine to have differences of opinion in academic settings on the Paradigm 4, but we should at least try to get people in the science-based settings to not be disrespectful of the relevant science that seems to have intentional sources.
That difference of opinion about the component parts doesn’t seem to exist in the context of the other three paradigms other than in the sense of how it all began in each paradigm.
The best reinforcement for thinking about the four paradigms as a construct for our world is current science.
We are clearly in a golden age of learning and it can be said that we are learning that those tools of existence are, in fact, Gifts from God.
Paradigm 1 — physics — is in a remarkable intellectual and factual growth spurt at this point in our history.
We have evolved our thinking there from basic Newtonian physics to a shared belief in relativity, and we have now we have become deeply immersed and intellectually embedded in the fields of quantum physics — and we are making massive amounts of progress in a relatively short period of time evolving our sense of particles, waves, forces, motions, and types of matter and energy — and the entire package has become both more complex and more parts ridden than some expert people expected it to become.
The science of today is massively better than the science of even a decade ago, and we are on the pathway to enhance it even more in the future. We are on the cusp of a golden age for science that is giving us the ability to both destroy our world and enhance it in multiple ways — and the destruction potential clearly exists with the tools we now have.
So, Paradigm 1 is making progress and on track.
Paradigm 2 deals with life, itself, and with the extremely high levels of progress are happening in that field today as well.
Just as classic Newtonian physics has now evolved upwards into quantum physics, we now are in a status where classic Darwinian Evolution Theory that said everything happened in completely spontaneous ways with only happenstance outcomes and the relative survival rates for each mutation determining which random mutations survived and became species, we now have the ability to actually see what DNA and RNA actually are and how clearly intertwined and interactive at extremely complex levels they are — and we now have what is the equivalent of quantum biology steering us toward a stronger paradigm for the life sciences.
We now know that various kinds of evolution like selection processes actually do happen at various levels, and we now know they happen in the context of a set of explicit biological codes that we can increasingly use for our life sciences and even for our health care and health.
We created the Covid vaccine by decoding and then recoding the messenger RNA unit and telling it to tell our bodies how to create certain anti bodies against the new virus before we even have any individual and direct contact with the virus. In our earlier vaccine development approaches for every other disease, we exposed the body to the virus and then we had the RNA in our body build a response to the virus after the exposure. That’s what we do for polio — and it works extremely well.
With the new approach, we now have an almost quantum physics like understanding of the process and the tools, and we skipped the direct exposure to the virus step and we told the body to directly build the needed response.
Our science in those areas has reached much higher levels of sophistication and has done it very quickly.
That’s both extremely good news and potentially very frightening news.
The danger we face today is that our ability to easily do that level of programming to build a vaccine for the disease also gives us the ability to do new version of the disease that could kill many more people and that would be much harder to constrain and control.
We actually can now do diseases of mass destruction.
Quantum physics gives us the ability to build atomic bombs that could destroy humanity and quantum biology now gives us the ability to build viruses that could also destroy humanity.
That’s why we need full understanding of Paradigm 3 — and we need to develop the wisdom and the skill set and the clear intention to not destroy humanity with either set of tools.
The Institute for InterGroup Understanding was created to give us an understanding of those key instincts and the tools we need to turn those instincts into channels for Peace. The four books that anchor that work should be read as grounding for people who want us to have a better sense of who we are and how to achieve Peace.
We have a very long history of doing very bad things to one another. We have more than 130 ethnic wars going on in the world today — and people in those settings are doing evil and destructive and damaging things to the people from the other group and feeling no guilt, remorse, regret or ethical wrongness or error from those behaviors and their consequences.
We far too easily suspend conscience when we have our Us-Them instincts activated and have a chance to damage Them.
Those patterns of behavior look like the consistent patterns we see for some of the most consistent elements in quantum physics, and we have those patterns because those behaviors are built into the basic structure of who we are at a biological behavioral level. We have the ability to tribalize and to do very good things for our tribe and very evil things to the other tribe, and to feel intellectually and ethically legitimate in what we do to the other tribe.
Our only hope is to learn to extend the feelings, values, emotions, and behaviors that we extend to our tribe to everyone. With the new weapons, we can’t afford to have anyone perceived to be Them.
We have the ability to create win-win outcomes, win-lose outcomes, and lose-lose outcomes and to feel absolutely right creating lose-lose outcomes when we hate the other tribe so much that we are willing to lose ourselves to make them lose.
Anyone who thinks that we have somehow evolved past that point of lose-lose outcomes based on hatred can look at the fact that we literally have suicide bombers every single day strapping bombs to their own body and taking them into position to kill the other tribe. Suicide bombings at some level happen every single day. One suicide bomber equivalent with the CRISPR tool kit could hurt us badly and it only takes one to do it.
We need to focus on Paradigm 3 and we need to get our response to those issues right.
Steven Pinker’s wonderful, well-written, and extremely well-researched book, “The Blank Slate — The Modern Denial of Human Nature,” takes us a very long way down the road to explaining the key new quantum elements and pieces of our evolving sociobiological thinking to give us excellent intellectual grounding for that approach.
We need to understand and enhance and channel in the right directions at this point in our history for the clear set of patterns, formulas, and functional realities that stem from our strong sets of emotional programming tools and instincts that can cause us to protect one another when we perceive each other to be an Us and that can also far too easily cause us to hate, damage, and even destroy one another when we perceive the other people to be Them.
The Institute for InterGroup Understanding actually was created to deal with those sets of instinct triggered inter group issues.
The four books that make up the basic Institute for InterGroup Understanding tool kit are aligned at multiple levels with the other authors — and they make the point that there definitely is a second paradigm for us to understand because it also has patterns of our existence.
Physics and biology all create discernable patterns, and so does human nature. We call those patterns instincts — and we need to understand them to keep them from doing serious damage to us as both individuals and groups.
We can never be free of our instincts, so we need to understand them clearly and to understand what impact they have on our emotions, thinking, behaviors, values and expectations and goals for our lives.
We have strong instincts to hate traitors and to never be a traitor ourselves. That instinct is a positive and good one when we use it in good ways to protect our community and group and family — and it can be damaging when we It causes us not to have relationships with good people from other groups of people, and it can be very damaging when it causes us to damage or kill someone from our own group for being what we consider to be a traitor.
All of our instincts can be used for good or evil. We live very situational lives with multiple levels of instincts relevant to what we do, so if we end up with our turf instincts helping us make our property into an asset for our group and if we have our turf instincts kill someone from another group who trespasses on our group — both events happening in the world today — then we need to rise to another higher level to understand what we are doing and to determine the most enlightened and beneficial way we have of doing what we are doing.
The first book — Primal Pathways — explains our basic dozen inter group instincts and explains how our Us-Them instincts can cause us to do both saintly and evil things to one another.
Cusp of Chaos — the second book — explains all of the difficulties that our instincts have created for us across the planet and down through history. Cusp of Chaos explains the end of colonialism, fall of empires, and creation of more than a hundred countries that currently have groups of people in conflict with one another.
Cusp of Chaos also identifies the horrible and intentional racist behaviors that have existed as part of our own history as a nation and gets us to a description of the intergroup conflicts we experience as a nation today. The armored vehicle on the cover of that book looks like a middle east war zone but the actual photo is from the protests in Ferguson, Missouri.
The third book, The Art of InterGroup Peace, is an echo of Sun Tzu’s famous Art of War book and explains very specific and very intentional things we can do in the interest of Peace to create Peace in our country. The book explains the six triggers that can get people to align as groups, the 10 ways we can align, seven things we can do to create cultural change, and it even describes the five explicit and intentional things we need to do to change a paradigm and get people to use a new paradigm.
The fourth book — Peace in Our Time — is a book of histories, stories, and case studies and discusses and describes how the alignment pyramid and the tribal and Us-Them insights tool kit have been used in multiple settings to create Peace.
All four of the books can be ordered from the Institute website and can also be read free by the chapter on the website or downloaded for and printed for reading by chapter for people who find that a better way of getting access to the material.
We need to understand physics and biology at core levels to both benefit from their tools and to avoid being damaged by them — and we need to understand our instinctive patterns of behavior to help create Peace rather than falling into extreme tribalism and inter group anger and conflict.
We are headed for significant levels of conflict if we don’t achieve a level of both intellectual and emotional enlightenment about Peace and then do the right things for the right reasons to get to the right outcomes in every setting.
These books and the InterGroup website are intended to help with that process.
The Institute believes that when you understand the basic inter group behavior patterns and instincts, you can predict the future a high percentage of the time for most inter group settings, and you can explain the past for almost all inter group settings, and when you clearly understand those instincts, history both repeats itself and rhymes.
We need the Institute grounding, knowledge, and wisdom to give us the skill set and level of enlightenment we need to build on the first two paradigms and give us a future of Peace and enlightenment and security.
The four authors cited in these books — George Ellis, Perry Marshall, Francis Collins, and Frank Wilczek — have all chosen to be aligned with the Christian faith and to create their own connection with their beliefs in that context.
It is very encouraging that four of the authors cited in this piece have posted the review of their book from this website on their Twitter Feed and the fifth wrote a very positive note saying that he liked the review and could not actually improve on the review.
So those reviews of those books on this site are less speculative than reviews often are, because the authors have said that they were a good representation of the book and encouraged people to read the reviews.
Their books anchor the first two paradigms — and the four Institute books anchor Paradigm 3.
The basic underlying tenant and aligning premise behind all four paradigms is the belief in Paradigm 4, that God is in Everything and that God is Love and that God wants each of us to learn and to each find our own path to linking with God and with our faith.
That belief about us actually having multiple valid pathways to God is more flexible than some people from organized religions prefer, but it isn’t anti religion at any level and it aligns with each faith for each person in appreciative ways.
Alignment with Faith structures and other believers can feel very right to people, and encouraging those interactions in ways that feel right to believers from every tradition might become a goal for people from all beliefs if the people who run those organizations want to bring people together in faith-based ways.
We should not have our faith-based settings be the context for other of our most problematic hierarchical and alpha linked behaviors except to the extent that the people who lead there in each setting truly are servant leaders to their flocks.
We do not want our religious settings to create conflict. That’s easy to do when people co-mingle tribe and belief system — but we can rise above it. We can ask our religious leaders to steer us to Peace. It isn’t hard to find Peace-supporting quotes from each major faith.
We can and should make clear peace-seeking choices about our religious leaders and our faith.
We should each choose the faith pathway to our faith and to our faith system that feels most right to each of us — and we should find leaders within that faith who teach Peace, Love, Commitment, Caring and the highest and most enlightened values of our society as guidance for ourselves and for our lives.
All four paradigms can and should both support and encourage and enable Peace, and this is absolutely the right time for that to happen.